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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “In the Office Action, the Examiner did not provide sufficient evidence of record or reasoned rationale to support the Examiner's contention that independent claims 1, 12, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea. See Office Action, pages 2, 3, 6, and 7. Indeed, the Examiner provided only conclusory statements, such as to merely quote certain recitations of the claims and allege that "managing a seating plan in an environment, as drafted, constitutes an abstract idea." Id.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen with respect to Step 2A, Prong 1 below, Examiner has cited each of the particular abstract limitations for consideration. These cited limitations do not recite any particular additional elements for consideration and thus are part of the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. Therefore, Examiner respectfully asserts that there is sufficient evidence to support Examiner’s assertion that the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Further, Applicant submits that independent claims 1, 12, and 18, as presently amended, recite specific combinations of features, including specific hardware components that obtain and use multiple types of sensor data (e.g., in amended independent claim 1, 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, activate an output device, assess a respective guest occupancy parameter over a period of time, and update a map).,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims, as drafted, recite several abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. The claim limitations related to receiving sensor data, as drafted, are part of the additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B. However, these additional elements, as drafted, when considered in the context of the claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application or anything significantly more.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Additionally, at least certain features of independent claims 1, 12, and 18 as amended herein provide a practical application. For example, amended independent claim 1 recites a specific combination of sensors including "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," and "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." Further, amended independent claim 1 recites "activate an output device to cause the output device to output the show effect at the target location during occurrence of the one or more environmental factors," among other features,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. These additional elements, as drafted, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application, even when considered both individually and in combination. The use of sensors to gather data, as drafted, 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). The use of a processor to activate an output device, as drafted, is nothing more than mere use of a computer as a tool. 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). These additional elements, as drafted, when considered in the context of the claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application or anything significantly more.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Certain aspects of the practical application provided by amended independent claims 1, 12, and 18 may be understood with reference to examples in the application. In one non-limiting example, the application discloses that "the show effects 66 may include a performance (e.g., by human performers in costumes and/or by animated robotic characters), lighting effects, visual effects, movement effects, smoke effects, audio effects, a movable object (e.g., a robotic object), and the like.",” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the present claims do not specifically recite limitations such as a robotic object, or other additional elements for consideration. Applicant is reminded that it is impermissible to import limitations from the specification into the claims. (See MPEP 2111.01(II)) In order for Applicant to be given the argued interpretation, the claims must positively recite the argued subject matter.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Applicant submits that even if the Examiner determines that amended independent claims 1, 12, and 18 are directed to a judicial exception and do not incorporate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application, amended independent claims 1, 12, and 18 recite an inventive concept. 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. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite an inventive concept under Step 2B and are directed to patentable subject matter. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims at issue include significantly more than the alleged judicial exception.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s assertion, Examiner has not asserted that the present claims are directed to “well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.” Therefore, while Examiner has considered Applicant’s assertion, Applicant’s assertion is deemed moot because the 35 USC 101 rejection below does not make said assertion.
Accordingly, the present claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Petroulas, Burger, and Bell, taken alone or in hypothetical combination, fail to teach or suggest all of the elements of independent claim 1…12…18,” Examiner has deemed Applicant’s assertions persuasive. The present claims, as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art. See the allowable subject matter section below.
Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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 12, 16-17, and 29 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 claim 12, the limitation of “outputting, using the at least one processor and an output device, the show effect at the first location during occurrence of the at least one environmental factor of the plurality of environmental factors” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. It is unclear what the “output device” is. The present claim invokes 35 USC 112(f) and does not recite sufficient structure to perform the entire claimed function. While the claim recites a processor, the processor is not clearly comprising the claimed output device such that it can impart structure upon the output device. It is unclear how the processor and output device, in combination, perform the claimed function as the structure of the output device is unknown. 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 16-17 and 29 are rejected due to dependency on rejected base claim 12.
Therefore, claims 12, 16-17, and 29 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 12, 16-17, and 29 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 claim 12, the limitation of “outputting, using the at least one processor and an output device, the show effect at the first location during occurrence of the 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 16-17 and 29 are rejected due to dependency on rejected base claim 12.
Therefore, claims 12, 16-17, and 29 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, 8, 10, 12, 16-19, 22, and 25-30 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, 8, 10, 22, and 25-27 are directed to a system, claims 12, 16-17, and 28-29 are directed to a method, and claims 18-19 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 recite generating or updating a map of a dining environment layout, 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; receive a map indicative of a first layout of the dining environment comprising respective locations for each seat of the plurality of seats and a respective location for a show effect; determine a target location for the show effect, 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, 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 at the target location; and in response, update the map to indicate a second layout of the dining environment comprising the target location for the show effect, wherein the second layout is different from the first layout.” 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; generating, a first map representative of the environment and comprising a respective location of each seat of the plurality of seats, a respective location of each environmental factor of the plurality of environmental factors, and a first location of a show effect within the environment, wherein the first location of the show effect is predicted to negate or enhance an impact of at least one environmental factor of the plurality of environmental factors on guests seated in the plurality of seats within the environment; outputting, the show effect at the first location during occurrence of the at least one environmental factor of the plurality of environmental factors; determining, and 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 generating, a second map representative of a recommended layout for the environment based on the sensor data, the additional sensor data, and the first map, wherein the second map comprises a second location for the show effect different from the first location of the show effect.” Claim 18 recites abstract limitations including “the map indicating respective locations of a plurality of seats, an environmental factor, and a show effect, 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, occurrence of the environmental factor; wherein the show effect is configured to enhance or negate the environmental factor; determine, a respective guest occupancy for each seat of the plurality of seats 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; and update the map with the new respective location for the show effect.” 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, 8, 16, 22, 25-26, 28, and 30 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 5-6, 10, 17, 19, 27, and 29 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 an output device to cause the output device to output the show effect at the target location during occurrence of the one or more environmental factors.” Claim 12 is a method that recites limitations performed “using at least one processor” or “using the at least one processor and one or more machine learning algorithms.” Claim 12 further recites the additional elements of “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,” and “outputting, using the at least one processor and an output device, the show effect at the first location during occurrence of the at least one environmental factor of the plurality of environmental factors.” Claim 18 is a system that comprises “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 further recites the additional element of “receive a map of the environment,” “determine, based on environmental sensor data received from one or more environmental sensors, occurrence of the environmental factor,” “activate an output device to cause the output device to output the show effect at a respective location during the occurrence of the environmental factor,” “determine, based on sensor data received from one or more additional sensors, a respective guest occupancy.” 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).
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, 8, 16, 22, 25-26, 28, and 30 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 introduces the additional element of “wherein the instructions are executable by the processing system to cause the processing system to adjust one or more characteristics of the show effect based on one or more parameters of an environmental factor of the one or more environmental factors, and the one or more characteristics 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 introduces the additional element of “wherein 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 at least one seat of the plurality of seats to output the show effect at the target location.” 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 introduces the additional element of “and cause a display of a mobile device of a guest to display a graphical user interface (GUI), the GUI comprising: the map that indicates the second layout of the dining environment with 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 17 introduces the additional element of “comprising generating, using the at least one processor and the one or more machine learning algorithms, a third map representative of an additional recommended layout for another environment based on the sensor data, the additional sensor data, the first map, and the second map.” 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 19 introduces the additional element of “receive an input indicative of one or more parameters of a new environment different from the environment.” 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 introduces the additional element of “wherein the output device comprises an animated character, and the show effect comprises a performance by the animated 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 introduces the additional element of “comprising training, using the at least one processor, the one or more machine learning algorithms based on at least historical sensor data, historical environmental factors, historical maps, 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.
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 an output device to cause the output device to output the show effect at the target location during occurrence of the one or more environmental factors.” Claim 12 is a method that recites limitations performed “using at least one processor” or “using the at least one processor and one or more machine learning algorithms.” Claim 12 further recites the additional elements of “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,” and “outputting, using the at least one processor and an output device, the show effect at the first location during occurrence of the at least one environmental factor of the plurality of environmental factors.” Claim 18 is a system that comprises “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 further recites the additional element of “receive a map of the environment,” “determine, based on environmental sensor data received from one or more environmental sensors, occurrence of the environmental factor,” “activate an output device to cause the output device to output the show effect at a respective location during the occurrence of the environmental factor,” “determine, based on sensor data received from one or more additional sensors, a respective guest occupancy.” 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).
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, 8, 16, 22, 25-26, 28, and 30 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 introduces the additional element of “wherein the instructions are executable by the processing system to cause the processing system to adjust one or more characteristics of the show effect based on one or more parameters of an environmental factor of the one or more environmental factors, and the one or more characteristics 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 introduces the additional element of “wherein 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 at least one seat of the plurality of seats to output the show effect at the target location.” 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 introduces the additional element of “and cause a display of a mobile device of a guest to display a graphical user interface (GUI), the GUI comprising: the map that indicates the second layout of the dining environment with 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 17 introduces the additional element of “comprising generating, using the at least one processor and the one or more machine learning algorithms, a third map representative of an additional recommended layout for another environment based on the sensor data, the additional sensor data, the first map, and the second map.” 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 19 introduces the additional element of “receive an input indicative of one or more parameters of a new environment different from the environment.” 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 introduces the additional element of “wherein the output device comprises an animated character, and the show effect comprises a performance by the animated 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 introduces the additional element of “comprising training, using the at least one processor, the one or more machine learning algorithms based on at least historical sensor data, historical environmental factors, historical maps, 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
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, 8, 10, 12, 16-19, 22, and 25-30 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; 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;environmental factors on guests seated in the plurality of seats within the dining environment; activate an output device to cause the output device to output the show effect 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.
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 location is 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 an output device to cause the output device to output the show effect 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 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.
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 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 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.
Aman (US 10861267 B2) discloses wherein output of the show effect at the target location is 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.
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:
Zamer (US 20220156807 A1) discloses identifying an optimal place to sit in a theme park
Chiarella et al. (US 10917613 B1) discloses identifying empty or unoccupied chair locations in an environment
Gerace et al. (US 10891562 B1) discloses target locations that are selectable at a theme park as being the closest to a particular vendor or type of good or service desired
D’Avanzo (US 10596474 B1) discloses targeting specific guests for a realistic experience within a hotel using sensor outputs to trigger special effects
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