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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 33-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,915,561. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims in the present application overlaps with the scope of the claims in the parent patent in such a way as to be an obvious variant of one another. The scope of claim 33 in the present application corresponds to the scope of claim 1 in the parent patent. The scope of claim 34 in the present application corresponds to the scope of claim 1 in the parent patent. The scope of claim 35 in the present application corresponds to the scope of claim 1 in the parent patent. The scope of claim 36 in the present application corresponds to the scope of claim 1 in the parent patent. The scope of claim 37 in the present application corresponds to the scope of claim 1 in the parent patent. The scope of claim 38 in the present application corresponds to the scope of claim 1 in the parent patent. The scope of claim 39 in the present application corresponds to the scope of claim 1 in the parent patent.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 28, 31-32, 40, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Patel (USPGPUB 2018/0240096).
Regarding claim 28, Patel discloses a system comprising:
a kiosk (1500,120) configured to provide a product or service available for purchase (see Figure 19);
a payment module (1520) in communication with the kiosk configured to wirelessly communicate with a secured mobile wallet application (140) on a mobile device (150) to receive a credit amount (see “50¢” in Figure 32) and an indication of the product or service (see “2 Credit” in Figure 32) purchased through a mobile application on the mobile device (see Figure 32), wherein the credit amount (see “50¢” in Figure 32) and the indication of the product or service (see “2 Credit” in Figure 32) are received from a beverage vendor card (3202,3204,3206) in the secured mobile wallet application (140),
wherein the kiosk (120) comprises a user interface (122,124,126) configured to display a dispense screen with a dispense icon (124,126), wherein in response to selection of the dispense icon, the kiosk is configured to provide the product or service purchased through the mobile application up to the credit amount (see paragraph [0230] and [0069]).
Regarding claim 31, Patel discloses the system of claim 28, wherein upon initiating the wireless communication between the payment module and the mobile device, the user interface of the kiosk is updated to show a payment processing screen (see paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 32, Patel discloses the system of claim 28, wherein upon successful communication of the credit amount and the indication of the product or serviced purchased from the mobile application on the mobile device to the payment module, the user interface of the kiosk is updated to show the dispense screen with the dispense icon (see paragraphs [0069]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 40, Patel discloses the system of claim 28, wherein the payment module facilitates payment of a beverage selected from the user interface in a walk-up order (see paragraphs [0090] and [0071]).
Regarding claim 41, Patel discloses a method of controlling a system, the system comprising:
a kiosk (1500,120) configured to provide a product or service available for purchase (see Figure 19) and including a user interface (122,124,126) configured to display a dispense screen (122,124);
a payment module (1520) in communication with the kiosk configured to wirelessly communicate with a secured mobile wallet application (140) on a mobile device (150)
wherein the method comprises:
receiving at the payment module a credit amount (see “50¢” in Figure 32) from a beverage vendor card (3202,3204,3206) in the secured mobile wallet application (140);
receiving at the payment module (1520) an indication of the product or service (see “2 Credit” in Figure 32) purchased from the beverage vendor card (3202,3204,3206) in the secured mobile wallet application (140);
upon successful information exchange between the mobile device (150) and the payment module (1520), displaying on the user interface a dispense icon (124,126); and
in response to selection of the dispense icon, the kiosk is configured to provide the product or service purchased through the mobile application up to the credit amount (see paragraph [0230] and [0069]).
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.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (USPGPUB 2018/0240096) as applied to claims 28, 31-32, 40, and 41 above, and further in view of Rivalto et al. (USPGPUB 2018/0276602).
Regarding claim 29, Patel discloses the system of claim 28. However, Patel does not disclose a system wherein the user interface of the kiosk comprises a home screen with a selectable pre-paid orders icon to fulfill a remotely completed order that has been submitted through the mobile application on the mobile device. Rivalto et al. disclose a system wherein the user interface of the kiosk comprises a home screen with a selectable pre-paid orders icon (351) to fulfill a remotely completed order that has been submitted through the mobile application on the mobile device (see paragraph [0086]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Patel by including a system wherein the user interface of the kiosk comprises a home screen with a selectable pre-paid orders icon to fulfill a remotely completed order that has been submitted through the mobile application on the mobile device, as disclosed by Rivalto et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a touchscreen with a remote order button (see paragraph [0086]).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (USPGPUB 2018/0240096) in view of Rivalto et al. (USPGPUB 2018/0276602) as applied to claims 28-29, 31-32, 40, and 41 above, and further in view of Noe et al. (USPGPUB 2016/0071100).
Regarding claim 30, Patel in view of Rivalto et al. discloses the system of claim 29. Furthermore, Rivalto et al. disclose a system wherein upon receiving a selection of the pre-paid orders icon, the user interface is updated (see Figure 3E). However, they do not disclose a system to show a payment instruction screen that prompts a user to tap the mobile device on the payment module. Noe et al. disclose a system to show a payment instruction screen that prompts a user to tap the mobile device on the payment module (see paragraph [0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Patel in view of Rivalto et al. by including a system to show a payment instruction screen that prompts a user to tap the mobile device on the payment module, as disclosed by Noe et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing NFC-enabled mobile payments (see paragraph [0007]).
Claims 33 and 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Patel (USPGPUB 2018/0240096) in view of Rivalto et al. (USPGPUB 2018/0276602) as applied to claims 28-29, 31-32, 40, and 41 above, and further in view of Cuppari et al. (USPGPUB 2019/0259077).
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 33, Patel in view of Rivalto et al. disclose the system of claim 29. However, Patel does not disclose a system wherein the kiosk is further configured to maintain a list of pending orders including the remotely completed order, wherein each order on the list of pending orders is received after the order has been purchased through the mobile application on the mobile device. Cuppari et al. disclose a system wherein the kiosk is further configured to maintain a list of pending orders including the remotely completed order, wherein each order on the list of pending orders is received after the order has been purchased through the mobile application on the mobile device (see paragraphs [0035], [0039], and [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Patel in view of Rivalto et al. by including a system wherein the kiosk is further configured to maintain a list of pending orders including the remotely completed order, wherein each order on the list of pending orders is received after the order has been purchased through the mobile application on the mobile device, as disclosed by Cuppari et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a list of orders sent by users (see paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 35, Patel in view of Rivalto et al. and further in view of Cuppari et al. disclose the system of claim 33. Furthermore, Cuppari et al. disclose a system further comprising a server in communication with the kiosk and configured to provide an authentication message to the kiosk upon authenticating a selected order from the list of pending orders to be fulfilled at the kiosk (see paragraphs [0035], [0039], and [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Patel in view of Rivalto et al. by including a system further comprising a server in communication with the kiosk and configured to provide an authentication message to the kiosk upon authenticating a selected order from the list of pending orders to be fulfilled at the kiosk, as disclosed by Cuppari et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a list of orders sent by users (see paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 36, Patel in view of Rivalto et al. and further in view of Cuppari et al. disclose the system of claim 35. Furthermore, Cuppari et al. disclose a system wherein the kiosk is further configured to send an order notification of the selected order to the server (see paragraphs [0035], [0039], and [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Patel in view of Rivalto et al. by including a system wherein the kiosk is further configured to send an order notification of the selected order to the server, as disclosed by Cuppari et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a list of orders sent by users (see paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 37, Patel in view of Rivalto et al. and further in view of Cuppari et al. disclose the system of claim 36. Furthermore, Cuppari et al. disclose a system wherein the server is further configured to send an authentication request to the mobile device associated with the selected order and receive an authentication reply from the mobile device associated with the selected order (see paragraphs [0035], [0039], and [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Patel in view of Rivalto et al. by including a system wherein the server is further configured to send an authentication request to the mobile device associated with the selected order and receive an authentication reply from the mobile device associated with the selected order, as disclosed by Cuppari et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a list of orders sent by users (see paragraph [0041]).
Claims 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Patel (USPGPUB 2018/0240096) in view of Rivalto et al. (USPGPUB 2018/0276602) in view of Cuppari et al. (USPGPUB 2019/0259077) as applied to claims 28-29, 31-32, 40, and 41 above, and further in view of Varma et al. (USP 9,799,034).
Regarding claim 38, Patel in view of Rivalto et al. and further in view of Cuppari et al. disclose the system of claim 33. However, they do not disclose a system wherein the kiosk is configured to update the list of pending orders to add an order associated with the mobile device within a threshold distance to the kiosk. Varma et al. disclose a system wherein the kiosk is configured to update the list of pending orders to add an order associated with the mobile device within a threshold distance to the kiosk (see column 3 lines 65-67 to column 4 lines 1-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Patel in view of Rivalto et al. in view of Cuppari et al. by including a system wherein the kiosk is configured to update the list of pending orders to add an order associated with the mobile device within a threshold distance to the kiosk, as disclosed by Varma et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a geofence for ordering (see column 3 lines 26-67 to column 4 lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 39, Patel in view of Rivalto et al. and further in view of Cuppari et al. disclose the system of claim 33. However, they do not disclose a system wherein the kiosk is configured to update the list of pending orders to remove an order that has been fulfilled at the kiosk. Varma et al. disclose a system wherein the kiosk is configured to update the list of pending orders to remove an order that has been fulfilled at the kiosk (see column 3 lines 26-64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Patel in view of Rivalto et al. in view of Cuppari et al. by including a system wherein the kiosk is configured to update the list of pending orders to remove an order that has been fulfilled at the kiosk, as disclosed by Varma et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing removal of pre-ordered items (see column 3 lines 52-55).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
M.K.C.
10/7/2026
/MICHAEL COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
