DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This application is in reply to the application filed on November 28, 2024.
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
- Claim 13 recites, in the fourth limitation, “wherein the computer program comprises instructions for performing” followed by a number of limitations. It appears that there should be a colon following performing and that the subsequent limitations should be indented. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the claim in this manner, however appropriate correction is required. Claims 14, and 15 have a substantially similar issue which is similarly objected to and requires correction.
- In each of Claims 1, 13 and the last limitation recites “wherein the user terminal and the ordering terminal is configured as separate devices”. This should more properly read “wherein the user terminal and the ordering terminal are configured as separate devices.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
5. In determining patentability of an invention over the prior art, all claim limitations have been considered and interpreted using the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during the examination of a patent application since the applicant may then amend his claims.” See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. See In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP 2173.05(q) All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. See MPEP 2143.03.
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could”, are treated as containing optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope.
Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See MPEP 2111.04, 2143.03. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Preamble (MPEP 2111.02);
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby” (MPEP 2111.04)
Contingent limitations (MPEP 2111.04)
Printed matter (MPEP 2111.05) and
Functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP 2181)
Examiner notes that during examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Bond, 15 USPQ 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990), citing In re Sneed, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, "in examining the specification for proper context, [the examiner] will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims". See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1733, 1738 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
The preamble of the instant claim 1 recites "a method to be performed by a service server, for providing ordering information”
The preamble of the instant claim 14 recites “an ordering terminal for providing a time-variable dynamic information”
In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is "necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality" to the claims. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999), Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Conversely, where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or an intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation given patentable weight. Rowe v. Dror, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995) If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2111.02
In the instant case, “to be performed by a service server, for providing ordering information” as recited in the preamble of Claim 1 and “for providing a time-variable dynamic information” as recited in Claim 14 only states a purpose and/or the intended use of the invention and accordingly is not being assigned any patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a method claim, however the presented method does not clearly define the metes and bounds of the process attempting to be claimed. The service server recited in the preamble indicates that the method is “to be performed by a service server for providing ordering information” however none of the steps are actively being performed by a service server in the body of the claim. The steps recited are therefore disjointed as there is no indication of what element is receiving a protocol request, extracting, validating and providing and how any of those steps come to pass as there is no server or processor or computer in the body of the claim that performs those functions and receives information from a user terminal. Additionally, Applicant has added a wherein clause indicating how the dynamic information comes to exist. As currently recited, this would be occurring outside of the method recited. The receipt of the dynamic information from a user terminal to (presumably the service server) is the active method step. The origin of the dynamic information appears to be occurring outside of the method claimed and the user terminal and ordering terminal being separate devices are outside of the process claimed and are not being actively recited.
Similarly, the “wherein clauses” are repeated in Claims 13 and 14 and again are attempting to insert claim language that is not being performed by the computing apparatus and the ordering terminal. As best understood by Examiner, it appears that the computing apparatus is intending to refer to the service server or the ordering terminal. (See Applicant Spec pages 71-72) It is not clear which embodiment Applicant is attempting to claim, which further makes the claim terminology variable.
The ordering terminal appears to correspond to a terminal that may be present at a restaurant on the table that may display a QR code that a user may capture with a user mobile device. The subsequent transmission of the protocol request to a location and transmission of a service request provided by a service server is not being done by the ordering terminal.
The claims appear to be conflating steps that are taken within the disclosed method, apparatus and device claims with other steps that are occurring outside of the defined devices or method. It is not clear what the metes and bounds of the claims sought to be patented are.
Further, it appears that dependent on which element is functioning, the steps do not occur in the same way. For instance, in reference to Claim 1 and 13, the ciphertext is extracted from the dynamic information and may be decrypted to obtain a decrypted timestamp and salt and the service server may validate the effectiveness of the dynamic information by comparing the obtained timestamp with the current time at the service server. (See Applicant Spec page 52) In Claim 14 the ciphertext appears to be pre-generated and embedded in the memory of the ordering terminal to provide a timestamp of the current time from an internal timer on the ordering terminal. (See Applicant Spec page 16-17)
The dependent claims further confound the claim set. For instance, in Claim 2, the claim attempts to recite the configuration of the ordering terminal as generating the QR code independently, however this is at odds with the disclosure of Claim 1. By way of further example, Claim 3, the ciphertext is disclosed to be obtained from the timestamp of the ordering terminal – which is based on an alternative embodiment than the one recited in the body of Claim 1.
The import of the limitations recited in the entire claim set are confusing and disjointed. There are numerous issues with imperfect antecedent basis, mixed embodiments and confounding limitations that make the claim set impossible to examine properly.
Because claims 1-20 are so indefinite, no art rejection is warranted as substantial guesswork would be involved in determining the scope and content of these claims. see In re Steele, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d, 1653, 1655 (BPAI 1989); and In re Wilson, 65 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970). Prior art pertinent to the disclosed invention is nevertheless cited and applicants are reminded they must consider all cited art under Rule 111(c) when amending the claims to conform with 35 U.S.C. 112.
Examiner notes that the prior art will be revisited on amendment once the claims conform to defined metes and bounds and consistent recitations as to the import of various claim terms.
Relevant Prior Art of Record Not Currently Applied
Buisson et al. (US PG Pub. 2022/0366000) – discloses a method for communicating between an electronic tag and a computer connected to the internet, wherein the electronic tag encrypts at least part of the information to be transmitted, using a data format preserving algorithm; generates a URL comprising at least the encrypted part of the information; and transmits the URL to an NFC reader. (See Buisson Abstract)
Xu et al. (WO 2023142441A1) – discloses tag-based money receiving QR code payment method executed in a payment device. (See Xu Abstract) The method comprises scanning a money receiving QR code, so as to obtain a link; interacting with a tag apparatus on the basis of a short-distance communication mode so as to obtain security verification information and sending a payment request to a payment background on the basis of the security verification information. (See Xu Abstract)
Noh (KR20220031173A) – discloses a service branching system using a dynamic QR code related to login and QR payment and including a store’s unique ID for ordering and payment; a smart terminal equipped with a camera that scans and recognizes the QR code of the unmanned order kiosk, wherein a mobile app that encrypts and transmits user information, order information and payment information, including a user’s unique ID, according to the service branch through the scan of the QR code is installed, and an order payment integration server, which decrypts the encrypted user information, order information, and payment information transmitted from the smart terminal to identify the type of service branch, the store’s unique ID and the user’s unique ID sends user information to the unmanned order kiosk to log in to perform an order. (See Noh Abstract)
Gyeong et al. (KR20230022734A) – discloses a menu order and payment system and control method thereof where the invention comprises card readers which are provided at each table in a store and provide order web page information; a user terminal which acquires the order web page information, accesses an order web page, and selects a product through the order web page; a server which generates menu selection information corresponding to the product selected by the user terminal and generates payment information using the menu selection information and a POS machine which receives the menu selection information and the payment information included in the received payment information and receives payment. (See Gyeong Abstract)
Jeong (KR20210110554A) – discloses provision of a payment method using a QR code that includes a user terminal including a scan unit capable of scanning a QR code, and a server to which a URL is executed and accessed through the recognized QR code. (See Jeong Abstract)
Jung (KR102545739B1) – disclosing a restaurant ordering system using a QR code that includes a smart terminal in which a restaurant ordering app is installed. (See Jung Abstract)
Regarding the 101 Rejection:
At present there is no 101 Alice rejection being applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBREEN A. ALLADIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
/AMBREEN A. ALLADIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 April 4, 2026