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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/16/2025 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
Application is a divisional application to US Application No. 14/366,274 (now US Patent No. 11,734,748), filed 6/20/2014, which is a national stage entry of PCT/IB2012/052862, International Filing Date: 06/06/2012 and claims foreign priority to 3860/DEL/2011, filed 12/29/2011.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been submitted.
Interview
Examiner invites the representative of this application to contact the Examiner to schedule an interview to expedite prosecution of this application.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 9/16/2025, have been entered. Claims 1-30 are cancelled. Claims 31-40 are new. Claims 31-40 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 31 and 40 recites “wherein the first geolocation is determined by a first global positioning system (GPS) of the first user device and used to dynamically determine a delivery location in real time” in lines 8-11 in claim 31 and in lines 4-7 in claim 36, recites wherein the second geolocation is determined by a second global positioning system (GPS) of the second user device and used to dynamically determine a delivery location in real time” in lines 14-16 in claim 31 and in lines 10-12 in claim 36 and “wherein delivery is dynamically routed based on a GPS-determined real-time locations of the first and second user devices” in lines 26-28 in claim 31 and in lines 22-24 in claim 36 . While the Specification recites:
[0015] “…determine patron wireless device location via at least one of a bar code scanned by the wireless device, a near field communications capability, active or passive RFID at the patron location, and manual input of patron location…”
[0021] “…in a restaurant (say), a smart phone is used to check in at a location like (say) a table at which the patron is seated. A means is provided in the system wherein the table can be identified to the vendor terminal. The provided means includes identifying patron location by scanning a bar code embossed on the table, wherein the bar code is scanned with the patron's smart phone. Preferably the bar code is a QR code or a Data Matrix code. A user simply needs to scan his or her smart phone over the bar code to login to the system wherein a temporarily downloaded interactive menu and ordering interface connects a user to the vendor terminal, wirelessly, further identifying the user by table number, table location, or any other identifying means, to the vendor terminal...”
[0036] “The wireless device identifies itself to the computing medium via at least one of Wi-Fi connectivity, passive or active RFID, bar code scanning, Bluetooth connectivity, Infrared connectivity, near field communications, and global or local positioning capability. In an embodiment, communicating the wireless device location relative to the vendor terminal comprises a bar code scanning means, such that a scanned bar code invokes communication with the vendor terminal and contains information about the exact location of the wireless communication device relative to the vendor terminal. Preferably, the bar code scanned is a QR code or Data Matrix code and contains location information, and an order menu-further, preferably scanning the bar code invokes connectivity with/to the computing medium associated with the vender terminal. Preferably in (say) a restaurant, the exact location of the wireless communication device is a table number contained in the scanned bar code…”
[0037] “…Additionally, wherein identifying the wireless device comprises identifying the device by at least one of global or local positioning system, a Wi-Fi network, passive or active RFID recognition, Bluetooth connectivity, Infrared connectivity, and a bar code scanned by the wireless device. Preferably, the scanned barcode further indicates via the wireless device, exact patron wireless device location relative to the vendor terminal in the vendor service area. In a preferred embodiment, scanning the bar code invokes connectivity of the wireless device with the computer accessible medium in the vendor area, and also invokes an interactive order menu through which a user communicates with the vendor terminal via the computer accessible medium. Preferably the scanned bar code is a QR code or a Data Matrix code. The vendor service area can be a grocery store, a supermarket, a restaurant, a night club, a bar, a multiplex, a mall, a pub, etc. The bar code scanning described above can be used to indicate a table number in a restaurant, a night club, a bar, and/or a pub...”
[0038] “…Scanning the bar code connects the user to an ordering system comprised in the computer accessible medium, and identifies to the computer accessible medium, the user location (viz. table number, bar counter number, etc.) at the restaurant. Essentially, in the example embodiment, scanning the bar code invokes communication with the computer accessible medium via an interactive ordering menu which pops up and connects with the computer accessible medium vendor terminal, and in some embodiments, connects the user directly with the kitchen…”
the Specification does not recite “dynamically determine a delivery location in real time” and “wherein delivery is dynamically routed based on a GPS-determined real-time locations of the first and second user devices “. Therefore, “dynamically determining a delivery location” wherein delivery is “dynamically routed” based on GPS-determined “real-time locations” is considered new matter.
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 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the system, as claimed in claims 31-35, are directed to a machine and the method, as claimed in claims 36-40, are directed to a process (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 36, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
receiving in a pre-defined vendor service area, in the pre-defined vendor service area, an order summary for a first single or plurality of items, and a first geolocation and used to dynamically determine a delivery location in real time;
receiving in the pre-defined vendor service area, an order summary for a second single or plurality of items, and a second geolocation and used to dynamically determine a delivery location in real time;
conducting a first transaction with a first vendor in the vendor service area, and a second transaction with a second vendor;
receiving a first order of the first single or plurality of items offered by the first vendor;
receiving a second order of the second single or plurality of items offered by the second vendor; and
initiating delivery of the first single or plurality of items to a first user and the second single or plurality of items to a second user, wherein delivery is dynamically routed based on a GPS-determined real-time locations.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 36 are certain methods of organizing human activity because a plurality of users ordering and transacting one or more items from a plurality of vendors in a pre-defined vendor service area is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations.
Thus, claim 36 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claim 31 recites the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 36. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 31 as described above for independent claim 36.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, representative claim 36 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, via a network in a pre-defined vendor service area, from a first user device in the pre-defined vendor service area, an order summary for a first single or plurality of items, and a first geolocation of the first user device, wherein the first geolocation is determined by a first global positioning system (GPS) of the first user device and used to dynamically determine a delivery location in real time;
receiving, via the network, from a second user device in the pre-defined vendor service area, an order summary for a second single or plurality of items, and a second geolocation of the second user device, wherein the second geolocation is determined by a second GPS system of the second user device and used to dynamically determine a delivery location in real time;
conducting a first transaction with a first vendor in the vendor service area on a display of the first user device, and a second transaction with a second vendor on a display of the second user device;
receiving, from the first user device, a first order of the first single or plurality of items offered by the first vendor;
receiving, from the second user device, a second order of the second single or plurality of items offered by the second vendor; and
initiating delivery of the first single or plurality of items to a first user associated with the first user device and the second single or plurality of items to a second user associated with the second user device, wherein delivery is dynamically routed based on a GPS-determined real-time locations of the first and second user devices.
Independent claim 31 includes additional elements including the ones already recited in claim 36 as well as (additional elements are bolded):
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions program the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“computer-implemented”, “via a network”, “a first user device”, “a first global positioning system (GPS) of the first user device”, “a second user device”, “a second global positioning system (GPS) of the second user device”, “a display of the first user device”, “a display of the second user device”, “one or more processors”, and “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving information, transmitting/routing information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 31 and 36 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Fig. 1, paragraphs [00021]-[00026], [00033], [00036]-[00037], [00040]-[00043]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited receiving, displaying, and transmitting/routing steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 31 and 36 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claims 31 and 36, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 31 and 36 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 31 and 36 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Additionally, the Specification recites identifying a device by at least one of global or local positing system is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (see paragraph [0037]).
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 31 and 36 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 31 and 36 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 34, 35, 39, 40
Dependent claim(s) 34, 35, 39, and 40 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 34, 35, 39, and 40 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 31 and 36 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 31 and 36.
Claims 34, 35, 39, and 40 set forth:
sending an interactive order menu unique to each of the identified user devices in a language of preference configurable by each of the identified user devices, and receiving the order summary in a language of preference configurable by a first or second vendor device associated with either the first or second vendor, wherein the menu is dynamically generated and adopted to a real-time inventory status of the vendors.
generating an interactive order menu unique to each of the identified user devices based on the user associated with each of the identified user devices.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of a plurality of users ordering and transacting one or more items from a plurality of vendors in a pre-defined vendor service area. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 34, 35, 39, and 40, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 31 and 36.
Thus, dependent 34, 35, 39, and 40 are ineligible.
Regarding claims 32, 33, 37, and 38
Dependent claim(s) 32, 33, 37, and 38, sets forth:
facilitating uploading commercial card information and downloading an authorization result by each of the user devices, emailing the itemized bill to at least one of the user devices, and printing the itemized bill.
identifying and the determining the location of the user devices via at least one of a bar code scanned by each of the user devices, a near field communications capability comprised in each of the user devices, active or passive RFID recognition at each of the user devices' location, a global positioning system, a local positioning system, and manual input on each of the user devices.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of a plurality of users ordering and transacting one or more items from a plurality of vendors in a pre-defined vendor service area. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “uploading” information, “downloading” information, “emailing” information, “printing” information, “a bar code scanned by each of the user devices”, “a near field communications capability comprised in each of the user devices”, “active or passive RFID recognition at each of the user devices' location”, “a global positioning system”, “a local positioning system”, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claims 31 and 36, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [00021]-[00026], [00033], [00036]-[00037], [00040]-[00043] indicate that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claims 32, 33, 37, and 38 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Werbitt (US 2004/0068441 A1 [previously recited]).
Regarding claim 36, Werbitt discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, via a network in a pre-defined vendor service area, from a first user device in the pre-defined vendor service area (Figs. 1-4, 8 [element 822 “Pool Online” and element 824 “Beach Online”], 11; ¶¶0045-0047 [Central unit 106 is typically a server side computer, which controls wireless communication among portable patron units 102 and portable staff unit 104, and distributes content to portable patron units 102 and portable staff units 104. Central unit 106 also may serve as a gateway to other resort systems such as Point-of-Sale management software running on central unit 106 or other computers], ¶¶0152-0153 [portable patron unit is comparable to a first user device], ¶0032-0035 [Examiner notes “a pool, beach, spa, deck, lounge, or any other areas associated with resort 101” is comparable to pre-defined vendor service area]), an order summary for a first single or plurality of items (Figs. 1-4, 8, 11; ¶0156 [a patron may order items and/or request services via a portable patron unit 102 and transmit the order/request wirelessly to the network or directly to other devices via a point-to-point wireless connection. For example, a patron may order items and/or request services via a user interface on display device 114 of portable patron unit 102 and transmit the order/request wirelessly to network 1110]), and a first geolocation of the first user device, wherein the first geolocation is determined by a first global positioning system (GPS) of the first user device (Figs. 1-4, 10; ¶0154 [the portable patron unit transmits signals wirelessly that enable one or more other devices to determine the location of the portable patron unit] in view of ¶0068 [Location module 231 is typically a background program that transmits information in the form of one or more signals to enable other devices to determine where portable patron unit 102 is located], ¶0105 [Location application 484 facilitates locating portable patron devices 102 based on signals emitted by its control unit 201… global positioning technology could also be used to track the location of portable patron units 102]), ¶0147 [Display screen 1000 may include a map 1002 associated with resort 101 and the location of the portable patron units 1002 indicated by dark blocks, although other shapes, descriptions, etc. may be used to indicate locations of a patron, such as text, circles, blimps, and various other indicia. Non-shaded blocks, such as block 1006 indicate empty positions not occupied by portable patron unit 102]) and used to dynamically determine a delivery location in real time (Figs. 1-4, 8, 10; ¶0147 [Block 1008 includes an identifier, such as an X, which indicates a precise location of a particular portable patron unit 102 that has requested a service and/or an order that is to be delivered. Other identifiers may be used to indicate the relative location of a portable patron unit 102, or lack thereof, such as a bulls-eye, an arrow, a flashing block, and various other indicia. Pinpointing the location of a patron enables efficient and effective service of mobile patrons while in any areas of a resort. The relative location of the portable patron unit 102 can be dynamically displayed in real-time as the patron moves from one area of resort 101 to another area the resort 101, such as from the beach to the pool], ¶0080 [control unit 301 may include the following application programs 130: an order/service application 326; a patron information application 327; a real-time activity application 329; and a location application 331. Collectively, each of these program applications generate a user interface on display device 116 that enables a staff member to, for example, view details about a patron's order; determine a location of a portable patron unit; receive notification of when an order is ready for delivery and delivery to a patron], ¶0084 [Location application 331 facilitates displaying real-time locations of a particular portable patron unit 102 to enable staff members to locate a particular patron when responding to a request or when delivering/serving an item]);
receiving, via the network, from a second user device in the pre-defined vendor service area (Fig. 1 [portable patron unit 102(1) is comparable to a first user device and portable patron unit 102(n) is comparable to a second user device], 1-4; ¶¶0045-0047 [Central unit 106 is typically a server side computer, which controls wireless communication among portable patron units 102 and portable staff unit 104, and distributes content to portable patron units 102 and portable staff units 104. Central unit 106 also may serve as a gateway to other resort systems such as Point-of-Sale management software running on central unit 106 or other computers], ¶0034 [patron service system 100 is configured to service one or more patrons and staff members of resort 101. Patron service system 100 may include one or more portable patron unit 102(1), . . . , 102(N)] in view of ¶¶0152-0153 and ¶0032-0035), an order summary for a second single or plurality of items (Figs. 1-4, 8, 11; ¶0156 [a patron may order items and/or request services via a portable patron unit 102 and transmit the order/request wirelessly to the network or directly to other devices via a point-to-point wireless connection. For example, a patron may order items and/or request services via a user interface on display device 114 of portable patron unit 102 and transmit the order/request wirelessly to network 1110] in view of ¶0034 [patron service system 100 is configured to service one or more patrons and staff members of resort 101. Patron service system 100 may include one or more portable patron unit 102(1), . . . , 102(N)] and ¶0129 [a plurality of pending orders]), and a second geolocation of the second user device, wherein the second geolocation is determined by a second GPS system of the second user device (Figs. 1-4, 8, 10; ¶0154 [the portable patron unit transmits signals wirelessly that enable one or more other devices to determine the location of the portable patron unit] in view of ¶0068 [Location module 231 is typically a background program that transmits information in the form of one or more signals to enable other devices to determine where portable patron unit 102 is located] and ¶0105 [Location application 484 facilitates locating portable patron devices 102 based on signals emitted by its control unit 201… global positioning technology could also be used to track the location of portable patron units 102] in view of ¶0034 [patron service system 100 is configured to service one or more patrons and staff members of resort 101. Patron service system 100 may include one or more portable patron unit 102(1), . . . , 102(N)], ¶0147 [Display screen 1000 may include a map 1002 associated with resort 101 and the location of the portable patron units 1002 indicated by dark blocks, although other shapes, descriptions, etc. may be used to indicate locations of a patron, such as text, circles, blimps, and various other indicia. Non-shaded blocks, such as block 1006 indicate empty positions not occupied by portable patron unit 102]) and used to dynamically determine a delivery location in real time (Figs. 1-4, 8, 10; ¶0147 [Block 1008 includes an identifier, such as an X, which indicates a precise location of a particular portable patron unit 102 that has requested a service and/or an order that is to be delivered. Other identifiers may be used to indicate the relative location of a portable patron unit 102, or lack thereof, such as a bulls-eye, an arrow, a flashing block, and various other indicia. Pinpointing the location of a patron enables efficient and effective service of mobile patrons while in any areas of a resort. The relative location of the portable patron unit 102 can be dynamically displayed in real-time as the patron moves from one area of resort 101 to another area the resort 101, such as from the beach to the pool], ¶0080 [control unit 301 may include the following application programs 130: an order/service application 326; a patron information application 327; a real-time activity application 329; and a location application 331. Collectively, each of these program applications generate a user interface on display device 116 that enables a staff member to, for example, view details about a patron's order; determine a location of a portable patron unit; receive notification of when an order is ready for delivery and delivery to a patron], ¶0084 [Location application 331 facilitates displaying real-time locations of a particular portable patron unit 102 to enable staff members to locate a particular patron when responding to a request or when delivering/serving an item]);
conducting a first transaction with a first vendor in the vendor service area on a display of the first user device, and a second transaction with a second vendor on a display of the second user device (Fig. 1-5, 11; ¶¶0045-0047 [Central unit 106 is typically a server side computer, which controls wireless communication among portable patron units 102 and portable staff unit 104, and distributes content to portable patron units 102 and portable staff units 104. Central unit 106 also may serve as a gateway to other resort systems such as Point-of-Sale management software running on central unit 106 or other computers…Central unit 106 typically receives and authenticates orders made by portable patron units 102 and then routes the orders to an appropriate fulfillment center computer 108(1), . . . , 108(N) associated with a fulfillment center 109, such as a kitchen, bar, spa, gift shop, etc.], ¶¶0112-0116 [display screen 500 provides a user selectable menu, which enables the patron to browse information, request services, and/or order items as well as other functionalities. Display screen 500 forms part of a user interactive interface and includes a main menu 501 having selectable icons, such as a resort services icon 502, a resort activity icon 504, and a food/beverage menu 506. Selecting resort services icon 502 activates a mode of operation for portable patron unit 102 associated with order/service application 226 (FIG. 2), such as receiving information about the hotel, requesting non-food services, etc.] and ¶0156 [In block 1110, a patron may order items and/or request services via a portable patron unit 102 and transmit the order/request wirelessly to the network or directly to other devices via a point-to-point wireless connection. For example, a patron may order items and/or request services via a user interface on display device 114 of portable patron unit 102 and transmit the order/request wirelessly to network 1110. When the patron is satisfied with an order and/or request, the patron may press an icon or button, or other related mechanism, to transmit the order/request.] in view of ¶0007 [item (such as a towel, beverage, food)], ¶0034 [patron service system 100 is configured to service one or more patrons and staff members of resort 101. Patron service system 100 may include one or more portable patron unit 102(1), . . . , 102(N)] and ¶0129 [a plurality of pending orders]; Examiner notes resort services and food/beverage menu with different fulfillment centers are comparable to different vendors);
receiving, from the first user device, a first order of the first single or plurality of items offered by the first vendor (Fig. 1-5, 7, 11; ¶¶0045-0047 [Central unit 106 is typically a server side computer, which controls wireless communication among portable patron units 102 and portable staff unit 104, and distributes content to portable patron units 102 and portable staff units 104. Central unit 106 also may serve as a gateway to other resort systems such as Point-of-Sale management software running on central unit 106 or other computers…Central unit 106 typically receives and authenticates orders made by portable patron units 102 and then routes the orders to an appropriate fulfillment center computer 108(1), . . . , 108(N) associated with a fulfillment center 109, such as a kitchen, bar, spa, gift shop, etc.], ¶¶0123-0128 [the patron would select a “submit now” type of button or use some other tool or any other selection means] and ¶0156 [In block 1110, a patron may order items and/or request services via a portable patron unit 102 and transmit the order/request wirelessly to the network or directly to other devices via a point-to-point wireless connection. For example, a patron may order items and/or request services via a user interface on display device 114 of portable patron unit 102 and transmit the order/request wirelessly to network 1110. When the patron is satisfied with an order and/or request, the patron may press an icon or button, or other related mechanism, to transmit the order/request.] in view of ¶0007 [item (such as a towel, beverage, food)], ¶0034 [patron service system 100 is configured to service one or more patrons and staff members of resort 101. Patron service system 100 may include one or more portable patron unit 102(1), . . . , 102(N)] and ¶0129 [a plurality of pending orders] and ¶¶0112-0116; Examiner notes resort services and food/beverage menu with different fulfillment centers are comparable to different vendors);
receiving, from the second user device, a second order of the second single or plurality of items offered by the second vendor (Fig. 1-5, 7, 11; ¶¶0045-0047 [Central unit 106 is typically a server side computer, which controls wireless communication among portable patron units 102 and portable staff unit 104, and distributes content to portable patron units 102 and portable staff units 104. Central unit 106 also may serve as a gateway to other resort systems such as Point-of-Sale management software running on central unit 106 or other computers…Central unit 106 typically receives and authenticates orders made by portable patron units 102 and then routes the orders to an appropriate fulfillment center computer 108(1), . . . , 108(N) associated with a fulfillment center 109, such as a kitchen, bar, spa, gift shop, etc.]; ¶0156 [In block 1110, a patron may order items and/or request services via a portable patron unit 102 and transmit the order/request wirelessly to the network or directly to other devices via a point-to-point wireless connection. For example, a patron may order items and/or request services via a user interface on display device 114 of portable patron unit 102 and transmit the order/request wirelessly to network 1110. When the patron is satisfied with an order and/or request, the patron may press an icon or button, or other related mechanism, to transmit the order/request.] in view of ¶0007 [item (such as a towel, beverage, food)], ¶0034 [patron service system 100 is configured to service one or more patrons and staff members of resort 101. Patron service system 100 may include one or more portable patron unit 102(1), . . . , 102(N)] and ¶0129 [a plurality of pending orders] and ¶¶0112-0116; Examiner notes resort services and food/beverage menu with different fulfillment centers are comparable to different vendors); and
initiating delivery of the first single or plurality of items to a first user associated with the first user device and the second single or plurality of items to a second user associated with the second user device (Fig. 1-5, 7, 11; ¶¶0045-0047 [Central unit 106 is typically a server side computer, which controls wireless communication among portable patron units 102 and portable staff unit 104, and distributes content to portable patron units 102 and portable staff units 104. Central unit 106 also may serve as a gateway to other resort systems such as Point-of-Sale management software running on central unit 106 or other computers… Once the order is prepared, a staff member from the particular fulfillment center 109 alerts central unit 106, typically via a fulfillment center computer 108, which in turn alerts one or more portable staff units 104 that the order is ready for pickup and delivery to a patron], ¶0034 [patron service system 100 is configured to service one or more patrons and staff members of resort 101. Patron service system 100 may include one or more portable patron unit 102(1), . . . , 102(N)] and ¶0129 [a plurality of pending orders] and ¶¶0112-0116; Examiner notes resort services and food/beverage menu with different fulfillment centers are comparable to different vendors), wherein delivery is dynamically routed based on a GPS-determined real-time locations of the first and second user devices (Figs. 1-4, 8, 10; ¶0080 [control unit 301 may include the following application programs 130: an order/service application 326; a patron information application 327; a real-time activity application 329; and a location application 331. Collectively, each of these program applications generate a user interface on display device 116 that enables a staff member to, for example, view details about a patron's order; determine a location of a portable patron unit; receive notification of when an order is ready for delivery and delivery to a patron], ¶0084 [Location application 331 facilitates displaying real-time locations of a particular portable patron unit 102 to enable staff members to locate a particular patron when responding to a request or when delivering/serving an item], ¶0147 [Block 1008 includes an identifier, such as an X, which indicates a precise location of a particular portable patron unit 102 that has requested a service and/or an order that is to be delivered. Other identifiers may be used to indicate the relative location of a portable patron unit 102, or lack thereof, such as a bulls-eye, an arrow, a flashing block, and various other indicia. Pinpointing the location of a patron enables efficient and effective service of mobile patrons while in any areas of a resort. The relative location of the portable patron unit 102 can be dynamically displayed in real-time as the patron moves from one area of resort 101 to another area the resort 101, such as from the beach to the pool] in view of ¶¶0045-0047 [Once the order is prepared, a staff member from the particular fulfillment center 109 alerts central unit 106, typically via a fulfillment center computer 108, which in turn alerts one or more portable staff units 104 that the order is ready for pickup and delivery to a patron], ¶0068 [Location module 231 is typically a background program that transmits information in the form of one or more signals to enable other devices to determine where portable patron unit 102 is located], ¶0105).
Regarding claim 38, Werbitt discloses the computer implemented method of claim 36, further comprising identifying and determining a location of the user devices via at least one of a bar code scanned by each of the user devices, a near field communications capability comprised in each of the user devices, active or passive RFID recognition at each of the user devices' location, a global positioning system (¶0105), a local positioning system, and manual input on each of the user devices.
Regarding claim 40, Werbitt discloses the computer implemented method of claim 36, further comprising generating an interactive order menu unique to each of the user devices based on the user associated with each of the user devices (Fig. 6; ¶¶0117-0120 [Order another round icon 612 allows a patron to automatically order another round of drinks or other items previously ordered by selecting icon 612. Selecting icon 613 may display items that the patron previously ordered during the day, making it easy to view previous order and order one or more items based on the logged history]).
Regarding claims 31, 33, and 35, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claims 36, 38, and 40, respectively, except claims 31, 33, and 35 are directed to a machine while claims 36, 38, and 40 are directed to a process. Werbitt further teaches the added element of a “one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors” (Figs. 1-3; ¶¶0061-0064, ¶0099, ¶¶0108-0109, claim 34). All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 36, 38, and 40, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claims 31, 33, and 35 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claims 36, 38, and 40.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 32 and 37 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Werbitt in view of Silber (US 2005/0043996 A1 [previously recited]).
Regarding claim 37, Werbitt discloses the computer implemented method of claim 36. While Werbitt discloses further comprising:
facilitating uploading commercial card information (¶0039 [Portable patron units may also receive an electronic bill, permitting patrons to enter credit card information, or other payment information without the need for a staff member to physically deliver the bill]) and downloading an result by each of the user devices (Fig. 7; ¶¶0123-0128), emailing an bill to at least one of the user devices (¶0163 [In block 1124, bill requests are enabled. For example a patron may select a button, icon, or related mechanism, which prompts portable patron unit 102 to transmit a wireless signal requesting delivery of a bill. Alternatively, the patron may receive a virtual bill (i.e., electronic bill) on the display device 114 and approve payment of the bill without the assistance of a staff member]; Examiner notes electronic bill is comparable to email), and printing the bill (¶0163 in view of ¶0097),
Werbitt does not explicitly disclose downloading an authorization result by each of the user devices and emailing an itemized bill and printing an itemized bill. However, in the field of restaurant customer service management systems including devices associated with customers enabling the customer to view an interactive menu, order items, view an itemized bill, and self-checkout payment processing (Fig. 3; ¶0001, ¶¶0031-0032, ¶0040), Silver teaches downloading an authorization result by each of the user devices (¶¶0031-0032, ¶¶0049-0052), presenting an itemized bill, and printing an itemized bill (Fig. 4; ¶0032, ¶¶0049-0054). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the authorization and bill as taught by Werbitt with printing of the bill and payment authorization as taught by Silver. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to expand the method of Werbitt in order to store an electric copy as well as print a copy for the customer (¶0049).
Regarding claim 32, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 37, except claim 37 is directed to a process while claim 32 is directed to a machine. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 37, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 32 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 37.
Claims 34 and 39 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Werbitt in view of Hernblad (US 2004/0054592 A1 [previously recited]) in view of Martucci et al. (US 2012/0284129 A1).
Regarding claim 39, Werbitt discloses the computer implemented method of claim 36. While Werbitt further discloses further comprising sending an interactive order menu unique to each of the user devices (Fig. 6; ¶¶0117-0120 [Order another round icon 612 allows a patron to automatically order another round of drinks or other items previously ordered by selecting icon 612. Selecting icon 613 may display items that the patron previously ordered during the day, making it easy to view previous order and order one or more items based on the logged history]) and receiving the order summary by a first or second vendor device associated with the first or second vendor (Fig. 1-5, 7, 9, 11; ¶¶0045-0047, ¶¶0143-0147, ¶0156), wherein the menu is dynamically generated (Fig. 6; ¶¶0117-0120), Werbitt does not explicitly teach sending the interactive order menu in a language of preference configurable by each of the user devices and receiving the order summary in a language of preference configurable by a first or second vendor device associated with the first or second vendor.
In the field of electronic transactions (abstract), Hernblad teaches users registering and selecting the appropriate version of the program with their preferred language (¶0133, ¶0171, and ¶0208) as well as allowing users to enter their language preference using a terminal in order to display screens on the terminal in languages other than the primary language of the country where the establishment is located if the user is a guest user and hasn’t already registered (¶0133, ¶0312, and claim 14). Hernblad further teaches terminals can be used by wait staff and chefs wherein the wait staff and chef terminals receive a customer’s order summary (¶0056), wherein each of the terminals may display information in different languages and are configurable by users (¶0047, ¶0056, ¶0069, claim 14 in view of ¶0147). The step of Hernblad is applicable to the process of Werbitt as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to processing electronic transactions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ordering program as taught by Werbitt with the language selection of Hernblad. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to expand the process of Werbitt in order to accommodate a more global customer base and to help facilitate the ordering process. (Hernblad ¶0041).
While Werbitt discloses wherein the menu is dynamically generated (Fig. 6; ¶¶0117-0120), Werbitt in view of Hernblad does not explicitly teach wherein the menu is dynamically generated and adapted to a real-time inventory status of vendors. However, in the field of providing a patron of an establishment a device displaying menu items (abstract; ¶0070), Martucci et al., hereinafter Martucci, teaches the menu is dynamically generated and adapted to a real-time inventory status of vendors (Fig. 2; ¶0031 [a plurality of patron display devices 120 that may be presented to and used by patrons of restaurant 102 in order to select and/or order wines available in inventory at the restaurant], ¶0034 [Content management system 104 may also communicate with an inventory control system 126 of restaurant 102 via a wired or wireless communications link 127 to enable content management system 104 to maintain an accurate record of wines available in restaurant 102 and to facilitate restocking and inventory record keeping], ¶¶0040-0044 [the restaurant's inventory of the selected wine may be checked at step 214. In some embodiments, wines that have been depleted from the restaurant's inventory, will not displayed for selection. Likewise, if the available inventory of a particular wine has been placed on hold by one or more patrons, those wines will not be displayed for selection… the inventory of wines available in restaurant's 102 wine cellar is adjusted serially and continuously on a real time basis as wines are ordered or placed on hold. Wines that are unavailable or where the available inventory has been placed on hold may be removed from the display screens presented to patrons in order to facilitate the selection process]). The step of Martucci is applicable to the process of Werbitt in view of Hernblad as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to displaying menu items on user devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the menu as taught by Werbitt in view of Hernblad with the real-time inventory status of Martucci. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to expand the process of Werbitt in view of Hernblad in order to prevent dissatisfaction or frustration on the part of patrons who proceed through the selection process only to find that their selection is unavailable (Martucci ¶0040).
Regarding claim 34, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 39, except claim 39 is directed to a process while claim 34 is directed to a machine. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 39, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 34 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 39.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 1-5 of the Remarks filed 9/16/2025, with respect to the previous 35 USC §101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While all previously claims have been cancelled and therefore the arguments are moot in regard to the new claims, Examiner will address the arguments. Applicant argues on page 2 the amended claims recite additional technical features that meaningfully distinguish them from “commercial interaction” grouping. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Applicant argues on page 2 that the claims are eligible over Step 2A, prong 1 as the claims, as a whole, does not merely recite commercial interactions and provides technical features that meaningfully distinguish them from “commercial interaction” grouping. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that in Prong One examiner evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Despite Applicant’s assertion to the contrary, the Examiner maintains that the claims clearly set forth or describe abstract idea(s) for those reasons set forth previously. Therefore, the instant claims recite an abstract idea. Further, performing transactions, acquiring location data, and initiating deliveries is an abstract idea known from the pre-Internet world and the claimed solution is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues on pages 2-5 that the amended claim integrates any abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Examiner agrees that the amended limitations including determining a location using GPS, mobile devices, uploading information, downloading information, a bar code scanned by each of the user devices, a near field communications capability comprised in each of the user devices, active or passive RFID recognition at each of the user devices' location, a global positioning system, and a local positioning system do not fall within the abstract idea, the Examiner disagrees that these elements impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. As claimed, these elements represent the mere use of generic computing components to facility the abstract idea. Notably, the specification provides only a brief description of the additional elements (see Fig. 1; paragraphs [00021]-[00026], [00033], [00036]-[00037], [00040]-[00043]).
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional function of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary sill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Applicant’s specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art could recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to the argued improvements on pages 2-5 of the Remarks, and the specification is specific only in their use in facilitating the abstract idea of a plurality of users ordering and transacting one or more items from a plurality of vendors in a pre-defined vendor service area.
The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is akin to ineligible decisions such as Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the court relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible), or, Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims contained no restriction on the manner in which the additional elements perform these claimed functions). The alleged improvement by Applicant is at best a bare assertion of an improvement sans sufficient detail to demonstrate that Applicant has provided the alleged improvement to the technical field.
Further, the specification as filed does not reveal to one of ordinary skill in the art the Applicant has provided an improvement to graphical user interfaces including the argued “dynamically generate interactive menus unique to each device” and the specification as filed does not reveal to one of ordinary skill in the art the Applicant has provided an improvement to computer payment technology. The specification does not provide technical detail of how the user interface is modified (i.e., the argued improvement of the functioning of the computer generated interactive menu) differently than from generic devices displaying information via an interface (i.e., the specification merely sets forth at a high level of generality the use of interfaces for displaying information on generic computing devices via an interface) and does not provide technical detail of how the payment technology is modified differently than from generic devices providing payment authorization.
There is no indication from either the claims or the specification that the invention seeks to modify conventional operation of any such technology (i.e., as that in DDR Holdings). Here again, the Examiner emphasizes the failure of the disclosure to set forth or describe the amended features, or any improvements that are achieved from or made relative to another technology or technical field. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the improvements manifested by the claimed invention are improvements to the abstract idea itself, not the computer or another technology or technical field. Applicant’s own disclosure reveal the impetus is improving the commercial process, no in technology:
[0001] enhancing the user experience in restaurants even while enhancing the service delivery model efficiency of restaurants
[00043] embodiments provide an improved customer experience, and an improved, efficient restaurant service delivery model
The character of the claims as a whole is not directed to improving computer performance and do not recite any such benefit. The claims of the instant application, however, merely represent the use of generic computing technology used as a tool to perform the abstract idea in an online environment. The claims lack any restriction on the manner in which the computing operations are to be performed. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the myriad of ineligible court decisions that employed generic computer components at a high-level to achieve improvements in commercial processes.
In review of the claimed invention, and in consideration of the specification as originally filed, the Examiner asserts that:
(i) the claimed invention does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, but instead improves an abstract, commercial process, and,
(ii) the specification, as originally filed, does not provide sufficient discloser or technical explanation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined that the disclosed invention provided an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field.
The problem of a plurality of users ordering and transacting one or more items from a plurality of vendors in a pre-defined vendor service area is one that arises squarely in the commercial realm, and does not rise to improving the functioning of the computer or another technology or technical field. As understood from the specification, the intention of Applicant’s invention is to provide “improved customer experience, and an improved, efficient restaurant service delivery model” (¶00043). The improvement manifested by the claimed invention is an improvement to the abstract idea itself, rather than the functioning of the computer or another technology or technical field, and is achieved leveraging generic computing hardware and software set forth at a high level of generality.
Even assuming a relationship of the claimed invention to another technology or technical field, if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological process, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure most provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Even when a specification explicitly asserts an improvement, examiner should not determine a claim improves technology when only a bare assertion of an improvement is present without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Further, the instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” requiring the generic components to operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality or requiring the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces to improve a technical process. As currently recited, the instant claims are directed to improving the business task of “a plurality of users ordering and transacting one or more items from a plurality of vendors in a pre-defined vendor service area” (i.e., the abstract idea).
Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception and maintains the rejection Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant argues on page 5 that the amended claims provides an inventive concept under Step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above in the full rejection of the claims, the claimed additional elements were evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of the claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. The Examiner underscores that the additional elements are being performed by a generic processor and merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The background also states that the generic processor performs these limitations at a high level of generality. This description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer.
Further, as referenced to both previously and above, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) outlines various computer functions that he courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Most notably, the Examiner pointed out that the claimed invention utilized receiving or transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually and do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection of the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 5-14 of the Remarks filed 9/16/2025, with respect to the 35 USC §102 and 35 USC §103 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive. While all previously claims have been cancelled and therefore the arguments are moot in regard to the new claims, Examiner will address the arguments. During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification" (see MPEP 2111). Applicant agues on pages 5-14 a much narrower interpretation of limitations that which is claimed.
As noted above in the full rejection of the claims, Werbitt discloses the system comprises an order/service application 326; a patron information application 327; a real-time activity application 329; and a location application 331. Collectively, each of these program applications generate a user interface on display device 116 that enables a staff member to, for example, view details about a patron's order; determine a location of a portable patron unit; receive notification of when an order is ready for delivery and delivery to a patron (see ¶0080). Location application 331 facilitates displaying real-time locations of a particular portable patron unit 102 to enable staff members to locate a particular patron when responding to a request or when delivering/serving an item (see ¶0084). The relative location of the portable patron unit 102 can be dynamically displayed in real-time as the patron moves from one area of resort 101 to another area the resort 101 (¶0147). Werbitt discloses location application 484 facilitates locating portable patron devices 102 based on signals emitted by its control unit 201. Location application 484 may use 802.11 location finding technology to determine locations of portable patron devices 102 and relay their positions to portable staff units 104 or global positioning technology could also be used to track the location of portable patron units 102 (see ¶0105). Examiner notes the instant specification describes the location via GPS broadly as “The wireless device identifies itself to the computing medium via at least one of Wi-Fi connectivity, passive or active RFID, bar code scanning, Bluetooth connectivity, Infrared connectivity, near field communications, and global or local positioning capability” (see ¶0036) “identifying the wireless device comprises identifying the device by at least one of global or local positioning system, a Wi-Fi network, passive or active RFID recognition, Bluetooth connectivity, Infrared connectivity, and a bar code scanned by the wireless device” (see ¶0037). Accordingly, Examiner maintains Werbitt discloses the broadest reasonable interpretation of receiving a first/second geolocation of the first/second user device, wherein the first/second geolocation is determined by a first/second global position system (GPS) of the first/second user device and used to dynamically determine a delivery location in real time.
Applicant argues on page 9 that Werbitt’s disclosure of GPS is insufficient. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Werbitt discloses “global positioning technology could also be used to track the location of portable patron units” (see ¶0105). This interpretation is in line with the instant Specification that recites “identifying the device by at least one of global or local positioning system” (see ¶0036). Accordingly, Examiner maintains Werbitt discloses these limitations for argued claims 31, 36, 33, 38.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 that Werbitt does not disclose generating an interactive order menu unique to each user device. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Werbitt discloses displaying personalized menu recommendations to a user (i.e., a unique interactive order menu) including items that the patron previous ordered during the day (i.e., an association between the user and the device) (see Fig. 6 and ¶¶0117-0120). Applicants’ argument that a “menu” requires system-level generation of menus personalized to user profiles or device contexts are not claimed. Accordingly, Examiner maintains Werbitt discloses these limitations.
Applicant argues on pages 10-12 that Werbitt in view of Silber does not teach the limitations of claims 32 and 37 because Silber addresses aspects of payment processing and billing in a different system context. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “downloading a result by each of the user devices” is disclosed by Werbitt (see Fig. 7; ¶¶0123-0128). While Werbitt did not explicitly disclose downloading an authorization result by each of the user devices, Silber was used to teach downloading an authorization result by each of the user devices (¶¶0031-0032, ¶¶0049-0052) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the authorization and bill as taught by Werbitt with printing of the bill and payment authorization as taught by Silber. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to expand the method of Werbitt in order to store an electric copy as well as print a copy for the customer (¶0049). Accordingly, Examiner maintains Werbitt in view of Silbert discloses these limitations.
Applicant argues on pages 12-14 that Werbitt in view of Hernblad does not teach the limitations of claims 34 and 39. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As noted in the previous rejection and the rejection above, Hernblad teaches users registering and selecting the appropriate version of the program with their preferred language (¶0133, ¶0171, and ¶0208) as well as allowing users to enter their language preference using a terminal in order to display screens on the terminal in languages other than the primary language of the country where the establishment is located if the user is a guest user and hasn’t already registered (¶0133, ¶0312, and claim 14). Hernblad further teaches terminals can be used by wait staff and chefs wherein the wait staff and chef terminals receive a customer’s order summary (¶0056), wherein each of the terminals may display information in different languages and are configurable by users (¶0047, ¶0056, ¶0069, claim 14 in view of ¶0147). The step of Hernblad is applicable to the process of Werbitt as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to processing electronic transactions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ordering program as taught by Werbitt with the language selection of Hernblad. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to expand the process of Werbitt in order to accommodate a more global customer base and to help facilitate the ordering process. (Hernblad ¶0041). Further, Examiner notes the arguments are directed to specific limitations that are not claimed to that specificity. During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification" (see MPEP 2111). Applicant’s augments on pages 33-35 are a much narrower interpretation of limitations that which is claimed. As noted in the previous rejection and the rejection above, Werbitt discloses the added elements of a “one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors” to perform the specific functions (Figs. 1-3; ¶¶0061-0064, ¶0099, ¶¶0108-0109, claim 34). Accordingly, Examiner maintains Werbitt in view of Hernblad discloses these limitations.
However, due to the new limitations within claims 34 and 39, new 103 rejections have been applied to claims 34 and 39.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 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, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688