DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/11/25 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to RCE, amendment and response filed on 11/11/25. Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-19 were amended. Claims 2, 12 and 20-22 were cancelled. Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-19 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
101: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims overcome the rejection.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are moot because of claim amendments that are substantive. Per example, claim 1 recites additional elements (e.g.: “executed by an AI co-pilot server platform comprising a Discovery Artificial Intelligence (AI) Engine and an Operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) Engine”) that necessitate reconsideration of the claims.
As such, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
Reasons Why Prior Art Does Not Teach the Claims
The closest prior art of record are US 20210158281 A1 (Mimassi) disclosing optimized packaging for food delivery and take-out and US 11144957 B1 (Raak) disclosing recommending a meal kit based upon a user food item purchase history.
Raak teaches,
receiving user input data from a plurality of user computing devices, the user input data comprising user preference information for multi-modal culinary content;
analyzing the received user input data using one or more machine learning models to determine structured user preference characteristics and a predicted number of customers for specific multi-modal culinary content;
generating, based on the determined structured user preference characteristics and the predicted number of customers, a demand-informed menu directive for a target restaurant.
Mimassi teaches,
autonomously creating, based on the generated data package and contextual data comprising a date. a time, and a location for a specific meal session, a schedule for the target restaurant.
However, none of the references, individually or in combination, teach:
retrieving one or more multi-modal content elements from a content database, wherein the one or more content elements are computationally linked to items in the generated menu directive and are sourced from one or more content creators;
generating. utilizing the retrieved one or more multi-modal content elements as input. a data package of multi-modal recipe execution content;
autonomously discovering, based on the predicted number of customers and an analysis of operational metrics associated with the retrieved multi-modal content elements, a menu-directive-informed price point determined to optimize an operational profitability metric;
transmitting the generated data package, the created schedule and the determined menu-directive-informed price point said transmitted data together comprising an autonomous operational workflow for the specific meal session, to one or more restaurant computing devices; and
recording, in a database, a transaction record when creator-sourced content is included in the generated data package, wherein the transaction record identifies a source of the creator-sourced content to create a data trail for metering said content usage.
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, 3-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) The claims recite a process (claims 1, 3-10) and an apparatus (claim 11-19). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 11 (from claims 1 and 11) is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity, as a method of creating and providing a custom menu and associated operational schedule to a restaurant, as are all a form of commercial or legal interaction and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
An AI co-pilot server system for enabling autonomous restaurant operations, the system comprising a Discovery Artificial Intelligence (AI) Engine and an Operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) Engine, the system comprising:
a communication interface;
a memory;
a database;
a processing device communicatively coupled to the communication interface, the memory, the databases, and the distributed ledger interface; wherein the processing device is configured to execute instructions to:
by the Discovery AI Engine:
receiving user input data from a plurality of user computing devices, the user input data comprising user preference information for multi-modal culinary content;
analyzing the received user input data using one or more machine learning models to determine structured user preference characteristics and a predicted number of customers for specific multi-modal culinary content;
generating, based on the determined structured user preference characteristics and the predicted number of customers, a demand-informed menu directive for a target restaurant;
by the Operational AI Engine:
retrieving one or more multi-modal content elements from a content database, wherein the one or more content elements are computationally linked to items in the generated menu directive and are sourced from one or more content creators;
generating. utilizing the retrieved one or more multi-modal content elements as input. a data package of multi-modal recipe execution content;
autonomously discovering, based on the predicted number of customers and an analysis of operational metrics associated with the retrieved multi-modal content elements, a menu-directive-informed price point determined to optimize an operational profitability metric;
autonomously creating, based on the generated data package and contextual data comprising a date. a time, and a location for a specific meal session, a schedule for the target restaurant;
by the AI co-pilot server platform:
transmitting the generated data package, the created schedule and the determined menu-directive-informed price point said transmitted data together comprising an autonomous operational workflow for the specific meal session, to one or more restaurant computing devices;
recording, in a database, a transaction record when creator-sourced content is included in the generated data package, wherein the transaction record identifies a source of the creator-sourced content to create a data trail for metering said content usage.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“An AI co-pilot server system for enabling autonomous restaurant operations, the system comprising a Discovery Artificial Intelligence (AI) Engine and an Operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) Engine, the system comprising”, “a communication interface”, “a memory”, “a database”, “a processing device communicatively coupled to the communication interface, the memory, the databases, and the distributed ledger interface; wherein the processing device is configured to execute instructions to”, “by the Discovery AI Engine”, “by the Operational AI Engine”, and “by the AI co-pilot server platform”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “AI co-pilot server system for enabling autonomous restaurant operations, the system comprising a Discovery Artificial Intelligence (AI) Engine and an Operational Artificial Intelligence (AI) Engine, the system” that comprises the “communication interface”, “memory”, “database”, “processing device communicatively coupled to the communication interface, the memory, the databases, and the distributed ledger interface; wherein the processing device is configured to execute instructions” are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, “distributed ledger interface” is general linking as it does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
“[receiving …] from a plurality of user computing devices”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “plurality of user computing devices” are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[analyzing …] using one or more machine learning models”. This is no more than “apply it” as “using one or more machine learning models” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[retrieving one or more multi-modal content elements] from a content database, [wherein the one or more content elements] are computationally linked to [items …]”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “content database” and “are computationally linked to” are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“autonomously [discovering …]” and “autonomously [creating …]”. This is no more than “apply it” as “autonomously [discovering …]” and “autonomously [creating …]” are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“transmitting […] said transmitted data together comprising [an] autonomous [operational workflow …], to one or more restaurant computing devices”. This is no more than “apply it” as “transmitting […] said transmitted data together comprising […] autonomous […], to one or more restaurant computing devices” are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“recording, in a database […]”. This is no more than “apply it” as “recording, in a database” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating and providing a custom menu and associated operational schedule to a restaurant, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 3 and 13, recited “wherein the one or more machine learning models used by the Discoverv Al Engine are trained for computationally extracting ingredient information from the multi-modal user input data and detecting a degree of affinity of users towards the extracted ingredients”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“the one or more machine learning models used by the Discoverv Al Engine are trained for computationally extracting”. This is general linking as “the one or more machine learning models used by the Discoverv Al Engine are trained for computationally extracting” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating and providing a custom menu and associated operational schedule to a restaurant, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 5 and 15, recited “gathering, by the Discovery AI Engine, additional user information from user devices or external devices” and “analyzing, by the Discovery AI Engine, the additional user information using the one or more machine learning models to further refine the structured user preference characteristics”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
[gathering …] from user devices or external devices”. This is no more than “apply it” as “user devices or external devices” are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[analyzing …] using the one or more machine learning models”. This is general linking as “using the one or more machine learning models” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating and providing a custom menu and associated operational schedule to a restaurant, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 6 and 16, recited “wherein the user input data further comprises sensor data generated by one or more sensors on the user computing devices, which is used by the Discovery AI Engine in analyzing the user input data to determine the structured user preference characteristics”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“sensor [data generated] by one or more sensors on the user computing devices”. This is general linking as “sensor [data generated] by one or more sensors on the user computing devices” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating and providing a custom menu and associated operational schedule to a restaurant, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 8 and 18, recited “wherein the creator content is represented as non-fungible tokens (NF Ts) on a distributed ledger, wherein the non-fungible tokens are computationally linked to their corresponding multi-modal recipe execution content stored in a content database, and wherein the transaction record is recorded on said distributed ledger and identifies a source non-fungible token”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“[wherein the creator content is represented] as non-fungible [tokens] (NF Ts) on a distributed ledger, [wherein the] non-fungible [tokens] are computationally linked to [their corresponding multi-modal recipe execution content] stored in a content database, and [wherein the transaction record] is recorded on said distributed ledger and [identifies a source] non-fungible [token]”. This is general linking as “non-fungible [tokens] on a distributed ledger” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, this is no more than “apply it” as “non-fungible [tokens] are computationally linked to […]”, “[…] stored in a content database” and “[…] is recorded on said distributed ledger” are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating and providing a custom menu and associated operational schedule to a restaurant, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 9 and 19, recited “wherein the non-fungible token are configured for execution by smart contracts on the distributed ledger” and “wherein the transaction record is recorded upon execution of said smart contracts”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“[wherein the] non-fungible [token] are configured for execution by smart contracts on the distributed ledger” and “[wherein the transaction record] is recorded upon execution of said smart contracts”. This is general linking as “non-fungible […] are configured for execution by smart contracts on the distributed ledger” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, this is no more than “apply it” as “[…] is recorded upon execution of said smart contracts” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating and providing a custom menu and associated operational schedule to a restaurant, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 10, recited “wherein the transaction record further comprises a transaction value” and “the smart contract, upon execution, to autonomously transfer a royalty payment to a digital wallet address associated with a creator of the utilized content”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“the smart contract, upon execution, to autonomously [transfer …]”. This is no more than “apply it” as “the smart contract, upon execution, to autonomously […]” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, “a digital wallet address” is general linking as it does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating and providing a custom menu and associated operational schedule to a restaurant, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 4, 7, 14 and 17 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 April 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights