DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment on 07/13/2026. Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 10/13/2022.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1, which both claim 21-22 depend upon, includes the limitations of claim 21-22. For claim 21, see e.g. claim 1, lines 11-22. For claim 22, see e.g. claim 1, lines 11-18. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to abstract idea.
Step 1 – Claims 1-16 21-24 relate to system/machine claims. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Exemplary claim 1 recites the following abstract idea:
a first computer device associated with a first user at a location, wherein the first user comprises a flight attendant and the first computer device comprises a mobile computer device having a flight attendant in-flight catering application installed thereon (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. Where having a mobile phone at any location and conducting a transaction is found to be abstract idea);
a second computer device associated with a second user at the location, wherein the second computer device comprises a passenger mobile device (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. Where having a mobile phone at any location and conducting a transaction is found to be abstract idea);
a server communicatively connected to the first computer device and the second communication device via a wireless communication network (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) commercial legal interaction, referring to buySafe, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction.), wherein the server:
coordinates interactive communication between the first computer device and the second computer device enabling catering services for the location (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) commercial legal interaction, referring to buySafe, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction.; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that “with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps,);
wherein the server can be accessed remotely by the first computer device and the second user device (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) v. local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods, Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1378-79, 125 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017)), wherein the server stores a set of instructions that when executed cause the server to:
start and shut down in-flight catering service for a flight (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B));
receive, from the second computer device, a passenger-initiated in-flight catering service order submitted by the second user during operation of an aircraft, wherein the passenger-initiated in-flight catering service order is transmitted directly from the passenger mobile device to the server over the wireless communication network (e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B));
validate the passenger-initiated in-flight catering service order against a current inventory state for in-flight catering service on the aircraft (e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B));
update the current inventory state for the in-flight catering service on the aircraft in real time immediately upon validating the passenger-initiated in-flight catering service order (e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B); real-time processing found to be MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D), citing Electric Power Grp.); and
retrieve the passenger-initiated in-flight catering service order for the first computer device (e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B));
When these limitations are viewed alone and in ordered combination, the examiner finds that exemplary claim 1 recites abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Exemplary claim 1 is not found to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: a first computing device with application thereon, a second computing device, a server connected to the first/second device. For these additional limitations the examiner refers to MPEP 2106.05(f), where “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).” The first device is used in the system and is associated with a user; the second device of the system is associated with a second user; the server connects the two devices. This is a classic “apply it” situation as the additional elements are broadly recited and act as tools to implement the abstract idea.
When these additional elements are viewed alone and in ordered combination, the examiner finds the claim 1 is directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B – Claim 1 does not recite significantly more. The additional element analysis of Step 2A Prong 2 is equally applied at Step 2B. Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. MPEP 2106.05(d). The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Claim 1 includes limitations relating to receiving and transmitting data over a network, where this has been found to be WURC activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
Claim 1 also includes limitations relating to the folloinwg WURC activity: iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Accordingly, when these activities are viewed alone and in ordered combination, the examiner finds the claim 1 to be directed to abstract idea.
Dependent Claims – The dependent claims 2-16, 21-24 recite more abstract idea, and broadly recites various additional elements that act as tools to implement the abstract idea, such as clarifying that the wireless communication network is an in-flight wireless network operational during flight. The examiner does not find any of the dependent claims to include eligible subject matter.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-16 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0391817 to O’Brien in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0236195 to Verweij.
With regard to claim 1, 11, 12, 16, 21, 22, O-Brien discloses:
a first computer device associated with a first user at a location, wherein the first user comprises a flight attendant and the first computer device comprises a mobile computer device having a flight attendant in-flight catering application installed thereon (see Obrien e.g. Fig. 1, Fulfillment Computing Device(s) 150, associated with Crew Member ID 154, second application, etc.; [0045] The fulfillment computing device(s) 150 and the client device(s) 160 may comprise, for example, processor-based systems. The fulfillment computing device(s) 150 and the client device(s) 160 may be devices such as, but not limited to, laptops or notebook computers, tablet computers, mobile devices, handheld computers, or other devices with like capability.);
a second computer device associated with a second user at the location, wherein the second computer device comprises a passenger mobile device (see OBrien e.g. [0019], In this example, the client devices 160 may be personal electronic devices, such as mobile phones or tablet computers.; Fig. 1, Client Device(s) 160);
a server communicatively connected to the first computer device and the second communication computer device via a wireless communication network, wherein the server (see Obrien e.g. Fig. 1, 110, discussed throughout):
coordinates interactive communication between the first computer device and the second computer device enabling catering services for the location (see Obrien, abstract, discussing such interactivity through the server);
wherein the server can be accessed remotely by the first computer device and the second user computer device (see Obrien, Fig. 1, both can access remotely via Wireless access point 140, [0021] [0041], [0043] etc.); and
wherein the server stores a set of instructions that when executed cause the server to:
start and shut down in-flight catering service for a flight (see Obrien, start at Fig. 8, end at Fig. 9 when clicked COMPLETE; Fig. 11);
receive, from the second computer device, a passenger-initiated in-flight catering service order submitted by the second user during operation of an aircraft, wherein the passenger-initiated in-flight catering service order is transmitted directly from the passenger mobile device to the server over the wireless communication network (see Obrien, Fig. 11, 1110, [0022] The item request 124 may include a delivery location 125 (e.g., a specific seat number, multiple seat numbers or a set of seat numbers which may include contiguous or non-contiguous seat numbers). After the passenger enters pertinent information for the item request 124, the first application 162 may send the item request 124 to the server 110. The manner in which the delivery location 125 is associated with the item request 125 can vary from example to example. In some examples, the passenger may enter the delivery location 125 (or delivery locations 125 for different items that are part of the same item request 125) via the user interface 164. In other examples, the client device 160 used by the passenger to place the item request 124, and/or the passenger placing the request, may already be associated with the delivery location 125. For example, the passenger may enter identifying information via the user interface 164, and the delivery location 125 may be the seat number of the passenger to be retrieved from a passenger manifest file.);
validate the passenger-initiated in-flight catering service order against a current inventory state for in-flight catering service on the aircraft (See Obrien at e.g. [0058-59] “The inventory 438 may be tracked in real-time to enable passengers to view an update-to-date listing of items that are available for request or purchase on the aircraft 400. The inventory tracking subsystem 415 may detect when a particular item is out of stock or no longer available for request or purchase (e.g., when a particular type of sandwich has run out). The server 410 may maintain an update an electronic menu 440 using the inventory tracking subsystem 415.” However, the act of validating the order against a current inventory state is not explicitly shown in Obrien. Verweij teaches this explicitly at e.g. Abstract, “The invention relates to a method for operating a passenger catering system by using a server, the server comprising a processor and a memory unit, wherein the processor is connected to the memory unit and wherein the processor is configured to execute the following steps: receiving first input data from a passenger interface device; comparing the first input data with stock data in a database stored in the memory unit; and transmitting first output data to a crew interface device; wherein the first output data comprise data on available stock coinciding with the received first input data.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory management art to modify Obrien to include such validation of order to available stock, as this ensures that the item is available in stock prior to the server committing to fulfilling the order, which would cause inefficiencies and poor service. See Vermeij.);
update the current inventory state for the in-flight catering service on the aircraft in real time immediately upon validating the passenger-initiated in-flight catering service order (See Obrien at e.g. [0058-59] “The inventory 438 may be tracked in real-time to enable passengers to view an update-to-date listing of items that are available for request or purchase on the aircraft 400. The inventory tracking subsystem 415 may detect when a particular item is out of stock or no longer available for request or purchase (e.g., when a particular type of sandwich has run out). The server 410 may maintain an update an electronic menu 440 using the inventory tracking subsystem 415.” Published claim 8; see also Vermeij, [0017] “According to an embodiment, the first input data comprises a product order from the stock in the galley container and a reservation of the product is made in the database after receipt of the first input data. The first input data are compared with the stock data on the stock present in the galley container. To have reliable stock data a reservation of the product ordered via the first input data is made in the database. Upon making such a reservation, the first input data is coupled to a product and the database is updated accordingly. A reservation on a product means that the product cannot be linked to further first input data. A product can be a meal, including food and/or a drink, or consumer goods, such as cosmetics, decorative products or otherwise, for instance from the duty-free shop, or a request for support.” See combination above); and
retrieve the passenger-initiated in-flight catering service order for the first computer device (see Obrien, [0025], Fig. 10, 1020; Vermeij, [0011], etc. see combination above.).
With regard to claim 2, Obrien discloses the location comprises at least one of: an aircraft (see Obrien, abstract), a train, a stadium, a restaurant, a theater, and a venue; and wherein the wireless communication network comprises an in-flight wireless network operational during flight (see Obrien, during flight at e.g. [0039-40], [0051-53]).
With regard to claim 3, Obrien discloses the first user first user is a flight attendant on the aircraft and the first computer device comprises a mobile computer device having a flight attendant in-flight catering application installed thereon, and wherein the flight attendant in-flight catering application retrieves validated passenger-initiated in-flight catering service (Obrien discloses e.g. see Obrien, [0025], Fig. 10, 1020; Vermeij, [0011], etc. see combination above.).
With regard to claim 4, Obrien discloses the flight attendant in-flight catering application submits input to start in-flight catering service from the flight attendant, and wherein the server updates availability status for in-flight catering service options based on the input (see Obrien, [0039] crew member logs in and accepts the assigned service zone via the user interface and Thereafter, item requests 124 with delivery locations in that service zone 165 may be received at the second application 152.).
With regard to claim 5, Obrien discloses the server receives the input to start in-flight catering service from the flight attendant in-flight catering application (see Obrien, [0039] login info for crew member); and wherein the server transmits updated in-flight catering service availability to the second computer device over the wireless communication network (see Obrien, [0039] For example, the second application 152 may receive a notification that the crew member is assigned to service zone 1, which may span from seat rows 1-11.).
With regard to claim 6-7, Obrien discloses the second user is a passenger on the aircraft, and wherein the passenger mobile device transmits the passenger-initiated in-flight catering service order to the server without requiring flight attendant approval prior to validation (see OBrien e.g. [0019], In this example, the client devices 160 may be personal electronic devices, such as mobile phones or tablet computers.; Fig. 1, Client Device(s) 160).
With regard to claim 8, Obrien further discloses the passenger in-flight catering application receives passenger information submitted by the passenger prior to transmitting the passenger-initiated in-flight catering service order to the server (Obrien [0022]).
With regard to claim 9, Obrien further discloses the passenger information comprises one or more of: airline, flight number, and seat number (Obrien [0022]); and wherein the server retrieves the current inventory state for the in-flight catering service based on the flight number (Obrien, e.g. [0022] In one configuration, a client device 160 may execute a first application 162, such as an ordering application. As an example, the first application 162 may provide a user interface 164 that enables a passenger to view an electronic menu of items that may be requested by the passenger. These items may include food and/or drink items that are available for free and/or purchase on the aircraft 100. The electronic menu may be sent from the server 110 to the first application 162 executing on the client device 160. Thus, the server 110 on the aircraft 100 may communicate information, such as the electronic menu, to the client device(s) 160 using a wired or wireless network onboard the aircraft. The passenger may electronically place an item request 124 via the user interface 164, where the item request 124 may be for a food item, drink item, etc. and a requested quantity for each item; see Obrien [0070] aircraft known and specific values/numbers. Under the claim’s broadest reasonable interperetaion, the “flight number” does not occur as only one of the previous data are needed for the claim, and the examiner applied art to the seat number option.).
With regard to claim 10, Obrien further discloses the server: receives the passenger information from the passenger in-flight catering application; retrieves corresponding in-flight catering service options based on the passenger information and the current inventory state; and transmits the corresponding in-flight catering service options to the passenger in-flight catering application for display to the passenger for the passenger in-flight catering application (Obrien, e.g. [0022]).
With regard to claim 13, Obrien discloses the flight attendant in-flight catering application displays the validated passenger-initiated in-flight catering service order and the corresponding seat number for the passenger, and wherein the validated passenger-initiated in-flight catering service order has already been deducted from the current inventory state prior to display the in-flight catering service order and the corresponding seat number for the passenger (see Obrien, [0022] where flight attendant receives notification/displays the order and delivery location such as seat number section, etc.).
With regard to claim 14, Obrien further discloses the flight attendant in-flight catering application enables querying, retrieving, and viewing of one or more validated passenger-initiated in-flight catering service orders for the aircraft, and wherein each validated passenger-initiated in-flight catering service order reflects a corresponding real-time update to the current inventory state in-flight catering service orders for the aircraft (e.g. [0023] [0076] etc.).
With regard to claim 15, Obrien further discloses the flight attendant in-flight catering application displays each validated passenger-initiated in-flight catering service order by a corresponding seat number on the aircraft ([0076-77]).
With regard to claim 23, Obrien teaches the wireless communication network comprises an in-flight Wi-Fi network connecting the second computer device to the server (see above).
With regard to claim 24, Obrian/Vermeiji teaches the server stores a set of instructions that when executed cause the server to: receive passenger information comprising a flight number and a seat number from the second computer device; retrieve flight-specific catering service options based on the flight number; and transmit the flight-specific catering service options to the second computer device for display to the second user prior to submission of the passenger-initiated in-flight catering service order (see above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner notes that there were significant amendments made to the claims. Each of the amendments have been addressed above in the various rejections. The examiner recommends responding to these rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights