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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 4/28/2026 has been considered.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-18, 20 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 12-14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Litzenberger et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/029019).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 17, Litzenberger teaches a method comprising:
receiving an order from a Point of Sale (PoS) device; (order input device [39, 45]),
identifying one or more items in the order; (a meal order may include a set of meal items. During preparation of the meal order one or more of the meal items of the set of meal items may be completed before other items and a status indicative of partial completion of the set may be displayed in association with the completed items (e.g., by affirmatively indicating one or more tasks as completed) and/or the incomplete item (e.g., by providing an indication of the tasks needed to be performed to complete a pending meal order), [67-68], The received data from the POS may include data indicative of meals, kitchen items, ingredients, or other data indicative of potential objects to be detected in images by object detection model 314, [111]),
responsive to receiving a confirmation of the order, (he POS system 102 may include an order input device such as a computer and/or register used to enter data associated with upcoming orders… a status indicative of partial completion of the set may be displayed in association with the completed items (e.g., by affirmatively indicating one or more tasks as completed), [39, 68],
monitoring a status of each item, among the one or more items in the order, [52, 68] comprising:
accessing a sequence of images captured by one or more cameras installed to capture a preparation process associated with the order; (The kitchen tracking system may include one or more cameras 108A-E capable of capturing images of the kitchen 101 and/or drive-thru 106. The cameras 108A-E may be associated with camera coverage zones 120A-E within the kitchen 101 and/or drive-thru 106…. camera(s) 304 may be disposed within a meal preparation area to capture images of current food preparation items and/or actions… track a detected object over a series of images [37, 107, 115]),
processing the sequence of images using one or more object recognition machine learning models to (the machine learning system 210 (e.g., via kitchen management component 214) generates multiple training data items each including one or more sets of features and associated labels… object detection model 314..[95-99, 110-111]:
identify one or more items and one or more packages corresponding to the order, (the object detection model 314 may identify objects such as food items (e.g., burgers, fries, beverages), meal packaging, ingredients… The received data from the POS may include data indicative of meals, kitchen items, ingredients, or other data indicative of potential objects to be detected in images by object detection model 314, [111], he system may know which menu item is in a hand of the employee (e.g., based on processing by image processing tool 310), and may know which order the menu item is associated with and where at the preparation station that order is being assembled, [149]),
track, based on the sequence of images, interactions of the one or more items relative to the one or more packages, (segmentation data to determine the contents of each container, items are added to (and in some cases removed from) the bag the contents of the bag may be updated on the screen, [115-116, 147], and
determine, based on the tracked interactions, placement of the one or more items into the one or more packages, (items are added to (and in some cases removed from) the bag the contents of the bag may be updated on the screen, [147, 149]); and
responsive to determining that the order is not correctly fulfilled based on the placement of the one or more items into the one or more packages, generating and transmitting an alert identifying a discrepancy associated with the order, (process the image data to determine inaccuracies in the order preparation… and alert one or more employees 124A-C through an auditory, haptic, and/or visual indicator.. send data indicative of the error to the KDS 104 to be displayed to employees 124A-C. [45-46, 77, 125]; and u
updating a graphical element rendered in a display interface, the graphical element displaying changes in the status of each item within the order, (a live update of contents of a meal package or a bag enclosing one or more meal preparation items.. the bag the contents of the bag may be updated on the screen, [68, 70]).
Regarding claims 2, 10, 18, Litzenberger teaches generating an order list for the one or more items; and displaying the order list on a screen at the POS device for order confirmation, (the display presents current status of a pending meal order, [39-40, 68]).
Regarding claims 4, 12, Litzenberger teaches the status of each item comprises at least one of indications that preparation has not been started, preparation is in progress, or preparation is completed, (updates to status of pending meal orders, [52, 68-69])
Regarding claims 5, 13, Litzenberger teaches the POS device comprises at least one of a drive-through checkout station or a self-checkout station, (drive thru 106, [37, 39, 41]).
Regarding claims 6, 14, Litzenberger teaches the display interface shows a package bag for the order and a text indicator adjacent to the package bag, and wherein the text indicator comprises at least one of an order number, an order list, and an indication of completeness of the order, (bags or wrapping used to cover meal items..display completed and incomplete items..live update of contents, [43, 68, 70]).
Regarding claims 7, 15, Litzenberger teaches at least one of a color-coding scheme or one or more checkboxes to indicate completion of each item within the order or completion of the entire order, (green, with a checkmark next to the item name, [70]).
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.
Claims 8, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litzenberger, in view of Fox et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0156931).
Regarding claims 8, 16, 20, Litzenberger does not explicitly teach, however, Fox teaches upon determining the order has been completed, sending a notification to one or more user devices indicating the order is ready for pickup, (Fig. 1 block 114 (status feedback to customer), Fig. 8D customer facing status update, pick up [63], customers are provided with a mobile deice notification when their order is within given time of being ready or thei order is ready, [70]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include Fox’s order-status interface into Litzenberger’s system to in an effort to reduce wait times in the restaurant, [6].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-18, 20 are directed to patent eligible subject matter because when considered as a whole they are not merely directed the abstract idea of monitoring and fulfilling an order. The claims recite specific technological implementation for automatically monitoring physical order preparation process. The claims require accessing a sequency of images captured by cameras and tracking interactions of the items relative to the packages across the image sequence using machine learning. The specification addresses the inability of conventional order systems to monitor preparation and packaging in real time and determine whether physical items actually packages correspond to the order, See [8-9, 18-21, 38-42, 58]. The claimed camera-based image processing, object recognition, interaction tracking and physical placement determination integrate such concept into a practical application such that the claims are eligible under 101.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Litzenberger reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, Florian (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.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
