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 .
Status of Claims
This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 08/12/2025. Currently, claims 21-25, 29-31, 35-37, 39 and 41-48 are pending. Claims 1-20, 26-28, 32-34, 38 and 40 have been cancelled. Claims 21-25, 29-31, 35-37, 39 have been amended. Claims 41-48 are newly added.
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 21-25, 29-31, 35-37, 39 and 41-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite a method, system and computer program product for monitoring and updating table statuses at a restaurant.
Exemplary claim 21 recites in part,
“based at least in part on receiving the input:
generating…an open ticket data structure associated with the particular table; and
initiating… a timer associated with an amount of time the customers have been seated at the particular table;
updating… the GUI, wherein updating comprises changing the first visual characteristic of the first graphical representation to a second visual characteristic indicating that the customers have been seated: and
causing presentation of a second graphical representation indicating an amount of time the customers have been seated at the particular table;
determining…based at least in part on sensor data received periodically from an image capturing device and the timer, an absence of an employee within a threshold distance of the particular table for a threshold period of time; and
based at least in part on determining the absence, updating the GUI, wherein the updating comprises changing the second visual characteristic to a third visual characteristic”.
The limitations describe the steps of 1) generating a ticket associated with a seated table, 2) updating a visual characteristic of a first graphical representation associated with the table over time, 3) processing collected sensor data to determine employee location in relation to the table, and 4) updating a visual characteristic of a second graphical representation associated with the table based on employee location.
The above steps describe the process of monitoring and updating the status of a table based on one or more events over time. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people)” enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element in the form of a computing device (merchant computing device) to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea. The recited computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the additional elements of “displaying a layout of tables” and “receiving user input”, are recited at a high level of generality amounting to receiving and displaying information. These represent insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose significant limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to the practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. The additional elements of “displaying a layout of tables” and “receiving user input”, while amounting to extra-solution activity, also amounts to appending with well-understood, routine, conventional activity, specified at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The recited computing device (merchant computing device) represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 21 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 29 and 35 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 21, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 22-25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39 and 41-48 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
For example, claims 22-25 describes updating and displaying the GUI characteristics. These steps are recited at a high level of generality amounting to updating and displaying data. These represent insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose significant limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claims 41-48 describes monitoring and updating status of a table based on one or more events (changes to open ticket structure and employee location). These steps are directed to the recited abstract idea.
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.
Claims 21-25, 29-31, 35-37, 39 and 41-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2019/0354905 (McCullough et al. – hereinafter McCullough) in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,479 (Green et al. – hereinafter Green), and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2017/0255880 (Daher et al. – hereinafter Daher).
Referring to claim 21, McCullough discloses a method comprising:
causing presentation of, by a merchant computing device and on a display of the merchant computing device, a graphical user interface (GUI) illustrating a layout of tables in a restaurant, wherein a first visual characteristic of a first graphical representation of a particular table of the tables indicates that the particular table is unoccupied; [See paragraphs 0059, 0064-0067, 0106, Figs. 2A, 4 & 23 – The reservations window indicates table statuses using one or more indicators including a blank color.]
receiving, by the merchant computing device, an input to the merchant computing device that indicates customers have been seated at the particular table at a first time; [See paragraphs 0059, 0066, 0115, Fig. 32]
based at least in part on receiving the input;
initiating, by the merchant computing device, a timer associated with an amount of time the customers have been seated at the particular table; and [See paragraphs 0059, 0066, 0094]
updating, by the merchant computing device, the GUI, wherein updating comprises changing the first visual characteristic of the first graphical representation to a second visual characteristic indicating that the customers have been seated; [See paragraphs 0059, 0066, 0068, 0071, 0081, 0089, 0094 – A table representation characteristic is changed using one or more indicators including colors, textures and/or patterns.]
causing presentation of a second graphical representation indicating an amount of time the customers have been seated at the particular table; [See paragraphs 0059, 0066, 0094]
dynamically updating, by the merchant computing device and at regular intervals, the second graphical representation to reflect passage of time; [See paragraphs 0059, 0066, 0094]
based at least in part on detecting a change of event, updating by the merchant, updating the GUI, wherein updating comprises changing the second visual characteristic to a third visual characteristic. [See paragraphs 0059, 0071, 0094, 0115, 0121 – A user is enabled to change the status of a table.]
McCullough does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
based at least in part on receiving the input: generating, by the merchant computing device, an open ticket data structure associated with the particular table;
determining, by the merchant computing device, based at least in part on sensor data received periodically from an image capturing device and the timer, an absence of an employee within a threshold distance of the particular table for a threshold period of time: and
based at least in part on determining the absence, updating, by the merchant computing device, the GUI, wherein the updating comprises changing the second visual characteristic to a third visual characteristic.
McCullough teaches that “… the graphical user interface includes a colored indicator for indicating the status associated with a table. In various embodiments, the status associated with a table/reservation comprises special, cancelled, no show, expected, not confirmed, confirmed, left message, no answer, wrong number, late, in house, partially arrived, all arrived, paged, seated, partially seated, entrée, cleared, dessert, check dropped, cleaned, paid, bus table, done, empty, ordered, or any other appropriate status… In some embodiments, the system includes a button for changing the status associated with a table. In various embodiments, the button for changing the status associated with a table is located on a map of tables in the restaurant, is located in a window accessed by selecting a table from a map of tables in the restaurant, or is located in any other appropriate location in the graphical user interface.” See paragraph 0059.
McCullough teaches that “…change status window 280 displays a user interface window for changing a status. For example, a reservation status is changed using a button (e.g., button 284 to change the status to ‘wrong number’). A plurality of status buttons are displayed—for example, cancelled, no show, not confirmed, confirmed, left message, no answer, wrong number, late, partially arrived, all arrived, paged 1, paged 2, paged 3, partially seated, seated, entrée, cleared, appetizer, check dropped, cleared, dessert, menus dropped, paid, bus table, done, etc… For example, pushing the color status display region changes the current status to the next status in the sequence (e.g., ‘entrée’ changed to ‘dessert’ when a status button is pushed or toggled).” See paragraph 0071.
The system according to McCullough teaches that a user can update the status of a table using one or more buttons as the status of the table changes over time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the system of McCullough can be configured to incorporate a status associated with a “customer request or assistance”.
Since “updating the visual characteristics” is a key factor in the success of tracking the presence/absence of an employee. As discussed by McCullough, a graphical user interface can be used to indicate the status associated with a table. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an employee presence status/indicator into the system of McCullough since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Green teaches a method with the limitations:
based at least in part on receiving the input;
generating, by the merchant computing device, an open ticket data structure associated with the particular table; and [See col. 25, lines 23-60; col. 8, line 64-col. 9, line 17]
determining, by the merchant computing device, based at least in part on sensor data received periodically and the timer, an absence of an employee within a threshold distance of the particular table for a threshold period of time. [See col. 3, lines 20-41; col. 16, lines 1-24; col. 9, line 40-col. 10, line 27]
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 McCullough to have incorporated a table activity monitoring feature as in Green with the motivation of monitoring and updating the statuses of one or more tables within an establishment. [See McCullough paragraphs 0055-0060; Green col. 1, lines 33-42]
Daher teaches a method with the limitation: determining, by the merchant computing device, based at least in part on sensor data received periodically from an image capturing device an absence of an employee. [See paragraphs 0016, 0030, 0031, 0035, 0038, 0048 – Image data can be used to determine when a person is not present at a location.]
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 combination of McCullough and Green to have incorporated an employee tracking process as in Daher with the motivation of monitoring the activities of one or more employees within an establishment. [See McCullough paragraphs 0066, 0072, 0118; Daher paragraphs 0008-0010, 0015, 0016]
Referring to claim 22, the combination of McCullough, Green and Daher discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising dynamically updating, by the merchant computing device and at regular intervals, a second graphical representation associated with the time to reflect passage of time. [See McCullough paragraphs 0059, 0066, 0094]
Referring to claim 23, the combination of McCullough, Green and Daher discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the third visual characteristic is a first color, [See McCullough paragraphs 0059, 0071, 0094, 0115, 0121]
the method further comprising:
updating, by the merchant computing device, based at least in part on an occurrence of a second event, the first color to a second color. [See McCullough paragraphs 0059, 0066, 0068, 0094]
Referring to claim 24, the combination of McCullough, Green and Daher discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the third visual characteristic is a first size, wherein the method further comprising: updating, by the merchant computing device, based at least in part on an occurrence of a second event, the first size to a second size. [See McCullough paragraphs 0059, 0066, 0068, 0094]
Referring to claim 25, the combination of McCullough, Green and Daher discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the third visual characteristic is a first pattern, wherein the method further comprising: updating, by the merchant computing device, based at least in part on an occurrence of a second event, the first pattern to a second pattern. [See McCullough paragraphs 0059, 0066, 0068, 0094]
Referring to claims 29-31, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 21-25, and therefore are rejected based similar rationale.
Referring to claims 35-37, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 21-25, and therefore are rejected based similar rationale.
Referring to claim 39, the combination of McCullough, Green and Daher discloses the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 35, wherein the sensor comprises a radio-frequency identification system. [See Green col. 2, line 63-col. 3, line 32; col. 16, line 1-col. 17, line 30 – A signal may be generated based on the location of an employee in relations to a service request.]
Referring to claim 41, the combination of McCullough, Green and Daher discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising:
determining at least in part on detecting a change to the open ticket data structure, the change associated with preparation of, delivery of, or payment for an order for the particular table; and [See Green col. 13, line 60-col. 14, line 7; col. 16, line 58-col. 17, line 30; col. 25, lines 23-60; col. 27, lines 35-41 – The central unit is updated with one or more status signals during the course of providing service(s) to a patron. The information is displayed at the host station.]
Referring to claim 42, the combination of McCullough, Green and Daher discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising: transmitting, by the merchant computing device to a mobile device of the employee, a notification associated with the absence. [See Green col. 3, lines 20-41; col. 16, lines 1-24; col. 9, line 40-col. 10, line 27]
Referring to claim 43, the combination of McCullough, Green and Daher discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising:
determining, by the merchant computing device, that the employee has visited the particular table after the absence of the employee within the threshold distance of the particular table for the threshold period of time; and [See Green col. 3, lines 20-41; col. 16, lines 1-24; col. 9, line 40-col. 10, line 27]
based at least in part on determining that the employee has visited the particular table, changing, by the merchant computing device, the third visual characteristic to the second visual characteristic. [See Green col. 3, lines 20-41; col. 16, lines 1-24; col. 9, line 40-col. 10, line 27]
Referring to claim 44, the combination of McCullough, Green and Daher discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising:
determining, by the merchant computing device, a presence of the employee within the threshold distance of the particular table after the absence of the employee within the threshold distance of the particular table for the threshold period of time; and [See Green col. 3, lines 20-41; col. 16, lines 1-24; col. 9, line 40-col. 10, line 27]
based at least in part on determining that the employee has visited the particular table, changing, by the merchant computing device, the third visual characteristic to the second visual characteristic. [See Green col. 3, lines 20-41; col. 16, lines 1-24; col. 9, line 40-col. 10, line 27]
Referring to claim 45, the combination of McCullough, Green and Daher discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the threshold distance is a geofence generated by a device proximate the particular table. [See Green col. 2, lines 30-42; col. 2, line 63-col. 3, line 41; col. 9, lines 39-67]
Referring to claim 46, the combination of McCullough, Green and Daher discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the absence of the employee comprises the absence of any employee. [See Green col. 3, lines 20-41; col. 16, lines 1-24; col. 9, line 40-col. 10, line 27]
Referring to claim 47, the combination of McCullough, Green and Daher discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the absence of the employee comprises the absence of a particular employee, and wherein the image capturing device comprises a facial recognition device. [See Green col. 3, lines 20-41; col. 16, lines 1-24; col. 9, line 40-col. 10, line 27; Daher paragraphs 0030, 0031, 0035, 0038]
Referring to claim 48, the combination of McCullough, Green and Daher discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 35, wherein the sensor comprises an image capturing device. [See Daher paragraphs 0030, 0031, 0035, 0038]
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection(s)
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above under section 101, the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
In Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 125 U.S.P.Q.2d 1436 (hereinafter, Core Wireless), the court held that “[a]lthough the generic idea of summarizing information certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices.” Specifically, the court explained that the claim further requires the application summary window list a limited set of data, “each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application.” This claim limitation restrains the type of data that can be displayed in the summary window. Further, the court explained that the claim recites that the summary window “is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state,” a requirement that the device applications exist in a particular state. These limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer.
The court explained that,
“The disclosed invention improves the efficiency of using the electronic device accessed stored data,” which can be accessed directly from the mam menu…The speed of a user’s navigation through various views and windows can be improved because it “saves the user from navigating to the required application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application to enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated”.
However, in the present application, the claims simply display a restaurant layout with one or more tables. The visual characteristics associated with the statuses of the one or more tables are updated based on a timer and/or associated one or more events. The claimed invention uses generic computer elements to perform generic computer functions of receiving user input, updating table statuses data and displaying the information. The additional elements (or combination of elements) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The merchant computing device (including graphical user interface) receives user input(s) and displays information associated to the user input(s) and table statuses updates. See Applicant’s filed specification paragraphs 0002, 0003.
In Example 37of the PEG Examples, claim 1 was deemed eligible because the claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. In the present application, the user interface is updated based on one or more events. The user interface simply displays user inputs and table statuses updates (color, pattern, etc.) (see Applicant’s filed specification paragraphs 0043, 0044, 0095). In addition, the claims describe receiving sensor (image and/or proximity) data, processing the received data based on one or more defined criteria (time and proximity), and displaying an indication associated therewith. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality amounting to receiving, processing and displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
103 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over McCullough in view of Green have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are directed to newly added amendments, and have been addressed in the updated rejection.
In addition, McCullough teaches that “… the graphical user interface includes a colored indicator for indicating the status associated with a table. In various embodiments, the status associated with a table/reservation comprises special, cancelled, no show, expected, not confirmed, confirmed, left message, no answer, wrong number, late, in house, partially arrived, all arrived, paged, seated, partially seated, entrée, cleared, dessert, check dropped, cleaned, paid, bus table, done, empty, ordered, or any other appropriate status… In some embodiments, the system includes a button for changing the status associated with a table. In various embodiments, the button for changing the status associated with a table is located on a map of tables in the restaurant, is located in a window accessed by selecting a table from a map of tables in the restaurant, or is located in any other appropriate location in the graphical user interface.” See paragraph 0059.
McCullough teaches that “…change status window 280 displays a user interface window for changing a status. For example, a reservation status is changed using a button (e.g., button 284 to change the status to ‘wrong number’). A plurality of status buttons are displayed—for example, cancelled, no show, not confirmed, confirmed, left message, no answer, wrong number, late, partially arrived, all arrived, paged 1, paged 2, paged 3, partially seated, seated, entrée, cleared, appetizer, check dropped, cleared, dessert, menus dropped, paid, bus table, done, etc… For example, pushing the color status display region changes the current status to the next status in the sequence (e.g., ‘entrée’ changed to ‘dessert’ when a status button is pushed or toggled).” See paragraph 0071.
The system according to McCullough teaches that a user can update the status of a table using one or more buttons as the status of the table changes over time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the system of McCullough can be configured to incorporate a status associated with a “customer request or assistance”.
Since “updating the visual characteristics” is a key factor in the success of tracking the presence/absence of an employee. As discussed by McCullough, a graphical user interface can be used to indicate the status associated with a table. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an employee presence status/indicator into the system of McCullough since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 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