DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a THIRD CONTINUATION application which claims priority to the parent Application, U.S. Patent Application No. 15/279,782, filed September 29, 2016, now U.S. Patent No. 12,051,049.
Response to Amendment
2.. An Amendment was filed December 18, 2025 (hereinafter “Amendment”) and has been entered into the record and fully considered. The Amendment was filed in response to a Non-Final Rejection dated September 18, 2025.
However, despite the Amendment to the Claims and Applicant’s remarks, the Rejections under §101 and §103 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection are hereby maintained; although, the Rejection under 103 is based on NEW GROUNDS necessitated by the Amendment.
Notwithstanding the current rejection, the Examiner requests a follow up interview as soon as conveniently possible to discuss these issues. Please use the AIR link found in the Conclusion section of this Action.
An explanation of the maintained Rejections and a response to Applicant’s arguments are set forth below. Please see the “Conclusion” section of this Action below for important information regarding responding to this Action.
Status of the Claims:
Claims 21 - 40 are pending in this Application.
Claims 21, 31, and 37 are independent and were amended in substantially identical fashion.
None of the dependent claims were cancelled and incorporated into its associated independent claim.
Most of the dependent Claims were not amended. Others were amended in a minor fashion to clarify certain limitations in the corresponding independent claim, such as the word “modification” or a change in the position or appearance of an icon.
Therefore, the following explanation of the maintained rejections with regard to Claim 21 is considered explanatory of the Rejection as a whole.
With regard to the Amendment:
Claim 21 was amended as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
624
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Summary of the Amendment and Broadest Reasonable Interpretation:
Claim terminology is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art, consistent with the specification. This is true, unless the terms are given a special meaning. See MPEP §2111.01
Here, no special meaning is detected. As noted in the Amendment, the
changes to Claim 1 relate generally to modifying a menu icon that represents an item temporarily unavailable wherein the modification indicates a change in function or an overlay over the icon.
These terms appear – subject to further consideration – to be defined in the specification based on their plain and ordinary meaning.
With regard to §101:
The Amendment advances prosecution with respect to issues arising under 101. While the claimed interface now recites limitations relating to a modification being indicated by an “overlay,” it is not clear how the icon is modified in terms of its “functionality.” This term is recited at an extremely high level of generality. It is vague in terms of the icons on the interface. All icons perform a function whether modified or not. Greater specificity is required.
Furthermore, the Claim does not clarity that the menu relates to food or a restaurant. It describes the menu at a high level. Thus, it could relate to a digital “menu” of a computer software program – rather than a restaurant. The Claim suffers from a dearth of computerized components.
Respectfully, while the Claim has been amended in a significant manner, it remains unclear whether it incorporates a practical application into the abstract idea of a menu with icons that may indicate that a menu item is unavailable. Thus, the amendments to the Claim do not alter the analysis set for the Non-Final Rejection regarding §101. A modifiable icon is a very common computer concept. These limitations are recited at a very high level of generality.
The Claim provides no specificity in terms of how the modifications are accomplished – especially in terms of the “functionality” limitation. Only the mere outcome or result that the is unavailable without specifying “how” a technical problem is solved. That is, the solution of a technical problem is not reflected in the Claim.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer elements at each step of the process is purely typical of processing identifiers for authentication purposes. Without greater specificity as to “how” certain functions solve a technical problem, the currently recited limitations can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of the Claim add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Claim 21 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer elements nor does the claim reflect how an improvement in any other technology or technical field is achieved. Thus, Claim 21 amounts to nothing significantly more than instructions to “apply” the abstract idea of a menu with selectable icons representing menu items. Such is not sufficient to integrate a practical application in the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the Rejection is maintained.
With regard to §103:
It is respectfully submitted that the current Rejection applies to the Claims as amended, especially pertaining to the “functionality” limitation.. However, out of an abundance of caution, a NEW GROUNDS of rejection is asserted under §103:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21 - 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0046297 to Bahrami et al. (hereinafter “Bahrami) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0073925 to Renfroe et al. (hereinafter “Renfroe”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0182680 to Jones III et al. (hereinafter “Jones”).
The primary reference to Bahrami teaches menu icons including a modification in function. See Figs. 2 – 3 and especially Fig. 3 as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
514
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, the menu icons shown in Fig. 2 are modified in Fig. 3 to indicate a change in “functionality;” namely, Wednesday is karaoke night and other available items are available that night. This indication is an overlay over the menu icons. (See at least [0049] regarding this overlay.). Bahrami teaches, as explained in detail, the unavailability of an item. (See at least [0047] - [0052].)
Renfoe also teaches the modification of the menu when an item is out of stock. (See at least [0051].
The new reference to Jones was cited previously in the Non-Final Rejection but not applied. In various sections Jones teaches a modification in the functionality of icons. (See at least [0079], [0097] – [0100]; and [0089] – [0091] and Figs. 23 – 24 and 11 and 14.) As merely one example, Jones teaches the change in functionality and appearance via an overlay or overlapping appearance as follows:
“[0095] FIGS. 16 and 17 illustrate the corresponding displays appearing on the hand-held units 1, following the change made by the manager. During the next client-initiated connection to the server, the hand-held unit receives the updated menu. A “Message” button appears on the ordering screen. When the user presses the Message button, the user sees a display such as that shown in FIG. 16, listing the pending messages. For emphasis, the message pertaining to the above example (the unavailability of Calves' liver) is encircled. To view the full text of a message, the user must click on that message, as described earlier. In this example, the full text of the message is not reproduced in the figures. FIG. 17 shows the ordering screen, on the hand-held unit, from which the waiter can generate an order. In the example shown, the item (calves' liver) that has been disabled is shown with parentheses to indicate its unavailability. This item is also encircled in the figure, for emphasis.
[0096] Similar updated information is transmitted to the stationary touchscreen units 3, during the next client-initiated connection to the server. The stationary touchscreen unit receives an updated version of the menu, and immediately displays a message, as shown in FIG. 18, indicating that the disabled item is not available. Moreover, as shown in FIG. 19, which represents an ordering screen, i.e. a screen from which an order can be generated using the stationary unit, the disabled item (calves' liver) has been grayed out, and therefore cannot be ordered. The disabled item is circled, in FIG. 19, for emphasis.”
Figs. 16 – 17 are reproduced as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
882
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The changes to the display of these figures with respect to calves liver changes the functionality of the menu, i.e. that item is no longer available. Furthermore, parentheses and circling the item are a form of “overlay.” This is also illustrated in Fig. 18, which is reproduced as follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
526
748
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, the display is modified with an overlay indicating that an item is not available, thus modifying the functionality and appearance of the icons on the display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of filing the claimed invention to have modified the combined electronic interface of Bahrami, including images or icons of menu items for sale and including the deletion of menu items no longer available, and the menu displaying teachings of Renfroe, to add the overlay teachings of Jones. The motivation to do so comes from Bahrami. As quoted above, Bahrami teaches that menu items are modified under certain conditions. It would greatly enhance the efficiency and accuracy of the system of Bahrami to use the notification of unavailability teachings of Jones.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments set forth in the Remarks section of the Amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to section 101 rejection, Applicant argues as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
220
848
media_image5.png
Greyscale
While Core Wireless is applicable in this case, the Claim lacks the specificity of the interface claims of that case. Here, it is unclear whether this is a restaurant menu or some other digital menu of a merchant software system. A further interview is requested to clarify these issues.
The Rejection must be maintained.
With regard to §103, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Amendment.
Conclusion
4. Applicant should carefully consider the following in connection with this Office Action:
A. Finality
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07. 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
B. Search and Prior Art
The search conducted in connection with this Office Action, as well as any previous Actions, encompassed the inventive concepts as defined in the Applicant’s specification. That is, the search(es) included concepts and features which are defined by the pending claims but also pertinent to significant although unclaimed subject matter. Accordingly, such search(es) were directed to the defined invention as well as the general state of the art, including references which are in the same field of endeavor as the present application as well as related fields (e.g. a mobile or hand held computing device for taking orders in restaurants and tied to inventory management). Indeed, there is a plethora of prior art in these fields.
Therefore, in addition to prior art references cited and applied in connection with this and any previous Office Actions, the following prior art is also made of record but not relied upon in the current rejection:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0213547 to Gomes-Rosado et al. This reference relates to the concept of food icons that are modifiable.
U.S. Patent No. 6208976 to Kinebuchi et al. This reference relates to the concept of an overlay of the icons.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0238451 to Riscalla. This reference relates to the concept of superimposing ingredients over a menu item icons.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0259553 to Carroll et al. This reference relates to the concept of an overlay on the menu.
C. Responding to this Office Action
In view of the foregoing explanation of the scope of searches conducted in connection with the examination of this application, in preparing any response to this Action, Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the entire disclosures of the above-cited, unapplied references, as well as any previously cited references. It is likely that one or more such references disclose or suggest features which Applicant may seek to claim. Moreover, for the same reasons, Applicant is encouraged to review the entire disclosures of the references applied in the foregoing rejections and not just the sections mentioned.
D. Interviews and Compact Prosecution
The Office strongly encourages interviews as an important aspect of compact prosecution. Statistics and studies have shown that prosecution can be greatly advanced by way of interviews. Indeed, in many instances, during the course of one or more interviews, the Examiner and Applicant may reach an agreement on eligible and allowable subject matter that is supported by the specification.
Interviews are especially welcomed by this examiner at any stage of the prosecution process. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool (e.g. TEAMS).
To facilitate the scheduling of an interview, the Examiner requests the use of the AIR form as follows:
USPTO Automated Interview Request http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Other forms of interview requests filed in this application may result in a delay in scheduling the interview because of the time required to appear on the Examiner's docket. Thus, the use of the AIR form is strongly encouraged.
D. Communicating with the Office
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM BUNKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0017. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:30AM - 5:30PM, Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached at 571-270-1836. Information regarding the status of an application, whether published or unpublished, may be obtained from the “Patent Center” system. For more information about the Patent Center system, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/William (Bill) Bunker/
U.S. Patent Examiner
AU 3691
william.bunker@uspto.gov
(571) 272-0017
January 14, 2026
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691