DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendment
All pending claims 1-15 filed October 1, 2024 are examined in this non-final office action.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without adding significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to either a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Groupings of abstract ideas include: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
Fundamental economic principles or practices,
Commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interaction between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions).
Mathematical Concepts
Mathematical relationships
Mathematical formulas
Mathematical calculations
Mental Processes
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
Step 1
In the instant case, claim 14 is directed to a process. Analysis of claim 14 applies to analysis of claims 1-13 and 15.
Step 2A Revised (First Prong)
Determine whether claim 14 is directed to a judicial exception. Elements of an abstract idea are underlined. See Analysis.
Step 2A Revised (Second Prong)
Determine whether claim 14 has additional elements (in italics) integrated into a practical application:
a) requires an additional element or a combination of elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manger that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; and
b) uses the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit to evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
See Analysis.
Step 2B (Revised)
In Step 2B, evaluate whether claim 14 recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept that adds significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See Analysis.
Analysis
In Claim 14:
(Original) A method comprising, at a controller of a system of automated retail systems:
receiving a user request to use the system,
receiving real time status information indicative of product availability from a plurality of automated retail systems in communication with the controller,
determining an available product list based on the received status information, the available product list comprising a list of products which are available at the plurality of automated retail systems,
transmitting the available product list to the user,
receiving an order message comprising an order selected from the available product list from the user,
selecting an automated retail system to fulfil the order,
transmitting the order to the selected automated retail system.
Claim 14 executes methods that are directed to abstract ideas comprising processes that can be executed by a human while following a procedure that organizes human activity related to commercial interactions using conventional computing elements.
No evidence of an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
No evidence exists in the instant specification or claims of a particular machine.
No evidence exists of a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
The claim does not go beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g. processor, device.
Claim 14 does not recite additional elements that amount to inventive concepts that are “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. Courts have routinely found conventional computer processing functions (e.g. sending/receiving data, formatting data, storing data, retrieving data, manipulating data, calculating, searching data, displaying data, organizing data) insignificant to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360. As such, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea across a generic computer network which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
The elements of the instant process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the steps when each is taken alone. That is, the steps involved in the recited process undertake their roles in performance of their activities according to their generic functionalities which are well-understood, routine and conventional. The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, is merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the examiner concludes there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1-15 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith, US 2018/0005167.
Smith teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 10 and 12-15. In Smith see at least (underlined text is for emphasis):
Regarding claim 1: (Original) A system for controlling a plurality of automated retail systems, comprising a controller in communication with a plurality of automated retail systems, wherein the controller is configured to:
[Smith: 0007] In accordance with the first aspect, the present invention provides a system for implementing a distributed automated marketplace comprising:
[0008] a plurality of remotely controlled automated stores arranged to store physical items and dispense physical items to buyers, each store comprising a communication interface for communicating over a communication network;
[0009] a management server arranged to communicate over the communication network with the plurality of remotely controlled automated stores and with a buyer communication device to provide a buyer with an interactive portal;
[0010] a consignment module arranged to associate an item located at an automated store with a buyer;
[0011] wherein
[0012] the interactive portal is arranged to enable the buyer to create a purchase order for one or more items and forward the purchase order to the consignment module; and
[0013] the consignment module is arranged to, in response to receiving a purchase order, process the purchase order, advise the buyer, via the interactive portal, of the availability of the one or more items and associate available items with the buyer, and one or more automated stores for collection of the physical item.
[Smith: 0014] In an embodiment, the plurality of remotely controlled automated stores are distributed across a geographical area and the system further comprises an inventory management module arranged to monitor items stocked in the automated stores via the communication network. This allows implementing a distributed automated marketplace where buyers can purchase items and be immediately gratified by having the items consigned to them in real time at one of the automated stores.
[Smith: 0127] Buyers can create purchase orders via the interactive portal. The interactive portal can be accessed via a network 112, such as the internet, using, for example, a web browser of a computer 114, a smartphone 116 or a tablet 118. Items are stocked in a plurality of remotely controlled automated stores 120. Location and quantity of stock for each item is managed by inventory management module 110. Buyers can check availability and location of specific items in real time via the interactive portal. For example, buyers can use a specific app on their smartphone with location services and search for a specific item located within a certain distance from the buyers' location.
receive a user request to use the system,
[Smith: 0137] Referring now to FIG. 3, there is shown a flow diagram 300 with an example of a series of steps performed by a buyer to purchase items using the automated marketplace. To begin with, a buyer logs in into the system using the interactive portal using a smartphone, tablet or PC, step 302. … The buyer can select one or more item for purchase, step 304.
receive real time status information indicative of resource availability from the plurality of automated retail systems,
[Smith: 0137] … While the buyer selects the items, the system can provide information about availability in real time by communicating with the inventory management module.
determine an available product list, based on the received status information, wherein the available product list comprises a list of products which are available at the plurality of automated retail systems,
[Smith: 0137] … The buyer is prompted with his/her profile and a 30 catalogue of items stocked in the marketplace.
transmit the available product list to the user,
[Smith: 0137] … If the location of the buyer is available, the system can also provide information on which automated stores stock the specific items and at which location(s) in proximity of the buyer.
receive an order message comprising an order selected from the available product list from the user,
[Smith: 0137] … The buyer can confirm the purchase and process payment via the interactive portal. At step 306 the selected items are associated to the buyer by the consignment module at one or more of the automated stores for collection. At step 308 the buyer identity is verified at the automated store(s) and items are dispensed to the buyer.
select an automated retail system to fulfil the order, and transmit the order to the selected automated retail system.
[Smith: 0081] In accordance with the twelfth aspect, the present invention provides a method for facilitating the provision of goods across a plurality of remotely controlled automated stores, the method comprising the steps of:
[0082] a management server receiving an order for an item from a buyer over a communication network;
[0083] an inventory management module determining which of a plurality of remotely controlled automated stores stock the item; and
[0084] a consignment module advising the buyer, over the network, of a selected automated store that stocks the item.
[Smith: 0137] … The buyer can select location(s) for purchase and the identification method to be used at the automated stores, for example, proximity, digital token, biometric identification where available.
Please note: Selecting locations for purchase qualifies as splitting the order among automated stores
Regarding claim 2: Rejection is based upon the disclosures applied to claim 1 by Smith and further upon additional disclosures by Smith regarding user location, preference, and product list.
[Smith: 0127] … For example, buyers can use a specific app on their smartphone with location services and search for a specific item located within a certain distance from the buyers' location.
[Smith: 0137] … The buyer is prompted with his/her profile and a 30 catalogue of items stocked in the marketplace.
[Smith: 0140] Interface 400 is an interface for ordering items. Interface 400 allows the buyer to browse through inventory and select items, for example headphone 402 to purchase. The inventory management module verifies the real time availability of the items in the system while the buyer is browsing. Interface 400 displays name and price 404 for the item and location 406 of the automated stores where the item is stocked. The list of locations where the item is stocked may be ordered according to different criteria, such as proximity to an address provided by the buyer, or geographical location of the buyer. The buyer can select the preferred store for pick-up using selection menu 408 and place the order the selected location using button 410. Please note: Buyer’s preferred store qualifies as a preference.
Regarding claim 4: Rejection is based upon the disclosures applied to claim 1 by Smith and further upon additional disclosures by Smith regarding internet connection.
Regarding claim 5: Rejection is based upon the disclosures applied to claim 1 by Smith and further upon additional disclosures by Smith regarding wait time:
[Smith: 0143] A courier section of the graphical interface allows
[0144] selecting a courier 512 from amongst a list of couriers available for delivery. As discussed above, the selection of the courier may be based on one or a combination of cost of delivery, priority level, estimated time of delivery, or carbon footprint associated with the delivery.
Regarding claim 6: Rejection is based upon the disclosures applied to claim 1 by Smith regarding estimated wail time for each product: Please note: Unless the buyer chooses to use a courier service, each stocked item is consigned in real time to the buyer whereby the estimated wait time for each stocked item is effectively zero.
Regarding claim 9: Rejection is based upon the disclosures applied to claim 2 by Smith regarding updated product availability.
Regarding claim 10: Rejection is based upon the disclosures applied to claim 1 by Smith and further upon additional disclosures by Smith whereby stocked products are available at multiple automated stores.
Regarding claims 12: Rejection is based upon the disclosures applied to claim 1 by Smith regarding splitting order among two or more automated stores.
Regarding claims 13: Rejection is based upon the disclosures applied to claim 1 by Smith regarding splitting order among two or more automated stores.
Regarding claims 14 and 15: Rejections are based upon the disclosures applied to claim by Smith regarding methods and non-transitory computer readable medium:
[Smith: 0070] In accordance with the eighth aspect, the present invention provides a computer readable medium, …
[Smith: 0145] Referring now to FIG. 6, there is shown a schematic representation of a remotely controlled automated store 600 in accordance with embodiments. Store 600 has a housing for storing items 606, a processor, memory, a network communication interface for communicating with the automated marketplace and a buyer interactive interface 604 for interacting with a buyer. The buyer interface 604 allows the buyer to browse items stocked in the automated marketplace, create purchase orders for items available in the automated store 600; and collect the ordered items at the automated store.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, US 2018/0005167, in view of Elliot et al., US 2017/0011319 “Elliot.”
Rejections are based in part upon the teachings applied to claims 1 and 2 by Smith and further upon the combination of Smith-Elliot. Although Smith does not expressly mention order queue management techniques, Elliot on the other hand would have taught Smith such techniques.
In Elliot see at least:
[Elliot: 0088] The users smart device 10 would typically include a client application 16 that allows the user to interact with the queue management server 11. That application 16 would also have access to customer details 18, customer location 19 such as GPS coordinates or Wifi location triangulation and details about the users order 20.
[Elliot: 0089] The queue management server uses information from the users smart device 10 and application 16 to coordinate the efficient and convenient delivery of an order by the customer 10 from a service or product supplier such as a food vendor at an event such as a stadium football game.
[Elliot: 0090] Typically an online order system 12 is partnered with an order fulfilment system 13 to manage the process of producing and delivering an order to the customer who purchased the item.
[Elliot: 0098] Additionally real time order preparation progress feedback is monitored 37. The client application used by the customer may also be used to prompt the user to give feedback to help in the queuing system. For example if the user has to attend to an important phone call, the user may request a short delay on the delivery time of their order.
[Elliot: 0110] Another example of data that may be used in estimating a queue position is information about the users current location and time estimates to travel to the nearest vendor pickup points 65. This step may require interaction with other inputs to be effective. For example if one vendor pickup point is experiencing delays, the next nearest vendor pickup location may be used to avoid queue delays for the customer.
[Elliot: 0111] Next the results of the input data 62 63 64 65 are evaluated and compared so that individual data results are assessed in combination across all the data sets. Next, the system evaluates the data to see if the combined data is within reasonable operational limits 67. The system then gives the order and customer a queue position and wait time.
[Elliot: 0127] As with coffee shops, a customer may place the order from a remote location like their home or the office. In the drive-through food service environment the service times are usually short and customer demand is variable leading to either short order fulfilment times or delayed order fulfilment times. A customer's order will then be injected to the kitchen display for fulfilment at the optimal time based on the kitchen's current fulfilment time status and the customer's location. If for example the customer has not left their home, the order will not appear on the kitchen display system for fulfilment, instead it will be queued and injected into the system when the customer is on their way and within a certain time/distance of the drive through pickup area.
[Elliot: 0150] … The system 110 monitors the initial progress of the user 112 along route 130 and determines initially that the user 112 will arrive at store 1 around 8:55 am and therefore schedules the order to be fulfilled at that time. In the course of monitoring, it becomes clear closer to 8:50 am that the user's progress is slower than usual based on GPS data received and therefore, the order is rescheduled for fulfilment at 9:10 am which time ultimately coincides with the arrival time of user 112 at store 1.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Elliot, which a) preschedule or delay order fulfillment based upon work in progress and buyer location, and b) convey order queue position and wait time, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Elliot to the teachings of Smith would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, US 2018/0005167, in view of Azzano et al., US 2014/0272049, “Azzano.”
Rejection is based in part upon the teachings applied to claim 1 by Smith and further upon the combination of Smith-Azzano. Although Smith’s remotely controlled automated stores dispense products, Smith does not expressly mention techniques for ordering and dispensing beverages. Azzono on the other hand would have taught Smith such techniques.
In Azzano see at least:
[Azzano: 0001] The present disclosure relates generally to systems and methods for vending brewed coffee and other hot beverages. More particularly, the systems and methods of the present disclosure are suitable for brewing and dispensing coffee and other hot beverages from an automated vending kiosk.
[Azzano: 0036] FIG. 6 is a schematic diagram of a suitable computing environment 601 in which various aspects of the automated coffee vending kiosks described herein can be operated in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure. The computing environment 601 includes one or more server computers 602 and one or more databases 604 that can be connected to the kiosk 100 via wired or wireless communication links 605 and/or a network 607 (e.g., the internet). The server computer 602 can include a server engine 606, a web page management component 608, a content management component 610, and a database management component 612. In various embodiments, the server computer 602 can perform a variety of functions to operate and control one or more kiosks 100. For example, the web page management component 608 can handle the creation, display and/or routing of web or other display pages related to the kiosk 100. In some embodiments, users can access web pages to make payments for beverages, to receive promotional codes, to learn the location of one or more kiosks 100, etc.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Azzano, which brew and dispense coffee from an automated coffee vending kiosk, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Azzano to the teachings of Smith would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10,043,226 (Craparo et al.) “Facilitating Beverage Ordering and Generation,” discloses: (Abstract) A system and method for facilitating the ordering and generation of a beverage. The system and method are configured to receive an electrical signal in response to the activation by a second user of an electronic link corresponding to a recipe for the beverage shared by a first user. The system and method are further configured to generate a user interface having a user-selectable or user-inputtable order field for allowing the second user to order the beverage. The system and method are still further configured to receive an order for the beverage responsive to a user input made via the order field, and The system and method are yet still further configured to command the generation of the beverage responsive to the receipt of the order, and to effect the presentation of the beverage to the second user at a specified pickup location following the generation of the beverage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M POND whose telephone number is (571)272-6760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM-6:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT M POND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688 February 21, 2026