DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to statutory systems under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. However, the claims are further directed toward a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility analysis, namely an abstract idea. Under Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because nothing in the asserted claims purports to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of adjusting display of a digital menu board corresponding to said plurality of perishable food items available for sale; and wherein, based on current inventory of said perishable food items, said controller outputs a pricing change to said digital menu board to dynamically adjust a price associated with one or more perishable food items of said plurality of perishable food items available for sale, said pricing change in response to a time that said one or more perishable food items of said plurality of perishable food items has been available for sale, which is considered to be a mental process. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011), (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. MENTAL PROCESSES). In this case a human can easily change a display to designate available for sale items from not for sale items, and the price of those items. This is similar to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Claims to "comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations," where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract
idea per se include: MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
The claims recite a kitchen display, input device, digital menu board, sales counter terminal, controller, etc. this is similar to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated: iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,064,227 B1 in view of Hipsher, US 20100049616 A1.
Although the claims at issue are not identical to the 227 patent, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed toward the same or similar limitations, i.e. a kitchen display and input device displaying a plurality of perishable food items to be produced and receiving a production indication signal indicating production of at least one of said plurality of perishable food items; a digital menu board displaying said plurality of perishable food items available for sale; a sales counter terminal for completing a sale of at least one of said plurality of perishable food items and outputting a sold indication signal of said at least one perishable food item; and a controller receiving said sold indication signal, said controller comparing said sold indication signal to a predetermined saleable product inventory level for said at least one perishable food item and outputting an item-to-be-produced signal to said kitchen display and input device.
The newly amended features are directed toward dynamic price optimization and display. Exemplary Claim 18 provides: “in response to said display signal, said digital menu board adjusts display of said graphics corresponding to said plurality of perishable food items available for sale; and wherein, based on current inventory of said perishable food items, said controller outputs a pricing change to said digital menu board to dynamically adjust a price associated with one or more perishable food items of said plurality of perishable food items available for sale, said pricing change in response to a time that said one or more perishable food items of said plurality of perishable food items has been available for sale.” Hipster ¶ 39-43 provides such a pricing system using a food scale as an inventory management and pricing system “For example, the advanced weighing scale of the system can automatically cause the displayed price of the ham to be changed to the price recommended by the price optimization software application by sending appropriate information or instructions to an associated electronic pricing device 105.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the 227 patent and Hipsher. The motivation would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This motivation is applied to all claims below by reference.
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 RUSSELL S GLASS whose telephone number is (571)272-7285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5.
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, FLORIAN ZEENDER can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/RUSSELL S GLASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627