DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 02/19/2026, with respect to the objection of the title of the invention have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the title of the invention has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 02/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Falcone (US 20150088779 A1), and further in view of Livingston (US 20030213840 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi (JP 2019075047 A), in view of Falcone (US 20150088779 A1), and further in view of Livingston (US 20030213840 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamauchi discloses an information processing apparatus configured to manage a vehicle with a cafeteria facility [0006] “A space mobility dispatch system (1) according to an aspect of the present disclosure is configured to dispatch space mobility (2) to a specific location. In this space mobility, there is a room equipped with equipment corresponding to a specific application that is different from the application for transporting users, and a mobile device that autonomously moves to a designated place equipped with the room. It is an equipped vehicle” (i.e., information processing apparatus configured to manage a vehicle, and the vehicle includes a room for a specific application), and [0027] “Providing, for example, furniture such as a dining set, cooking appliances, and a refrigerator / warmer in the room of the meal space cabin module 21 enables provision of a space suitable for the application where the user eats meals” (i.e., cafeteria facility).
the information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to: acquire dispatch destination information including a designated location and a designated time period; and command the vehicle to be dispatched to the designated location in the designated time period [0008] “The demand acquisition unit is configured to acquire demand information on the demand for space mobility. The demand information includes at least information on use time and use place” (i.e., dispatch destination information including a designated time period or use time, and a designated location or use place), [0051] “the user terminal 3 receives the input of the user's requirements for dispatch of the space mobility 2. Specifically, the user terminal 3 displays a GUI screen for inputting requirements including at least the space type of the space mobility 2, the number of users, the use time, and the use place” (i.e., the controller acquires the designated location and designated time period), [0063] “the management server 10 receives the demand information transmitted from the user terminal 3. In this demand information of ‘space type’, ‘number of users’, ‘time of use’ and ‘location of use’ is included” (i.e., dispatch destination information), and [0067] “the management server 10 creates command information for instructing the location information of the dispatching place, the dispatching time that is the time when the space mobility 2 should arrive at the dispatching place, and the dispatching end time. Then, the command system 12 instructs the space mobility 2 to move based on the created command information” (i.e., command the vehicle to be dispatched to the designated location in the designated time period).
Yamauchi further discloses an end of the designated time period [0046] “The ‘end time’ is an item representing a scheduled time when use or maintenance of the space mobility 2 is finished. That is, the ‘end time’ represents a time when the space mobility 2 can start an action for the next dispatch” (i.e., end of the designated time period).
Yamauchi does not appear to expressly teach the full claim limitation regarding “acquire every user identification for every worker who plans to use the cafeteria facility at the designated location.”
However, Falcone teaches equivalent teachings [0007] “The customer referred to herein may be an employee at a business location that is a target for a luncheon food service” (i.e., worker who plans to use the cafeteria facility at the designated location), [0009] “Embodiments are directed to improving service and availability for employees in the context of a luncheon business environment” (i.e., workers/employees as intended users of the meal service), [0089] “Such storage may also hold employee and customer identification and contact data” (i.e., user identification for the workers), and [0090] “Database 104 and/or 125 may further include employee lists for scheduled and targeted business locations” (i.e., every user identification for every worker who plans to use the cafeteria facility at the designated location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Yamauchi and Falcone to make the system acquire every user identification for every worker who plans to use the cafeteria facility at the designated location.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Yamauchi and Falcone to improve overall system end-to-end customer experience Falcone [0008] The invention is directed to an inter-related, customer-company management process for a luncheon food delivery business. A process on an intelligent, processor-based platform provides an improved end-to-end customer experience, for example, by reducing wait times and using convenient payment options so that customer does not need to handle money.
The combination of Yamauchi and Falcone does not appear to expressly teach the remaining claim limitations regarding “perform an authentication process when a meal is served at the designated location” and “when the authentication process for every user identification is not completed before a second predetermined time of an end of the designated time period, the controller is configured to output an alert to a worker with a user identification for which the authentication process has not ended.”
However, Livingston teaches equivalent teachings [0009] “means in the central service counter for encoding a data token with a customer identifier number that is provided to the customer when the customer places a food order… data input means for inputting the data token and extracting the customer number therefrom” (i.e., identification/check-in corresponding to authentication process using a customer identifier number tied to the food order), [0011] “After the customer selects a table, the method includes reading the particular customer’s customer number with a data input device at a particular communication device mounted on the selected table” (i.e., performing the authentication/check-in at the designated meal-service location), [0021] “The server then gives the customer a programmed data token and instructs them to input the data on the data token into the pager mounted on the table that they select. The customer number is then stored” (i.e., performing the identification/check-in when the meal is served at the selected location), [0032] “The customer selects a table and inputs the data token in the data input device of a communication device mounted on the table” (i.e., authentication/check-in at the designated location), [0026] “The customer-number memory can store multiple customer numbers” (i.e., every user identification / multiple identified workers), [0027] “the particular pager alerts the customers at its table using the alerting lights 21 and the optional speaker 22” (i.e., output an alert), and [0029] “This process continues until all of the customers at the table have been alerted” (i.e., alerting specific identified users whose required service-related identification/check-in remains pending).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Yamauchi, Falcone, and Livingston to make the system to modify Yamauchi’s dispatched meal-space vehicle system to include Falcone’s worker/customer identification management and Livingston’s meal-location customer identification/check-in and alerting, because these are known techniques for improving coordinated food service to identified customers at a workplace or restaurant location.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Yamauchi, Falcone, and Livingston to improve overall system end-to-end customer experience and identification Livingston [0009] “The central service counter includes a communication receiver that receives the message and extracts the customer number and the table identifier therefrom; and a user interface that receives the extracted customer number and table identifier from the communication receiver and informs a food server of the table identifier for the customer's table. The food server can then deliver the customer's food order without wandering around the restaurant looking for an identifier.”
Regarding Claim 2 , The combination of Yamauchi, Falcone, and Livingston teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Yamauchi discloses wherein the controller is configured to command the vehicle to move to a different location from the designated location at the end of the designated time period [0019] “In the present embodiment assuming an operation method of dispatching the space mobility 2 corresponding to the demand in various places from the standby station” (i.e., different location / standby station / other place), [0023] “the command system 12 transmits a command related to the movement to the space mobility 2 such as moving the space mobility 2 to the dispatching place or returning from the dispatching place to the standby station” (i.e., command the vehicle to move to a different location from the designated location), and [0046] “The ‘end time’ represents a time when the space mobility 2 can start an action for the next dispatch” (i.e., at the end of the designated time period).
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Yamauchi, Falcone, and Livingston teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Yamauchi discloses wherein when the authentication process … is completed before an end of the designated time period, commanding the vehicle to move to a different location upon completion of the authentication process [0023] “returning from the dispatching place to the standby station” (i.e., move to a different location) and [0046] “The ‘end time’ represents a time when the space mobility 2 can start an action for the next dispatch” (i.e., the controller can initiate next movement when the current service/use is complete) [0046] “The ‘end time’ is an item representing a scheduled time when use or maintenance of the space mobility 2 is finished. That is, the ‘end time’ represents a time when the space mobility 2 can start an action for the next dispatch” (i.e., end of the designated time period).
Falcone further teaches [0132] “the designated food service period may be shortened so that the operator may move to a new location” (i.e., moving to a different location once service-related conditions are satisfied).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Yamauchi and Falcone to make the system wherein when the authentication process is completed before an end of the designated time period, commanding the vehicle to move to a different location upon completion of the authentication process.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to improve overall system end-to-end customer experience Falcone [0008] The invention is directed to an inter-related, customer-company management process for a luncheon food delivery business. A process on an intelligent, processor-based platform provides an improved end-to-end customer experience, for example, by reducing wait times and using convenient payment options so that customer does not need to handle money.
Yamauchi and Falcone do not appear to expressly teach the full limitation regarding completion of the authentication process for every user identification.
However, Livingston teaches every user identification [0026] “The customer-number memory can store multiple customer numbers” (i.e., every user identification for the users/workers at the location), [0034] “If there are multiple customers in the party, each customer can enter a data token” (i.e., authentication process for every user identification), and thus teaches completion of identification/authentication for all users.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Yamauchi, Falcone, and Livingston to make the system so that completion of all worker/customer identifications/check-ins at the meal-service location serves as the trigger for moving the vehicle to a different location.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Yamauchi, Falcone, and Livingston to improve overall system end-to-end customer experience and identification Livingston [0009] “The central service counter includes a communication receiver that receives the message and extracts the customer number and the table identifier therefrom; and a user interface that receives the extracted customer number and table identifier from the communication receiver and informs a food server of the table identifier for the customer's table. The food server can then deliver the customer's food order without wandering around the restaurant looking for an identifier.”
Regarding Claim 4, The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
when the authentication process … is completed before an end of the designated time period, commanding the vehicle to move to a different location after a first predetermined time from completion of the authentication process [0023] “returning from the dispatching place to the standby station” (i.e., move to a different location) and [0046] “The ‘end time’ represents a time when the space mobility 2 can start an action for the next dispatch” (i.e., the controller can initiate next movement when the current service/use is complete) [0046] “The ‘end time’ is an item representing a scheduled time when use or maintenance of the space mobility 2 is finished. That is, the ‘end time’ represents a time when the space mobility 2 can start an action for the next dispatch” (i.e., end of the designated time period), [0067] “the management server 10 creates command information including the dispatching end time” (i.e., time-based scheduling for vehicle departure).
Falcone further teaches a specific predetermined time [0137] “The designated fulfillment period is a window of time” and [0145] “The fulfillment commitment times may be windows of time within the designated fulfillment period” (i.e., predetermined service timing / time windows).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Yamauchi and Falcone to make the system wherein
when the authentication process is completed before an end of the designated time period, commanding the vehicle to move to a different location after a first predetermined time from completion of the authentication process.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to improve overall system end-to-end customer experience Falcone [0008] The invention is directed to an inter-related, customer-company management process for a luncheon food delivery business. A process on an intelligent, processor-based platform provides an improved end-to-end customer experience, for example, by reducing wait times and using convenient payment options so that customer does not need to handle money.”
Yamauchi and Falcone do not appear to expressly teach the full claim limitation regarding “for every user identification”
However, Livingston teaches every user identification [0026] “The customer-number memory can store multiple customer numbers” (i.e., every user identification for the users/workers at the location), [0034] “If there are multiple customers in the party, each customer can enter a data token” (i.e., authentication process for every user identification), and thus teaches completion of identification/authentication for all users. Thus, after authentication for every user identification is completed, delaying departure by a first predetermined time is merely a predictable timing refinement within the known service-window and dispatch-end-time framework.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Yamauchi, Falcone, and Livingston to make the system wherein
when the authentication process for every user identification is completed before an end of the designated time period, commanding the vehicle to move to a different location after a first predetermined time from completion of the authentication process.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Yamauchi, Falcone, and Livingston to improve overall system end-to-end customer experience and identification Livingston [0009] “The central service counter includes a communication receiver that receives the message and extracts the customer number and the table identifier therefrom; and a user interface that receives the extracted customer number and table identifier from the communication receiver and informs a food server of the table identifier for the customer's table. The food server can then deliver the customer's food order without wandering around the restaurant looking for an identifier.”
Regarding Claim 5, The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Yamauchi discloses wherein when the authentication process …, except a user …for a worker who has notified a plan cancellation, is completed before an end of the designated time period, commanding the vehicle to move to a different location upon completion of the authentication process [0054] “when the operation to cancel the reservation is performed the user terminal 3 ends the user application process” (i.e., worker/customer who has notified a plan cancellation)
Yamauchi does not appear to expressly teach the full claim limitation regarding “for every user identification and a plan cancellation”
However, Falcone teaches a plan cancelation [0104]–[0106] that the platform handles “cancelation slots” and replacement/back-fill scheduling when a customer cancels (i.e., excluding cancelled customers from the expected service set).
Yamauchi and Falcone does not appear to teach every user identification.
However, Livingston teaches every user identification [0026] “The customer-number memory can store multiple customer numbers” (i.e., every user identification for the users/workers at the location), [0034] “If there are multiple customers in the party, each customer can enter a data token” (i.e., authentication process for every user identification), and thus teaches completion of identification/authentication for all users. Thus, after authentication for every user identification is completed, delaying departure by a first predetermined time is merely a predictable timing refinement within the known service-window and dispatch-end-time framework.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Yamauchi, Falcone, and Livingston to make the system once a worker/customer cancels, the combined system would no longer require completion of authentication for that cancelled user before moving on, because Falcone teaches adjustment of the expected customer set in response to cancellation.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Yamauchi, Falcone, and Livingston to improve overall system end-to-end customer experience and identification Livingston [0009] “The central service counter includes a communication receiver that receives the message and extracts the customer number and the table identifier therefrom; and a user interface that receives the extracted customer number and table identifier from the communication receiver and informs a food server of the table identifier for the customer's table. The food server can then deliver the customer's food order without wandering around the restaurant looking for an identifier.”
Regarding Claim 6, The combination of Yamauchi, Falcone, and Livingston teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when the authentication process for every user identification, except a user identification for a worker who has notified a plan cancellation, is completed before the end of the designated time period, the controller commands the vehicle to move to a different location after a first predetermined time from completion of the authentication process. The combination teaches the limitations contained in claim 5 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 4, the use of a first predetermined time from completion of the remaining required authentications is an obvious timing refinement within the known dispatch-end-time / service-window framework. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected using the same rational reasoning applied above in claims 4 and 5.
Regarding Claim 8, The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium of the parallel limitations in claim 1, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 9, The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium of the parallel limitations in claim 2, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 10, The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium of the parallel limitations in claim 3, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 11, The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium of the parallel limitations in claim 4, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 12, The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium of the parallel limitations in claim 5, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 13, The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium of the parallel limitations in claim 6, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 15, The claim recites a method of the parallel limitations in claim 1, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 16, The claim recites a method of the parallel limitations in claim 2, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 17, The claim recites a method of the parallel limitations in claim 3, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 18, The claim recites a method of the parallel limitations in claim 4, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 19, The claim recites a method of the parallel limitations in claim 5, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 20, The claim recites a method of the parallel limitations in claims 6, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HUSSAM ALZATEEMEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571) 270-3832. 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.
/HUSSAM ALDEEN ALZATEEMEH/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights