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 05/19/2025. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 have been amended. No claims have been added and/or cancelled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 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 combined limitations:
“(ii) automatically determine the updated current status of the first patron table which is associated with the first tag indicator based on (1) a fixed predefined and fixed sequence of changes in status of a patron table and (2) an immediately previous current status of the first patron table which is maintained and stored in memory of the central station,
(iii) automatically and wirelessly output to the at least one mobile handheld device: (1) information of the updated current status of the first patron table and (2) the confirmation request associated with the updated current status of the first patron table, and
(iv) wirelessly receive, from the at least one mobile handheld device, the status confirmation in response to the confirmation request associated with the updated current status of the first patron table”,
as recited in claim 1.
Claims 11 and 20 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are patentable over prior art.
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 1-20 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 systems for managing a restaurant.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“…read the unique identification data stored or programmed in a NFC tag of a tag indicator when in operable proximity to the NFC tag of the tag indicator, and
…wirelessly transmit (i) unique identification data stored or programmed in the NFC tag of a tag indicator and (ii) a status of the patron table associated therewith, wherein the status of a patron table includes a first status which is representative of a table clean or table ready; and
…wirelessly receive, from the least one mobile handheld device, the unique identification data of a tag indicator and a status of the patron table associated therewith, and
…output information of a status of each patron table of the plurality of patron tables of the restaurant”.
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) collecting data (tag information, user input), 2) transmitting data (tag information and table status), 3) receiving data (tag information and table status), 4) analyzing and processing received data (table update statuses, and table turnover), and 5) displaying data (table status, status confirmation).
The above claim limitations describe the process of managing restaurant operation by collecting, processing, transmitting/receiving, and displaying data. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited limitations encompass "Mental Processes”," enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “A Claim With Limitation(s) That Cannot Practically be Performed in the Human Mind Does Not Recite a Mental Process”, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the cited claim recites additional elements in the form of one or more computing elements (mobile handheld device, central station, tag indicators and remote processing system). The computing elements recited represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In addition, the claim recites the additional element of “…each tag indicator includes an NFC tag, secured to and associated with a particular patron table, wherein each tag indicator includes unique identification data which is stored or programmed in the NFC tag”. Storing data amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not impose or add meaningful limitation to 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 practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. The recitation of computing elements amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). In addition, storing (programming) a unique identification data in a tag, while amounting to extra-solution activity as identified above, also amounts to appending with well-understood, routine, conventional activity. “Storing and retrieving information in memory” has been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
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.
Claims 11 and 20 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-9, filed 05/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Conclusion
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 on 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