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 .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 9/2/2025.
Claims 2-8, 10-11 and 13-15 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority in the Application Data Sheet filed on October 24, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP 2023-010062 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 2-8, 10-11 and 15 recite tangible system components, thus falling one of the four statutory classes; i.e. machine. Claim 13 recites a series of steps, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., process. Claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer readable-medium, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; manufacture.
Claims 2-8, 10-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention are
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Taking claim 13 as representative, claim 13 recites at least the following
limitations:
an item information acquisition step of acquiring, based on a detection result, item information on an item that is conveyed at a position upstream of a target user in a restaurant to convey items on a conveying path, detect the items on the conveying path; a determination step of determining whether a predetermined notification condition for the item is satisfied based on the item information; and a notification information output step of outputting notification information on the item in association with the target user based on a determination result at the determination step.
The above limitations as drafted that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers notification information on an item in association with a target user
. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the 2019 PEG, in that they recite managing personal behavior. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claim 13 is an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One:
YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, returning to representative claim 13, the claim recites detection unit for detecting and a conveying device for conveying items to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 13 is not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, the additional elements do not show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)()). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claim 8 the abstract idea of a notification information on an item in association with a target user, when considered as an ordered combination, do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually . In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” an determined that “the computer components...‘[a]dd nothing. ..that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claim 13 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 13 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent system claim 11 and computer readable medium claim 14 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as method 13. Claim 11 further recites a detection unit for detecting item information/data and display recited at a high level of generality (generic) and amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claim 14 further recites a computer as disclosed in the specification on paragraphs 0056 and 0176 are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as generic computers/processors) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. They are no more than a tool to perform the “receiving, determining, assigning, converting, aggregating and transmitting steps.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-11 and 15 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. There’re no additional elements that transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further abstract limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
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.
Claims 2-8, 10-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 57722842 in view of Official Notice.
With respect to claims 11, 13 and 14 JP-57722842 teaches an information device, processing method comprising:
an item information acquisition unit that is configured to acquire, based on a detection result by an item detection unit, item information on an item that is conveyed at a position upstream of a target user (customer on the transporting path of the transporting device)(page 1) by a conveying device used in a restaurant to convey items on a conveying path, the item detection unit being configured to detect the items on the conveying path (i.e. close detector 10 for detecting the opening / closing of the lid 7 of the food container 5 And a controller 11 composed of a computer for calculating information of food and drink conveyed through the conveyance path 3 based on the opening / closing information of the lid 7 detected by the opening / closing detector 10, and various types calculated by the controller 11)(page 5, 3rd paragraph)
a determination unit that is configured to determine whether a predetermined notification condition for the item is satisfied based on the item information (In addition, the controller 11 inputs the information from the second reader 1b and the second open / close detector 10b, and the food and drink staying on the conveyance path 3 without being eaten for a predetermined time, that is, the second reading. Types of food and drink staying on the transport path 3 without being eaten for a predetermined time from the food and drink information of the IC tag read by the container 1b and the opening and closing state of the lid body 7 detected by the second opening and closing detector 10b and the food container 5 in which the food and drink are stored, and when the food container 5 passes through the lid opening device 13)(page 6, 3rd paragraph);
and a notification information output unit that is configured to output notification information on the item in association with the target user based on a determination result by the determination unit (The monitor 12 displays a food management monitor 12a for displaying the type and number of eaten foods and drinks, and information on foods and drinks staying on the transport path 3 for a predetermined time without being eaten)(page 6, 4th paragraph).
With respect to determining whether the item information of the item detected by the item detection unit satisfies a predetermined condition; and outputting notification information on the item to the display device upon determining that the item information satisfies the predetermined condition, wherein the display device is configured to display a notification image to the target customer based on the notification information. JP 5772842 teaches on page 6, 4th paragraph of the monitor 12 displaying a food management monitor 12a for displaying the type and number of eaten foods and drinks, and information on foods and drinks staying on the transport path 3 for a predetermined time without being eaten. JP 5722842 is silent as to display device being configured to display a notification image to the target customer based on the notification information, on the conveying path at a position upstream of a seat of the target customer. Official Notice is taken that it is old and well known, in buffet restaurants and the like to display to the customers foods that have been out for a predetermined time and have not been eaten in order to ensure the customers that the items are fresh. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included in the determination of the food and drinks that have not be eaten in JP 5722842, to have been displayed to the target customers in order to alert the target customers that the drinks and food haven’t stay out for too long. The Examiner wants to point out that the conveying path at a position upstream of a seat of the target customer, is not given patentable weight because the position of the seat is not relevant and would have not affected how the system or method would operate.
With respect to claims 7-8, JP-57722842 teaches wherein the item information includes an item identifier that identifies a menu of the item or an item group to which the item belongs, and the notification condition includes a condition relating to the item identifier; wherein the item information includes information as to whether the item is a predetermined target item, and the notification condition includes a condition as to whether the item is the predetermined target item (number or IC indicating the type of food from the IC tag 9 by the second reader 1b. Based on the information from the second reader 1b and the second opening / closing detector 10b, the unique number of the tag is read and the food container 5 with the lid 7 closed is detected by the second opening / closing detector 10b. Whether the residence time on the transport path 3 of the food container 5 with the lid 7 closed by the controller 11, that is, the food container 5 in which sushi is stored, has passed for a predetermined time or more. In other words, it is determined whether or not the sushi accommodated in the food container 5 has remained in the transport path for a certain period of time without being eaten)(see page 6, last paragraph).
With respect to claims 2-6, JP 5722842 teaches a user information acquisition unit that is configured to acquire user information on the target user (see page 6, paragraph 6 for obtaining information on the customer favorite sushi).
JP 5722842 is silent as to the notification condition and the determination being based on the acquired user’s information, related to user’s preference information, current order history, past order history and a predetermined value relating to the target user visits to the restaurant. Official notice is taken that it is old and well known to take into account the user’s preference information, current order history, past order history and a predetermined value relating to the target user visits to the restaurant. For example, restaurants and the like keep track of the user’s dish preference, their current, past orders and how frequent they visit the establishments in order to better target the customer and their needs. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included in the notification condition and determination of JP 5772842 to have included the user’s preference information, current order history, past order history and a predetermined value relating to the target user visits to the restaurant, because such a modification would help better target the notification and make the determinations based on the user’s specific preferences and needs.
Claim 10 further recites wherein the notification information output unit is further configured to output, in association with the user, second notification information for notifying the target user that the item is no longer conveyed when the item detection unit detects that the item is not conveyed at a position upstream of the target user after the notification information on the item was output in association with the target user. JP-5722842 teaches on page 1, transporting the food and drinks to the audience seats and on page 6, 4th paragraph, the monitor 12 displays a food management monitor 12a for displaying the type and number of eaten foods and drinks, and information on foods and drinks staying on the transport path 3 for a predetermined time without being eaten. JP-5722842 is silent as to a second notification information for notifying the target user that the item is no longer conveyed when the item detection unit detects that the item is not conveyed at a position upstream of the target user after the notification information on the item was output in association with the target user. Official Notice is taken that it is old and well known to send a notification when an item is no longer available to the user at their sitting position. For example, fast foods restaurants and the like will further make announcements throughout of what food items or drinks are becoming low or no longer available before the customer takes their seats, in order for the customers to better make better decisions. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included, second notification information for notifying the target user that the item is no longer conveyed when the item detection unit detects that the item is not conveyed at a position upstream of the target user after the notification information on the item was output in association with the target user in order to allow the customers to make better decisions.
Claim 15 further recites the display device is further configured to display a regular image for accepting an order from the target customer; and display a return button on the notification image for switching the notification image to the regular image. Official Notice is taken that is old and well known to display a return button or the like in an order screen page in order to allow the customer to switch from one content to other content. For example, a user can be in a news content website and click on an advertising link to order a product or service and can switch back to the news website, to keep receiving the news content. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included in JP 5722842, a regular image for accepting an order from the target customer; and display a return button on the notification image for switching the notification image to the regular image, because such a modification would allow the customer to easily switch between pages.
References of record but not applied to current rejections:
Morgan (2024/0202804) teaches an “AR wayfinding session” refers to a communication session during which the user is provided a route or path to one or more items at a given location and AR-based wayfinding route guidance is provided to the user through the indoor location via an AR app of a user-operated device. An integrated camera of the user device captures real-time video being viewed by the user as the user travels the route through the indoor location to the item(s). One or more AR objects that dynamically change based on the user's tracked location along the route relative to a desired item or a turn along the route are blended into the video being viewed by the user as the user traverses the route to the item(s). Additionally, the user device can be instructed to provide a variety of haptic/vibration feedback as additional wayfinding guidance as the user travels through the indoor location and navigates the route to the item(s).
Response to Arguments
The amendment to claim 11 overcame the 112 (b) rejection.
The 101 rejections have been maintained. The claims pertain to: determining whether a predetermined notification condition for the item is satisfied based on the item information; and a notification information output step of outputting notification information on the item in association with the target user based on a determination result at the determination step. The claims other their broadest reasonable interpretation cover behaviors, business relations and fall under Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity. The additional elements of a conveying device to convey items, a detection unit for detecting information/data and a display device to display image/data are considered as “apply it” the exception using generic computer components. They are no more than a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any 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.
Point of contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6715. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays thru Thursdays 8:30-6:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/RAQUEL ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621