Detailed Action
This Non Final office action is in response to Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9, filed on December 17, 2025. Applicant has cancelled claims 10-20 and added claims 21-31. Thus, claims 1-9 and 21-31 are pending and under examination.
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 .
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on January 8, 2024 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-9, and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One:
Under Step one of an analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 22 is a process claim. Therefore, claims 1-9 and 21-31 fall under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
Step 2A. Prong 1:
Representative claim 1 recites:
receiving, by an application stored on a non-transitory memory and executable by a processor, data from a plurality of independent establishments;
analyzing, by the application, the data from the plurality of independent establishments;
determining, by the application, a recommendation for at least one establishment of the plurality of establishments based on analyzing the data from the plurality of independent establishments, wherein the recommendation comprises a recommendation to order a food or drink item; and
sending, by the application to a computer system at the at least one establishment over a network, the recommendation, wherein the recommendation triggers submission of a purchase order for the food or drink item.
Claim 2 further recites analyzing, by the application, event data, wherein the recommendation is determined based also on the analysis of the event data.
Claim 3 further recites wherein submission of the purchase order for the food or drink item is triggered at a time to ensure that a particular quantity of the food or drink item is in stock for an upcoming event.
Claim 4 further recites prior to the upcoming event, receiving, by the application, an order request that comprises a request for an out of stock food or drink item; and
in response to receiving the order request, providing, by the application, a substitute choice to a customer via an electronic display, wherein the substitute choice comprises one or more food or drink items other than the food or drink item.
Claim 5 further recites wherein the data comprises customer order history data.
Claim 6 further recites wherein the plurality of independent establishments are within a predefined proximity of each other.
Claim 7 further recites providing, by the application, at least one filtered set of the analyzed data to one or more of the plurality of independent establishments based on a subscription level associated with each of the one or more of the plurality of independent establishments.
Claim 8 further recites creating, by the application, a customer profile for any customer of the plurality of customers that does not choose to create a customer profile, wherein the created customer profile comprises customer order data for the customer and identifying information of the customer.
Claim 9 further recites wherein the identifying information comprises billing information.
Claim 21 further recites wherein providing the at least one filtered set of analyzed data to the one or more of the plurality of independent establishments comprises:
providing, to a first establishment of the plurality of independent establishments,
access to a first filtered set of the analyzed customer order data based on a first subscription level of the first establishment, wherein the first filtered set of analyzed data includes only customer order data pertaining to the first establishment; and
providing, to a second establishment of the plurality of independent establishments, access to a second filtered set of the analyzed customer order data based on a second subscription level of the second establishment, wherein the second filtered set of analyzed data includes customer order data pertaining to one or more other independent establishments of the plurality of independent establishments in addition to the second establishment.
Claim 22 further recites:
at least one non-transitory memory;
at least one processor; and
an application stored in the at least one non-transitory memory, that when executed by the at least one processor:
receives data from a plurality of independent establishments;
analyzes the data from the plurality of independent establishments;
determines a recommendation for at least one establishment of the plurality of establishments based on analyzing the data from the plurality of independent establishments, wherein the recommendation comprises a recommendation to order a food or drink item; and
sends, to a computer system at the at least one establishment over a network, the recommendation, wherein the recommendation triggers submission of a purchase order for the food or drink item.
Claim 23 further recites wherein the application, when executed by the at least one processor, further analyzes event data, and wherein the recommendation is determined based also on the analysis of the event data.
Claim 24 further recites wherein submission of the purchase order for the food or drink item is triggered at a time to ensure that a particular quantity of the food or drink item is in stock for an upcoming event.
Claim 25 further recites wherein the application, when executed by the at least one processor, further:
prior to the upcoming event, receives an order request that comprises a request for an out of stock food or drink item; and
in response to receiving the order request, provides a substitute choice to a customer via an electronic display, wherein the substitute choice comprises one or more food or drink items other than the food or drink item.
Claim 26 further recites wherein the data comprises customer order history data.
Claim 27 further recites wherein the plurality of independent establishments are within a predefined proximity of each other.
Claim 28 further recites wherein the application, when executed by the at least one processor, further provides at least one filtered set of the analyzed data to one or more of the plurality of independent establishments based on a subscription level associated with each of the one or more of the plurality of independent establishments.
Claim 29 further recites wherein the application, when executed by the at least one processor, further creates a customer profile for any customer of the plurality of customers that does not choose to create a customer profile, wherein the created customer profile comprises customer order data for the customer and identifying information of the customer.
Claim 30 further recites wherein the identifying information comprises billing information.
Claim 31 further recites wherein providing the at least one filtered set of the analyzed data to the one or more of the plurality of independent establishments comprises:
providing, to a first establishment of the plurality of independent establishments, access to a first filtered set of the analyzed customer order data based on a first subscription level of the first establishment, wherein the first filtered set of analyzed data includes only customer order data pertaining to the first establishment; and
providing, to a second establishment of the plurality of independent establishments, access to a second filtered set of the analyzed customer order data based on a second subscription level of the second establishment, wherein the second filtered set of analyzed data includes customer order data pertaining to one or more other independent establishments of the plurality of independent establishments in addition to the second establishment.
The claims above recite the following limitations that are understood to recite an abstract idea being in nonbold, and with the additional limitations being in bold.
As per claim 1, the steps or functions of “receiving” are considered to as data gathering functions,
The functions of "analyzing the data from the plurality of independent establishments, “analyzing…”, "determining…" involve mental processes and/or generic computer functions.
The function of "…sending" involves an insignificant post solution activity.
Here, the claims fall into the category of functions of performing mental processes such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because it amounts to the functions of:
“determining, by the application, a recommendation for at least one establishment of the plurality of establishments based on analyzing the data from the plurality of independent establishments, wherein the recommendation comprises a recommendation to order a food or drink item; and sending, by the application to a computer system at the at least one establishment over a network, the recommendation, wherein the recommendation triggers submission of a purchase order for the food or drink item”. These functions are also viewed as mental/manual processes.
.
Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. In particular,
The claims recite the following limitations that are understood to recite an abstract idea with the bolded limitations to be the additional elements.
Claim 1 recites:
receiving, by an application stored on a non-transitory memory and executable by a processor, data from a plurality of independent establishments;
analyzing, by the application, the data from the plurality of independent establishments;
determining, by the application, a recommendation for at least one establishment of the plurality of establishments based on analyzing the data from the plurality of independent establishments, wherein the recommendation comprises a recommendation to order a food or drink item; and
sending, by the application to a computer system at the at least one establishment over a network, the recommendation, wherein the recommendation triggers submission of a purchase order for the food or drink item.
Claim 2 further recites analyzing, by the application, event data, wherein the recommendation is determined based also on the analysis of the event data.
Claim 3 further recites wherein submission of the purchase order for the food or drink item is triggered at a time to ensure that a particular quantity of the food or drink item is in stock for an upcoming event.
Claim 4 further recites prior to the upcoming event, receiving, by the application, an order request that comprises a request for an out of stock food or drink item; and
in response to receiving the order request, providing, by the application, a substitute choice to a customer via an electronic display, wherein the substitute choice comprises one or more food or drink items other than the food or drink item.
Claim 5 further recites wherein the data comprises customer order history data.
Claim 6 further recites wherein the plurality of independent establishments are within a predefined proximity of each other.
Claim 7 further recites providing, by the application, at least one filtered set of the analyzed data to one or more of the plurality of independent establishments based on a subscription level associated with each of the one or more of the plurality of independent establishments.
Claim 8 further recites creating, by the application, a customer profile for any customer of the plurality of customers that does not choose to create a customer profile, wherein the created customer profile comprises customer order data for the customer and identifying information of the customer.
Claim 9 further recites wherein the identifying information comprises billing information.
Claim 21 further recites wherein providing the at least one filtered set of
analyzed data to the one or more of the plurality of independent establishments comprises:
providing, to a first establishment of the plurality of independent establishments,
access to a first filtered set of the analyzed customer order data based on a first subscription level of the first establishment, wherein the first filtered set of analyzed data includes only customer order data pertaining to the first establishment; and
providing, to a second establishment of the plurality of independent establishments, access to a second filtered set of the analyzed customer order data based on a second subscription level of the second establishment, wherein the second filtered set of analyzed data includes customer order data pertaining to one or more other independent establishments of the plurality of independent establishments in addition to the second establishment.
Claim 22 further recites:
at least one non-transitory memory;
at least one processor; and
an application stored in the at least one non-transitory memory, that when executed by the at least one processor:
receives data from a plurality of independent establishments;
analyzes the data from the plurality of independent establishments;
determines a recommendation for at least one establishment of the plurality of establishments based on analyzing the data from the plurality of independent establishments, wherein the recommendation comprises a recommendation to order a food or drink item; and
sends, to a computer system at the at least one establishment over a network, the recommendation, wherein the recommendation triggers submission of a purchase order for the food or drink item.
Claim 23 further recites wherein the application, when executed by the at least one processor, further analyzes event data, and wherein the recommendation is determined based also on the analysis of the event data.
Claim 24 further recites wherein submission of the purchase order for the food or drink item is triggered at a time to ensure that a particular quantity of the food or drink item is in stock for an upcoming event.
Claim 25 further recites wherein the application, when executed by the at least one processor, further:
prior to the upcoming event, receives an order request that comprises a request for an out of stock food or drink item; and
in response to receiving the order request, provides a substitute choice to a customer via an electronic display, wherein the substitute choice comprises one or more food or drink items other than the food or drink item.
Claim 26 further recites wherein the data comprises customer order history data.
Claim 27 further recites wherein the plurality of independent establishments are within a predefined proximity of each other.
Claim 28 further recites wherein the application, when executed by the at least one processor, further provides at least one filtered set of the analyzed data to one or more of the plurality of independent establishments based on a subscription level associated with each of the one or more of the plurality of independent establishments.
Claim 29 further recites wherein the application, when executed by the at least one processor, further creates a customer profile for any customer of the plurality of customers that does not choose to create a customer profile, wherein the created customer profile comprises customer order data for the customer and identifying information of the customer.
Claim 30 further recites wherein the identifying information comprises billing information.
Claim 31 further recites wherein providing the at least one filtered set of the analyzed data to the one or more of the plurality of independent establishments comprises:
providing, to a first establishment of the plurality of independent establishments, access to a first filtered set of the analyzed customer order data based on a first subscription level of the first establishment, wherein the first filtered set of analyzed data includes only customer order data pertaining to the first establishment; and
providing, to a second establishment of the plurality of independent establishments, access to a second filtered set of the analyzed customer order data based on a second subscription level of the second establishment, wherein the second filtered set of analyzed data includes customer order data pertaining to one or more other independent establishments of the plurality of independent establishments in addition to the second establishment.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in the claims, the claims recite additional elements including a generic data collecting step using a processor and memory. The claimed “an application stored on a non-transitory memory”, a “processor”, a “computer system” and a “network”, are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer processor. Performing steps or functions by a processor merely limits the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers to process data (i.e., data from a plurality of independent establishments).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
Performance of the claimed steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claims does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing
the abstract idea. Thus the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more.
Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Positively reciting “an application stored on a non-transitory memory”, “processor”, “computer system”, and “network”, does not change the analysis
as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also
recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements does not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be one or more of a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. The claimed application stored
on a non-transitory memory, a processor, a computer system, and a network
are noted to a generic computer.
.These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements
are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed application, processor, computer system and network are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 22 are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-8, and 21 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claim 1. Dependent claims 23-31 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claim 22. The provision of additional details of a generic computer element does not render the element any less generic. The claimed steps do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because they are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions in view of MPEP 2106 .05(d)(11). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 2-9 and 23-31 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-9 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 USC. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
6. NOTE: Currently there are no outstanding prior art rejections under 35 USC § 102 or 35 USC§ 103.
7. The claims would be allowable if overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. As per attached PTO 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROMAIN JEANTY whose telephone number is (571) 272-6732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571 272-6787. 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.
/RJ/
/ROMAIN JEANTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624