DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 correspondence is a response to the Preliminary Amendment submitted on 05.05.2025. Applicant canceled claims 1-20 and added new claims 21-40. Therefore, this correspondence provides a comprehensive examination with claims 21-40 currently pending and awaiting further review and determination.
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 Statement (IDS) dated 05.05.2025 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. Claims 1-20 of the immediate application are patentably indistinct from claims 1-20 of Patent No. 11,776,076. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and enough reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise 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 non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made because 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. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,776,076. 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 21-40 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 21-40 are directed to drive-through, pick up, delivery ordering system and methods for restaurants.
Independent claim 1 has been identified as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 is directed to a method comprising the steps of:
receiving a plurality of orders;
determining one or more parameters associated with the ones of the plurality of orders;
generating a second sequence based on the one or more parameters;
preparing the plurality of orders based on the second sequence; and
completing preparation of the plurality of orders in the second sequence;
These limitations describe the evaluation of information and the organization of restaurant workflow by prioritizing or sequencing orders. Such activities constitute certain methods or organizing human activity, including: commercial interactions (e.g., ordering and preparing orders), business management or relationship between people, as well as mental processes because the steps of “evaluating order information, determining parameters, and deciding an order in which items should be prepared” are operations that can practically be performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper.
Further, evidence is cited to: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, and buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc. Accordingly, claim 21 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: a computer system, and a status board. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim merely recited a generic “computer system and a status board” that perform the conventional functions of receiving information, and generating a sequence. The “computer system and the status board” are used only as a tool to automate the abstract idea and does not improve the functioning of the computer system itself or any other technology or technical filed. Nor does the claim recites a particular machine that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation of an article, or otherwise apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a generic computer.
The claim does not recite an incentive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. The additional elements of “a computer system and a status board” perform only well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions, including receiving data, processing data, and generating output. Viewed individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Accordingly, claim 21 is directed to a judicial exception and does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception. 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 22-29, 31-37, and 39-40 define the same that is present in their respective independent claims 21, 30, and 38, are considered to be part of the abstract idea above and merely act to further limit it. In the dependent claims, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts 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 22-29, 31-37, and 39-40 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 Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101).
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 non-obviousness.
11. Claims 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leet, Pub. No.: US 2008/0319864 in view of Burks et al., Pub. No.: US 2016/0244311.
As per claim 21, Leet discloses a method comprising: receiving, at a computer system in a restaurant location, a plurality of orders [see at least ¶0055 (e.g., Using Delay Routing as explained above, the kitchen software takes the order from the point-of-sale system, breaks the order into meal components (referred to as "items"), and communicates the preparation of each item to the specific kitchen station where those items are cooked/prepared ("prep station"))], and wherein the plurality of orders are generated in a first sequence [see at least ¶0037 (e.g., When an order is placed that contains multiple menu items), and ¶0056 (e.g., Dynamic Routing will not commence the first item in the sequence, and ……. Dynamic Routing uses these forecasted times as it commences preparation of each item within the sequence for the order)];
determining, for ones of the plurality of orders and using the computer system, one or more parameters associated with the ones of the plurality of orders [see at least ¶0037 (e.g., With delay routing, each menu item is assigned a cook time (either from the point-of-sale, or within the CSK))];
generating, using the computer system, a second sequence based on the one or more parameters, wherein the second sequence is different from the first sequence [see at least ¶0037 (e.g., the item with the longest cook time is routed to the appropriate kitchen station first. With the system keeping track of the first item as it is cooking, the next item is then routed based on its cook time to its appropriate prep station--and so on, until all items on the order are cooking such that they are targeted to complete at the same time)];
preparing the plurality of orders based on the second sequence [see at least ¶0055 (e.g., Items are routed intelligently only to the prep stations where they are prepared while the entire meal is displayed at an expediter station where orders are brought together before being served to the table)]; and
completing preparation of the plurality of orders in the second sequence [see at least ¶0056 (e.g., Delay Routing routes items to their appropriate prep stations based on their individual cook times so that all items are targeted to complete the preparation process at the same time, …… and Dynamic Routing will begin the routing process for that order when the timing is correct for all items to be completed at the same time. Dynamic Routing will first check the status of each of the prep stations involved in that order to ensure that each prep station is capable of completing the preparation of the item as expected. If any prep station is behind schedule, then Dynamic Routing will wait to fire the first item until all prep stations are capable of handling the items as expected, so that all items on the order will complete at the same time. Therefore, Dynamic Routing can completely hold orders, waiting to route all items on the order, if a single prep station that is involved in the preparation of an item on that order is behind. Delay Routing cannot accomplish this feat. [0058] b) Second, Dynamic Routing includes constant monitoring of the system (based on user-defined intervals, such as every 30 seconds or every 5 minutes) to determine and adjust forecasted times. These forecasted times take into account the cook times of items as defined in a resident database along with the factors that impact these cook times. Dynamic Routing then applies logic behind each of these factors to forecast a more accurate time to completion for each item)].
Leet discloses all elements per claimed invention as explained above. Leet does not expressly disclose wherein one or more of the plurality of orders are generated at a location remote from the restaurant location. However, Burks discloses wherein one or more of the plurality of orders are generated at a location remote from the restaurant location [see Burks: ¶0003 (e.g., 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)].
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 Burks in order to provide an ordering app running on a mobile device [Burks: abstract].
As per claim 22, Leet discloses wherein, for a given one of the plurality of orders, the one or more parameters include a location of a device from which the given one of the plurality of orders was originated [see at least ¶0042 (e.g., the CSK can be configured to automatically send the routing of items or orders that would normally go to a down device, to a backup device)].
As per claim 23, Leet in view of Burks discloses determining the location of the device from which the given one of the plurality of orders was originated using global positioning system (GPS) data [see Burks: ¶0093 9e.g., the order generating application 318 transmits and displays one or more maps showing restaurant locations are displayed based on a zip code entered by the customer or on a global positioning system (GPS) application that determines the closest restaurant locations relatively to the location of the wireless mobile personal computer 102)].
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 Burks in order to provide an ordering app running on a mobile device [Burks: abstract].
As per claim 24, Leet discloses wherein the one or more parameters include respective estimated arrival times at the restaurant location for ones of the plurality of orders generated at locations remote from the restaurant location [see at least the rejection of claim 21 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Leet and Burks, as noted in claim 21 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 24 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 21. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 21 are applicable to claim 24. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 21, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 25, Leet discloses wherein the one or more parameters include respective order preparation times for ones of the plurality of orders [see at least the rejection of claim 21 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Leet and Burks, as noted in claim 21 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 25 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 21. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 21 are applicable to claim 25. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 21, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 26, Leet discloses wherein the one or more parameters include, for at least one of the plurality of orders, a requested completion time [see at least the rejection of claim 21 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Leet and Burks, as noted in claim 21 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 26 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 21. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 21 are applicable to claim 26. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 21, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claims 27-29, Leet discloses receiving at least one of the plurality of orders at the restaurant location; changing the second sequence in response to a change of at least one of the one or more parameters; wherein the change of at least one of the one or more parameters comprises a change initiated by a customer associated with one of the plurality of orders [see at least the rejection of claim 21 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Leet and Burks, as noted in claim 21 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 27-29 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 21. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 21 are applicable to claim 27-29. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 21, which is incorporated herein by reference].
12. Claims 30-37, which are parallel to claims 21-29 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 21-29. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 21-29].
13. Claims 38-40, which are parallel to claims 21-29 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 21-29. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 21-29].
Conclusion
14. 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 9,406,084, Havas: discloses method for submitting a food order remotely.
US 2010/0117806, Hong: discloses a system and a method for ordering food using RFID.
15. 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.
16. 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