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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Support for the amendments may be found at least in paragraphs 25-30 and 37 of the application.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that the claimed “output device” invokes 35 USC 112(f) and does not recite sufficient structure to perform the entire claimed function within the claim. Upon viewing the specification, inclusive of the above cited paragraphs by Applicant, the specification does not sufficiently describe the “output device.” Upon viewing the specification, paragraph [0037] merely discloses “output devices that generate the show effects.” MPEP 2181(III) states: “To satisfy the definiteness requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, the written description must clearly link or associate the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function.”
With respect to claim 12, Examiner further notes that an output device being “activated by” a processor does not indicate that the processor, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, is the corresponding structure of the output device. Rather, the processor is merely in communication with the output device, which is not the sufficient structure of the output device to perform the entire claimed function.
Accordingly, the present claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Indeed, Applicant submits that independent claims 1, 12, and 18, as presently amended, recite specific combinations of features, including specific hardware components that obtain, use, and/or are activated based on multiple types of sensor data (e.g., in amended independent claim 1, an output device configured to output a show effect within a dining environment, sensor data output by at least one sensor, as well as additional sensor data output by at least one additional sensor), and subsequently perform specific tasks based on the multiple types of sensor data (e.g., in amended independent claim 1, determine a target location and one or more parameters for the show effect within a dining environment, activate the output device to cause the output device to output the show effect with the one or more parameters at the target location during occurrence of one or more environmental parameters, assess a respective guest occupancy parameter over a period of time, and adjust the one or more parameters of the show effect in response to changes in the respective guest occupancy parameter over time and/or in response to a change in the one or more environmental factors). ,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully asserts that the mere presence of additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B does not indicate that the claims do not comprise abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. As can be seen below, the claims recite several abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “In the Office Action, the Examiner contended that "[i]independent claims 1, 12, and 18 recite generating or updating a map of a dining environment layout, constituting an abstract idea." Office Action, page 7. While Applicant does not necessarily agree with the Examiner's reasoning, Applicant notes that independent claims 1, 12, and 18 are presently amended to remove recitations related to receiving, generating, and/or updating a map in an effort to facilitate compact prosecution. As discussed above, amended independent claims 1, 12, and 18 recite specific hardware components and/or steps for activating an output device to output a show effect at a target location predicted to negate or enhance an impact of one or more environmental factors on guests seated within a dining environment, none of which is abstract. For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that independent claims 1, 12, and 18 as amended herein cannot be considered to recite certain methods of organizing human activity, as contended by the Examiner. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 12, and 18 as amended herein cannot reasonably be interpreted as being directed to an abstract idea.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully asserts that the mere presence of additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B does not indicate that the claims do not comprise abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. As can be seen below, the claims recite several abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Accordingly, amended independent claim 1 recites a specific combination of devices that perform specific tasks to output a show effect at a target location within a dining environment that is predicted to negate or enhance an impact of environmental factor(s) on seated guests during occurrence of the environmental factor(s), thereby providing a practical application at least by providing guests with an interactive dining experience in a dynamic and responsive manner. Likewise, as set forth above, amended independent claims 12 and 18 recite specific combinations of steps and/or devices that perform specific tasks to provide guests with an interactive dining experience by, for example, outputting a show effect at target locations expected to negate or enhance an impact of environment factor(s) on seated guests.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner primarily asserts that the “output device,” as drafted, has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(b). This device, when considered in combination with the sensors and processor/memory of the independent claims, is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application or anything significantly more. These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Accordingly, as shown and described with respect to these nonlimiting examples in the application, the systems and methods of amended independent claims 1, 12, and 18 may facilitate activation of output devices in a specific manner (e.g., using specific combinations of sensor data to activate output devices to output show effects at target locations expected to enhance or negate the impact of environmental factors on seated guests during the occurrence of the environmental factors), thereby providing guests with an interactive dining experience..,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Applicant maintains that amended independent claims 1, 12, and 18 include limitations, or combinations of limitations, that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. For example, as discussed above, amended independent claims 1, 12, and 18 include specific features that adjust parameters and/or a location of a show effect based on specific sensor data (e.g., sensor data indicative of respective guest occupancy parameters, additional sensor data indicative of environmental factors that are external to the environment and are not controllable by the seat occupancy system) in an effort to negate or enhance the impact of external environmental factors on seated guests to achieve/maintain a target guest occupancy parameter.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully asserts that none of the additional elements of the claims were identified as being extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Therefore, while Applicant’s assertions were considered, Applicant’s assertions are deemed moot as Examiner has not made any assertions in view of the claims being well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Accordingly, the present claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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: “output device” in claims 1, 12, and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 10, 12, 16, 18, and 25-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 18, the limitations related to the “output device” render the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. In particular, claims 1 and 18 recite “an output device configured to output a show effect within the dining environment.” Claim 12 recites “outputting, using an output device activated by the at least one processor, a show effect at a first location within the environment during occurrence of at least one environmental factor of the plurality of environmental factors.” The present claim invokes 35 USC 112(f) and does not recite sufficient structure to perform the entire claimed function. Upon viewing the specification, paragraph [0037] merely discloses “output devices that generate the show effects.” The original disclosure does not describe, whether expressly, implicitly, or inherently, the structure/materials/acts that are capable of performing the claimed function associated with the output device. Therefore, the present claim invokes 35 USC 112(f) and the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the output device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Dependent claims 2-6, 10, 16, and 25-34 are rejected due to dependency on rejected base claims 1, 12, and 18.
For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the output device as being any device capable of performing the claimed function.
Accordingly, claims 1-6, 10, 12, 16, 18, and 25-34 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 10, 12, 16, 18, and 25-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 18, the limitations recite an “output device.” In particular, claims 1 and 18 recite “an output device configured to output a show effect within the dining environment.” Claim 12 recites “outputting, using an output device activated by the at least one processor, a show effect at a first location within the environment during occurrence of at least one environmental factor of the plurality of environmental factors.” However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function. In particular, paragraph [0037] merely discloses an output device and does not describe the structure/materials/acts associated with performing the claimed function. As the instant disclosure fails to disclose, whether expressly, implicitly, or inherently, the structure, materials, or acts associated with the output device, the present claims are rejected for lacking adequate written description of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 2-6, 10, 16, and 25-34 are rejected due to dependency on rejected base claims 1, 12, and 18.
Accordingly, claims 1-6, 10, 12, 16, 18, and 25-34 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
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 1-6, 10, 12, 16, 18, and 25-34 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-6, 10, 25-27 and 31-34 are directed to a system, claims 12, 16, and 28-29 are directed to a method, and claims 18 and 30 are directed to a system. Therefore, the claims are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 1, 12, and 18 are related to evaluating the seating in a dining environment, constituting an abstract idea based on “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” related to managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals including social activities. Claim 1 recites abstract limitations including “wherein the one or more environmental factors are generated by one or more objects that are external to the dining environment and that are not controllable by the seat occupancy system for the dining environment; determine a target location and one or more parameters for the show effect within the dining environment, wherein output of the show effect at the target location is predicted to negate or enhance an impact of the one or more environmental factors on guests seated in the plurality of seats within the dining environment; determine, based on the sensor data, that the respective guest occupancy parameter for at least one seat of the plurality of seats matches a target guest occupancy parameter over a period of time comprising the occurrence of the one or more environmental factors and the output of the show effect with the one or more parameters at the target location; and adjust the one or more parameters of the show effect in response to the sensor data being indicative of a respective change of the respective guest occupancy parameter for the at least one seat of the plurality of seats over an additional period of time, the additional sensor data being indicative of a respective change of the one or more environmental factors, or both.” Claim 12 recites abstract limitations including “wherein the plurality of environmental factors are generated by one or more objects that are external to the environment and that are not controllable by the seat occupancy system for the environment; wherein the first location of the show effect is predicted to negate or enhance an impact of the at least one environmental factor of the plurality of factors on guests seated in the plurality of seats within the environment; determining, while outputting the show effect at the first location during the occurrence of the at least one environmental factor of the plurality of environmental factors, that the respective guest occupancy parameter for at least one seat of the plurality of seats does not match a target guest occupancy parameter; and in response to determining that the respective guest occupancy parameter for the at least one seat of the plurality of seats does not match the target guest occupancy parameter, further determining, a second location for the show effect different from the first location based on the sensor data and the additional sensor data, wherein the second location of the show effect is predicted to cause the respective guest occupancy parameter for the at least one seat of the plurality of seats to match the target guest occupancy parameter.” Claim 18 recites abstract limitations including “determine, occurrence of an environmental factor, wherein the environmental factor impacts the environment and is generated by an object that is external to the environment and that is not controllable by the seat occupancy system for the environment; determine, a respective guest occupancy for each seat of a plurality of seats within the environment over a period of time associated with the occurrence of the environmental factor and the output of the show effect at the respective location; determine a respective guest occupancy for at least one seat of the plurality of seats over the period of time is below a threshold guest occupancy; determine a new respective location for the show effect that is predicted to negate or enhance an impact of the environmental factor at the at least one seat of the plurality of seats to improve the respective guest occupancy for the at least one seat of the plurality of seats during a future occurrence of the environmental factor.” These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the language of “using the at least one processor,” covers an abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using the at least one processor,” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being interpreted as an abstract idea. For example, with the exception of the “using the at least one processor” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass an abstract idea directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Dependent claims 2-4, 16, 25-26, 28, 30, 32, and 34 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 5-6, 10, 27, 29, 31, and 33 will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 12, and 18 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is a system comprising “a processing system comprising at least one processor; and memory storing instructions executable by the processing system to cause the processing system to.” Claim 1 further recites the additional elements of “receive the sensor data and the additional sensor data,” and “activate the output device to cause the output device to output the show effect with the one or more parameters at the target location during occurrence of the one or more environmental factors.” Claim 12 recites limitations including “receiving, using at least one processor, sensor data captured by at least one sensor of a plurality of sensors and indicative of a respective guest occupancy parameter for each seat of a plurality of seats within the environment over a period of time,” “receiving, using the at least one processor, additional sensor data captured by at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors and indicative of a plurality of environmental factors generated external to the environment over the period of time,” “determining, using the at least one processor and based on the sensor data…” and “further determining, using the at least one processor and one or more machine learning algorithms, a second location.” Claim 18 is a system comprising “a processing system comprising at least one processor; and memory storing instructions executable by the processing system to cause the processing system to.” Claim 18 recites limitations including “determine, based on environmental sensor data received from one or more environmental sensors, occurrence of an environmental factor,” “activate the output device to cause the output device to output the show effect at a respective location within the environment during the occurrence of the environmental factor, wherein the show effect is configured to enhance or negate the environmental factor,” “determine, based on sensor data received from one or more additional sensors, a respective guest occupancy, and “and activate the output device to cause the output device to output the show effect at the new location at a future time during the future occurrence of the environmental factor.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 1 further recites the additional elements of “at least one sensor configured to output sensor data indicative of a respective guest occupancy parameter for each seat of a plurality of seats within the dining environment; at least one additional sensor configured to output additional sensor data indicative of one or more environmental factors that impact the dining environment.” The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 1 and 18 recite the limitation of “an output device configured to output a show effect within the dining environment.” Claim 12 recites “outputting, using an output device activated by the at least one processor, a show effect at a first location within the environment during occurrence of at least one environmental factor of the plurality of environmental factors.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-4, 16, 25-26, 28, 30, 32, and 34 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 5 recites the additional element of “wherein the instructions are executable by the processing system to cause the processing system to adjust the one or more parameters of the show effect based on the additional sensor data being indicative of the respective change of the one or more environmental factors and based on one or more parameters of an environmental factor of the one or more environmental factors that resulted in the respective change of the one or more environmental factors, and the one or more characteristics parameters of the show effect comprise brightness of light, volume of sound, intensity of haptics, timing, or any combination thereof.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 6 recites the additional element of “the output device comprises a haptic device, and the instructions are executable by the processing system to cause the processing system to activate the haptic device to cause the haptic device to vibrate the at least one occupied seat of the plurality of seats to output the show effect at the target location during the occurrence of the one or more environmental factors.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 10 recites the additional element of “cause a display of a mobile device of a guest to display a graphical user interface (GUI), the GUI comprising: a map indicative of a layout of the dining environment comprising respective locations for each seat of the plurality of seats that indicates the one or more unoccupied seats of the plurality of seats; and a virtual button that enables the guest to place an order and select a table associated with the one or more unoccupied seats of the plurality of seats.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 27 recites the additional element of “wherein the output device comprises an animated robotic character, and the show effect comprises a performance by the animated robotic character.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 29 recites the additional element of “comprising training, using the at least one processor, the one or more machine learning algorithms based on at least one of historical sensor data, historical environmental factors, historical maps of the environment, or historical guest occupancy parameters for the environment.” This limitation provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Therefore, this limitation is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claim 31 recites the additional element of “wherein the instructions are executable by the processing system to cause the processing system to activate the output device at a beginning of the occurrence of the one or more environment factors and deactivate the output device at an end of the occurrence of the one or more environmental factors to cause the output device to output the show effect for a duration of the occurrence of the one or more environmental factors.” This limitation provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Therefore, this limitation is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claim 33 recites the additional element of “wherein the output device comprises one or more lights, speakers, haptic devices, fluid dispensers, or any combination thereof, integrated within a table of the dining environment.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 12, and 18 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.. Claim 1 is a system comprising “a processing system comprising at least one processor; and memory storing instructions executable by the processing system to cause the processing system to.” Claim 1 further recites the additional elements of “receive the sensor data and the additional sensor data,” and “activate the output device to cause the output device to output the show effect with the one or more parameters at the target location during occurrence of the one or more environmental factors.” Claim 12 recites limitations including “receiving, using at least one processor, sensor data captured by at least one sensor of a plurality of sensors and indicative of a respective guest occupancy parameter for each seat of a plurality of seats within the environment over a period of time,” “receiving, using the at least one processor, additional sensor data captured by at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors and indicative of a plurality of environmental factors generated external to the environment over the period of time,” “determining, using the at least one processor and based on the sensor data…” and “further determining, using the at least one processor and one or more machine learning algorithms, a second location.” Claim 18 is a system comprising “a processing system comprising at least one processor; and memory storing instructions executable by the processing system to cause the processing system to.” Claim 18 recites limitations including “determine, based on environmental sensor data received from one or more environmental sensors, occurrence of an environmental factor,” “activate the output device to cause the output device to output the show effect at a respective location within the environment during the occurrence of the environmental factor, wherein the show effect is configured to enhance or negate the environmental factor,” “determine, based on sensor data received from one or more additional sensors, a respective guest occupancy, and “and activate the output device to cause the output device to output the show effect at the new location at a future time during the future occurrence of the environmental factor.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 1 further recites the additional elements of “at least one sensor configured to output sensor data indicative of a respective guest occupancy parameter for each seat of a plurality of seats within the dining environment; at least one additional sensor configured to output additional sensor data indicative of one or more environmental factors that impact the dining environment.” The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 1 and 18 recite the limitation of “an output device configured to output a show effect within the dining environment.” Claim 12 recites “outputting, using an output device activated by the at least one processor, a show effect at a first location within the environment during occurrence of at least one environmental factor of the plurality of environmental factors.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-4, 16, 25-26, 28, 30, 32, and 34 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 5 recites the additional element of “wherein the instructions are executable by the processing system to cause the processing system to adjust the one or more parameters of the show effect based on the additional sensor data being indicative of the respective change of the one or more environmental factors and based on one or more parameters of an environmental factor of the one or more environmental factors that resulted in the respective change of the one or more environmental factors, and the one or more characteristics parameters of the show effect comprise brightness of light, volume of sound, intensity of haptics, timing, or any combination thereof.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 6 recites the additional element of “the output device comprises a haptic device, and the instructions are executable by the processing system to cause the processing system to activate the haptic device to cause the haptic device to vibrate the at least one occupied seat of the plurality of seats to output the show effect at the target location during the occurrence of the one or more environmental factors.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 10 recites the additional element of “cause a display of a mobile device of a guest to display a graphical user interface (GUI), the GUI comprising: a map indicative of a layout of the dining environment comprising respective locations for each seat of the plurality of seats that indicates the one or more unoccupied seats of the plurality of seats; and a virtual button that enables the guest to place an order and select a table associated with the one or more unoccupied seats of the plurality of seats.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 27 recites the additional element of “wherein the output device comprises an animated robotic character, and the show effect comprises a performance by the animated robotic character.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 29 recites the additional element of “comprising training, using the at least one processor, the one or more machine learning algorithms based on at least one of historical sensor data, historical environmental factors, historical maps of the environment, or historical guest occupancy parameters for the environment.” This limitation provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Therefore, this limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 31 recites the additional element of “wherein the instructions are executable by the processing system to cause the processing system to activate the output device at a beginning of the occurrence of the one or more environment factors and deactivate the output device at an end of the occurrence of the one or more environmental factors to cause the output device to output the show effect for a duration of the occurrence of the one or more environmental factors.” This limitation provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Therefore, this limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 33 recites the additional element of “wherein the output device comprises one or more lights, speakers, haptic devices, fluid dispensers, or any combination thereof, integrated within a table of the dining environment.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-6, 10, 12, 16, 18, and 25-34 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 12, and 18 are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art. The claims overcome the prior art of the record such that none of the cited prior art references can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101, as set forth above. The closest prior art of the record discloses:
Petroulas (AU 2022200063 A1) discloses at least one sensor configured to output sensor data indicative of a respective guest occupancy parameter for each seat of a plurality of seats within the dining environment; an output device configured to output a show effect within the dining environment; a processing system comprising at least one processor; and memory storing instructions executable by the processing system to cause the processing system to: receive the sensor data; determine a target location and one or more parameters for the show effect within the dining environment, activate the output device to cause the output device to output the show effect with the one or more parameters; determine, based on the sensor data, that the respective guest occupancy parameter for at least one seat of the plurality of seats matches a target guest occupancy parameter over a period of time comprising and the output of the show effect with the one or more parameters at the target location. However, Petroulas does not explicitly teach or disclose at least one additional sensor configured to output additional sensor data indicative of one or more environmental factors that impact the dining environment, wherein the one or more environmental factors are generated by one or more objects that are external to the dining environment and that are not controllable by the seat occupancy system for the dining environment; receive the additional sensor data; wherein output of the show effect at the target location is predicted to negate or enhance an impact of the one or more environmental factors on guests seated in the plurality of seats within the dining environment; activate the output device to cause the output device to output the show effect with the one or more parameters at the target location during occurrence of the one or more environmental factors; determine, based on the sensor data, that the respective guest occupancy parameter for at least one seat of the plurality of seats matches a target guest occupancy parameter over a period of time comprising the occurrence of the one or more environmental factors and the output of the show effect with the one or more parameters at the target location; and adjust the one or more parameters of the show effect in response to the sensor data being indicative of a respective change of the respective guest occupancy parameter for the at least one seat of the plurality of seats over an additional period of time, the additional sensor data being indicative of a respective change of the one or more environmental factors, or both.
Burger (US 20220258348 A1) discloses at least one additional sensor configured to output additional sensor data indicative of one or more environmental factors that impact the dining environment, receive the additional sensor data; wherein output of the show effect at the target location is predicted to negate or enhance an impact of the one or more environmental factors; activate the output device to cause the output device to output the show effect with the one or more parameters at the target location during occurrence of the one or more environmental factors. However, Burger fails to explicitly teach or disclose wherein the one or more environmental factors are generated by one or more objects that are external to the dining environment and that are not controllable by the seat occupancy system for the dining environment; wherein output of the show effect at the target location is predicted to negate or enhance an impact of the one or more environmental factors on guests seated in the plurality of seats within the dining environment; determine, based on the sensor data, that the respective guest occupancy parameter for at least one seat of the plurality of seats matches a target guest occupancy parameter over a period of time comprising the occurrence of the one or more environmental factors and the output of the show effect with the one or more parameters at the target location; and adjust the one or more parameters of the show effect in response to the sensor data being indicative of a respective change of the respective guest occupancy parameter for the at least one seat of the plurality of seats over an additional period of time, the additional sensor data being indicative of a respective change of the one or more environmental factors, or both.
Daub et al. (US 20220211188 A1) discloses determine, based on the sensor data, that the respective guest occupancy parameter for at least one seat of the plurality of seats matches a target guest occupancy parameter over a period of time comprising the occurrence of the one or more environmental factors. However, Daub fails to explicitly teach or disclose wherein output of the show effect at the target location is predicted to negate or enhance an impact of the one or more environmental factors on guests seated in the plurality of seats within the dining environment; wherein the one or more environmental factors are generated by one or more objects that are external to the dining environment and that are not controllable by the seat occupancy system for the dining environment; the output of the show effect with the one or more parameters at the target location; and adjust the one or more parameters of the show effect in response to the sensor data being indicative of a respective change of the respective guest occupancy parameter for the at least one seat of the plurality of seats over an additional period of time, the additional sensor data being indicative of a respective change of the one or more environmental factors, or both.
Aman (US 10861267 B2) discloses wherein output of the show effect at the target location is predicted to negate or enhance an impact of the one or more environmental factors on guests seated in the plurality of seats within the dining environment. However, Aman fails to explicitly teach or disclose wherein the one or more environmental factors are generated by one or more objects that are external to the dining environment and that are not controllable by the seat occupancy system for the dining environment; the output of the show effect with the one or more parameters at the target location; and adjust the one or more parameters of the show effect in response to the sensor data being indicative of a respective change of the respective guest occupancy parameter for the at least one seat of the plurality of seats over an additional period of time, the additional sensor data being indicative of a respective change of the one or more environmental factors, or both.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mendelson (US 11869022 B2) discloses identifying specific locations of customers and identifying guest feedback at non-attraction locations such as restaurants within a water park
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara G Brown whose telephone number is (469)295-9145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am- 5:00 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SARA GRACE BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights