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 .
Priority
The current application claims priority to US Provisional Application No. 63/549,596 filed 2/5/2024.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 8/3/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn.
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn without traverse.
Claims 1-11 stand rejected.
Objection - Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 contain improper shading that may affect clarity once reproduced.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-11, under Step 2A claims 1-11 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites a method of data verification for beverage order dispatching, the method comprising:
receiving a request to initiate an order transaction;
determining that the order transaction corresponds to a restricted item;
responsive to the order transaction corresponding to the restricted item, performing a transaction data verification service which includes:
an age verification procedure to determine whether an age of a user providing the request meets a predefined age limit value; and
an inebriation assessment procedure to calculate an alcohol consumption estimate associated with the user, the inebriation assessment procedure calculating a standardized drink unit value based on an order history of the user;
presenting a textual reminder to perform the transaction data verification service;
receiving a verification input approving or denying the request; and
determining whether to add the restricted item to a check associated with the user based on the verification input.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people fundamental economic principals or practices (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because verifying age and inebriation levels before approving or denying an order request. This represents the performance of a marketing or sales activities or behaviors, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity. This also describes concepts relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including one or more retailer computing device associated with a retail establishment.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process represent generic computing hardware and amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11, dependent claims 2-11 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-11 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-11 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, further additional elements such as a beverage order dispatching system and a database (claim 2 and 6-7), or a manager UI (claim 8-9) are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-11 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, and/or generally link the exception to a technological environment or field of use. Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-11 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke (US 2021/0012400) in view of Pinapala Venkata (US 2014/0139665 – herein Pinapala).
Regarding claim 1, Lock discloses a method of data verification for beverage order dispatching, the method comprising:
receiving, at one or more retailer computing device associated with a retail establishment, a request to initiate an order transaction (see: 0036, 0040, 0084, Fig. 7, Fig. 10-11 & 13-17);
determining, at the one or more retailer computing device that the order transaction corresponds to a restricted item (see: 0040, Fig. 7 (704-708), 0073-0074, Fig. 8 (802), Fig. 9 (902-904), 0081, Fig. 10-11 (1102), 0084-0086);
responsive to the order transaction corresponding to the restricted item, performing a transaction data verification service (see: Fig. 7 (708), 0075, Fig. 8 (804, 812), 0078, Fig. 12, 0087, Fig. 19, 0094) which includes:
an age verification procedure to determine whether an age of a user providing the request meets a predefined age limit value (see: Fig. 7 (708), 0075, Fig. 8 (804, 812), 0078, Fig. 12, 0087, Fig. 19, 0094); and
presenting, at the one or more retailer computing device, a textual reminder to perform the transaction data verification service (see: Fig. 8 (812), Fig. 19, 0094);
receiving a verification input at the one or more retailer computing device approving or denying the request (see: Fig. 19 (Yes), 0094); and
determining whether to add the restricted item to a check associated with the user based on the verification input (see: Fig. 11 (Items A-F; Cart: 12 items), 0086, Fig. 17 (1702), Fig. 19 (Yes), 0094).
Though disclosing the above, Locke does not disclose an inebriation assessment procedure to calculate an alcohol consumption estimate associated with the user, the inebriation assessment procedure calculating a standardized drink unit value based on an order history of the user.
To this accord, Pinapala teaches a method that tracks the types of drinks, respective % alcohol content, and quantity (see: Fig. 6B, 0062, Fig. 13 (1306-1310), 0072) in order to perform an inebriation assessment procedure to calculate an alcohol consumption estimate associated with the user (see: 0053 (periodic threshold), Fig. 8A-8B (BAC, Sobriety Countdown), 0031, Fig. 13 (1308-1310), 0072), and where the inebriation assessment procedure calculating a standardized drink unit value based on an order history of the user (see: 0065, Fig. 8B (Today; Sobriety Countdown)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Locke to have utilized the known technique for performing an inebriation assessment as taught by Pinapala in order to have assisted user to manage their consumption level of alcohol and warn users when they have reached a threshold (see: Pinapala: 0066-0067).
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the transaction data verification service forms part of a beverage order dispatching system (see: Locke: Fig. 1, 0038, 0040, Fig. 2 (214, 218), 0055, Fig. 7 (712), 0075, Fig. 8 (812), 0078),
Note: the system in Fig. 1 is used for providing sale-restricted items including alcohol and is used to retrieve the sale-restricted items by users (e.g., 214, 218) of the establishment.
calculating the standardized drink unit value includes: accessing a standardized drink schema stored at a database (see: Pinapala: Fig. 5B, 0060, Fig. 6B, 0062, 0014 (type of drink and alcohol content), 0015 (alcohol content level)) of the beverage order dispatching system (see: Locke: Fig. 1 (120, 122), Fig. 5; see also: Pinapala: Fig. 3 (302)).
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the age verification procedure includes presenting a prompt, at the one or more retailer computing device and with the textual reminder, requesting an approval input (see: Locke: Fig. 19, 0094).
11. The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether to add the restricted item to a check associated with the user based on the verification input includes sending an instruction to a point- of-sale (POS) system to add the restricted item to the check (see: Locke: Fig. 2 (204), 0004, 0053-0054, Fig. 11 (Items A-F; Cart: 12 items), 0086, Fig. 17 (1702), Fig. 19 (Yes), 0094).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke in view of Pinapala as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mahalle (US 2022/0058648).
Regarding claim 3, Locke in view of Pinapala teaches all of the above but does not teach receiving one or more retail personnel inputs for configuring one or more verification parameters of the transaction data verification service.
In the field of restricting item sales, Mahalle teaches receiving one or more retail personnel inputs for configuring one or more verification parameters of the transaction data verification service (see: Fig. 5 (504: merchant restriction), Fig. 6 (524: merchant restriction), 0030 (The rules repository may thus include merchant restrictions that are specific to each merchant), 0062 (merchant restriction…), 0076 (merchant may also provide information regarding the merchant restrictions and criteria… while registration)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Locke in view of Pinapala to have utilized the known technique for receiving merchant restrictions as taught by Mahalle in order to have enabled merchant(s) having different criteria to cater restrictions based on what a merchant wishes to impose (see: Mahalle: 0030).
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the one or more verification parameters includes at least one of:
a first age threshold value for the user (see: Mahalle: 0062 (merchant restriction for which the merchant 106 is on-boarded for may be such as a user can buy any amount of cigarettes if the age is greater than 21), 0128 (merchant or regulatory authority; identity attributes may include…age);
a second age threshold value for a selling retail personnel;
valid sale hours associated with the retail establishment;
one or more manager review triggers; or
a time between drink purchases value (see: Mahalle: Fig. 5B (528), 0131).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke in view of Pinapala as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PTO form 892-U (herein 892-U).
Regarding claim 6, Locke in view of Pinapala teaches wherein the transaction data verification service forms part of a beverage order dispatching system (see: Locke: Fig. 1, 0038, 0040, Fig. 2 (214, 218), 0055, Fig. 7 (712), 0075, Fig. 8 (812), 0078)), and where calculating the standardized drink unit value includes:
receiving drink-related data from the order history associated with the user (see: Pinapala: Fig. 5B, Fig. 6B, Fig. 8B, 0065);
receiving a drink conversion value from a standardized product schema stored at a database (see: Pinapala: Fig. 5B, 0060, Fig. 6B, 0062, 0014 (type of drink and alcohol content), 0015 (alcohol content level)) of the beverage order dispatching system (see: Locke: Fig. 1 (120, 122), Fig. 5; see also: Pinapala: Fig. 3 (302)).
Locke in view of Pinapala does not expressly teach converting the drink-related data into the standardized drink unit value using the drink conversion value, though Pinapala teaches an ABV and calculating standard units consumed by a user (see again: Fig. 8B, 0065).
To this accord, 892-U teaches a standardized product scheme (see: “What is a Standard Drink” (p. 2-3), which includes Beer, wine, 80 proof spirits, and ready-to-drink beverages and their associated ABV) and using the % ABV as a conversion value for converting the drink-related data into the standardized drink unit value using the drink conversion value (see: p. 4 & 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Locke in view of Pinapala to have utilized the known manner of calculating standard drink units as taught by 892-U since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements (calculating drink units, calculating standard units using a conversion factor), and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (calculating drink units), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable – namely, using a conversion factor such as percentage ABV (as taught by 892-U) to calculate the drink units of Locke in view of Pinapala.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke in view of Pinapala as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bermudez (US 2021/0390556).
Regarding claim 7, Locke in view of Pinapala teach all the above including wherein the transaction data verification service forms part of a beverage order dispatching system (see: Locke: Fig. 1, 0038, 0040, Fig. 2 (214, 218), 0055, Fig. 7 (712), 0075, Fig. 8 (812), 0078)), and the age verification procedure includes:
receiving an age value responsive to a login into the beverage order dispatching system occurring at a user device (see: Locke: Fig. 8 (806), 0078, Fig. 12, 0087, Fig. 19, 0094; Pinapala: Fig. 4, 0059); and
comparing the age value to the predefined age limit value (see: Locke: Fig. 8 (806), 0078, Fig. 12, 0087, Fig. 19, 0094).
Locke in view of Pinapala, however, does not teach using a date of birth value in performing the verification. Using such data was well-established in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Furthermore, Locke alludes to such a value in Fig. 19.
For example, Bermudez teaches the well-known use of a registered date of birth value that is compared to a required age (i.e., age limit value) (see: 0007 (age verification check, verified date of birth), Fig. 2 (208, 214-216), 0048, Fig. 5 (518-520)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Locke in view of Pinapala to have utilized the known type of verification value (birth date value) as taught by Bermudez in order to have met increasing demand for purchase verification using age with a high degree of accuracy in a quick and cost-effective manner (see: Bermudez: 0005).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke in view of Pinapala as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dalia (US 10,943,193).
Regarding claim 8, Locke in view of Pinapala teaches all the above but does not teach presenting a manager user interface (UI) at the one or more retailer computing device, the manager UI including an interactive element which, upon receiving a user input, presents verification data related to a particular retail personnel.
To this accord, teaches a method for use in a food and beverage venue (see: abstract), the method including presenting a manager user interface (UI) at the one or more retailer computing device, the manager UI including an interactive element which, upon receiving a user input, presents activity data related to a particular retail personnel (see: col. 2 lines 10-15, col. 4 lines 34-38 & 55-59, Fig. 2A (130, 134), Fig. 3C, Fig. 5 (122B, 152),). Notably, Dalia also teaches the staff activity to include food or drink transactions including drinks served (see: Fig. 2A (drinks served), Fig. 3C (71), col. 10 line 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Locke in view of Pinapala to have provided the manager interface taught by Dalia in order to have enabled automated tracking and assessment of actions of customers and staff and developed persistent customer and staff profiles, thereby allowing a manager to identify long term trends and changes in activity within the venue (see: Dalia: col. 1 lines 48-52))
Note: Locke teaches historical transaction data (see: 0070, Fig. 5 (502, 438) and age varication by an authorized personnel (see: 0027, Fig. 19, 0094). while Dalia teaches staff activity to include food or drink transactions including drinks served (see: Fig. 2A (drinks served), Fig. 3C (71), col. 10 line 60). One of ordinary skill would have understood this to render obvious presentation of verification data; however, the type of data as claimed carries little patentable weight. That is, even assuming arguendo the combination does not render obvious the specific data type, this is non-functional descriptive data. The manner in which the presentation is performed is not altered based on the type of data, and no new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the step performed exists. See MPEP 2111.05.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the verification data includes a first number of verifications performed by the particular retail personnel based on an ID scan, and a second number of verifications performed by the particular retail personnel based on a visual assessment.
Note: Similar to the note above concerning claim 8, claim 9 merely claims presentation of different types of data. Even assuming arguendo the combination does not render obvious the specific data type, this is non-functional descriptive data. The manner in which the presentation is performed is not altered based on the type of data, and no new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the step performed exists. See MPEP 2111.05.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: presenting a manager user interface (UI) at the one or more retailer computing device, the manager UI including an interactive element which, upon receiving a user input, presents order history data related to at least one of the user, a seat associated with the user, or a table associated with the user (see: Dalia: Fig. 3C (71), col. 5 lines 11-18, Fig. 3D (45), col. 7 lines 61-65, Fig. 4, col. 10 lines 4-15, Fig. 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Libby (US 12,145,833) discloses a verification process for use in an establishment serving beverages, the verification including an age/requirement verification as well as a baseline state verification related to the state of intoxication of a customer. This includes a state message can be provided to the control terminal alerting the merchant of the state change. The merchant can then interact with the user to determine whether the user can continue to use the beverage system (see: Fig. 4, col. 11 lines 16-35, col. 17 lines 29-49).
Colvin (US 2022/0138710) discloses keeping a bill tab for a table and enabling cost splitting (see: Fig. 9-10).
Suzuki (US 2022/0157411) discloses determining an intoxication level and whether a user may keep drinking (see: Fig. 2, 0047).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
