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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 06/25/2026 has been considered.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 12, 14, 17-18, 31, 48, 58, 65-66, 86, 112-113 have not overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claim(s) 1, 12 are amended.
Claim(s) 5, 10 are cancel.
Claim(s) 112-113 are new.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 12, 14, 17-18, 31, 48, 58, 65-66, 86, 112-113 as filed, are currently pending and have been fully considered below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 12, 14, 17-18, 31, 48, 58, 65-66, 86, 112-113 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more and thus do not satisfy the criteria for subject matter eligibility.
Step 1
Claim(s) 1, 112-113 fall(s) in one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Yes
The limitations of claims 1, 112, 113:
A restaurant management system, comprising:
(claims 1 and 12) wherein
detect a change in the restaurant supply pricing data and, in response to the detected change, to
automatically (i) compute the updated restaurant menu pricing data by applying one or more stored rules that correlate the changed restaurant supply pricing data with the restaurant menu pricing data, and
(ii) write the updated restaurant management data including the updated restaurant menu pricing data back
(Claim 112) (iii)
The limitations of claims 1, 112-113 recite concepts of restaurant data management, which falls into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. More specifically, the claim language recites concepts that store and receive (A, Fa), displaying data (B, Fd), receive, analyze, correlate data, update data (C, D, Fb), retrieve and transmit data (E, Fc), thus are considered Fundamental Economic Practice and Commercial Practice known in restaurant industry.
Thus, claims 1-4, 6-9, 12, 14, 17-18, 31, 48, 58, 65-66, 86, 112-113 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: No
Besides the abstract idea, claims 1, 112-113 recite the additional elements:
Claims 1, 112-113: “restaurant management database”, “an electronic restaurant menu display”, “restaurant management system processor programmed”;
The claimed additional elements that perform limitations A and Fa are claims at a high level of generality and are considered nothing more than data being stored and received, and thus are considered insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; the additional elements that perform limitations B and Fd are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered nothing more than displaying data, and thus are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; the additional elements that perform limitations C, D, Fb, E, Fc are also are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered nothing more than receive, analyze, correlate data, update data, and transmit data, and thus are considered insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. When view in combination, the additional elements merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea in a generic or general-purpose computer, and generality links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and claim(s) 1, 112-113 are directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 12, 14, 17-18, 31, 48, 58, 65-66, 86, 112-113 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions
to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Thus, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further, considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of Applicants' claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The claimed invention does not focus on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. {Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354). (Step 2B: NO).
Further, the Office have found that receiving and transmitting data over the network is not enough to be patent-eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(d), that gathering data is not enough is not enough to be patent-eligible, see MPEP2106.05(g). The processing data is not enough is not enough to be patent-eligible, 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
Even when the steps are considered in combination, did not amount to an inventive concept.
As for dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 12, 14, 17-18, 31, 48, 58, 65-66, 86 the claims merely recite limitations that further narrow the abstract idea recited on claim 1, and thus fail to amount significantly more.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 12, 14, 17-18, 31, 48, 58, 65-66, 86, 112-113 are ineligible.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 12, 17-18, 31, 48, 58, 65-66, 86, 112-113 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frager et al. (US 20230222567 A1, hereinafter Franger) in view in view of Carter (US 20140222517 A1).
Regarding claim(s) claim 1, 112-113 Franger discloses:
A restaurant management system, comprising (Figures 1-4)
a restaurant management database programmed for storage and retrieval of restaurant management data including restaurant supply price data [claim 112 being] correlated with restaurant menu pricing data; [0197] recipe management database to permit vendors to track supplies of ingredients, calculate costs of each item on the menu, monitor popular items, etc. [0114] restaurant industry;
an electronic restaurant menu display for displaying the restaurant menu pricing data; and [0020][0141] menu displayed on a graphical user interface the cost associated with each option;
a restaurant management system processor [claim 112 being] programmed for [claim 112 control of the electronic restaurant menu display] and for analysis of the restaurant management data ([0141] the system provides menu via graphical user interface; [0185] the menu is customizable via user interface by vendors / restaurants [0197] vendors to track supplies of ingredients, calculate costs of each item on the menu and compare pricing with similar vendors [0107]),
the restaurant management system processor programmed [claim 112 configured to] for receiving, analyzing and correlating together updated restaurant supply price data and updated restaurant menu pricing data forming updated restaurant management data, [claim 1 the restaurant management system processor programmed] for communicating the updated restaurant management data to the restaurant management database, [claim 1the restaurant management system processor programmed] for retrieving the updated restaurant menu pricing data from the restaurant management database and communicating the updated restaurant menu pricing data to the electronic restaurant menu display. ([0020] dynamic updating for items [0197] “Management Database to permit vendors to track supplies of ingredients, calculate costs of each item on the menu, monitor popular items, etc. The inventory management tool will further include features, for example, ability to track the time associated with various menu items (e.g., time put into preparation), evaluate staffing per shift, comparing pricing with that of similar vendors, workflow/production flow analysis, etc”;[0107] [0185] [0141] menu price are display; [0198] all data are stored in the system online, for exempla a business menu can be displayed reflecting the latest changes; [0211]-[0213] names, components, or any other attribute are correlated)
claim 13 “A restaurant management system, comprising: a restaurant management database programmed for storage and retrieval of restaurant management data including restaurant supply pricing data being correlated with restaurant menu pricing data; an electronic restaurant menu display for displaying the restaurant menu pricing data; and a restaurant management system processor programmed for control of the electronic restaurant menu display and for analysis of the restaurant management data, the restaurant management system processor configured to: receive, analyze and correlate together updated restaurant supply pricing data and updated restaurant menu pricing data forming updated restaurant management data, automatically communicate updated restaurant management data to the restaurant management database, automatically retrieve updated restaurant menu pricing data from the restaurant management database, and automatically determine profit margins for menu items.” (Figures 1-4) [0197] recipe management database to permit vendors to track supplies of ingredients, calculate costs of each item on the menu, monitor popular items, etc. [0114] restaurant industry; ([0141] the system provides menu via graphical user interface; [0185] the menu is customizable via user interface by vendors / restaurants [0197] vendors to track supplies of ingredients, calculate costs of each item on the menu and compare pricing with similar vendors [0107]), ([0020] dynamic updating for items [0197] “Management Database to permit vendors to track supplies of ingredients, calculate costs of each item on the menu, monitor popular items, etc. The inventory management tool will further include features, for example, ability to track the time associated with various menu items (e.g., time put into preparation), evaluate staffing per shift, comparing pricing with that of similar vendors, workflow/production flow analysis, etc”;[0107] [0185] [0141] menu price are display; [0198] all data are stored in the system online, for exempla a business menu can be displayed reflecting the latest changes; [0211]-[0213] names, components, or any other attribute are correlated)
Frager discloses the calculation cost of each item on the menu, even if argued that Frager do not explicitly discloses supply price data Carter does; further Frager does not disclose [claim 1wherein the restaurant management system processor is programmed to] detect a change in the restaurant supply pricing data and, in response to the detected change, to automatically (i) compute the updated restaurant menu pricing data by applying one or more stored rules that correlate the changed restaurant supply pricing data with the restaurant menu pricing data, and (ii) write the updated restaurant management data including the updated restaurant menu pricing data back to the restaurant management database, [claim 112 and (iii) cause the electronic restaurant menu display to re-render the updated restaurant menu pricing data].
Carter discloses: Para. 14 - “tracking systems generally track all orders placed for menu items, and all supplies, including the primary ingredients for culinary preparations, pre-made food items, ingredients for mixed beverages, pre-made beverages (cola, beer, etc.) and the like”; para. 15 para. 19 “Once the data is received by the tracking system, that data may be analyzed. Menu prices may be set and/or modified based upon the data analysis”; para. 20 “data analysis may indicate minimum threshold pricing for food and/or drink, such as to maintain profitability”; para. 21 “ Pricing limits… By setting the high and low prices for different menu items, the operator can ensure that menu item prices do not sink below the cost of supplies”; para. 22 “analyzing the supply and order data and setting prices…Some of the tracked parameters might include supply pricing, menu item pricing, supplies on hand, future orders”; para. 23 “Once the prices are set, the menu item prices are displayed to the patrons of the consumer establishment”; para. 23 “display that may be updated in real-time, with current prices determined by the data analysis, by the tracking system…the patrons of the consumer establishment will always see menu item prices based on the most currently available supply and demand data for the consumer establishment”; para. 27 “with menu item pricing on display, patrons may place orders (or bids) for desired menu items at the most current prices… Once an order from a patron is received, it is entered into the ordering and supply system so that the data may be collected and then transferred back into the tracking system… patrons can purchase menu items when they see the price for those menu items at or near a low,”; para. 15 database and Figure1;, and figure 2 loop continues every order patron places for supplies, thereby always updating menu pricing on the most available supply price displayed in the menu price see para. 23-30; para. 15-27;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Frager to include the above limitations as taught by Carter, in order to see menu item prices based on the most currently available supply and demand data instead finding out the current market prices when asking the wait staff, see Carter para. 5, 23.
Regarding claim 2, Franger discloses:
wherein the restaurant management system processor is programmed for generating some of the restaurant menu pricing data by analyzing the restaurant management data. ([0197] comparing pricing with that of similar vendors, [0139] suggest price points );
Regarding claim 3, Franger discloses:
wherein the restaurant management system processor is programmed for receiving restaurant supply pricing data from crowd sourcing across a plurality of restaurants. ([0107] “the platform permits a user or vendor to buy/search from several different vendors to compare pricing on identical/similar products, either by name, keyword, item type, rating,… a vendor will use such a search in pricing, marketing, or in making inventory decisions”; [0197] “vendors to track supplies of ingredients, calculate costs of each item on the menu…evaluate staffing per shift, comparing pricing with that of similar vendors”);
Frager discloses the calculation cost of each item on the menu, but do not explicitly disclose supply price data;
Carter discloses: Para. 14-27 analyzes order and supply data including supply pricing, menu item pricing, supplies on hand, future orders and high and low prices for different menu items, the operator can ensure that menu item prices do not sink below the cost of supplies; display is updated in real-time, with current prices determined by the data analysis, by the tracking system… the patrons of the consumer establishment will always see menu item prices based on the most currently available supply and demand data for the consumer establishment”; para. 15-27;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Frager to include the above limitations as taught by Carter, in order to see menu item prices based on the most currently available supply and demand data instead finding out the current market prices when asking the wait staff, see Carter para. 5, 23.
Regarding claim 4, Franger discloses:
wherein the restaurant management system processor is programmed for receiving restaurant menu pricing data from crowd sourcing across a plurality of restaurants ([0107] “the platform permits a user or vendor to buy/search from several different vendors to compare pricing on identical/similar products, either by name, keyword, item type, rating,… a vendor will use such a search in pricing, marketing, or in making inventory decisions”[0197] “vendors to track supplies of ingredients, calculate costs of each item on the menu…evaluate staffing per shift, comparing pricing with that of similar vendors”);
Regarding claim 6, the combination, specifically Franger discloses:
wherein the restaurant management system processor is programmed for updating of the restaurant menu pricing data. ([0020] dynamic updating for items [0197] calculate costs of each item on the menu, comparing pricing with that of similar vendors, workflow/production flow analysis, etc”; [0107] [0185] [0141] menu price is display; [0198] all data are stored in the system online, for exempla a business menu can be displayed reflecting the latest changes; [0115] customize prices; [0211]-[0213] names, components, or any other attribute are correlated; [0110] adjust price);
Frager fails to disclose the updated is done in real-time;
Carter discloses: Para. 14-27 analyzes order and supply data including supply pricing, menu item pricing, supplies on hand, future orders and high and low prices for different menu items, the operator can ensure that menu item prices do not sink below the cost of supplies; display is updated in real-time, with current prices determined by the data analysis, by the tracking system… the patrons of the consumer establishment will always see menu item prices based on the most currently available supply and demand data for the consumer establishment”; para. 15-27;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Frager to include the above limitations as taught by Carter, in order to see menu item prices based on the most currently available supply and demand data instead finding out the current market prices when asking the wait staff, see Carter para. 5, 23.
Regarding claim 7, the combination, specifically Franger discloses:
wherein the restaurant management system processor is programmed for real-time updating of the electronic restaurant menu display. ([0020] dynamic updating for items [0197] [0107] [0185] [0141] menu price is display; [0198] [0115]);
The combination fails to disclose the updated is done in real-time;
Carter discloses: para. 23-27 “always see menu item prices based on the most currently available supply and demand data for the consumer establishment”;; para. 14-15, 19-23
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Carter, in order to see menu item prices based on the most currently available supply and demand data instead finding out the current market prices when asking the wait staff, see Carter para. 5, 23.
Regarding claim 8, the combination, specifically Franger discloses:
wherein the restaurant management system processor is programmed for real-time monitoring of the restaurant supply pricing data. [0197] monitoring item and compares price;
Frager does not disclose real-time monitoring
Carter discloses: Para. 14-27 - analyzes order and supply data including supply pricing, menu item pricing, supplies on hand, future orders and high and low prices for different menu items, the operator can ensure that menu item prices do not sink below the cost of supplies; display is updated in real-time, with current prices determined by the data analysis, by the tracking system… the patrons of the consumer establishment will always see menu item prices based on the most currently available supply and demand data for the consumer establishment”; see para. 15-27, see Figures 1-2 loop of price tracking workflow;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Frager to include the above limitations as taught by Carter, in order to see menu item prices based on the most currently available supply and demand data instead finding out the current market prices when asking the wait staff, see Carter para. 5, 23.
Regarding claim 9, Franger discloses:
wherein the restaurant management system processor is programmed for updating of the restaurant menu pricing data in accordance with the updated restaurant supply pricing data. ([0020] dynamic updating for items [0197] calculate costs of each item on the menu, comparing pricing with that of similar vendors, workflow/production flow analysis, etc”; [0107] [0185] [0141] menu price is display; [0198] all data are stored in the system online, for exempla a business menu can be displayed reflecting the latest changes; [0115] customize prices; [0211]-[0213] names, components, or any other attribute are correlated; [0110] adjust price); Norris discloses: [0033][0048]-[0049] and Figures 1-4 - obtain cost data [0050]-[0054] ; [0051]-[0057][0077] ingredient cost, plate cost, and menu price are stored [0022]-[0024];
Frager does not disclose real-time updating of data
Carter discloses: Para. 14-27 - analyzes order and supply data including supply pricing, menu item pricing, supplies on hand, future orders and high and low prices for different menu items, the operator can ensure that menu item prices do not sink below the cost of supplies; display is updated in real-time, with current prices determined by the data analysis, by the tracking system… the patrons of the consumer establishment will always see menu item prices based on the most currently available supply and demand data for the consumer establishment”; claim 3 supply information is updated in real-time; see para. 15-27, see Figures 1-2 loop of price tracking workflow;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Frager to include the above limitations as taught by Carter, in order to see menu item prices based on the most currently available supply and demand data instead finding out the current market prices when asking the wait staff, see Carter para. 5, 23.
Regarding claim(s) 12, the combination, specifically Franger discloses: wherein the set of rules for analysis of the restaurant supply pricing data includes set points for executing placement of an order for a restaurant supply when the restaurant supply pricing data reach a specified amount.
Carter discloses: Para. 14 - “tracking systems generally track all orders placed for menu items, and all supplies, including the primary ingredients for culinary preparations, pre-made food items, ingredients for mixed beverages, pre-made beverages (cola, beer, etc.) and the like”; para. 15 para. 19 “Once the data is received by the tracking system, that data may be analyzed. Menu prices may be set and/or modified based upon the data analysis”; para. 20 “data analysis may indicate minimum threshold pricing for food and/or drink, such as to maintain profitability”; para. 21 “ Pricing limits… By setting the high and low prices for different menu items, the operator can ensure that menu item prices do not sink below the cost of supplies”; para. 22 “analyzing the supply and order data and setting prices…Some of the tracked parameters might include supply pricing, menu item pricing, supplies on hand, future orders”; para. 23 “Once the prices are set, the menu item prices are displayed to the patrons of the consumer establishment”; para. 23 “display that may be updated in real-time, with current prices determined by the data analysis, by the tracking system… the patrons of the consumer establishment will always see menu item prices based on the most currently available supply and demand data for the consumer establishment”; para. 27 “with menu item pricing on display, patrons may place orders (or bids) for desired menu items at the most current prices… Once an order from a patron is received, it is entered into the ordering and supply system so that the data may be collected and then transferred back into the tracking system… patrons can purchase menu items when they see the price for those menu items at or near a low,”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Carter, in order to see menu item prices based on the most currently available supply and demand data instead finding out the current market prices when asking the wait staff, see Barman para. 5, 23.
Regarding claim 17, Frager does not disclose: wherein the restaurant management system processor is programmed for receiving the updated restaurant supply pricing data from the Internet and for causing the restaurant supply pricing data stored in the restaurant management database to be updated in accordance with the updated restaurant supply pricing data.
Carter discloses: Para. 14-27 - analyzes order and supply data including supply pricing, menu item pricing, supplies on hand, future orders and high and low prices for different menu items, the operator can ensure that menu item prices do not sink below the cost of supplies; display is updated in real-time, with current prices determined by the data analysis, by the tracking system… the patrons of the consumer establishment will always see menu item prices based on the most currently available supply and demand data for the consumer establishment”; claim 3 supply information is updated in real-time; see para. 15-27, see Figures 1-2 loop of price tracking workflow; para. 15-27 and claim 3 and para. 30 - real-time tracking and updating;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Frager to include the above limitations as taught by Carter, in order to see menu item prices based on the most currently available supply and demand data instead finding out the current market prices when asking the wait staff, see Carter para. 5, 23.
Regarding claim 18, Frager discloses:
wherein the restaurant management database is programmed for storage and retrieval of restaurant supply availability data. [0197] database management stores supplies ingredient that is used to calculated cost; therefore retrieved;
Regarding claim 31, Frager does not disclose: wherein the restaurant management database is programmed for storage and retrieval of restaurant supplier data.
Carter discloses: Para. 14-27 - analyzes order and supply data including supply pricing, menu item pricing, supplies on hand, future orders and high and low prices for different menu items, the operator can ensure that menu item prices do not sink below the cost of supplies; display is updated in real-time, with current prices determined by the data analysis, by the tracking system… the patrons of the consumer establishment will always see menu item prices based on the most currently available supply and demand data for the consumer establishment”; claim 3 supply information is updated in real-time; see para. 15-27, see Figures 1-2 loop of price tracking workflow; para. 15-27 and claim 3 and para. 30 - real-time tracking and updating; para. 17-18 - database;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Frager to include the above limitations as taught by Carter, in order to see menu item prices based on the most currently available supply and demand data instead finding out the current market prices when asking the wait staff, see Carter para. 5, 23.
Regarding claim 48, Frager discloses:
wherein the restaurant management database is programmed for storage and retrieval of restaurant supply inventory data. [0197] database management stores supplies ingredient that is used to calculated cost; therefore retrieved;
Regarding claim 58, Frager discloses:
wherein the restaurant management system processor is programmed for placing an order for a restaurant supply in response to the updated restaurant supply inventory data. ([0224] automated reorder of products based on inventory going low; [0077]-[0078])
Regarding claim 65, Frager discloses:
wherein the restaurant management database is programmed for storage and retrieval of customer personal history and feedback data. [0141][1061] maintain a user profile include a history of orders and searches and feedback [0174]
Regarding claim 66, Frager discloses:
wherein the restaurant management database is programmed for storage and retrieval of restaurant menu item ingredient specifications. [0193][0194] create recipe and retrieve recipe information;
Regarding claim 86, Frager discloses:
wherein the restaurant management database is programmed for storage and retrieval of customer reviews of service and restaurant menu item quality. [0141][1061] maintain a user profile include a history of orders and searches and feedback [0107] retrieve data based on rating;
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frager and Carter combination as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mimassi (US 20210312571 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 14, the combination does not disclose: wherein the restaurant management system processor is programmed for generating artificial intelligence training data for storage in and retrieval from the restaurant management database and for utilizing the artificial intelligence training data for analysis of potential outcomes in the restaurant menu pricing data.
Mimassi discloses: [0039] According to an aspect, a restaurant may access restaurant computer 140 to enter or update a variety of financial information that may include lease hold costs, loaded labor rates, cost of goods sold menu items, recipe information, inventory on-hand, staff, staffing needs, culinary skill requirements along with other information that may be stored in a database 150, and used by real-time financial system 200 that may offer or execute financial transactions to optimize business operations around one or more business metrics. [0056]]In a next step, 903 retrieve recipe data from recipe database, recipe data comprising food type, food amount. In a next step, 904 retrieve patron data from patron profile database, the patron data comprising food items previously purchased, day and time data, weather conditions, surrounding circumstances including local news and events. In a next step, 905 receive real-time 3.sup.rd party data from a plurality of business computing devices for one or more data sources, the 3.sup.rd party data comprising local news and events, current and forecasted weather, social media feeds, rating and review sites. In a next step, 906 analyze inventory metrics, patron food purchase history and predict inventory requirements using Deep Learning algorithms such as elastic net, random forest, or gradient boosting models or other Artificial Intelligent techniques known to those skilled in the art. In a next step, 907 generate recommended menu adjustments to optimize business operations. In a next step, 908 send recommended menu adjustments to business compute device, the recommended menu adjustments comprising food item name, price, promotion information.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Mimassi, in order to optimize their operations, see Mimassi para. 47.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/25/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention has a practical application, see Remarks page 2. Examine respectfully disagrees. Displaying menu data in response to changes in restaurant supply pricing is considered nothing more than data being updated and displayed. Analyzing data, correlating data, data updating in a database, and displaying data updated are considered nothing more than data received, processed, and displayed without mindfully limiting the limitations or an improvement of the computer, computer functionality, or a technical field. Therefore, the claimed invention does not have a practical application.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is significant more, and that Examiner did not provide factual evidence, see Remarks page 3. Examine respectfully disagrees. Examiner have pointed out as discussed on STEP 2A Prong 2 that the claimed invention generally “apply” the abstract idea in a generic or general-purpose computer, and generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and also have pointed out that “the Office have found that receiving and transmitting data over the network is not enough to be patent-eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(d), that gathering data is not enough is not enough to be patent-eligible, see MPEP2106.05(g). The processing data is not enough is not enough to be patent-eligible, 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g)”. In addition, Analyzing data, correlating data, updating data in a database, and displaying data updated are considered abstracted idea, and Examiner do not see any unconventional arrangement in the claimed invention.
Therefore, the rejection under the 35 USC 101 is maintained.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA DELIGI whose telephone number is (571)272-0503. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 07:30AM-5PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VANESSA DELIGI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights