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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 recite:
1. A method of providing for a user to browse and order food, comprising: receiving an image of a food item, a description of the food item, and a price of the food item from a store for an application; displaying the image and an icon associated with the image on a browsing page in the application; receiving a click on the icon by the user and, in response, displaying an item page of the food item in the application; receiving an input by the user at the item page to add the food item to a cart and, in response, displaying a cart page in the application indicating the food item added to the cart; receiving another input by the user at the cart page to place an order comprising the food item; indicating to the user that the order has been placed; and providing the order to the store.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein providing the order to the store comprises providing the order to a content management system of the store.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein providing the order to the content management system comprises providing the order to a kitchen display system (KDS) of the content management system.
4. The method of claim 1, comprising receiving a specification entered by the user at the item page, wherein the item page comprises the description, and wherein the image comprises a photograph or a video, or both.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the video comprises a reel that is the video less than 2 minutes in length.
6. The method of claim 1, comprising accommodating payment from the user for the order.
7. The method of claim 1, comprising onboarding the store for the application.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the onboarding comprises the receiving from the store the image, the description, and the price.
9. The method of claim 1, comprising: placing the image and the icon on the browsing page; and associating the icon with the food item.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the browsing page comprises multiple images of food items, respectively, wherein the multiple images comprise the image, and wherein the food items comprise the food item.
11. An application for browsing and ordering food, comprising: a browsing page comprising an image of a food item and a cart icon associated with the image, and wherein the application is configured to receive a first input by a user comprising a click on the cart icon by the user and, in response, display an item page; the item page comprising a price of the food item, an interface to receive a specification from the user, and an add-to-cart button to receive a second input by the user to add the food item to a cart in the application, wherein the application is configured to display a cart page in response to the second input; and the cart page indicating the food item and the price, the cart page comprising a place-the-order button to receive a third input by the user to place an order comprising the food item, wherein the application is configured to provide the order to a content management system of a store in response to the third input.
12. The application of claim 11, wherein the application is configured to indicate to the user that the order has been received, and wherein the image comprises a photograph or a video, or both.
13. The application of claim 11, wherein the application is configured to receive from the store the image, the price, and a description of the food item from the store, and wherein the item page comprises the description.
14. The application of claim 13, wherein the application is configured to place the image and the cart icon on the browsing page and associate the cart icon with the food item.
15. The application of claim 11, wherein the content management system comprises a kitchen display system (KDS), and wherein the application is configured to facilitate payment by the user for the order.
16. The application of claim 11, wherein the browsing page comprises multiple images of food items, respectively, wherein the multiple images comprise the image, and wherein the food items comprise the food item.
17. A non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processor of a computing device to: receive an image of a food item, a description of the food item, and a price of the food item from a store for an application; display the image and an icon associated with the image on a browsing page in the application; receive a click on the icon by a user and, in response, display an item page of the food item in the application; receive a specification entered by the user at the item page; receive an input by the user at the item page to add the food item to a cart and, in response, display a cart page in the application indicating the food item added to the cart; receive another input by the user at the cart page to place an order comprising the food item; provide the order to a content management system of the store.
18. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the item page comprises the description, wherein the image comprises a photograph or a video, or both, and wherein the content management system comprises a kitchen display system (KDS).
19. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the browsing page comprises multiple images of food items from different stores, respectively.
20. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 17, comprising instructions executable by the processor to accommodate payment from the user for the order.
But for the recitation of the above underlined limitations, claims 1-20 recite steps for a customer to review items available at a restaurant, select particular items, place an order and make payment. Thus claims 1-20 recite a commercial interaction, which per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) falls within the method of organizing human activity grouping.
The recited pages displaying/collecting information through interaction with buttons amounts to a high level implementation using generic computer technology. Per MPEP 2106.05(f) the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Thus claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Claims 11-16 are additionally ineligible because an “application” does not fall within one of the four categories of invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor (US 20140058902 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Taylor discloses:
11. An application for browsing and ordering food (figure 6A-6J), comprising: a browsing page comprising an image of a food item and a cart icon associated with the image (fig. 6C images of items and add/customize button), and wherein the application is configured to receive a first input by a user comprising a click on the cart icon by the user and, in response, display an item page; the item page comprising a price of the food item (fig. 6D customization screen shows price), an interface to receive a specification from the user (fig. 6D user can choose options), and an add-to-cart button to receive a second input by the user to add the food item to a cart in the application (fig. 6D add to cart button on bottom), wherein the application is configured to display a cart page in response to the second input (fig. 6J); and the cart page indicating the food item and the price (fig. 6J), the cart page comprising a place-the-order button to receive a third input by the user to place an order comprising the food item (fig. 6J button at bottom), wherein the application is configured to provide the order to a content management system of a store in response to the third input (abstract, paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 12, Taylor discloses:
12. The application of claim 11, wherein the application is configured to indicate to the user that the order has been received (fig. 6L), and wherein the image comprises a photograph or a video, or both (fig. 6C photos).
Regarding claim 15, Taylor discloses:
15. The application of claim 11, wherein the content management system comprises a kitchen display system (paragraph 32, paragraph 67), and wherein the application is configured to facilitate payment by the user for the order (fig. 6J paying with Discover card).
Regarding claim 16, Taylor discloses:
16. The application of claim 11, wherein the browsing page comprises multiple images of food items, respectively, wherein the multiple images comprise the image, and wherein the food items comprise the food item (fig. 6C).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 20140058902 A1) in view of Varma (US 11151634 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Taylor discloses:
1. A method of providing for a user to browse and order food, comprising:
receiving an image of a food item, a description of the food item, and a price of the food item (fig. 6B)
displaying the image and an icon associated with the image on a browsing page in the application (fig. 6B, fig. 6C, fig. 6D);
receiving a click on the icon by the user and, in response, displaying an item page of the food item in the application (fig. 6B-6D click customize);
receiving an input by the user at the item page to add the food item to a cart (fig. 6D add to cart) and,
in response, displaying a cart page in the application indicating the food item added to the cart (fig. 6J);
receiving another input by the user at the cart page to place an order comprising the food item (fig. 6J submit order at button at the bottom);
indicating to the user that the order has been placed (fig. 6L); and
providing the order to the store (abstract transmitting the order to the vendor for processing, paragraph 32).
Taylor is unclear if the food item image, description and price are received from a store. However in an analogous art, Varma discloses food item image, description and price are received from a store (column 24 line 55-column 25 line 20 “ may present a setup interface to enable the merchant to setup items, such as for adding new items to a menu, modifying item information for existing items” and “item information 1016 that includes information about the items offered by the merchant, which may include a menu or other list of items currently available from the merchant, images of the items, descriptions of the items, prices of the items, and so forth”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings with Taylor by allowing vendors to setup/modify item information. The motivation for the combination is use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Varma and Taylor both disclose online ordering systems. Varma discloses merchant configuration of product information through a dashboard. One of ordinary skill in the art having advantage of that disclosure would have been able to provide a better customer experience by allowing merchants to control their content.
Regarding claim 2, Taylor discloses:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein providing the order to the store comprises providing the order to a content management system of the store (paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 3, Taylor discloses:
3. The method of claim 2, wherein providing the order to the content management system comprises providing the order to a kitchen display system (KDS) of the content management system (paragraph 32, paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 4, Taylor fails to clearly disclose and Varma discloses:
4. The method of claim 1, comprising receiving a specification entered by the user at the item page, wherein the item page comprises the description, and wherein the image comprises a photograph or a video, or both (column 24 line 55-column 25 line 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings with Taylor by allowing vendors to setup/modify item information. The motivation for the combination is use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Varma and Taylor both disclose online ordering systems. Varma discloses merchant configuration of product information through a dashboard. One of ordinary skill in the art having advantage of that disclosure would have been able to provide a better customer experience by allowing merchants to control their content.
Claim 5 is rejected for the same reason as claim 4 as only one of an image or video is required.
Regarding claim 6, Taylor discloses:
6. The method of claim 1, comprising accommodating payment from the user for the order (fig. 6J paying with Discover card).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Taylor fails to clearly disclose and Varma discloses:
7. The method of claim 1, comprising onboarding the store for the application (column 24 line 55-column 25 line 2)
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the onboarding comprises the receiving from the store the image, the description, and the price (column 24 line 55-column 25 line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings with Taylor by allowing vendors to setup/modify item information. The motivation for the combination is use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Varma and Taylor both disclose online ordering systems. Varma discloses merchant configuration of product information through a dashboard. One of ordinary skill in the art having advantage of that disclosure would have been able to provide a better customer experience by allowing merchants to control their content.
Regarding claim 9, Taylor discloses:
9. The method of claim 1, comprising: placing the image and the icon on the browsing page; and associating the icon with the food item (fig. 6A-6J)
Regarding claim 10, Taylor discloses:
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the browsing page comprises multiple images of food items, respectively, wherein the multiple images comprise the image, and wherein the food items comprise the food item (fig. 6A-6J).
Regarding claim 13, Taylor as per claim 11, discloses an app having received image, price and description and an item paging having description (fig. 6B/C), but fails to explicitly disclose the information being received from a store.
13. The application of claim 11, wherein the application is configured to receive from the store the image, the price, and a description of the food item from the store, and wherein the item page comprises the description. However in an analogous art, Varma discloses food item image, description and price are received from a store (column 24 line 55-column 25 line 20 “ may present a setup interface to enable the merchant to setup items, such as for adding new items to a menu, modifying item information for existing items” and “item information 1016 that includes information about the items offered by the merchant, which may include a menu or other list of items currently available from the merchant, images of the items, descriptions of the items, prices of the items, and so forth”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings with Taylor by allowing vendors to setup/modify item information. The motivation for the combination is use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Varma and Taylor both disclose online ordering systems. Varma discloses merchant configuration of product information through a dashboard. One of ordinary skill in the art having advantage of that disclosure would have been able to provide a better customer experience by allowing merchants to control their content.
Regarding claim 14, Taylor further discloses:
14. The application of claim 13, wherein the application is configured to place the image and the cart icon on the browsing page and associate the cart icon with the food item (fig. 6B-J).
Regarding claim 17, Taylor discloses:
17. A non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processor of a computing device to (paragraph 93-95):
receive an image of a food item, a description of the food item, and a price of the food item
display the image and an icon associated with the image on a browsing page in the application (fig. 6C);
receive a click on the icon by a user and, in response, display an item page of the food item in the application (fig. 6C Customize->fig. 6D);
receive a specification entered by the user at the item page (fig. 6D customize burger inputs);
receive an input by the user at the item page to add the food item to a cart (fig. 6D add to cart button at bottom) and, in response, display a cart page in the application indicating the food item added to the cart (fig. 6J);
receive another input by the user at the cart page to place an order comprising the food item (fig. 6J submit order button at bottom);
provide the order to a content management system of the store (abstract, paragraph 32).
Taylor is unclear if the food item image, description and price are received from a store. However in an analogous art, Varma discloses food item image, description and price are received from a store (column 24 line 55-column 25 line 20 “ may present a setup interface to enable the merchant to setup items, such as for adding new items to a menu, modifying item information for existing items” and “item information 1016 that includes information about the items offered by the merchant, which may include a menu or other list of items currently available from the merchant, images of the items, descriptions of the items, prices of the items, and so forth”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings with Taylor by allowing vendors to setup/modify item information. The motivation for the combination is use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Varma and Taylor both disclose online ordering systems. Varma discloses merchant configuration of product information through a dashboard. One of ordinary skill in the art having advantage of that disclosure would have been able to provide a better customer experience by allowing merchants to control their content.
Regarding claim 18, Taylor further discloses:
18. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the item page comprises the description, wherein the image comprises a photograph or a video, or both (fig. 6C), and wherein the content management system comprises a kitchen display system (paragraph 32, paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 20, Taylor further discloses:
20. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 17, comprising instructions executable by the processor to accommodate payment from the user for the order (fig. 6J paying with Discover card).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 20140058902 A1) in view of Varma (US 11151634 B2) as applied to claim 17 and further in view of Garcia-Brosa (US 20230297906 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Taylor further discloses
19. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the browsing page comprises multiple images of food items (fig. 6C)
Taylor as modified fails to disclose and Garcia-Brosa discloses browsing items from different stores (paragraph 220). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate aggregate menus from multiple stores. The motivation for the combination is improved coordination (paragraph 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carroll (US 20140136348 A1) discloses a restaurant ordering app. Kazemi (US 20230267560 A1) discloses a food ordering app. Rosenberg (US 11488236 B2) discloses an ordering app using emojis instead of images.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN A MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/NATHAN A MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627