Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
2. This communication is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 04.11.2025. Claims 1-20 have been canceled, and new claims 21-40 have been added. Therefore, claims 21-40 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for examination, as detailed below.
Oath/Declaration
3. The Applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) dated 04.11.2025 is acknowledged by the Examiner. The cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed, signed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Priority / Filing Date
5. Applicant’s claim for priority of US Application filed on 07.13.2015 is acknowledged. The Examiner takes the US Application date of 07.13.2015 into consideration.
Double Patenting
6. The non-statutory 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 time wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
7. Claim 21-41 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.: 11,776,075, and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.: 12,198,208. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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 32-37 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), an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 32-37 are directed to drive-through, pick up, delivery ordering system and methods for restaurants.
Independent claim 32 has been identified as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 32 is directed to a method for processing food orders in a food preparation and distribution facility, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of food orders;
generating a preparation sequence for the plurality of food orders; and
delivering a given one of the plurality of food orders through a drive-through pick-up window located on a side of a building of the facility.
These limitations when considered individually and as an ordered combination, describe receiving and processing orders, coordinating preparation, and delivering of food orders through a drive-through pick-up window. These limitations fall within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, including: commercial interactions (e.g., ordering and delivering), and managing personal behavior or relationship between people (e.g., delivery ordering and drive-through), which has been identified as an abstract idea.
Further, evidence is cited to: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, and buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc. Accordingly, claim 32 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: a mobile ordering system, a server, a distribution facility, a preparation sequence for the plurality of food orders, and a drive-through pick-up window.
The mobile ordering system and the server are directed at a high level of generality and perform generic functions (receiving orders and delivering orders). Such components are generic computer elements performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. The remaining elements (e.g., a distribution facility, a preparation sequence for the plurality of food orders, and a drive-through pick-up window) represent conventional physical components of a food service facility, arranged to implement the abstract idea of order fulfillment and customer direction.
Accordingly, these additional elements and components, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality, and do not improve the functioning of a computer itself or the distribution facility or other technology, and do not provide a particular machine configuration in a meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a generic environment. Instead, the additional elements and components merely implement the abstract idea in a generic and conventional environment, and amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, such as ordering food and facilitating human actions. Therefore, claim 32 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The claim does not include components that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements, considered individually and in combination, include: a generic computer system and network performing routine data reception and processing, and conventional components of distribution food service facility (e.g., distribution facility, preparation sequence for the plurality of food orders, and drive-through pick-up window). The elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field distribution facility of food service and computer implementation.
Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Therefore, claim 32 is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., non-sequential restaurant order systems and method) without significantly more. Accordingly, claim 32 is not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Furthermore, claims 33-37 define the same that is present in their respective independent claim 32, are considered to be part of the abstract idea above and merely act to further limit it. In the dependent claims, the additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer functioning in a standard mode of operation or matters that are routine and conventional in the field. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Additionally, claims 33-37 do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bridgman, Pub. No.: US 2009/0255195 in view of Burks et al., Pub. No.: US 2016/0244311.
As per claim 21, Bridgman discloses a food preparation and distribution facility [see at least ¶0007 (e.g., facility that provides greater throughput of drive-thru customers without additional exterior space requirements for the facility), as illustrated in FIG. 1 (e.g., block 10), and shown below], the facility comprising:
a first drive-through pick-up window located on a side of a building of the facility [see at least ¶0009 (e.g., a primary food delivery or pick-up window), as illustrated in FIG. 1 (e.g., pick-up window 84), and shown below]; and
a drive-through lane that extends adjacent to the first drive-through pick-up window [see at least ¶0009 (e.g., vehicular drive-thru lane is situated on the lot and passes adjacent to the primary food delivery window), as illustrated in FIG. 1, a quick-service restaurant premises 10 having a lot 12 on which is situated a restaurant building 14. The premises 10 typically will be located adjacent a street 18, and presented below]:
FIG. 1 is a plan view of the premises of the drive-thru.
PNG
media_image1.png
696
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bridgman discloses all elements per claimed invention as explained above. Bridgman primarily discloses a drive-thru system in which “drive-thru customers order, pay, and receive delivery of their food orders without leaving their vehicles,” and further describe “a building for receiving and filling drive-thru customer orders” including a “primary food delivery or pick-up window” and “in-line vehicle waiting area” having parking spaces for order fulfillment. Thus, the reference teaches a complete take-out ordering and fulfillment workflow independent of dine-in service. Bridgman does not expressly disclose wherein the facility is devoid of a communications channel.
However, Burks discloses wherein the facility is devoid of a communications channel [see at least ¶0094 (e.g., prepared order is then provided to the customer through the drive-through window, the walk-up counter, or delivered to the customer waiting in the parking lot), and also ¶0194 (e.g., such as pickup at a drive thru window, delivery to a curb-side location on the venue premises, or delivery to a location off the premises), as illustrated in FIG. 27, and shown below].
FIG. 22 illustrates an example of a venue details screen used by the order management system.
PNG
media_image2.png
533
477
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Harman in order to provide systems and methods for receiving and managing remotely placed orders, particularly orders for goods that must be prepared within a short time of being received [Burks: ¶0003].
As per claim 22, Bridgman discloses wherein the facility is devoid of an order pick-up location other than the first drive-through pick-up window orders [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Bridgman and Burks, as noted in claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 2 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 2. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 23, Bridgman discloses a second pick-up window, wherein the first drive-through pick-up window is dedicated to paying customers, and wherein the second pick-up window is dedicated to delivery drivers [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Bridgman and Burks, as noted in claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 3 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 3. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 24, Bridgman discloses order ready board configured to indicate respective ones of a plurality of food orders is ready for pick-up in an order different from that in which the respective ones of the plurality of food orders was received [see at least claim 5 (e.g., a display positioned adjacent the in-line vehicle waiting area, the display for displaying information relating to a specific customer's order)].
As per claim 25, Bridgman discloses a plurality of single-vehicle parking spaces, wherein selected ones the plurality of single-vehicle parking spaces are arranged to provide independent and non-sequential access to the drive-through lane [as illustrated in FIG. 1 below].
PNG
media_image3.png
666
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As per claim 26, Bridgman discloses wherein the order ready board is arranged to be visible to occupants of vehicles parked in any of the plurality of single-vehicle parking spaces [as illustrated in FIG. 1, and presented above].
As per claim 27, Bridgman discloses a server located in an interior of the building of the facility, wherein the server is configured to receive ones of a plurality of food orders from one or more of a plurality of devices located remotely from the facility [see at least ¶0039 (e.g., Orders entered by a customer at an order station 78 are communicated to one or more computers that are located within building 14. Such communication may take place by networking, hard wiring, wireless communication or any other suitable means. Typically, at least one of these computers is a point-of-sale computerized cash register 80 that is located in the drive-thru order delivery area 82 of building 14), and as illustrated in FIG.1 above].
As per claim 28, Bridgman discloses wherein the server is further configured to receive for each of the plurality of food orders, electronic pre-payments [see at least ¶0044 (e.g., Before reaching primary food delivery window 84, vehicles 101-104 optionally may have paid for their orders by cash, credit card, debit card, smart card or other payment means located at order station 78, or at a location provided between order station 78 and primary food delivery window 84. Drive-thru vehicle 101 has pulled up and adjacent to primary food delivery window 84 where payment will be collected by attendant A, if payment has not previously been made), as illsuatted in FIG. 1 above].
As per claim 29, Bridgman discloses wherein the server is configured to receive location information from the one or more of the plurality of devices, and further configured to adjust a sequence in which the ones of the plurality of food orders is prepared, relative to the sequence in which the ones of the plurality of food orders were received, based on the location information received form the one or more of the plurality of devices [see at least ¶0039 (e.g., Order delivery area 82 provides a location where a drive-thru servicing attendant A can be positioned. Proximate to order delivery area 82 is a primary food delivery window 84 from which attendant A can pass through a prepared order from within building 14 to a drive-thru customer present at primary food delivery window 84. Primary food delivery window 84 typically is a slideable glass window for opening and closing as needed. Food delivery area 82 may include a veranda 88 to provide more convenient vehicle access to primary food delivery window 84 for receiving delivery of a customer order)].
As per claim 30, Bridgman discloses further comprising at least one drive-through order placement station located externally to the building of the facility [see at least ¶0067 (e.g., the system and method of the present invention can handle a vehicle throughput for order placement, order payment and order delivery completion at the rate of at least 240 cars per hour (CPH))].
12. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bridgman in view of Burks, and further in view of Harman, Patent No.: US 10,083,455.
As per claim 31, Bridgman discloses in view of Burks discloses wherein the facility is configured exclusively for providing take-out food orders [see at least Burks ¶0318 (e.g., customer selects take-out)]. However, Harman discloses wherein the facility is designated to exclusively provide take-out orders [see at least the background of the invention (e.g., a take-out order at a restaurant)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Harman in order to provide a take-out order management and analysis [Harman: abstract].
13. Claims 32-37, which are parallel to claims 21-31 in terms of scope,
limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined
above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and
underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 21-31. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 21-31].
14. Claims 38-40, which are parallel to claims 21-31 in terms of scope,
limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined
above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and
underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 21-31. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 21-31].
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The PTO-1449 forms have been reviewed and considered.
US 9,129,289, Vaughn: discloses methods and systems for receiving, processing and fulfilling remotely placed orders.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached on 517-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
17. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Garcia Ade/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights