DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 12/16/2025. Currently, claims 1-11, 13 and 15-21 are pending. No newly added and/or amended claim(s). Claims 12 and 14 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 18 depends on cancelled claim 12.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer in view of Wallace, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2018/0333612 (Davis).
Referring to claim 21, Kramer discloses an ordering system comprising:
an electronic table mat, [See paragraph 0093]
a user terminal comprising a wireless communication device for communicating with a wireless communication network; [See paragraphs 0078, 0145, 0149]
each said electronic table mat comprising:
a body having a first face, for placing onto a support surface, and a second face, onto which an item can be placed; and [See paragraphs 0093-0095, Figs. 2A-2C]
an electronic system supported by the body, the electronic system comprising: [See paragraphs 0093-0095, 0107, 0108, 0119]
a display device comprising at least one display output element; and [See paragraphs 0094, 0111-0114]
a data processor with access to data storage and for controlling a visual output displayed by the display device; [See paragraphs 0063, 0066, 0067, 0119]
a wireless communication device for communicating with a wireless communication network; [See paragraphs 0078, 0145, 0149]
an input device comprising at least one input element; and [See paragraphs 0113, 0114, 0115]
a power device; and [See paragraphs 0107, 0108]
each said electronic table mat configured for two-way communication with said user terminal via said wireless network. [See paragraphs 0078, 0138, 0145, 0149]
Kramer does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
a plurality of electronic table mats,
with each said electronic table mat being associated with a unique identifier, and
wherein at least a first of said plurality of electronic table mats and a second of said plurality of second electronic table mats are configured to communicate by means of a two-way wireless communication connection between them.
Wallace teaches a system with the limitations:
a plurality of electronic table mats, and [See paragraphs 0072, 0074]
with each said electronic table mat being associated with a unique identifier. [See paragraph 0077]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Kramer to have incorporated a food/beverage holder as in Wallace with the motivation of managing a plurality of food/beverage holders. [See Kramer paragraphs 0145, 0138; Wallace paragraphs 0072, 0074, 0077]
Davis teaches a system with the limitation: wherein at least a first of said plurality of electronic table mats and a second of said plurality of second electronic table mats are configured to communicate by means of a two-way wireless communication connection between them. [See paragraphs 0066, 0076, 0077, Fig. 6]
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Davis to the combination of Kramer and Wallace would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Davis to the teaching of the combination of Kramer and Wallace would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such wireless communication feature. Further, applying the wireless communication feature to the combination of Kramer and Wallace would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow one or more items to send and receive data with each other. [See Davies paragraphs 0066, 0076, 0077; See Kramer paragraph 0078]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11, 13 and 15-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the cited and/or relevant prior art, single or in combination, teaches the limitation:
“the ordering system configured to allow each said electronic table mat to be managed from the user terminal, the ordering system allowing remote content management of each said electronic table mat, wherein said remote content management allows content to be presented by each said electronic table mat to be added, modified or deleted using said user terminal and said unique identifier”,
as recited in claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 with respect to the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kramer in view of Wallace, and in further view of Davis have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2145 (III) states,
“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)) ("Etter's assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole."). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").”
“In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. The examiner must determine whether a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention when analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter under examination. When more than one prior art reference is used as the basis of an obviousness rejection, it is not required that the references be analogous art to each other. See Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1380, 2023 USPQ2d 552 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1007, 2023 USPQ2d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2023). If a reference is not analogous art to the claimed invention, it may not be used in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. However, there is no analogous art requirement for a reference being applied in an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” See MPEP 2141.01(a).
The system of Davis teaches wireless interaction between multiple electronic devices, including mobile devices, server devices and metric devices. See paragraphs 0066, 0068. Each of the metric and mobile devices are configured for bi-directional communication with each other. See paragraphs 0066, 0077.
The system of Kramer teaches that, “[[t]]he foodware system may be capable of communicating data, such as sending data or receiving downloaded data, such as video files, movies, pictures, designs, audio files, computer programs, etc. The data communication may be done offline or streamed in real time. The data communication may be via a wired or wireless link... Thus, the active foodware system can be self-contained or rely on external devices to provide signals which are then presented to the user/diner.” See paragraph 0078.
Paragraph 0072 of Wallace teaches a system with a plurality of coasters configured to communicate with a central server or computing device. See paragraph 0072.
Accordingly, the combined teachings of Kramer, Wallace and Davis, at least teaches or suggests, bidirectional communication between multiple electronic devices. The bidirectional communication feature may be incorporated into electronic coasters/foodware for receiving and sending communication data with external devices, including mobile devices and other electronic coasters/foodware.
Accordingly, the combined teachings of Kramer, Wallace and Davis, at least teaches or suggests, the claimed invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627