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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) is submitted on 2/13/2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. According, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 5/15/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 16-18 are amended, claims 1-15 are canceled, claims 21-33 are new, and claims 16-33 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 16-33 have been fully considered but are moot based upon the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant's amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 17, 26 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites “a specific location” on line 4. Examiner recommend changing the limitation to “[[a]] the specific location”. Claim 26 recites similar features as claim 17, therefore is objected for the same reason.
Claim 31 recites “The method of claim 21” on line 1. Examiner believe this may be a typo, and should recite “The method claim of 30”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16-19, 23-28, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox (US 20220084142 A1), in view of Werber et al. (US 20210264357 A1 and Werber hereinafter).
Regarding claim 16, Fox teaches a global position system (GPS) real-time delivery system (Paragraph 0076; data processing unit or module, 110) comprising:
a menu server (Paragraph 0076; data processing unit or module, 110), configured to store at least one menu of an establishment (Paragraph 0033; display menu for customer to explore and order. Paragraph 0058; an ORB [Order-ready Board] display some or all of a restaurant’s menu option, and from which customers determine what they are going to order. In some embodiments, an ORB and menu may be in a single structure, and in other embodiments, an ORB is not a menu [i.e., not in a single structure]. Figure 1 and Paragraph 0062; customer access a menu of available items. The menu will generally be available on an interactive website or mobile application (app) that can be accessed by customer through his/her mobile device (cell phone, computer tablet, computer, and the like));
an establishment device of the establishment (Paragraph 0033; display menu for customer to explore and order, i.e., the establishment may be the restaurant that the customer is ordering from. Paragraph 0087; each restaurant unit 320, 322 and 324, will have its own server that will be able to communicate with the central data processor 310. The order data starts off on the server (data processor) hosting the website, ordering system, or application, and is then passed to the appropriate store server), configured to receive orders and customer information (Paragraph 0033; display menu for customer to explore and order. Paragraph 0058; an ORB [Order-ready Board] display some or all of a restaurant’s menu option, and from which customers determine what they are going to order. In some embodiments, an ORB and menu may be in a single structure, and in other embodiments, an ORB is not a menu [i.e., not in a single structure]. Figure 1 and Paragraph 0062; customer access a menu of available items. The menu will generally be available on an interactive website or mobile application (app) that can be accessed by customer through his/her mobile device (cell phone, computer tablet, computer, and the like). Paragraph 0087; each restaurant unit 320, 322 and 324, will have its own server that will be able to communicate with the central data processor 310. The order data starts off on the server (data processor) hosting the website, ordering system, or application, and is then passed to the appropriate store server);
a mobile device, of a customer (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0062; customer access a menu of available items. The menu will generally be available on an interactive website or mobile application (app) that can be accessed by customer through his/her mobile device (cell phone, computer tablet, computer, and the like)), configured to:
receive at least one menu from the menu server (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0062; customer access a menu of available items. The menu will generally be available on an interactive website or mobile application (app) that can be accessed by customer through his/her mobile device (cell phone, computer tablet, computer, and the like). Paragraph 0073; displaying the menu or ordered items there is provided, in some embodiments, an interactive sensor (usually a button) on the menu displayed on the customer’s mobile device or computer that will allow nutrition information for the menu or ordered items to be displayed);
place an order from the at least one menu (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0062; customer access a menu of available items. The menu will generally be available on an interactive website or mobile application (app) that can be accessed by customer through his/her mobile device (cell phone, computer tablet, computer, and the like)) including order items (Paragraph 0073; displaying the menu or ordered items) and delivery information (Paragraph 0075; an order placed for delivery); and
provide customer information including real-time GPS information to the establishment device (Paragraph 0130; the ordering system is provided with internal or external maps, and the capability of estimating travel time to the restaurant location(s), either internally, or through connection with an external module or system. Customers with mobile devices having location abilities (such as equipped to communicate with global positioning system (GPS), GLONASS, etc.). The mobile device (potentially embedded in a vehicle) runs a software (such as mobile app) that conveys the customer's location to the order system. The order system monitors the customer's location. Examiner asserts when the restaurant monitors customer’s GPS location, it may be interpreted as real-time GPS information. Further, in Paragraph 0044; mobile ordering system may dynamically tracking customer locations);
wherein the real-time GPS information is provided to the establishment device to adjust the order preparation start time (Paragraph 0130; the ordering system is optimized for fresh-cooked food, which is particularly advantageous for restaurant locations that specialize in food being just prepared as the customer receives it. In some such embodiments, the ordering system is provided with internal or external maps, and the capability of estimating travel time to the restaurant location(s), either internally, or through connection with an external module or system. Customers with mobile devices having location abilities (such as equipped to communicate with global positioning system (GPS), GLONASS, etc.). The mobile device (potentially embedded in a vehicle) runs a software (such as mobile app) that conveys the customer's location to the order system. The order system monitors the customer's location, calculates the time required to arrive, and triggers order preparation to start once the calculated time from the customer's current location is approximately the same as the order preparation time).
Fox does not explicitly teach wherein the delivery information includes a location for delivery; and adjust the order preparation start time based on the customer information and the location for delivery. In an analogous art, Werber teaches wherein the delivery information includes a location for delivery (Paragraphs 0014, 0015 and 0050; delivery zone may comprise an address associated with the business, such as the business address, a parking lot, or a parking garage. In alternate embodiments, the delivery zone may comprise any one or more GPS coordinates, regardless of whether the one or more GPS coordinates are associated with the business. Moreover, the customer computing device may be operative to display the delivery zone); and adjust the order preparation start time based on the customer information (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0065; detecting that the customer is physically present at a GPS coordinate along the route such that the customer is likely to arrive in the delivery zone within a minimum amount of time. Continuously receiving, at the business computing device 104, one or more GPS coordinates of the customer as the customer travels along the route to the business, receiving the preparation timeframe arrival and displaying the preparation timeframe arrival notification may alert the business in sufficient time to prepare the order within the preparation timeframe) and the location for delivery (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0051, and Figure 3 and Paragraph 0068; adjusting a preparation timeframe (block 302) may further comprise determining a minimum amount of time needed to prepare the order and setting the preparation timeframe accordingly. Paragraph 0055; the delivery zone arrival notification may be displayed by the business computing device 104 when the customer is physically present within a range of GPS coordinates wherein the business will have sufficient time to deliver the order to the customer). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fox and Werber because it would optimize customer order retrieval by minimizing the amount of time the customer spends in between arriving at a business and receiving their order (Werber, Paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Fox and Werber teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as described above. Further, Fox teaches wherein the customer information further includes at least one time estimate, wherein the at least one time estimate provides an estimated time of arrival of the customer at a specific location, and wherein the order preparation start time is adjusted based on the real-time GPS location and at least one time estimate (Paragraph 0130; the ordering system is optimized for fresh-cooked food, which is particularly advantageous for restaurant locations that specialize in food being just prepared as the customer receives it. In some such embodiments, the ordering system is provided with internal or external maps, and the capability of estimating travel time to the restaurant location(s), either internally, or through connection with an external module or system. Customers with mobile devices having location abilities (such as equipped to communicate with global positioning system (GPS), GLONASS, etc.). The mobile device (potentially embedded in a vehicle) runs a software (such as mobile app) that conveys the customer's location to the order system. The order system monitors the customer's location, calculates the time required to arrive, and triggers order preparation to start once the calculated time from the customer's current location is approximately the same as the order preparation time).
In addition, Werber teaches wherein the location for delivery is a specific location (Paragraphs 0014, 0015 and 0050; delivery zone may comprise an address associated with the business, such as the business address, a parking lot, or a parking garage. In alternate embodiments, the delivery zone may comprise any one or more GPS coordinates, regardless of whether the one or more GPS coordinates are associated with the business), and wherein the order preparation start time is adjusted based on the real-time GPS location, at least one time estimate, and specific location (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0065; detecting that the customer is physically present at a GPS coordinate along the route such that the customer is likely to arrive in the delivery zone within a minimum amount of time. Continuously receiving, at the business computing device 104, one or more GPS coordinates of the customer as the customer travels along the route to the business, receiving the preparation timeframe arrival and displaying the preparation timeframe arrival notification may alert the business in sufficient time to prepare the order within the preparation timeframe). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fox and Werber because it would optimize customer order retrieval by minimizing the amount of time the customer spends in between arriving at a business and receiving their order (Werber, Paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Fox and Werber teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as described above. Further, Fox teaches wherein the delivery information includes a specific delivery time (Paragraph 0062; the menu display also includes means for the customer to indicate the desired pick up wait time (for example: as soon as possible, 10 minutes, tomorrow, etc.). Paragraph 0075; an order placed for delivery. Paragraph 0066; for future planned orders where a customer selects a specific time slot and day, the system will determine whether or not the order can be produced (and delivered) by the time requested, and inform the customer on its device screen) and the real-time GPS information enables the order to be delivered to the current location of the customer at the specific delivery time (Paragraph 0130; the ordering system is optimized for fresh-cooked food, which is particularly advantageous for restaurant locations that specialize in food being just prepared as the customer receives it. In some such embodiments, the ordering system is provided with internal or external maps, and the capability of estimating travel time to the restaurant location(s), either internally, or through connection with an external module or system. Customers with mobile devices having location abilities (such as equipped to communicate with global positioning system (GPS), GLONASS, etc.). The mobile device (potentially embedded in a vehicle) runs a software (such as mobile app) that conveys the customer's location to the order system. The order system monitors the customer's location, calculates the time required to arrive, and triggers order preparation to start once the calculated time from the customer's current location is approximately the same as the order preparation time).
In addition, Werber teaches the location for delivery is a current location of the customer, and wherein the real-time GPS information enables the order preparation start time to be adjusted for the order to be delivered to the current location of the customer (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0065; detecting that the customer is physically present at a GPS coordinate along the route such that the customer is likely to arrive in the delivery zone within a minimum amount of time. Continuously receiving, at the business computing device 104, one or more GPS coordinates of the customer as the customer travels along the route to the business, receiving the preparation timeframe arrival and displaying the preparation timeframe arrival notification may alert the business in sufficient time to prepare the order within the preparation timeframe). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fox and Werber because it would optimize customer order retrieval by minimizing the amount of time the customer spends in between arriving at a business and receiving their order (Werber, Paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Fox and Werber teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as described above. Further, Fox teaches wherein the order is delivered by a drone (Paragraph 0089; receive and provide data (directions etc.) to a deliver driver or drone. Paragraph 0117; the same GPS tracking is used to enable drone delivery or any other delivery method to static locations or moving vehicles while in transit. For the example above, the customer may wish to order, but not stop; preferring to have a drone meet the moving vehicle with the food order), wherein the drone has an onboard computing device to receive the real-time GPS information for delivering the order to a current location of the customer (Paragraph 0117; the same GPS tracking is used to enable drone delivery or any other delivery method to static locations or moving vehicles while in transit. For the example above, the customer may wish to order, but not stop; preferring to have a drone meet the moving vehicle with the food order).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Fox and Werber teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as described above. Further, Werber teaches wherein the real-time GPS information is received at the establishment device continually (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0065; detecting that the customer is physically present at a GPS coordinate along the route such that the customer is likely to arrive in the delivery zone within a minimum amount of time. Continuously receiving, at the business computing device 104, one or more GPS coordinates of the customer as the customer travels along the route to the business, receiving the preparation timeframe arrival and displaying the preparation timeframe arrival notification may alert the business in sufficient time to prepare the order within the preparation timeframe). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fox and Werber because it would optimize customer order retrieval by minimizing the amount of time the customer spends in between arriving at a business and receiving their order (Werber, Paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Fox and Werber teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as described above. Further, Werber teaches wherein the real-time GPS information is received at the establishment device continuously (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0065; detecting that the customer is physically present at a GPS coordinate along the route such that the customer is likely to arrive in the delivery zone within a minimum amount of time. Continuously receiving, at the business computing device 104, one or more GPS coordinates of the customer as the customer travels along the route to the business, receiving the preparation timeframe arrival and displaying the preparation timeframe arrival notification may alert the business in sufficient time to prepare the order within the preparation timeframe). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fox and Werber because it would optimize customer order retrieval by minimizing the amount of time the customer spends in between arriving at a business and receiving their order (Werber, Paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 recites similar features as claim 16, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 16.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Fox and Werber teaches all of the limitations of claim 25, as described above. Claim 26 recites similar features as claim 17, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 17.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Fox and Werber teaches all of the limitations of claim 25, as described above. Claim 27 recites similar features as claim 18, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 18.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Fox and Werber teaches all of the limitations of claim 25, as described above. Claim 28 recites similar features as claim 19, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 19.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Fox and Werber teaches all of the limitations of claim 25, as described above. Claim 32 recites similar features as claim 23, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 23.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Fox and Werber teaches all of the limitations of claim 25, as described above. Claim 33 recites similar features as claim 24, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 24.
Claims 20-22 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox in view of Werber, as applied in claims above, further in view of Meter (US 20160189287 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Fox and Werber teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as described above.
The combination of Fox and Werber does not explicitly teach wherein the establishment is a golf course and the customer is a patron of the golf course. In an analogous art, Meter teaches wherein the establishment is a golf course and the customer is a patron of the golf course (Paragraph 0025; a method for ordering, receiving, and paying for drink and food services using a smart phone to scan a mobile vehicle tag, such as one found on a golf cart used on a golf course that can provide identification and location information. Figure 4 and Paragraph 0030; method for the present invention in on embodiment as applied to a golf course. The user uses electronic device scans the bar code found on the golf cart the user is using to navigate the golf course 402. Next, the user selects his food, drink, and/or service order items from a menu displayed on the phone and that is currently available to him for delivery on the golf course 403. After placing the order, the electronic device sends the order wirelessly to the mobile delivery cart 404. At the delivery cart, the order is received and prepared for delivery to the user 405. A calculating engine determines the amount of time it will take to prepare the order and the predicted location of the ordering user at the time the order is ready for delivery 406. This allows the user to continue playing his round of golf while the order is being prepared and to have the order delivery to him at a future location as he continues playing 408. The calculation engine provides the delivery cart a location estimates on where to find the ordering user once the order is prepared and ready for delivery 407). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fox, Werber and Meter because it would allow the user to continue playing his round of golf while the order is being prepared and to have the order delivery to him at a future location as he continues playing (Meter; Paragraphs 0017 and 0030).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Fox/Werber/Meter teaches all of the limitations of claim 20, as described above. Further, Meter teaches wherein a plurality of completion times are used to determine and estimate time for the customer to be at the location for delivery (Figure 4 and Paragraph 0030; calculating engine determines the amount of time it will take to prepare the order and the predicted location of the ordering user at the time the order is ready for delivery). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fox, Werber and Meter because it would allow the user to continue playing his round of golf while the order is being prepared and to have the order delivery to him at a future location as he continues playing (Meter; Paragraphs 0017 and 0030).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Fox/Werber/Meter teaches all of the limitations of claim 21, as described above. Further, Meter teaches wherein the plurality of completion times are times for completion of a golf hole (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0027; a user places their order while playing for pick up at the half-way house between the 9th and 10th holes 201. The half-way house has a countdown timer based on the location where you placed the order and your calculated arrival time 202. Figure 3 and Paragraph 0028; estimates their location on the course based on start time).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Fox and Werber teaches all of the limitations of claim 25, as described above. Claim 29 recites similar features as claim 20, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 20.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Fox/Werber/Meter teaches all of the limitations of claim 29, as described above. Claim 29 recites similar features as claim 21, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 21.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Fox/Werber/Meter teaches all of the limitations of claim 21, as described above. Claim 31 recites similar features as claim 22, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 22.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Becker et al. (US 20180253806 A1) discloses managing just-in-time preparation and delivery of food product. After customer order is placed, the system will track the users location, only starting to prepare their food when the customer is within a specific proximity to the retail location.
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 Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm M-F.
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 Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JING GAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights