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 .
Prosecutorial Standing
2. This communication is in response to the Application filed on 02.18.2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application. 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 11.13.2025 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 PRO 62/191,772 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 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 HYPERLINK "http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp" www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,103. 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.
The mapping of exemplary independent claim 1 of the immediate application to exemplary independent claim 1 of the patent follows:
Immediate Application
US Patent Number
11,756,103
Claim 1:
A system for synchronized pre-ordered item preparation at a food distribution location, the system comprising: a server configured to communicate with a customer device of a customer, the customer device comprising at least one processor and being configured to collect real-time telematics information of the customer based on a global position of the customer device; wherein the server is configured to provide menu selection information and further configured to cause 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 indicative of menu items available at the food distribution location; receive an input from the customer comprising a first order associated with the customer, the first order including one or more menu selections; determine an arrival time of the customer to the food distribution location based on the real-time telematics information; transmit the arrival time of the customer and the one or more menu selections to the food distribution location; and optimize an order completion time based on the arrival time of the customer to the food distribution location; and an order ready board disposed at the food distribution location and configured to present a status of the first order.
Claim 1:
A system for synchronized pre-ordered item preparation at dine-in locations, the system comprising: a customer device of a customer comprising at least one processor; a dine-in application for use on the customer device; a real-time telematics device communicatively coupled to the customer device, wherein the real-time telematics device: comprises a processor with a graphical interface, and is configured to collect real-time telematics information of the customer, wherein the real-time telematics information is based on a global position of the customer device and current driving information; and a dine-in location server configured to provide one or more menu selection information, …… 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 dine-in location; receive a provisional input from the customer comprising: one or more menu selections, and real-time telematics information of the customer, wherein the real-time telematics information is based on a global position of the customer device and current driving information; determine an arrival time of the customer to the dine-in location; transmit the arrival time of the customer and the one or more menu selections to the dine-in location; and optimize an order completion time based on the real-time telematics and 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 11-18 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 11-18 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 11 is directed to a synchronized pre-ordered item preparation at a food distribution location, the method comprising the steps of:
collecting real- time telematics information of the customer;
providing menu selection information;
causing an interactive menu to display menu information;
receiving an input from the customer comprising a first order associated with the customer;
optimizing an order completion time based on the arrival time of the customer to the food distribution location; and
displaying a status of the first order.
These limitations when considered individually and as an ordered combination, describe collecting, receiving, optimizing, preparing and displaying orders. These limitations fall within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, including: commercial interactions (e.g., ordering and synchronizing food preparation), and managing personal behavior or relationship between people (e.g., directing customers where to receive orders), 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 11 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: a food distribution location, a customer device, one processor, a server, an interactive menu, and an order ready board.
The processor and server are directed at a high level of generality and perform generic functions (receiving orders and synchronizing food preparation). Such components are generic computer elements performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. The remaining elements (e.g., food distribution location, an interactive menu, and an order ready board) represent conventional physical components of a food service facility, arranged to implement the abstract idea of order fulfillment and status of pending orders.
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 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 displaying information and facilitating human actions. Therefore, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The claims do 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 food service facility (e.g., food distribution location, 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 11 is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., systems and methods for synchronized pre-ordered item at locations) without significantly more. Accordingly, claim 11 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 12-18 define the same that is present in their respective independent claim 11, 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 12-18 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bridgman et al., Pub. No.: US 2009/0255195 in view of Harman, Patent No.: US 10,083,455, and further in view of Kim et al., Pub. No.: US 2014/0058901.
As per claim 1, Bridgman discloses a system for synchronized pre-ordered item preparation at a food distribution location distribution [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], the system comprising:
a server configured to communicate with a customer device of a customer, the customer device comprising at least one processor and being configured [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), and as illustrated in FIG. 1 below];
receive an input from the customer [see at least ¶0068 (e.g., a wireless keyboard to input orders into register 80)] comprising a first order associated with the customer [see at least ¶0015 (e.g., a first food order to a first customer)].
an order ready board disposed at the food distribution location and configured to present a status of the first 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 wherein the server is configured to provide menu selection information and further configured to cause 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 indicative of menu items available at the food distribution location; the first order including one or more menu selections.
However, Harman discloses wherein the server is configured to provide menu selection information and further configured to cause 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 indicative of menu items available at the food distribution location [see at least Harman: abstract (e.g., an interactive menu associated with the restaurant is provided to a plurality of users, a plurality of orders are received from the plurality of users, and the plurality of orders are sent to the restaurant), and summary (e.g., stores order information related to the plurality of orders and the plurality of users in at least one database, and analyzes the order information), and as illustrated in FIGs. 19 and 20 below]:
FIGs. 19 and 20 illustrate a process for managing a take-out menu.
PNG
media_image2.png
615
356
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 selectable menu options and/or input fields into which a customer can enter order information [Harman: column 3: lines 65-67].
The combination of Bridgman and Harman does not explicitly disclose collect real-time telematics information of the customer based on a global position of the customer device; determine an arrival time of the customer to the food distribution location based on the real-time telematics information; transmit the arrival time of the customer and the one or more menu selections to the food distribution location; and optimize an order completion time based on the arrival time of the customer to the food distribution location.
However, Kim discloses collect real-time telematics information of the customer based on a global position of the customer device; determine an arrival time of the customer to the food distribution location based on the real-time telematics information [see at least Kim: ¶0024 (e.g., the user device 110 determines the location of the user and the projected route to the merchant. The user device can employ the global positioning system ("GPS") technology of the device and the application can use a mapping system to determine the projected route and an estimated time of arrival at the merchant. Any other suitable location determining system may be employed by the user device to determine the location of the user. The order application can execute a mapping function or the order application can employ any other mapping application or website for the purposes of determining the route and estimated time of arrival), and as illustrated in FIG. 1 below]; transmit the arrival time of the customer and the one or more menu selections to the food distribution location [see at least ¶0031 (e.g., network device 110 and 130 includes a device having a communication module capable of transmitting and receiving data over the network 105), see ¶0026 (e.g., the order application (115) can monitor the route and location of the user (101) and provide an alert when the user is 10 minutes from the merchant (130)), and as illustrated in FIG. 1 below]; optimize an order completion time based on the arrival time of the customer to the food distribution location [see at least Kim: ¶0039 (e.g., The POS terminal 132 may be operated by a salesperson that enters the purchase data into the POS terminal 132 to complete the purchase transaction), and ¶0057 (e.g., In block 245, the order application 115 can notify the order processing application 135 of the arrival of the user 101 at the location of the merchant system 130. For example, the order application 115 can determine that the user 101 is arriving in the parking lot of the merchant system 130 or is within a threshold distance from the location of the merchant system 130. Upon receipt of the alert, the merchant system 130 can complete any required preparations for the user 101), and as illustrated in FIG. 1 below].
FIG. 1 is a block diagram depicting a system for ordering ahead with a mobile user device.
PNG
media_image3.png
421
628
media_image3.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 Kim in order to provide to contactless transactions, and more particularly to a method to use a mobile user device to place an order before arriving at a merchant [Kim: column 3: lines 65-67].
As per claim 2, Bridgman discloses wherein the order ready board is configured to direct the customer to proceed to a pick-up area at the food distribution location orders [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Bridgman, Harman, and Kim, 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 order ready board is configured to display respective statuses of ones of a plurality of orders, including the first order [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Bridgman, Harman, and Kim, 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 order ready board is configured to direct respective customers of ones of the plurality of orders to proceed to the pick-up area in a different sequence than one in which the plurality of orders were received [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Bridgman, Harman, and Kim, 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 in view of Harman discloses wherein the order ready board is configured to display an alphanumeric string associated with the first order [see at least Harman: via in step 2002, menu data is extracted or imported from a restaurant's POS system. The menu data may comprise, for each menu item, a name, a system identifier associated with the menu item (e.g., unique numeric or alphanumeric identifier), price, screen assignment, and/or modifier group assignment (e.g., cheese, temperature, condiments, etc.), as illustrated in FIG. 20 below].
PNG
media_image4.png
324
430
media_image4.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 Kim in order to provide to contactless transactions, and more particularly to a method to use a mobile user device to place an order before arriving at a merchant [Kim: column 3: lines 65-67].
As per claim 6, Bridgman in view of Harman discloses wherein the order ready board is configured to display a nickname provided by the customer associated with the first order [see Harman: via FIG. 19 (e.g., name of the customer), as shown below].
PNG
media_image5.png
403
447
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 Kim in order to provide to contactless transactions, and more particularly to a method to use a mobile user device to place an order before arriving at a merchant [Kim: column 3: lines 65-67].
As per claim 7, Bridgman discloses wherein the order ready board is configured to display a customer- provided order identification string associated with the first order [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Bridgman, Harman, and Kim, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 7 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 7. 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 8, Bridgman discloses wherein the order ready board is configured to display a confirmation number associated with the first order [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Bridgman, Harman, and Kim, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 8 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 8. 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 9, Bridgman discloses wherein the customer device is a mobile device comprising the application [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Bridgman, Harman, and Kim, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 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 claim 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].
As per claim 10, Bridgman discloses wherein the server is configured to: track a location of the mobile device; and adjust a position of the first order relative to other ones of a plurality of orders based on the location of the mobile device [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Bridgman, Harman, and Kim, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 10 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 10. 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 11-18, which are parallel to claims 1-10 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 1-10. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 1-10].
13. Claims 19-20, which are parallel to claims 1-10 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 1-10. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 1-10].
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.
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
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights