DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 08/04/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending; claims 17-20 are withdrawn; and, claims 1-16 are examined below. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 10/13/2022.
Applicant argues the restriction with traverse. See Remarks, 08/04/2025. Applicant argues that claim 20 should not be restricted from claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated in the restriction requirement 06/04/2025. Claim 1 does not require at least a first mobile computer device comprising a passenger mobile application, a second mobile computer device comprising a flight attendant mobile application, a server that can be accessed remotely by the passenger mobile application and the flight attendant mobile application, as claimed. During the interview, the examiner indicated that the restriction would be withdrawn if the claims were aligned to include the same limitations. The examiner has reviewed the claims again and maintains the distinctiveness and search burden as they are different inventions.
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(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the first user first user. . . .” in line 1. This renders the claim indefinite as the scope of the claim is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to abstract idea.
Step 1 – Claims 1-16 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 (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 associated with a second user at the location (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 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,);
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 orders for in-flight catering service for passengers on the flight (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B));
update inventory for the in-flight catering service on the flight (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B)); and
retrieve the orders for in-flight catering service for passengers on the flight (see 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, 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 recite more abstract idea, and broadly recites various additional elements that act as tools to implement the abstract idea. 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0186760 to Metzger (“Metzger”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0140434 to O’Brien (“O’Brien”).
With regard to claim 1, Metzger discloses the claimed system, comprising:
a first computer device associated with a first user at a location (see e.g. [0013] first computer device is the first portable device carried by flight attendant onboard the aircraft);
a second computer associated with a second user at the location (see e.g. [0029] [0034] second computer device is a second portable device used by another flight attendant on the same aircraft; [0030] “Moreover, the devices 222 allow attendants to perform in-flight and/onboard reporting such as, for example, account for change due to passengers, sales totals, flight attendant itemized sales transactions, among other things. The one or more devices 222 may communicate with each other in-flight via various communication means such as infrared, wireless, etc., to maintain, for example a master inventory of onboard items. It is contemplated that the devices 222 may include input devices such as optical (i.e., bar-code) or RFID scanners, and if the flight is equipped with a suitable communication means to the Internet, the devices 222 may be operative to communicate with the portal in real time to authorize and settle non-cash sales transactions, among other things such as real-time inventory or sales reporting.”);
a server communicatively connected to the first computer device and the second communication device via a communication network, wherein the server (see abstract, “The system includes an Internet portal in communication with a database for entering and storing pre-sale and post-sale transaction and inventory information, which may be used for reconciliation purposes, among other things.”; [0028] “The portal may be physically embodied by a facilitator's back-office subsystem 208 comprising one or more servers, such as, for example, the illustrated application server 212, report server 214, and payment server 216.”; [0031-32]; [0038] [0050] where the terminals can access the portal/server and communication data to the portal/server):
coordinates interactive communication between the first computer device and the second computer device enabling catering services for the location (see [0030] The one or more devices 222 may communicate with each other in-flight via various communication means such as infrared, wireless, etc., to maintain, for example a master inventory of onboard items. It is contemplated that the devices 222 may include input devices such as optical (i.e., bar-code) or RFID scanners, and if the flight is equipped with a suitable communication means to the Internet, the devices 222 may be operative to communicate with the portal in real time to authorize and settle non-cash sales transactions, among other things such as real-time inventory or sales reporting.);
can be accessed remotely by the first computer device and the second user device, wherein the server stores a set of instructions that when executed cause the server to (see [0030] The one or more devices 222 may communicate with each other in-flight via various communication means such as infrared, wireless, etc., to maintain, for example a master inventory of onboard items. It is contemplated that the devices 222 may include input devices such as optical (i.e., bar-code) or RFID scanners, and if the flight is equipped with a suitable communication means to the Internet, the devices 222 may be operative to communicate with the portal in real time to authorize and settle non-cash sales transactions, among other things such as real-time inventory or sales reporting.):
start and shut down in-flight catering service for a flight (see e.g. [0023-24] pre-flight/start service; [0023] post flight synchronization, [0026], [0049], end of flight [0031]);
receive orders for in-flight catering service for passengers on the flight (see e.g. [0013]);
update inventory for the in-flight catering service on the flight (see e.g. abstract, [0011] [0023] published claim 1); and
retrieve the orders for in-flight catering service for passengers on the flight (see e.g. [0013] teaches the device stores transaction data per passenger/order (type/quantity per transaction; [0050] teaches that transaction data is uploaded from the device and stored/used via the portal/database for reports/reconciliation i.e. the system retrieves order/transaction records at least from the database/portal side). While Metzger discloses mostly all of the limitations, the examiner notes that Metzger does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation relating to, the server “coordinates interactive communication between the first and second device.” Metzger emphasizes device-to-device and portal-to-device syncing. An analogous piece of art, O’Brien, teaches at e.g. [0004], [0006], [0012-14], [0019] that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the aircraft services art to include the ability to have a server coordinate interactive communication between a first and second device. See O’Brien, [0006] “comprised of a core system with . . . , a remote or mobile device used in the field, and one or more systems for facilitating exchange of information between the core system and its remote devices. See also O’Brien, [0012-14] [0019] explains that the “core system . . . transfers the flight-specific data to a remote or mobile service delivery device,” and that devices may exchange information with other devices on the same flight (directly or indirectly, including through onboard network), and transaction data is relayed back to the core system which updates database. This interactive communication between the devices is facilitated by the onboard server. The advantages of such a modification is shown in O’Brien at [0004] “When in range for wireless communications, or when physically connected to a wire-line connection, a mobile device for use in the field exchanges data with the system's one or more central databases, enabling staff in the field with the mobile device both to benefit from the use of database records while in the field and to provide updates on field activity and transactions to be relayed to and captured in a centralized system, and then relayed as necessary to one or more databases of applications. In a preferred embodiment, this exemplary system and method takes advantage of external database access, centralized database capability for use in synchronizing subsets of data hosted by external databases, and one or more remote devices to deliver a pre-selected subset of the information of these systems to sales or customer service staff operating in the field, such as aboard moving vessels, which are relevant to providing services.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the aircraft sales/order management art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Metzger’s in-flight sales and inventory reconciliation system/method, as shown in Metzger abstract, with O’Brien’s method/apparatus for enhancing en route service to passengers in transportation systems, where the advantage of such a combination provides the onboard/offboard server that facilitates communication between the two devices, as shown in O’Brien above at [0004].
With regard to claim 2, Metzger further discloses where the location comprises at least one of: an aircraft (e.g. abstract), a train, a stadium, a restaurant, a theater, and a venue.
With regard to claim 3, Metzger further discloses where 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 (see e.g. [0030] The one or more devices 222 may communicate with each other in-flight via various communication means such as infrared, wireless, etc., to maintain, for example a master inventory of onboard items. It is contemplated that the devices 222 may include input devices such as optical (i.e., bar-code) or RFID scanners, and if the flight is equipped with a suitable communication means to the Internet, the devices 222 may be operative to communicate with the portal in real time to authorize and settle non-cash sales transactions, among other things such as real-time inventory or sales reporting; where in this instance the flight attendant is holding the device 222 and managing inventory, while another attendant is interacting with a customer and the application is being operated by customer at e.g. [0042], [0025]).
With regard to claim 4, Metzger further discloses where the flight attendant in-flight catering application submits input to start in-flight catering service from the flight attendant (see Metzger e.g. [0023-24]; see also O’Brien, [0012] “ When the flight is ready to depart, the core system transfers the flight-specific data to a remote or mobile service delivery device 14 either wirelessly or via wire-line. This data is used in the field for various applications and displays, which may include one or more of travel transactions, customer service transactions, retail transactions, staff administrative transactions, or other location-specific transactions.”).
With regard to claim 5, Metzger further discloses where the server receives the input to start in-flight catering service from the flight attendant in-flight catering application (see Metzger e.g. [0023-24]; see also O’Brien, [0012] “When the flight is ready to depart, the core system transfers the flight-specific data to a remote or mobile service delivery device 14 either wirelessly or via wire-line. This data is used in the field for various applications and displays, which may include one or more of travel transactions, customer service transactions, retail transactions, staff administrative transactions, or other location-specific transactions.”).
With regard to claim 6, Metzger further discloses where the second user is a passenger on the aircraft (see e.g. [0025] In flight 110, the customer may select to pay for items using cash or by credit card. Means for swiping and authorizing credit cards is included with the portable device. In a preferred embodiment, a magnetic-strip reader is coupled to the device. A printer is also provided with the device for printing a receipt or other record of the transaction.).
With regard to claim 7, Metzger further discloses where the second computer comprises a mobile computer device having a passenger in-flight catering application installed thereon (e.g. [0029], [0034], [0030]).
With regard to claim 8, Metzger further discloses where the passenger in-flight catering application receives passenger information submitted by the passenger (see e.g. [0030] the orders are submitted by the passengers/customers).
With regard to claim 9, Metzger further discloses where the passenger information comprises one or more of: airline, flight number, and seat number (see e.g. [0028]).
With regard to claim 10, Metzger further discloses where the server receives the passenger information from the passenger in-flight catering application and retrieves corresponding in-flight catering service options based on the passenger information for the passenger in-flight catering application (see [0028] The estimated starting inventory count may be provided by the caterer and/or airline, or alternatively, may be calculated relative to historical data which accounts for sales trends, passenger demographics, number of passengers onboard, and item spoilage, among other things.).
With regard to claim 11, Metzger further discloses where the passenger in-flight catering application submits an in-flight catering service order from passenger (see e.g. [0030] the orders are submitted by the passengers/customers).
With regard to claim 12, Metzger further discloses where the server receives the in-flight catering service order from the passenger in-flight catering application and provides the in-flight catering service order to the flight attendant in-flight catering application (see abstract, “The system includes an Internet portal in communication with a database for entering and storing pre-sale and post-sale transaction and inventory information, which may be used for reconciliation purposes, among other things.”; [0028] “The portal may be physically embodied by a facilitator's back-office subsystem 208 comprising one or more servers, such as, for example, the illustrated application server 212, report server 214, and payment server 216.”; [0031-32]; [0038] [0050] where the terminals can access the portal/server and communication data to the portal/server).
With regard to claim 13, Metzger further discloses where the flight attendant in-flight catering application displays the in-flight catering service order and the corresponding seat number for the passenger (e.g. [0035] [0042]).
With regard to claim 14, Metzger further discloses where the flight attendant in-flight catering application enables querying, retrieving, and viewing of one or more in-flight catering service orders for the aircraft (see e.g. [0035] [0042]).
With regard to claim 15, Metzger further discloses where the flight attendant in-flight catering application displays each in-flight catering service order by a corresponding seat number on the aircraft (see e.g. [0035] [0042]).
With regard to claim 16, Metzger further discloses where the location comprises at least one of: an aircraft (e.g. abstract), a train, a stadium, an event, a restaurant, a theater, and a venue.
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