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 .
Priority
Application data sheet filed 11/13/2024 has a typo. Prior application 17/853,134 is listed in the continuity data. This should be 17/583,134. A corrected ADS should be submitted.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12182890 in view of Truong (US 20200065881 A1).
Regarding claim 1, patented claim 1 discloses all the subject matter of the pending claim 1 except:
1) the camera being used in vehicle identification by capturing imaging data associated with at least a portion of a vehicle at the first location
2) busyness determined by monitoring data associated with traffic flow at the first location using the one or more image sensors
3) the menu including a first list generated in part based on order history
4) receiving a selection from the first list for the vehicle
However in an analogous art, Truong discloses:
1) the camera being used in vehicle identification by capturing imaging data associated with at least a portion of a vehicle at the first location (paragraph 33 As such, various implementations of the system herein can have at least three cameras, including a first camera (also referred to herein as a “user image camera”) 16 positioned to capture an image of the user (such as the driver in the car in the drive-through) 28, a second camera (also referred to herein as a “license plate camera”) 18 positioned to capture an image of the license plate of each car as it moves through the drive through or is stopped in front of the kiosk, and a third camera (also referred to herein as a “car lane camera”) 20 positioned to capture an image of the car lane such that it captures an image of all of the cars in line at the drive-through waiting for an opportunity to place an order at the kiosk.)
2) busyness determined by monitoring data associated with traffic flow at the first location using the one or more image sensors ([0040] Alternatively, the local processor 22 can also contain or be coupled to a software module 44 and/or algorithm that reviews a series of images captured by the car lane camera 20 and selects the image with the highest likelihood of an accurate depiction of the cars positioned in the car lane. Once the image is selected, the module/algorithm 44 then identifies the different cars in the image and totals the number of cars in the image, thereby “counting” the number of cars in the lane.)
3) the menu including a first list generated in part based on order history (paragraph 43 recommendations based on order history, fig. 3 reorder screen 60)
4) receiving a selection from the first list for the vehicle (paragraph 48 customer select offer)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings with the patented claim 1 by using the details of Truong’s implementation. The motivation for the combination is increased drive thru speed (paragraph 40).
Claims 2-19 are rejected for the same reasons as above, but applied to patented claims 1-18 and 20
Claim 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12182890 in view of Truong (US 20200065881 A1) and Bernal (US 20160155328 A1).
Regarding claim 20, patented claim 20 modified with Truong above teaches the subject matter of claim 19, but fails to disclose and Bernal discloses: providing a user associated with the user selection a preparation timer or an estimated time of arrival for the user to pick up an order (paragraph 25 estimated overall wait time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an estimate overall wait time. The motivation for the combination is improved customer satisfaction (paragraph 18).
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3-7, 11-18, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11727510 in view of Truong (US 20200065881 A1).
Regarding claim 1, patented claim 1 discloses all the subject matter of the pending claim 1 except:
1) the camera being used in vehicle identification by capturing imaging data associated with at least a portion of a vehicle at the first location
2) busyness determined by monitoring data associated with traffic flow at the first location using the one or more image sensors
3) the menu including a first list generated in part based on order history
4) receiving a selection from the first list for the vehicle
However in an analogous art, Truong discloses:
1) the camera being used in vehicle identification by capturing imaging data associated with at least a portion of a vehicle at the first location (paragraph 33 As such, various implementations of the system herein can have at least three cameras, including a first camera (also referred to herein as a “user image camera”) 16 positioned to capture an image of the user (such as the driver in the car in the drive-through) 28, a second camera (also referred to herein as a “license plate camera”) 18 positioned to capture an image of the license plate of each car as it moves through the drive through or is stopped in front of the kiosk, and a third camera (also referred to herein as a “car lane camera”) 20 positioned to capture an image of the car lane such that it captures an image of all of the cars in line at the drive-through waiting for an opportunity to place an order at the kiosk.)
2) busyness determined by monitoring data associated with traffic flow at the first location using the one or more image sensors ([0040] Alternatively, the local processor 22 can also contain or be coupled to a software module 44 and/or algorithm that reviews a series of images captured by the car lane camera 20 and selects the image with the highest likelihood of an accurate depiction of the cars positioned in the car lane. Once the image is selected, the module/algorithm 44 then identifies the different cars in the image and totals the number of cars in the image, thereby “counting” the number of cars in the lane.)
3) the menu including a first list generated in part based on order history (paragraph 43 recommendations based on order history, fig. 3 reorder screen 60)
4) receiving a selection from the first list for the vehicle (paragraph 48 customer select offer)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings with the patented claim 1 by using the details of Truong’s implementation. The motivation for the combination is increased drive thru speed (paragraph 40).
Claim 2 is rejected for the same reasons as above as the recited features are present in patented claim 1.
Claims 3-7 are rejected for the same reasons as above, but applied to patented claims 3-7.
Regarding claim 9, patented claim 1 fails to disclose and Truong further discloses wherein the list is updated based upon one or more of a customer’s order history, a specific item’s preparation time, time of day and day of the week (fig. 3 order history). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings with the patented claim 1 by using the details of Truong’s implementation. The motivation for the combination is increased drive thru speed (paragraph 40).
Claims 10-14 are rejected for the same reasons as above, but applied to patented claims 11-15.
Claims 15-17, 19 are rejected for the same reasons as above, but applied to patented claims 16-18 and 20.
Claims 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11727510 in view of Truong (US 20200065881 A1) and further in view of Muyskens (US 20200202462 A1)
Regarding claim 8, patented claim 1 as modified fails to disclose and Muyskens discloses wherein the list is tailored based on demographic or ethnic characteristics (paragraphs 31, 32, 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claim as modified by tailoring the menu based on age, gender, race, medical conditions, etc. The motivation for the combination is optimizing the ordering process (paragraph 6).
Claims 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11727510 in view of Truong (US 20200065881 A1) and further in view of Muyskens (US 20200202462 A1)
Regarding claim 18, patented claim 16 as modified discloses claim 15, but fails to disclose and Muyskens discloses wherein the first list is based on determining the vehicle has arrived on off-peak hours (paragraph 32 time of day). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claim as modified by tailoring the menu based on the time of day which would peak or off-peak hours. The motivation for the combination is optimizing the ordering process (paragraph 6).
Claims 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11727510 in view of Truong (US 20200065881 A1) and further in view of Bernal (US 20160155328 A1).
Regarding claim 20, patented claim 20 as modified teaches claim 19, but fails to disclose and Bernal discloses:providing a user associated with the user selection a preparation timer or an estimated time of arrival for the user to pick up an order (paragraph 25 estimated overall wait time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an estimate overall wait time. The motivation for the combination is improved customer satisfaction (paragraph 18).
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) 1-7, 9, 10, 15-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong (US 20200065881 A1) in view of Burt (US 20180082234 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Truong discloses:
1. A method for managing user interactions based on traffic flow, the method comprising:
capturing, using one or more image sensors coupled to a computing system, imaging data that includes information associated with at least a portion of a vehicle at a first location (paragraph 33 As such, various implementations of the system herein can have at least three cameras, including a first camera (also referred to herein as a “user image camera”) 16 positioned to capture an image of the user (such as the driver in the car in the drive-through) 28, a second camera (also referred to herein as a “license plate camera”) 18 positioned to capture an image of the license plate of each car as it moves through the drive through or is stopped in front of the kiosk, and a third camera (also referred to herein as a “car lane camera”) 20 positioned to capture an image of the car lane such that it captures an image of all of the cars in line at the drive-through waiting for an opportunity to place an order at the kiosk.);
monitoring data associated with traffic flow at the first location using the one or more image sensors ([0040] Alternatively, the local processor 22 can also contain or be coupled to a software module 44 and/or algorithm that reviews a series of images captured by the car lane camera 20 and selects the image with the highest likelihood of an accurate depiction of the cars positioned in the car lane. Once the image is selected, the module/algorithm 44 then identifies the different cars in the image and totals the number of cars in the image, thereby “counting” the number of cars in the lane.);
transmitting an instruction to a first display at the first location to present a first list generated in part based on data including order history, the first list comprising a collection of goods or services (paragraph 40 Alternatively, if there are a small number of cars or no cars in line, then the server 38 can trigger the display 26 to show the menu items tailored to the customer's preferences or any other set of menu items as discussed, paragraph 43 recommendations based on order history, fig. 3 reorder screen 60);
updating the first list based on a busyness of a second location, the busyness being calculated at least in part based on the data associated with the traffic flow at the first location (paragraph 40 That is, if there are a large number of cars in the line, the server 38 can trigger the display 26 to show menu items that can be prepared more quickly than other items);
receiving a selection from the first list for the vehicle (paragraph 48 customer select offer); and
Truong fails to explicitly disclose and Burt discloses: transmitting the selection to an electronic device at the second location (paragraph 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Truong by sending ordered items to the kitchen. The motivation for the combination is decreased preparation time (paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 2, Truong discloses: determining if the vehicle matches a user account by comparing one or more user-specific parameters against a user account database in the computing system (paragraph 41 license plate number paragraph 43 face).
Regarding claim 3, Truong discloses wherein one or more of the one or more imaging sensors coupled to the computing system includes at least one Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) camera that is configured to recognize a license plate of the vehicle (paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 4, Truong discloses wherein the portion of the vehicle includes at least the license plate of the vehicle (paragraph 33 license plate camera).
Regarding claim 5, Truong discloses wherein the one or more user-specific parameters include facial features or facial geometry data (paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 6, Truong discloses wherein the first list comprises one or more of a tailored menu, recent orders, and a loyalty and reward program in association with the user account (paragraph 5 personalized, fig. 3 recent order).
Regarding claim 7, Truong as modified fails to explicitly disclose and Burt further discloses: wherein the second location comprises one or more food preparing stations (paragraph 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Truong by sending ordered items to the kitchen. The motivation for the combination is decreased preparation time (paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 9, Truong discloses wherein the list is updated based upon one or more of a customer’s order history, a specific item’s preparation time, time of day and day of the week (fig. 3 order history).
Regarding claim 10, Truong discloses busyness is determined, but fails to disclose and Burt discloses busyness is determined by an average time of preparing an order (paragraph 121). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Truong by adapting the menu based on average wait time. The motivation for the combination is simple substitution of one element for another to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Truong as modified differs in the type of busyness measurement used. Burt discloses assessing busyness based on average time spent waiting. One of ordinary skill in the art having advantage of the disclosure could have used Burt’s busyness measure to adapt menu content.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and see paragraph 38 regarding computer-based implementation.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong (US 20200065881 A1) in view of Burt (US 20180082234 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muyskens (US 20200202462 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Truong as modified fails to disclose and Muyskens discloses wherein the list is tailored based on demographic or ethnic characteristics (paragraphs 31, 32, 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Truong as modified by tailoring the menu based on age, gender, race, medical conditions, etc. The motivation for the combination is optimizing the ordering process (paragraph 6).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong (US 20200065881 A1) in view of Burt (US 20180082234 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haverlah (US 10235675 B1)
Regarding claim 11, Truong as modified fails to disclose and Haverlah discloses: receiving payment of one or more orders via the first display via one or more payment methods selected from the group consisting of credit card, debit card, crypto currency, paypal, venmo, zelle, apple pay, Bluetooth payment and nfc payment (column 6 59-column 7 line 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Truong as modified by facilitating payment via a display screen. The motivation for the combination is efficiently tying transactions to users (column 2 1-15).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong (US 20200065881 A1) in view of Burt (US 20180082234 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bridgman (US 20090255195 A1)
Regarding claim 12, Truong as modified fails to disclose and Bridgman discloses providing instructions to direct the vehicle to a waiting zone by presenting a set of navigation instructions to the user (paragraph 60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings with Truong as modified by directing a customer as needed to a waiting parking spot. The motivation for the combination is efficient drive-thru operation (paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong (US 20200065881 A1) in view of Burt (US 20180082234 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kelly (US 20180122022 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Truong as modified fails to disclose and Kelly discloses transmitting a notification to a user account associated with the vehicle when one or more orders are completed (paragraph 139). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Truong as modified by providing status messages to the customer. The motivation for the combination is improved efficiency of the restaurant (paragraph 108).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong (US 20200065881 A1) in view of Burt (US 20180082234 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kodali (US 20210196081 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Truong as modified fails to disclose and Kodali discloses wherein the second location further comprises an automated culinary preparation machine, wherein the automated culinary preparation machine is configured to receive the one or more orders and initiate a culinary preparation process to prepare the one or more orders (paragraph 45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings with Truong as modified by adding a robot kitchen. Th motivation for the combination is culinary consistency (paragraph 17).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong (US 20200065881 A1) in view of Burt (US 20180082234 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Muyskens (US 20200202462 A1)
Regarding claim 18, Truong as modified fails to disclose and Muyskens discloses wherein the first list is based on determining the vehicle has arrived on off-peak hours (paragraph 32 time of day). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Truong as modified by tailoring the menu based on the time of day which would peak or off-peak hours. The motivation for the combination is optimizing the ordering process (paragraph 6).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong (US 20200065881 A1) in view of Burt (US 20180082234 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Bernal (US 20160155328 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Truong as modified fails to disclose and Bernal discloses:providing a user associated with the user selection a preparation timer or an estimated time of arrival for the user to pick up an order (paragraph 25 estimated overall wait time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an estimate overall wait time. The motivation for the combination is improved customer satisfaction (paragraph 18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dayley (US 20020143623 A1) discloses personalized drive thru experience based on license plate reading. Williams (US 20120287281 A1) discloses a personalized interface at a restaurant. Neeld (US 20150254789 A1) discloses an adaptive menu based on customer preferences.
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