DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 9/22/2025.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-2, and addition of claims 3-17 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 9/22/2025 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full. The amendments overcome the omnibus rejection. Additional art has been cited to teach the added limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia-Brosa (US 2023/0214735).
Claims 1 and 10. Garcia-Brosa teaches a system for online ordering comprising:
a first computing device (para. 405 showing computer) through which a customer can view and access a customer application or a customer web interface (para. 90 ordering software application; para. 116 web application)
wherein the first computing device is a smartphone, a tablet, or a computer (para. 405 showing computer)
wherein the first computing device comprises a power source, a processor, a non- transitory computer readable media: and (para. 405 showing computer with memory and power)
wherein the first computing device is coupled to the Internet (para. 112 network)
a remote server (para. 405 network attached storage)
a second computing device through which a restaurant staff can view and access a restaurant application or a restaurant web interface (para. 119 showing restaurant receiving requests; para. 235 stored menu; para. 509 showing manage restaurant food catalog)
wherein the second computing device is a smartphone, a tablet, or a computer; (paragraphs 506-510 showing restaurant device for confirming order)
wherein the second computing device comprises a power source, a processor, a non- transitory computer readable media; and (para. 405 showing computer with memory and power)
wherein the second computing device is coupled to the Internet; (paragraphs 506-510 showing restaurant device for confirming order) (para. 112 network)
wherein the system performs a method for online ordering comprising the steps of
displaying the restaurant application or the restaurant web interface to the restaurant staff; (paragraphs 506-510 showing restaurant device for confirming order)
obtaining restaurant information from the restaurant staff; obtaining a menu from the restaurant staff; and (para. 235 stored menu; para. 509 showing manage restaurant food catalog)
displaying the restaurant information and the menu to the customer through the customer application or the customer web interface. (para. 23 presenting menu to customer)
Claims 2 and 11. Garcia-Brosa teaches the system for online ordering of Claim 1 wherein the method for online ordering further comprises the steps of
obtaining a selection of a restaurant, for an order, from the customer through the customer application or the customer web interface; (para. 217 showing order request received for a particular restaurant)
obtaining a date and a time for the order from the customer; (para. 217 showing order delivery date and time)
obtaining items from the menu and adding the items to a cart to comprise the order: and (para. 148 virtual shopping cart for order checkout)
displaying the order to the restaurant staff through the restaurant application or the restaurant interface. (paragraphs 506-510 showing restaurant device for confirming order)
Claims 3 and 12. Garcia-Brosa teaches the system for online ordering of Claim 2 wherein the method for online ordering further comprises the steps of
determining if the customer's payment information is on file; (para. 528 showing stored payment methods on file)
obtaining payment information from the customer through the customer application or the customer web interface; and (para. 529 updating payment methods in profile)
storing the payment information for future transactions. (para. 528 showing stored payment methods on file)
Claims 4 and 13. Garcia-Brosa teaches the system for online ordering of Claim 3 wherein the method for online ordering further comprises the steps of:
displaying the order to the restaurant staff through the through the restaurant application or the restaurant interface; (paragraphs 506-510 showing restaurant device for confirming order)
obtaining acceptance of the order from the restaurant staff; and (paragraphs 506-510 showing restaurant device for confirming order)
transmitting a first SMS message to the customer. (para. 144 showing text messages sent to customer)
Claims 5 and 14. Garcia-Brosa teaches the system for online ordering of Claim 4 wherein the first SMS message transmitted to the customer is an order pickup time or an updated order pickup time. (para. 91 showing customer pickup times; para. 92 showing notification of pickup times; para. 144 showing notifications as text messages)
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 6-9 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia-Brosa in view of Chau (US 2023/0214906).
Claims 6 and 15. Garcia-Brosa teaches the system for online ordering of Claim 5. It teaches collecting fees (para. 551) and selecting favorite restaurants, as well as obtaining a list of eight favorite restaurants from the customer through the customer application or the customer web interface (para. 149 showing favorites module for collecting favorite restaurants of user).
It does not, but Chau teaches: wherein the method for online ordering further comprises the steps of:
obtaining a subscription fee from the customer through the customer application or the customer web interface. (para. 30 showing subscription fee through user device for restaurant orders)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of ordering in Garcia-Brosa, with the known technique of subscription-based payments in Chau, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for recurring orders. See para. 30 of Chau.
Claims 7 and 16. Garcia-Brosa as modified by Chau teaches the system for online ordering of Claim 6. Garcia-Brosa teaches wherein the method for online ordering further comprises the steps of:
obtaining customizations to the items from the menu from the customer through the customer application or the customer web interface; and (para. 146 showing order customization)
displaying the customizations to the items from the menu to the restaurant staff through the restaurant application or the restaurant interface. (paragraphs 506-510 showing restaurant device for confirming order)
Claims 8 and 17. Garcia-Brosa as modified by Chau teaches the system for online ordering of Claim 7. Garcia Brosa teaches wherein the method for online ordering further comprises the steps of:
receiving an order status update from the restaurant staff through the restaurant application or the restaurant interface; and (para. 113 showing order status through restaurant)
transmitting a second SMS message to the customer. (para. 144 showing texts to customer)
Claim 9. Garcia-Brosa as modified by Chau teaches the system for online ordering of Claim 8. Garcia-Brosa teaches wherein the system is coupled to the restaurant's point-of-sale system. (para. 196 showing restaurant’s point of sale system)
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 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, Fahd Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-3324. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627