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 response to application filed on 27 of May 2026.
Claims 1, 12, 16, 26, and 30 have been amended.
Claims 1-30 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
The applicant asserts that the amended claims recite a specific machine and method that are not routine or conventional, and which cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation aimed at computing a first subset using a model is a mathematical calculation. Ingesting real-time data, extracting information, accessing a database, inputting data, and generating a sequenced list are all mental processes and/or insignificant extra solution activities if done by the computer (e.g. mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Examples of product claims reciting mental processes include: A wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid – Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1…” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Finally, receiving a plurality of food orders is an interaction between people (i.e. following rules or instructions). Therefore, the claims remain an abstract idea.
Applicant asserts that independent claim 1 provides a concrete technical solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology. It claims a specific machine, i.e., an ''on-premise computing system'', that improves its own functionality as a process controller. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that taking food orders from customers while decreasing wait times has been done long before the advent of the computer and IoT. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The examiner notes that the ML is disclosed at a high level of generality, and it is interpreted under BRI to be an algorithm. The claims do not disclose any specific type of ML or the steps performed to achieve the desired results and the specification does not provide an any details that shows said improvement.
Applicant asserts that the system automatically transmits these structured subsets for display on the GUI of one or more on-premise display devices (see Drawings, FIGs. 5A-5C). In other words, the computing system dynamically and automatically updates the GUI on the one or more one-premise display devices in response to receiving the plurality of food orders. This is a practical application far removed from any abstract idea. The examiner respectfully disagree. Mere automation of a manual process or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.04(a); MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.05(f); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The display (i.e. GUI) is updated as orders move through an “assembly line”, which is no more than an output of order progression. Taking the claim elements separately, the functions performed in claim 1 by the communication to receive data, analyze data, calculate results, and output data are purely conventional. Receiving data, analyzing data, calculating results, and outputting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions previously known to the industry. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356 (The claims “do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. Considered as an ordered combination, the generic computer components of applicant’s claimed invention add nothing that is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. For example, claim 1 does not purport to improve the functioning of the computer components themselves. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
Applicant asserts that the most compelling evidence of an inventive concept comes from the Office Action itself. In the ''Allowable Subject Matter'' section, the Examiner explicitly found:
''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... (Office Action, p. 3). The Examiner acknowledges that the specific combination of elements recited in the independent claims is novel and non-obvious. It is therefore legally and factually incongruous to simultaneously argue, for the purposes of§ 101, that these same claim elements are merely ''well-understood, routine, conventional activities. 11 A combination of features that a person of ordinary skill could not ''easily conceive'' cannot be ''conventional”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018). Simply reciting specific limitations that narrow the abstract idea does not make an abstract idea non-abstract. 79 Fed. Reg. 74631; buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (2014); see SAP America at p. 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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, to ingest real-time kitchen resource data comprising kitchen staff status data of one or more kitchen members and kitchen equipment status data of one or more kitchen equipment, 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 the kitchen staff status data and the kitchen equipment status data; a processor configured to dynamically and automatically update a graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on the one or more one-premise display devices in response to receiving the plurality of food orders, wherein the processor is further 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 one or more kitchen staff members and a current availability of one or more 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 one or more kitchen staff members and the current availability of the one or more 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 via the GUI 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”, “Mental Processes” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”, 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, 16, 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.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1, 16, 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, 16, 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 2-15 and 17-30 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
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 mailing date of this final action.
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 (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. 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).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 8/5/2026
Prosecution Insights