DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/3/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "third modifier flag". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim(s) 12-23, 71-79, 99-101 is/are directed to statutory methods and devices, however the claims are further directed toward a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because nothing in the asserted claims purports to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of presenting a plurality of grill lanes and icons within a timed grill station user interface.
This is within MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Abstract Idea Groupings, II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY, i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)(emphasis added). This includes C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People.
A similar example of a claim found to be non-statutory while reciting social activities is Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue was the social activity of "’providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity.’" 896 F.3d at 1344, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (citing Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 193 F. Supp.3d 1184, 1188 (W.D. 2014)). The patentee claimed an attention manager for acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content. 896 F.3d at 1339-40, 127 USPQ2d at 1555. The Federal Circuit concluded that "[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea," observing that the district court "pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention." 896 F.3d at 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d at 1559.
Similar to the example above, the claims recite a method for displaying timed instructions for cooking a plurality of food items, i.e. hamburger patties. 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 implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer system. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim(s) limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Similar examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality include:
MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More
i. Generating restaurant menus with functionally claimed features, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; and
vi. Instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12- 64 and 71-98 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frehn et al., U.S. 2017/0024789 A1 in view of MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale.
As per claim 12, Frehn discloses a method for a grill station computing device in a commercial kitchen (The order platform can communication with the food assembly apparatus which may consists of broiler, oven, griddle or other type cooker to cook the food, (see Frehn, ¶ 16, 19) comprising the steps of:
presenting, on a display of the grill station computing device, a grill station user interface (The food assembly/apparatus can communicate with the order platform to execute the food order request, (see Frehn, ¶ 10);
presenting a first grill lane within the grill station user interface, the first grill lane one of a plurality of grill lanes, each of the plurality of grill lanes divided into a queue grill lane and an active grill lane, the first grill lane divided between a first queue grill lane and a first active grill lane (The food assembly/apparatus where the hamburger patty is dispensed on the conveyor to moves down to be cook across the width of the conveyor, (see Frehn, Fig.2, ¶ 19);
determining a first number of instances of a first ingredient to be cooked, the first ingredient associated with a first ingredient name (The food assembly/apparatus can include topping dispenser with whole vegetable, onion, tomato and pickle (ingredients), (see Frehn, ¶ 20);
determining a current status of each of the plurality of grill lanes (The hamburger order time has been in queue to assembly and complete the order, (see Frehn, Fig.3, ¶ 12);
selecting the first grill lane for grilling the first ingredient based on the current status of the plurality of grill lanes (The ingredient can be loaded in the dispenser that can be put on bun or patty on the griddle, (see Frehn, ¶ 26);
presenting, in the first queued grill lane, a first grill ingredient icon associated with the first ingredient name (The assembly apparatus is provision with ingredient that are configured to dispense based on the customer food order, (see Frehn, ¶ 24);
presenting, with the first grill ingredient icon, a first grill icon quantity set to the first number of instances (The ingredients are being pick through a static menu, (see Frehn, ¶ 24);
receiving a first user Input selecting the first grill ingredient icon (Patron can submit an order such hamburger and add on the ingredient from the menu , (see Frehn, ¶ 23);
moving the first grill ingredient icon to the first active grill lane (The ingredients can be loaded in the dispenser that can be put on bun or patty on the griddle, (see Frehn, ¶ 26);
timing down a first grill ingredient timer from a first ingredient cook timer start value (the food ordering platform retrieve standard processing times for food assembly apparatus such as medium rare, well-done butter, toast, topping, sauce and melt cheese, (see Frehn, ¶ 44); and
presenting a real-time value of the first grill ingredient timer with the first grill ingredient icon (The food assembly apparatus can retrieve current cook times of the hamburger patties, (see Frehn, ¶ 62).
Frehn fails to disclose "a plurality of grill lanes including a first grill lane”. As stated in 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale, VI. REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS, B. Duplication of Parts In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). Similarly here, the addition of a plurality grill lanes does not make a reference such as Frehn, which teaches the claimed method and grill station computing device using a single lane, non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine Frehn and the legal precedent rationale. The motivation would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This motivation is applied to all claims below by reference.
13. (Original) The method of claim 12, wherein the first user input is a first tap on the first grill ingredient icon on the display of the grill station computing device, (see Frehn, ¶ 11).
14. (Original) The method of claim 12, wherein presenting the first grill ingredient icon further comprises the step of: presenting the first ingredient name with the first grill ingredient icon, (see Frehn, ¶ 23).
15. (Original) The method of claim 12, further comprising the step of: sending a first cooking status message to a build station device with the real-time value of the first grill ingredient timer and a first digital order item number, (see Frehn, ¶ 20, 62).
16. (Original) The method of claim 12, wherein determining the first number of instances of the first ingredient to be cooked em further comprises the steps of: searching the first digital order item for ingredient names that are tagged for grilling, (see Frehn, ¶ 60); and determining the first number of instances of the first ingredient to be cooked by counting instances of the first ingredient name in the first digital order item that are tagged for grilling, (see Frehn, ¶ 20).
17. (Original) The method of claim 12, wherein determining the first number of instances of the first ingredient to be cooked for the first digital order item further comprises the steps of: receiving, from a build station device, as part of determining the first number of instances of a first ingredient to be cooked for a first digital order item, a first cook instruction to cook the first number of instances of the first ingredient for the first digital order item, (see Frehn, ¶ 16, 19, 26).
18. (Original) The method of claim 12, further comprising the steps of: detecting that the first grill ingredient timer has completed timing down from the first ingredient cook timer start value, (see Frehn, ¶ 44); presenting a flip icon with the first grill ingredient icon, (see Frehn, ¶ 19); receiving a second user input selecting the first grill ingredient icon, wherein the second user input is a second tap on the first grill ingredient icon, (see Frehn, ¶ 15, 23); removing the flip icon, (see Frehn, ¶ 24); timing down the first grill ingredient timer from a first ingredient flip side timer start value, (see Frehn, ¶ 44); and presenting the real-time value of the first grill ingredient timer with the first grill ingredient icon, (see Frehn, ¶ 62).
19. (Original) The method of claim 18, further comprising the steps of: detecting that the first grill ingredient timer has completed the timing down from the first ingredient flip side timer start value, (see Frehn, ¶ 62); and presenting a done icon with the first grill ingredient icon, (see Frehn, ¶ 45).
20. (Original) The method of claim 19, further comprising the step of: sending a second cooking status message to a build station device that the first ingredient for the first digital order item is done, (see Frehn, ¶ 13).
21. (Original) The method of claim 19, further comprising the step of: receiving a third user input selecting the first grill ingredient icon, wherein the third user input is a third tap on the first grill ingredient icon, (see Frehn, ¶ 15); and removing the first grill ingredient icon, (see Frehn, ¶ 24).
22. (Original) The method of claim 21, further comprising the step of: sending a third cooking status message to a build station device that the first number of instances of the first ingredient for the first digital order item have been moved to a transfer area, (see Frehn, ¶ 20, 62).
23. (Original) The method of claim 12, further comprising the steps of: determining that a third modifier flag is set, the third modifier flag associated with any instance of the first ingredient name in the first digital order item, (see Frehn, ¶ 71); and presenting, with the first grill ingredient icon, a first grill modifier icon, (see Frehn, ¶ 19).
Claims 99-101 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frehn et al., U.S. 2017/0024789 A1 in view of MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale, and further in view of DeSantola et al., US 20220292834 A1.
The following features not disclosed above are disclosed below by DeSantola:
99. (New) The method of claim 12, wherein presenting the plurality of grill lanes further includes presenting one or more border lines within the grill station user interface, the one or more border lines dividing at least a portion of the grill station user interface into the plurality of grill lanes; and wherein presenting the plurality of grill lanes further includes presenting a plurality of dividing lines within the grill station user interface, each of the plurality of grill lanes with one of the dividing lines presented therein between the queue grill lane and the active grill lane, (see DeSantola, fig. 12, #1224,#1250; fig. 14 #1424, #1422 A, B and C, ¶ 344 “the KDS may use an overlay such as a graphic, visual cue, or other display mechanism to identify one or more remaining steps for a given meal preparation procedure. For example, the overlay 1250 may include a directional object such as, for example, an arrow. In another example, the overlay 1250 may include a bounding box. In another example, the overlay may include a map or color filter disposed on top of a graphic or visual feed corresponding to the kitchen area. The KDS 1224 may leverage the overlay 1250 with a graphic representative of the meal preparation zone 1202 such as for example, a picture of the meal preparation zone 1202”). The overlay including a map or color filter disposed on top of a graphic or visual feed corresponding to the kitchen area are considered to be border lines and or dividing lines within the grill interface under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add DeSantola to the combination of Frehn and the legal precedent rationale. The motivation would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This motivation is applied to all claims below by reference.
100. (New) The method of claim 99, wherein presenting a plurality of grill lanes further includes presenting a first dividing line between the first queue grill lane and the first active grill lane; wherein presenting a plurality of grill lanes further includes presenting a second grill lane within the grill station user interface, wherein the second grill lane is divided between a second queue grill lane and a second active grill lane, and presenting a second dividing line between the second queue grill lane and the second active grill lane; and wherein presenting a plurality of grill lanes further includes presenting a first border line between the first grill lane and the second grill lane, (see DeSantola, fig. 12, #1224, #1250; fig. 14 #1424, #1422 A, B and C, ¶ 344 “the KDS may use an overlay such as a graphic, visual cue, or other display mechanism to identify one or more remaining steps for a given meal preparation procedure. For example, the overlay 1250 may include a directional object such as, for example, an arrow. In another example, the overlay 1250 may include a bounding box. In another example, the overlay may include a map or color filter disposed on top of a graphic or visual feed corresponding to the kitchen area. The KDS 1224 may leverage the overlay 1250 with a graphic representative of the meal preparation zone 1202 such as for example, a picture of the meal preparation zone 1202”).
101. (New) The method of claim 99, wherein the plurality of grill lanes presented on the grill station interface correspond to lanes on a physical grill, DESANTOLA discloses a method for a computing device in a commercial kitchen (The kitchen tracking system; Fig1; ¶ 43) (The order may be presented to a first preparation station where the procedure is performed; ¶ 248); . creating a first digital order item by copying the first child build list (The employee may scoop a first ingredient into a bowl associated with the meal order; ¶ 60). DeSantola discloses that “an order may be received and proceed through an assembly line of procedures before being completed where each order is filled sequentially one after another”, see ¶ 248. This is considered to describe a grill lane where burgers are grilled one after another under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term.
As per claims 71-79, these claims contain the same or similar features as claims 12-23 and 99-101 rejected above, and therefore the remaining claims are rejected under the same basis and rationale as those rejected above herein by reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 18, 77 and 101 collectively and including all claim limitations upon which they depend, are not explicitly disclosed by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has not filed new arguments, therefore Applicant's arguments filed 8/22/05 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Examiner uses legal precedent to hold that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance, and that this is a generic motivation that could be applied to any claimed invention. This is not persuasive because the Examiner presented the following motivation to combine: "The motivation would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results." In this case, the predictable results would be to easily cook more burgers at various times and temperatures by adding additional grill lanes. This is not a generic motivation to combine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of food line preparation at the time the parent application was filed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL S GLASS whose telephone number is (571)272-7285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5.
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 at 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUSSELL S GLASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627