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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status
2. This communication is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 03.12.2025. Claims 1, 10, and 18 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 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 Statement (IDS) dated 03.12.2025 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 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 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. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/464,941 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the same invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The mapping of claim 1 of the immediate application to claim 1 of the copending Application follows:
Immediate Application
Copending Application
18/464,941
Claim 1. A system for synchronized pre-ordered item preparation at one or more locations, the system comprising: a server configured to provide one or more menu selection information, wherein a customer device of a customer comprises at least one processor, wherein the customer device is configured to collect real-time telematics information of the customer based on a global position of the customer device, and the server causes the at least one processor on the customer device to:(i) provide interactive menu and ordering information to a customer, wherein the interactive menu is configured to display menu information available at a location;(ii) receive an input from the customer comprising an order including one or more menu selections;(iii) determine an arrival time of the customer to the location based on the real- time telematics information;(iv) transmit the arrival time of the customer and the one or more menu selections to the location; and(v) optimize an order completion time based on the arrival time of the customer to the location; and an order ready board disposed at the location and configured to present a status of the order.
Claim 1. A system for synchronized pre-ordered item preparation at one or more dine-in locations, the system comprising: (a) a customer device of a customer comprising at least one processor, wherein the customer device is configured to collect real-time telematics information of the customer based on a global position of the customer device; (b) an application for use on the customer device; and (c) a server configured to provide one or more menu selection information, wherein the server causes the at least one processor on the customer device to: (i) provide interactive menu and ordering information to a customer, wherein the interactive menu is configured to display menu information available at a dine-in location; (ii) receive an input from the customer comprising one or more menu selections; (iii) determine an arrival time of the customer to the dine-in location based on the real-time telematics information; (iv) transmit the arrival time of the customer and the one or more menu selections to the dine-in location; and (v) optimize an order completion time based on the arrival time of the customer to the dine-in location.
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 1-20 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 1-20 are directed to drive-through, pick up, and delivery ordering and delivery systems 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 the abstract idea of coordinating the timing of food preparation based on customer location and order information, comprising the steps of:
provide one or more menu selection information;
collect real-time telematics information of the customer;
provide interactive menu and ordering information to a customer;
display menu information available at a location;
receive an input from the customer comprising an order including one or more menu selections;
determine an arrival time of the customer to the location based on the real- time telematics information;
transmit the arrival time of the customer and the one or more menu selections to the location; and
optimize an order completion time based on the arrival time of the customer to the location; and
present a status of the order.
These steps constitute a process of gathering data about a customer’s order and location, calculating when the customer will arrive, and using that calculation to time food preparation and update a status display. This is a fundamental economic practice of scheduling commercial services based on customer availability.
These limitations fall within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, including: commercial interactions (e.g., taking food orders, and synchronizing pre-ordered item preparation), managing personal behavior or relationship between people (e.g., coordinating restaurant orders based on customer location and arrival time), and mental processes (e.g., specifically collecting information, analyzing it and presenting results, that could be performed by a human restaurant host), which have been identified as an abstract idea.
Further, evidence is cited to: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: a server configured to provide menu selection information, a customer device, a processor, and an order ready board. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to generic computer components used as tools to perform the abstract idea. A “server”, a “processor”, a “customer device”, and an “order ready board to display information” are generic computer and display hardware. Under Alice, “mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”. Such components are generic computer elements performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions.
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, do not improve the functioning of a computer itself or other technology, and nor does the claim recite, an improvement to GPS accuracy, processor speed, network communication, or display technology. 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 receive, process, and present data. Therefore, claim 1 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 processor and server performing routine data reception and processing, and conventional components of synchronizing pre-ordered item food preparation (e.g., an interactive menu, and an order ready board). The elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field 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 1 is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., systems and methods for synchronized pre-ordered item at locations) without significantly more. Accordingly, claim 1 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, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Furthermore, claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-20 define the same that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 10, and 18, 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 2-9, 11-17, and 19-20 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bridgman et al., Pub. No.: US 2009/0255195 in view of Wilson et al., Patent No.: US 10,586,294, and further in view of Havas, Pub. No.: US 2013/0317921.
As per claim 1, Bridgman discloses a system for synchronized pre-ordered item preparation at one or more locations [see at least ¶0016 (e.g., a building situated on the lot is provided for preparing drive-thru and non-drive-thru customer orders and for delivery of the customer orders to the customers), ¶0033 (e.g., an area to prepare food orders), and as illustrated in FIG. 1 (e.g., block 10), and as shown below];
an order ready board disposed at the location and configured to present a status of the order [see at least ¶0045 (e.g., Attendant A can thereby conveniently monitor the status of all pending orders. When attendant A becomes aware that an order is ready for delivery, attendant A can view the display screen of cash register 80 to view the vehicle license plate number matched to that order, and then make delivery of that order to the correct vehicle), see claim5 (e.g., a display positioned adjacent the in-line vehicle waiting area, the display for displaying information relating to a specific customer's order), and as illustrated in FIG. 1 below]:
FIG. 1 is a plan view of the premises food distribution location distribution.
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: a server configured to provide one or more menu selection information, wherein a customer device of a customer comprises at least one processor, wherein the customer device is configured to collect real-time telematics information of the customer based on a global position of the customer device, and the server causes the at least one processor on the customer device to: provide interactive menu and ordering information to a customer, wherein the interactive menu is configured to display menu information available at a location; receive an input from the customer comprising an order including one or more menu selections; determine an arrival time of the customer to the location based on the real- time telematics information; transmit the arrival time of the customer and the one or more menu selections to the location; optimize an order completion time based on the arrival time of the customer to the location.
However, Wilson discloses a server configured to provide one or more menu selection information, wherein a customer device of a customer comprises at least one processor [as illustrated in FIG. 1 (e.g., FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of a mobile food order server 101 (e.g., a computer server) in communication with a mobile food order system 100 that may be used according to an illustrative embodiment of the disclosure. The mobile food order server 101 may have a processor 103 for controlling overall operation of a mobile food order server 101 and its associated components, including RAM 105, ROM 107, input/output component 109, and memory 115), and via the processor 103 and its associated components may allow the mobile food order server 101 to provide restaurant information, menu information and transmit a mobile food order to a restaurant or restaurant server …. See FIG. 1 below]:
FIG. 1 is an illustrative network environment and computing systems that may be used to implement aspects of the present disclosure.
PNG
media_image2.png
627
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the customer device is configured to collect real-time telematics information of the customer based on a global position of the customer device [as illustrated in FIG. 3 (e.g., an in-vehicle device 225 to collect and provide telematics information as known and used in the art. The in-vehicle device 225 may include a processor with a display or graphical interface that receives and/or collects driving data and/or telematics information and provides additional information based on the driving data) ….. See FIG. 3 below]:
FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary block diagram of a mobile food order system and application.
PNG
media_image3.png
462
357
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and the server causes the at least one processor on the customer device to: provide interactive menu and ordering information to a customer, wherein the interactive menu is configured to display menu information available at a location [as illustrated in FIG. 1 (e.g., the processor 103 and its associated components may allow the mobile food order server 101 to provide restaurant information, menu information and transmit a mobile food order to a restaurant or restaurant server) …. See FIG. 1 above];
receive an input from the customer comprising an order including one or more menu selections [via step 430, the system may then receive a mobile food order from the user. The user may input the mobile food order via the menu and/or the restaurant information on the mobile device 215 and the mobile food order application 300 provided in steps 420 and 425, and as illustrated in FIG. 4 below]:
FIG. 4 illustrates a method of providing a mobile food order application system.
PNG
media_image4.png
652
473
media_image4.png
Greyscale
determine an arrival time of the customer to the location based on the real- time telematics information [as illustrated in FIG. 3 above … via telematics module 305 may further calculate and provide information regarding distance to nearest restaurants, time to travel (with or without traffic) to selected restaurants, route information for selected restaurants, etc.];
transmit the arrival time of the customer and the one or more menu selections to the location [as illustrated in FIG 4 above … via step 435, the system may transmit the mobile food order to the selected 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 Wilson in order to provide a computer-implemented methods and systems for ordering food remotely or from a vehicle for pick-up or delivery [Wilson: field of the invention section].
The combination of Bridgman and Wilson does not expressly disclose optimize an order completion time based on the arrival time of the customer to the location. However, Havas discloses optimize an order completion time based on the arrival time of the customer to the location [see at least Havas: ¶0015 (e.g., method S100 can thus enable the customer to apply his personal experience with food order completion times of a particular store location to submit an order for his favorite food item such that the store location completes the order before and/or approximately at the time that the customer arrives at the store location)].
FIG. 1 is a flowchart representation of a first method.
PNG
media_image5.png
694
515
media_image5.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 Havas in order to provide method for submitting a food order remotely [Havas: abstract].
As per claim 2, Bridgman discloses wherein the server further causes the at least one processor on the customer device to obtain a set of production timing and slip logic (PTSL) rules for generating a dynamic preparation order as a function of PTSL inputs comprising: (a) the one or more menu selections,(b) a current queue,(c) configurable variables comprising a cook time for each of the one or more menu selections, and(d) the real-time telematics information of the customer [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Bridgman, Wilson, and Havas, as noted for 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 3, Bridgman discloses wherein the server further causes the at least one processor on the customer device to apply the PTSL rules to:(a) optimize the order completion time, and(b) generate an order fire time, wherein the order fire time is set to end at order completion time [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Bridgman, Wilson, and Havas, as noted for 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 4, Bridgman discloses wherein the server further causes the at least one processor on the customer device to display, at the location, the order completion time and the arrival time of the customer to the location [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Bridgman, Wilson, and Havas, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 4 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 4. 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 5, Bridgman discloses wherein the customer device is configured to collect real- time telematics information of the customer based on an estimated travel time selected or provided by the customer [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Bridgman, Wilson, and Havas, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 5 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 5. 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 6-9, Bridgman discloses wherein the input further comprises a number of guests associated with the input; wherein the order ready board presents a plurality of statuses of a plurality of orders; wherein the at least one processor is configured to dynamically repeat at least one of steps (c)(i) through (c)(v) responsive to an update of the input from the customer; and further comprising optimizing the order completion time based on current driving information comprising at least one of local traffic reports, standard traffic conditions, road structures, location, destination, route, and combinations thereof [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Bridgman, Wilson, and Havas, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claims 6-9 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 claims 6-9. 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].
12. Claims 10-17, which are parallel to claims 1-9 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 1-9. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 1-9].
13. Claims 18-20, which are parallel to claims 1-9 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 1-9. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 1-9].
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 10,083,455, Harman: discloses systems and methods for take-out order management and analysis.
US 2014/0058901, Kim: discloses a computer-implemented method to order ahead with a mobile device.
US 12,165,635, Gruber: discloses an intelligent automated assistant is implemented on an electronic device, to facilitate user interaction with a device, and to help the user more effectively engage with local and/or remote services.
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.
16. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights