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
This communication is responsive to the remarks filed on 12/22/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. This action is made final.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been placed in file.
Foreign Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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.
Claim 1-2, 6-10, 14-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahata et al. (US 2022/0012826, hereinafter Yahata) in view of Ergun et al. (US 2013/0054388, hereinafter Ergun).
Re claims 1, 9 and 17, Yahata teaches an information processing apparatus, comprising:
a first interface connectable to an external server ([0063], a second operation screen for accepting an order of a food to be provided by the restaurant);
a second interface connectable to a display ([0063], a first operation screen conforming to a common style designated by a matching app displayed on a display of the information terminal of the user); and
a processor configured to:
receive order data for dinning orders via the first and second interface ([0064], when ordering a food, a first operation screen is displayed on a display of a user's information terminal. Also see [0065], displayed on the display of an information terminal through a second operation screen for receiving an order of food from the restaurant); and
cause the display to display order data in a first area or a second area depending on whether the order data is first-type order data or second-type order data, wherein the first and second areas are separate areas, the first-type order data includes dining orders of a first type, and the second-type order data includes dining orders of a second type, the second type being different from the first type (fig. 9 and [0179]-[0182], a plurality of tile objects 901 are arranged in a matrix).
Yahata teaches receiving order from customer ([0063]) but Yahata does not explicitly teach receive order data for dining orders from different customers. However, it is taught by Ergun ([0007], plurality of customers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Ergun’s content into Yahata’s invention because it would provide an enhanced graphical user interface that allows a plurality of customers to place orders. The system will be more efficient when serving a large crowd.
Re claims 2, 10, and 19-20, Yahata teaches wherein
order data is displayed in a first display mode in the first area (fig.9, first displayed menu),
order data is displayed in a second display mode in the second area, and
the first display mode is different from the second display mode (figs. 9 and 18, first and second displayed menu).
Re claims 6 and 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yahata does not explicitly teach wherein second-type order data is displayed with identification information unique to dining orders of the second type. However, Yahata teaches using identification for a variety of things such as to specify user, table, restaurant, seat. Furthermore, it is just a matter of adjustability and is a known practice in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the above features onto the invention of Yahata for the purpose of representing an item.
Re claims 7 and 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yahata teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
cause the display to display third-type order data in either the first area or second area depending on a preset user setting for display of the third-type order data, the third-type order data including dining orders of a third type, the third type being different from the first and second types (figs. 9 and 18, plurality of food items are being displayed for user to select and order).
Re claims 8 and 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yahata teaches wherein the external server is a third-party ordering service server ([0263], The second server 300 receiving the request uses an HTTP server function to transmit an HTTP response containing the menu information).
Claim 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahata et al. in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0018825, hereinafter Kim).
Re claims 3 and 11, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Yahata does not teach wherein
the first display mode comprises a first font characteristic, and
the second display mode comprises a second font characteristic visually distinct from the first font characteristic. However, Kim teaches wherein
the first display mode comprises a first font characteristic, and
the second display mode comprises a second font characteristic visually distinct from the first font characteristic (fig. 12 and [0090], different font).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Kim’s content into Yahata’s invention because it would allow customer to achieve a task in a timely manner.
Claims 4-5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahata et al. in view of Sinnet et al. (US 2022/0386807, hereinafter Sinnet).
Re claims 4 and 12, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Yahata does not teach the limitation of this claim. However, Sinnet teaches wherein
the first display mode comprises a first background characteristic, and
the second display mode comprises a second background characteristic visually distinct from the first background characteristic ([0135], the collected data are used to generate synthetic data by using photorealistic rendering where objects are placed over a variety of backgrounds to create novelty).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Sinnet’s content into Yahata’s invention because it would display the item on a background that allows customer to easily view the menu.
Re claim 5-13, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Yahata does not teach the limitation of this claim. However, Sinnet teaches wherein
the first display mode comprises a first background color, and
the second display mode comprises a second background color visually distinct from the first background color ([0135], the collected data are used to generate synthetic data by using photorealistic rendering where objects are placed over a variety of backgrounds to create novelty).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Sinnet’s content into Yahata’s invention because it would display the item on a background that allows customer to easily view the menu.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahata et al. in view of Ergun and further in view of Svenson et al. (US Paten 10,943,311, hereinafter Svenson).
Re claim 17, this claim has similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1. However, the only limitation that claim 17 has that claim 1 does not is the “kitchen display”. It can be seen in the prior art of Svenson (col. 29, lines 30-42, kitchen display).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Svenson’s content into the combination of Ergun and Yahata’s invention because it would provide a display to the kitchen area to keep the communication flow smoothly between the front service and the back end service.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahata et al. in view of Ergun, Svenson and further in view of Shih et al. (US 2024/0070601, hereinafter Shih).
Re claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated. Yahata does not teach the limitation of this claim. However, Shih teaches wherein
the dining orders of the first type are delivery orders for a customer outside the restaurant, and
the dining orders of the second type are in-store orders for a customer at the restaurant ([0135], Two of the orders may be for dine-in customers, while the other three may be prepared for delivery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Shih’s content into the combination of Svenson, Ergun, Svenson and Yahata’s invention because it would provide an enhanced system to distinctly display the ordered items to avoid serving the wrong item to customer.
Response to Arguments
Regarding to the “priority document”, applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Under 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3)(iii), the examiner may require an English translation of a non-English foreign application. The office action mailed on 10/01/2025 specifically required submission of a certified English translation. Applicant has not complied with this requirement. The examiner maintains the requirements.
Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered. Introduction of new prior arts are believed to teach the claimed limitation based on the amendment filed on 12/22/2025.
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).
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 ( c ) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior artreferences and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in anyway. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would havereasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN VU whose telephone number is (571)270-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday: 8:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Hong can be reached on 571-272-4124. 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.
/TOAN H VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178