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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The order management module in claim 1 (reference characters 304 and 920/924 in the disclosure).
The order prioritization module in claim 1 (reference characters 312 and 940 in the disclosure).
The order wait time module, and its model of predicted interruptions of the culinary instrument, in claim 1 (reference characters 328 and 928 in the disclosure).
The instrument control module of claim 1 (reference characters 116 and 340 in the disclosure).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 11–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 11 provides for “a time stamp indicating when the order was placed; and a selective adjustment to the timestamp.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite because any adjustment to the timestamp would un-render it a timestamp at all. A timestamp indicates when an event occurs, and therefore, adjustment to the timestamp amounts to falsifying a recorded time. Perhaps the claim means to suggest that the timestamp is used as a basis to arrive at a new value via said selective adjustment, where said new value is not intended as a timestamp.
Claims 12–14 are rejected due to dependency upon a rejected claim.
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 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an order management module configured to generate parameters for a user interface (using a computer to perform a mental process of interacting with a user making an order; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).III.C); an order prioritization module that assigns priorities to orders based on prioritization rules (determining food order priorities is performable with a human mind); an order wait time module including a model of predicted interruptions of the culinary instrument (a human is capable of gauging wait time for an order depending on an understanding of a culinary instrument, including interruptions thereto); and an instrument control module to control the culinary instrument (which can operate, among other ways, by simply sending a signal to a culinary instrument to activate, where this function is equivalent to a human performing a function with a computer). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application at least because the use of the claimed modules do not exceed human ability. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at least because at least one culinary instrument configured to interact with each of these modules is not claimed, and the type of culinary instrument is generic.
Dependent claims 2–18 similarly do not feature limitations that exceed human ability, or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 1–5, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frehn et al. (US Pub. 2017/0024789).
Claim 1: Frehn discloses a control system for a culinary instrument, the control system comprising:
an order management module configured to generate parameters for a user interface (¶ 10, “request for a custom food order from a patron through an ordering interface executing on a computing device”);
an order prioritization module configured to assign priorities to a set of orders in an order database based on a set of prioritization rules, wherein the assigned priorities establish a sequence of the set of orders (¶ 49, “the ordering platform can prioritize food orders in the queue based on food order cost, based on order frequency of their corresponding patrons (e.g., by prioritizing new patrons who have never ordered from the ordering platform or an affiliated food assembly apparatus over all other patrons and then prioritizing patrons according to frequency of order submissions), based on whether food orders are designated for in-store pickup or delivery, based on food order size (e.g., number of items in a food order), etc.”);
an order wait time module configured to estimate wait times for the set of orders (¶ 44, “estimating a duration of time necessary for the food assembly apparatus to complete assembly of the patron's food order”), wherein the order wait time module estimates wait times for each of the set of orders based on a current status of the culinary instrument (¶ 45, “the ordering platform can access a queue assigned to the food assembly apparatus, access states of food orders currently in process at the food assembly apparatus, implement the foregoing methods and techniques to estimate a time remaining to complete food orders currently in process at the food assembly apparatus and to complete food orders in the queue but not yet in process at the food assembly apparatus. The ordering platform can then add these times to the current time to estimate a soonest time at which the patron's food order may be completed at the food assembly apparatus”) and a model of predicted interruptions of the culinary instrument (¶ 44, “For the food assembly apparatus that also includes replaceable or indexable hoppers (as described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/911,637) containing buns, patties, toppings, seasonings, and/or condiments, the ordering platform can also retrieve a current fill level for a hopper containing a particular topping (or bun, meat, seasoning, condiment, etc.) in the food assembly apparatus, an availability of a full replacement hopper containing the topping, an estimated time or number of subsequent food orders to empty the hopper, and an estimated delay time to replace the hopper with the replacement hopper. The ordering platform can implement these data to estimate the time to complete the hamburgers in the batch with a greater degree of accuracy. The ordering platform can then apply these ingredient processing and machine process data to estimate a time to construct (e.g., assemble, complete) the patron's food order”), wherein the order management module is configured to transform the user interface by modifying at least one of the parameters in response to the estimated wait times (see S184 in fig. 3, discussed in ¶ 44; ¶ 54, “upon receipt of a food order specifying local pickup from a patron, the ordering platform implements methods and techniques described above to estimate a completion time for the order based on ingredients and ingredient options in the food order and based on the food assembly apparatus's current queue and then present to the patron—through the ordering interface—a delivery time in excess of the estimated completion time for the food order”); and
an instrument control module configured to control the culinary instrument to prepare a food item specified by an order of the set of orders specified as next by the sequence (¶ 13, “inserting the first custom food order into a food order queue associated with a food assembly apparatus in Block S150”).
Claim 2: Frehn discloses that the control system is configured to control a plurality of culinary instruments including the culinary instrument (¶ 28, “in Block S120, the ordering platform can identify one or more food assembly apparatuses sufficiently proximal the patron's location (or a delivery location entered by the patron) and configured with ingredients and/or subsystems suitable to assemble a foodstuff according to the patron's custom food order”).
Claim 3: Frehn discloses that the instrument control module is configured to, in response to availability of a first instrument of the plurality of culinary instruments, selectively control the first instrument to prepare the food item specified by the next order (¶ 29, “the ordering platform can select a first food assembly apparatus at a first distance from the location over a second food assembly apparatus at a second distance from the location less than the first distance to complete the patron's food order in response to a second demand for food orders at the second food assembly apparatus exceeding a first demand for food orders at the first food assembly apparatus even though the second food assembly apparatus is geographically closer to the delivery location”).
Claim 4: Frehn discloses that the instrument control module is configured to, in response to availability of a first instrument of the plurality of culinary instruments:
identify ingredients necessary to prepare the food item specified by the next order (¶ 28, “in Block S120, the ordering platform can identify one or more food assembly apparatuses sufficiently proximal the patron's location (or a delivery location entered by the patron) and configured with ingredients and/or subsystems suitable to assemble a foodstuff according to the patron's custom food order”);
identify in-stock ingredients present at the first instrument (ibid.); and
in response to the necessary ingredients being a subset of the in-stock ingredients, control the first instrument to prepare the food item specified by the next order (¶ 32, “In Block S140, upon the patron's submission of the food order, the ordering platform can select the food order to a single remaining food assembly apparatus—in the set of food assembly apparatuses filtered according to the patron's ingredient and ingredient options selections—to complete the patron's food order”).
Claim 5: Frehn discloses that the instrument control module is configured to, in response to availability of the culinary instrument, control the culinary instrument to prepare the food item specified by the next order (via S150).
Claim 9: Frehn discloses that transformation of the user interface includes displaying a time indicating at least one of the estimated wait time for the next order and an estimated completion time for the next order (the estimated completion time is displayed as the delivery vehicle arrival time in step S182, discussed in ¶ 41 as conveyed through the ordering platform which would have the user interface).
Frehn never appears to explicitly disclose that the estimated completion time is based on a sum of a current time and the estimated wait time.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the estimated completion time (the estimated time or arrival of S182, where the food order is completed prior to arrival (see ¶ 12)) would necessarily be based on (i.e. including consideration of) the estimated wait time (including the estimated time to complete the food order at S184) as well as the current time given that this is how an estimated time of arrival would be calculated.
Claim 18: Frehn discloses that the model of predicted interruptions of the culinary instrument outputs (i) a likelihood of interruption of the culinary instrument (¶ 44, “the ordering platform can also retrieve a current fill level for a hopper,” i.e. the platform can determine when the hopper will empty and need replacing) and (ii) an estimated length of the interruption (¶ 44, “an estimated delay time to replace the hopper with the replacement hopper”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frehn.
Claim 6: Frehn discloses that the culinary instrument includes a plurality of subsystems (¶ 33, “various subsystems in the selected food assembly apparatus”).
Frehn does not disclose preparing the food item specified by the next order begins with an initial subsystem of the plurality of subsystems; and availability of the culinary instrument is indicated by availability of the initial subsystem.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least appreciated that Frehn envisions its system and subsystems being a conveyor-facilitated array of subsystems (see this clearly shown in the bottom-left of fig. 2, including the conveyor direction arrow), and would have understood that while the later subsystems may be occupied, there would likely be no meaningful delay to the production of a food order using such a system if the first subsystem was used when available, and therefore would have identified the availability of the initial subsystem as representative of the availability of the culinary instrument as a whole.
Claim 8: Frehn does not disclose that availability of the initial subsystem is indicated by completion of work performed by the initial subsystem on a food item for a prior order.
However, along the same lines as the reasoning discussed for claim 6, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the completion of the work performed by the initial subsystem would likely involve the conveyor moving the food item to the next subsystem, and making the initial subsystem available.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frehn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Riel-Dalpe et al. (US Pub. 2015/0262121) and Chaudhuri et al. (US Pub. 2005/0222965).
Frehn does not disclose that transformation of the user interface includes displaying a progress bar; and a length of the progress bar increases as the estimated wait time for the next order decreases.
However, Riel-Dalpe discloses a similar system, and teaches the use of a progress bar associated with an order time (¶ 151, “progress bars”), where progress bars conventionally increase toward a completed status, which in the case of both Frehn and Riel-Dalpe involves gradual reduction in the wait time.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a progress bar, like that taught by Riel-Dalpe, as a known and effective means of conveying progress information, including wait time information.
Riel-Daple does not disclose that a length of the progress bar increases monotonically.
However, having a progress bar increase monotonically is generally known, as taught by Chaudhuri (see ¶ 102).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the progress bar of Riel-Dalpe, as installed into Frehn, increase monotonically, as taught by Chaudhuri, so as not to distress a user about progress going backwards.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frehn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Werbitt (US Pub. 2004/0068441).
Frehn does not explicitly disclose that the order wait time module is configured to estimate the wait times based on performance data for staff members associated with the culinary instrument, but Frehn clearly suggests something along those lines in ¶ 44, where it discusses “actual historical performance data for the foregoing time values specific to the food assembly apparatus,” and then further discusses “an estimated delay time to replace the hopper with the replacement hopper,” where the passage suggests that this time is dependent on a person rather than the machine itself.
Furthermore, estimating wait times based on performance data for staff members is generally known in the art, as taught by Werbitt (¶ 192, “information to enable resort management to monitor performance of staff (such as how many orders have been serviced and/or time used to deliver and/or fulfill orders)”). Werbitt does not explicitly say that the staff is associated with the culinary instrument, but one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the only staff that would be relevant would be that associated with the instrument.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to estimate the wait times based on performance data for staff members associated with the culinary instrument, given the suggestion of its usefulness in Frehn and it generally being known as taught by Werbitt.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 11–14, 16, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, the idea of indicating availability by recognizing a container moving away from the initial subsystem is too specific to conclude that it would be more than likely to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Frehn or any other prior art of record.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art does not disclose or suggest, alone or in combination, using selectively adjusted timestamps for each order placement timestamp to determine assigned order priorities. Claims 12–14 depend from 11.
Regarding claim 16, the idea of using individual staff data associated with a culinary instrument, for a plurality of staff members, to estimate a wait time associated with the culinary instrument that is controlled by an instrument control module in response to a food order (i.e. it is at least somewhat automated by the ordering system) is too specific to conclude that it would be more than likely to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Frehn or other prior art of record. Claim 17 depends from claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Jensen et al. (US Pub. 2019/0275676) and Goldberg et al. (WO 2019/070733 A1) are similar to Frehn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761