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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 12/16/2024. As such, claims 1-6 have been examined.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a system that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims limitations that cover performance of the limitations in the human mind with the assistance of physical aids (e.g., pen and paper), but for the recitation of generic or well-known or conventional computer components. That is, other than reciting “order terminal, kitchen display system (KDS), and parsing simulator” nothing in these claim limitations precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. As a whole, claim 1 pertains to displaying order to a cook or chef, which is a mental process that a human can do. Individually, each of the limitations also pertains to a mental process and/or insignificant extra solution activity, for example:
an order terminal generating an order sheet including order information, and transmitting data of the order sheet; (e.g., a human writing the order down and walk over and presenting the order to a cook or chef) [the order terminal is a generic computer component that takes order info, as part of the automating the ordering process]
and a kitchen display system (KDS) receiving the data of the order sheet, (e.g., the human writing out the order in a piece of paper using paper and pen.) [KDS is a generic computer component that shows the order info, part of the automating process]
searching for a plurality of keywords in the order sheet regardless of a format of the order sheet, (e.g., the human read the printout or handwritten note to see what is written in the order)
and parsing and displaying the order information corresponding to the plurality of searched keywords from the order sheet, (e.g., the human determining what is written, and what the customer wants to order)
wherein the kitchen display system (KDS) includes a parsing simulator, the parsing simulator may display the order sheet when at least some of the plurality of keywords are not searched in the order sheet, and parse order information corresponding to an unsearched keyword. (e.g., the human reading the order, and realizing there is some special note or find the note hard to read/understand, and then present or show the order to the manager or the cook/chef to see if they understand) [parsing simulator is a generic computer component that automates the what the human can do.]
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recites generic computing components. Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving, determining, or outputting information) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of using generic computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
The examiner further notes that the use of claimed generic computer components (“order terminal, kitchen display system (KDS), and parsing simulator”) to obtain, extract, and/or generate data invokes such generic computer components “merely as a tool to perform an existing process”. MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) further explains:
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim 1 recites generic computer components (“order terminal, kitchen display system (KDS), and parsing simulator”), with respect to performing tasks. MPEP 2106.05(d) and (f) further provides examples of court decisions where the courts found generic computing components to be mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and further explains “increased speed” (e.g., using a computer to increase the speed of an otherwise mental process) does not provide an inventive concept. For example:
A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added).
Performing repetitive calculations. Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.")
Claims 2-6 depend from independent claims 1, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 from above.
Claim 2 further comprising: wherein the order information includes an order number, order type information, and order menu information. (e.g., the human reading order which includes order number, order type and order menu information.)
Claim 3 further recite: wherein the kitchen display system (KDS) searches for a division line in the order sheet, and recognizes and parses order information below the searched division line as the order menu information. (e.g., the human analyzing the printout for different sections of the order, and look for order menu information.)
Claim 4 further comprising: wherein the kitchen display system (KDS) searches for a menu as the keyword in the order sheet, and recognizes and parses order information below the searched menu as the order menu information. (e.g., the human looking for keyword associated with a menu, like hotdog or soda and look for any special notes under that section, such as extra sauce, type of bread or extra ice.)
Claim 5 further recites: wherein the kitchen display system (KDS) recognizes the order menu information in the order sheet, recognizes and parses a smallest number in the order menu information as a quantity, and recognizes and parses a word displayed at a leftmost portion in the order menu information as a menu name. (e.g., the human analyzing the order on display or on printed/written paper, looking for smallest number in the order menu information as a quantity, and word on the left side of the order as menu name.)
Claim 6 further recites: wherein the kitchen display system (KDS) recognizes the order menu information in the order sheet, searches for a symbol in the order menu information, and recognizes and parses a word next to the searched symbol as an option. (e.g., the human analyzing text on the order, and look for any symbols such as plus, like burger plus grilled union, or asterisk like steak, cooked medium rare.)
In sum, claims 2-6 depend from claim 1, and further recite mental processes as explained above. None of the additional limitations recited in claims 2-6 amount to anything more than the same or a similar abstract idea as recited in claims 1. Nor do any limitations in claims 2-6: (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations of using generic computer components amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claims 2-6 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svenson (US 10467559), in view of Tucker (US 20160292797).
Regarding Claim 1, Svenson discloses: 1. A system for order monitoring and display, the system comprising: an order terminal generating an order sheet including order information, and transmitting data of the order sheet; (See fig. 2B, kitchen display system, with KD user interface, network interface, and order ticket) Fig. 2B is reproduced below for convenience of viewing.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a kitchen display system (KDS) receiving the data of the order sheet, (see fig. 2B from above.) Also see col. 3, lines 37-54.
Svenson does not appear to disclose the following features.
Tucker in the related field discloses: searching for a plurality of keywords in the order sheet regardless of a format of the order sheet, ([0078] In some embodiments, the processor 112 may be configured to perform filtering the message to remove one or more of unwanted language and an unnecessary word. Accordingly, the processor 112 may be configured to modify the message and forward the modified message to the communication unit 110. The processor 112 may parse the message and recognize the content specifying the order included in the message. On recognizing and identifying the relevant content, the processor 112 may modify the message. Thus, the modified message may help in faster and more accurate processing of the order.) Also see para 0079-0080. [recognizing relevant content reads on searching for plurality of keywords, unstructured message reads on regardless of a format]
and parsing and displaying the order information corresponding to the plurality of searched keywords from the order sheet, wherein the kitchen display system (KDS) includes a parsing simulator, the parsing simulator may display the order sheet when at least some of the plurality of keywords are not searched in the order sheet, and parse order information corresponding to an unsearched keyword. ([0090] Further, at step 404, the method may include transforming the one or more messages into a structured order. As an example, the message may be parsed using a language model based parser and subsequently converted into a modified message according to a predefined format. As another example, in case the message is in the form of speech, speech processing may be performed on the message in order recognize spoke words and subsequently convert the message into a structured order.)[Transforming messages into a structured order is the broadest reasonable interpretation of parsing keywords from an order sheet. Language model reads on parsing simulator as the language model understands unstructured language. Converting missing or unsearched information into a predefined format/template reads on parsing order information for unsearched keywords. Receiving raw speech and applying speech processing to fill in the gaps is similar to displaying raw order sheet for unsearched items.]
Svenson and Tucker are considered analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Svenson to combine the teaching of Tucker, because there exists a need for systems and methods for facilitating placement of an order at a restaurant that enhance quality, efficiency, and customers' satisfaction by providing an order in advance, and removing human error in the order-taking and order-delivery process (Tucker, [0005]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svenson (US 10467559), in view of Tucker (US 20160292797), and further in view of Mahal (US 20250384495).
Regarding claim 2, Svenson/Tucker disclose all of claim 1,
Svenson further discloses: wherein the order information includes an order number, (col. ([col. 32, lines 5-21] It should be noted that, in some examples, the kitchen display system 204 may receive input indicating that the first order ticket 408 is complete before receiving the additional order ticket data 218. In such examples, the kitchen display system 204 can remove the first order ticket 408 from the kitchen display user interface 216. Additionally, after receiving the additional order ticket data 218 and creating the second order ticket 410, the kitchen display system 204 can provide the second order ticket 410 via the kitchen display user interface 216 without providing the first order ticket 408. As shown in both FIGS. 4A and 4B, the requests and underlying data can move from the data capture device to the kitchen display system via the counter device. The time shown on the tickets can indicate the order time (time when the order was received), preparation time (the time it takes to prepare the order), wait-time (time it takes to give the order), and the like.) Also see fig. 4B.
Svenson and Tucker do not appear to disclose order type information.
Mahal in the related art discloses: order type information. ([0009] order type is selected from a group comprising at least a dine-in type, a delivery type, and a take-away type;)
Svenson/Tucker/Mahal are considered analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Svenson and Tucker to combine the teaching of Mahal, because existing computing systems lack sufficient information and utilization of information, which may lead to longer wait times, inefficient resource utilization, and diminished customer satisfaction (Mahal, [0007]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svenson (US 10467559), in view of Tucker (US 20160292797), further in view of Mahal (US 20250384495) and furthermore in view of Cooke (US 8977613).
Regarding claim 3, Svenson/Tucker/Mahal disclose all of claim 2,
Svenson/Tucker/Mahal do not appear to disclose the following feature.
Cooke in the related art discloses: wherein the kitchen display system (KDS) searches for a division line in the order sheet, and recognizes and parses order information below the searched division line as the order menu information. ([col. 5, lines 57-61] Document elements may include content elements (e.g., glyphs, letters, words, punctuation, numerical characters, symbols, etc.), structural elements (e.g., markup tags, headers, sections, columns, dividers, lines, etc.), and any other elements that can be parsed in a programmatic manner.)
Svenson/Tucker/Mahal/Cooke are considered analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of teachings to combine with the teaching of Cooke, because this structured approach allows for efficient editing and searching as the software search or extract data from specific section (Cooke, [col. 5, lines 57-61]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svenson (US 10467559), in view of Tucker (US 20160292797), further in view of Mahal (US 20250384495) and furthermore in view of Miyagi (US 20240281183).
Regarding claim 4, Svenson/Tucker/Mahal disclose all of claim 2,
Svenson/Tucker/Mahal do not appear to disclose the following feature.
Miyagi in the related art discloses: wherein the kitchen display system (KDS) searches for a menu as the keyword in the order sheet, and recognizes and parses order information below the searched menu as the order menu information. ([0096] As shown in FIG. 11, in a case of the display list 1002, a two-layered hierarchical structure is generated in which display texts of vendor definition attribute values are located in the lower layer (child element) of display texts (standard definition keyword values) of the category of an upper layer (parent element). Then, based on the generated hierarchical structure, the CPU 111 generates GUI display data that can hierarchically be displayed. For example, as the GUI display data that can hierarchically be displayed, display data for displaying the drop-down menu 508 shown in FIG. 5B is generated. Note that the order of display texts of a category in the hierarchical structure may be, for example, the appearance order of media_type_supported attribute values acquired in S103 of FIG. 4. Alternatively, the order may be based on an order predetermined in a database storing the display texts of the standard definition keyword values, which the host computer 101 holds in the ROM 112. After step S206, the processing shown in FIG. 6 is ended.) Also see fig. 11.
Svenson/Tucker/Mahal/Miyagi are considered analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of teachings to combine with the teaching of Miyagi, because the system can sort items based on real time data or predefined rules (Miyagi, [0096]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svenson (US 10467559), in view of Tucker (US 20160292797), further in view of Mahal (US 20250384495) and furthermore in view of Gangadarappa (US 20220358231).
Regarding claim 5, Svenson/Tucker/Mahal disclose all of claim 2,
Svenson/Tucker/Mahal do not appear to disclose the following feature.
Gangadarappa in the related art discloses: wherein the kitchen display system (KDS) recognizes the order menu information in the order sheet, recognizes and parses a smallest number in the order menu information as a quantity, and recognizes and parses a word displayed at a leftmost portion in the order menu information as a menu name. ([0047] At block 308, if (No) the digital asset 228A is determined not to be in the predefined format for a purchase order, software application 204 is configured to process and convert the digital asset 228A into the predefined format and save the properly formatted content as the purchase order 212. In one or more embodiments, software application 204 may include, be integrated with, and/or call an optical character recognition (OCR) module 210 and a parsing module 211. OCR module 210 can be used to implement optical character recognition on the input text of digital asset 228A. More specifically, OCR module 210 can extract any plain text from the digital asset 228A. The parsing module 211 may be and/or include an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) parsing module, which can process the plain text data by parsing the input into a predefined format resulting in the purchase order 212. In one or more embodiments, parsing module 211 may include computer executable instructions and rules for parsing data assets, such as data asset 228A, to generate purchase order 212 as discussed herein and not require AI/ML.) [Parsing for the smallest number and finding the leftmost word as order menu can be program using parsing/extraction rules]
Svenson/Tucker/Mahal/Gangadarappa are considered analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of teachings to combine with the teaching of Gangadarappa, because the system can provide parsing of raw text and identify key information (Gangadarappa, [0047]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svenson (US 10467559), in view of Tucker (US 20160292797), further in view of Mahal (US 20250384495) and furthermore in view of Krause (US 20120035923).
Regarding claim 6, Svenson/Tucker/Mahal disclose all of claim 2,
Svenson/Tucker/Mahal do not appear to disclose the following feature.
Krause in the related art discloses: wherein the kitchen display system (KDS) recognizes the order menu information in the order sheet, searches for a symbol in the order menu information, and recognizes and parses a word next to the searched symbol as an option. ([0047] For example, the MCLE may parse incoming texts for characters, terms, phrases, and their context, and may execute actions based on detecting certain items in certain contexts. Thus, in an implementation, the MCLE detects the use of the "@" symbol, and determines based on context whether the symbol is being used to identify a location, such as a geographic location or a business. One option for making this determination is to search the words appearing after the "@" symbol in groups of one, two, and three, until a location/establishment is identified or the possible searches are exhausted.)
Svenson/Tucker/Mahal/Krause are considered analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of teachings to combine with the teaching of Krause, because the system can provide parsing solution and execute an action base on the context (Krause, [0047]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Abrams (US 20240378971) – discloses method/system for real time online synchronization of food order from a user and kitchen display system through the cloud server. See Abstract, and figs 1, and 3-7 for additional details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip H Lam whose telephone number is (571)272-1721. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3 PM Pacific time.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. 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.
/PHILIP H LAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights