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 .
Status of Claim
This action is in reply in response to application filed on 15 of November 2024.
Claims 1-30 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Allowable Subject Matter
None of the cited art documented by the Examiner, taken individually or in combination, discloses or suggests the features in claims 1, 16, and 30 nor could a person skilled in the art easily conceive of such features even in the light of common technical knowledge at the time of filing. Most notably, “access the local database to retrieve a number of current dine-in type orders, a number of currently pending delivery type orders, a number of currently pending take-away type orders, data regarding previous order completion times, table turn data, a current availability of a kitchen staff member and a current availability of a kitchen equipment associated with preparation of the one or more subset food items; input an input data set into the ML model, the input data set comprising: the order type, the customer name, the food dataset identifying the one or more subset food items, the timestamp associated with the food order, the number of current dine-in type orders, the number of currently pending delivery type orders, the number of currently pending take-away type orders, the data regarding previous order completion times, table turn data, the current availability of the kitchen staff member and the current availability of the kitchen equipment”. Therefore, pending claims 1-30 are distinguished from the prior arts cited by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-30 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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 1 recites “a communication system configured to receive a plurality of food orders and to communicate with one or more on-premise display devices; a memory comprising a machine learning (ML) model, and a local database configured to store kitchen staff status data and kitchen equipment status data; a processor configured to: for each food order: extract an order type, a customer name, a food dataset identifying one or more subset food items, and a timestamp associated with the food order, wherein the order type is selected from a group comprising at least a dine-in type, a delivery type, and a take-away type; access the local database to retrieve a number of current dine-in type orders, a number of currently pending delivery type orders, a number of currently pending take-away type orders, data regarding previous order completion times, table turn data, a current availability of a kitchen staff member and a current availability of a kitchen equipment associated with preparation of the one or more subset food items; input an input data set into the ML model, the input data set comprising: the order type, the customer name, the food dataset identifying the one or more subset food items, the timestamp associated with the food order, the number of current dine-in type orders, the number of currently pending delivery type orders, the number of currently pending take-away type orders, the data regarding previous order completion times, table turn data, the current availability of the kitchen staff member and the current availability of the kitchen equipment; compute, using the ML model, a first subset of the plurality of food orders that is classified with a cook status, and a second subset of the plurality of food orders that is classified with an on-hold status; wherein each of the food orders in the second subset is associated with a priority ranking used to generate a sequenced list of the food orders in the second subset; and transmit the first subset and the second subset for display on the one or more on-premise display devices, and wherein each of the food orders in the second subset are displayed in an order according to their respective priority ranking”. Claims 16 and 30 discloses similar limitations as Claim 1 as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1, 16, and 30 are directed to “Mathematical Concepts” in particular “mathematical calculations”, and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in particular “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-29 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1, 12, 16, 26, and 30 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1, 16, and 30 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element(s) italicized above reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 12 and 26 recite additional element “GUI”. This is a generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1, 12, 16, 26, and 30 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements described above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶70 “Referring to FIG. 1, an exemplary computing system architecture for a computing system in accordance with at least one embodiment. The computing system is generally identified by reference character 100. The computing system 100 includes an on-premises (“on-prem”) server 110 hosting several modules such as, for example, an artificial intelligence (“AI”) model 112, an ordering application 114, one or more ordering application programming interface (“API”) 116, and a local database 118. The on-prem server 110 is situated within the premise of a kitchen establishment 102. The on-prem server 110 is operationally connected to one or more computers 120 (also called on-premise computing devices) in the kitchen establishment 102. The one or more on-premise computing devices 120 include a web browser, and may include touchscreen capability. In some cases, the on-premise computing device 120 is an integrated housing that includes a touchscreen display, processor, memory, and communication interface. In some cases, the on-premise computing devices 120 are also called on-premise display devices. The one or more on-premise computing devices 120 include a kitchen coordination application (“KCA”) 122 that, in some cases, runs on the browser. The kitchen coordination application 122 includes a graphical user interface (GUI) for interacting with personnel of a given kitchen establishment. External data sources 130 are operatively connected to the on-prem server 110. The external data sources 130 include, for example, food ordering servers 132, map and weather servers 134, and a restaurant loyalty server 136. A cloud-based analytics server 140 is operatively coupled to the on-prem server 110”.
As a result, claims 1, 12, 16, 26, and 30 do not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claims 2-11, 13-15, 17-25, and 27-30 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571)272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
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 for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 2/12/2026