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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is a First Office Action on the merits in reply to application number 19/124,227 filed on 04/24/2025. The preliminary amendment filed on 04/24/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-14 and 18-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 and/or 35 U.S.C. 365 is acknowledged is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 04/24/2025 has been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. In the instant application, this claim limitations are producer module and consumer module (claims 6-7). However, the Examiner has reviewed the portions of the Specification referring to these two modules and describing their functions (Spec. at pars. 14-15, 50, 64-67, and 69-72) and notes that the written description fails to clearly disclose any corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of each of the producer module and consumer module, instead merely describing their functions or result produced, but failing to clearly link any specific structure, material, or acts to the functions corresponding to these means-plus-function limitations. Accordingly, §112(a) and §112(b) rejections are applied to claims 6-7 below to address the resulting deficiencies.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 requires that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention.” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing history and purpose of the written description requirement).
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Claims 6-7 recite limitations directed to a producer module and a consumer module for performing the steps of generating…, requesting…, obtaining…, determining…, determining…, generating…, and causing the consumer module to request…, however while the Specification refers to these two modules and their functions (Spec. at pars. 14-15, 50, 64-67, and 69-72), the written description fails to clearly disclose any corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing each of these claim functions of the producer module and consumer module, instead referring only to their functions or result produced. Therefore, the written description fails to specifically disclose the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function for each of the modules and the generator.
Accordingly, claims 6-7 fail to satisfy the written description requirement of §112(a) because there is no evidence of a complete specific application or embodiment to satisfy the requirement that the description is set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. See Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 6-7 recite limitations directed to a producer module and a consumer module for performing the steps of generating…, requesting…, obtaining…, determining…, determining…, generating…, and causing the consumer module to request, and although the Specification refers to these two modules and their functions (Spec. at pars. 14-15, 50, 64-67, and 69-72), the written description fails to clearly disclose any corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing these claim functions, and fails to clearly link the structure to the function corresponding to the modules and generator. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For purposes of examination, the producer module and consumer module will be interpreted as being implemented by a generic computer executing software/instructions to perform the corresponding claim functions of the modules.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-14 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-14 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the subject matter eligibility guidance set forth in MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.03), it is first noted that the claimed method (claims 1-14), electronic device (claims 18-22), and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 23) are each directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-14 and 18-23 satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04), it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping by reciting limitations describing steps setting forth fundamental economic practices (order processing/management) and/or or commercial interactions (business relations, sales activities), and steps that may be implemented as “Mental Processes” (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). The limitations reciting the abstract idea as set forth in independent claim 1 are identified in bold text below, whereas the additional elements are presented in plain text and are separately evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B:
determining a group of orders associated with a target time window, the group of orders being uncompleted (The “determining” step describes activity considered a fundamental economic practice (order processing/management) and/or or commercial interactions (business relations, sales activities); and furthermore this activity is disembodied as recited in claim 1 because there is no computer, hardware, or discernible means by which the “determining” is executed, whereas independent claims 18/23 rely on generic computer implementation of the “determining,” and but for the generic computer implementation, the “determining” could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
requesting a business party associated with the group of orders to execute the group of orders (The “requesting” step describes activity considered a fundamental economic practice (order processing/management) and/or or commercial interactions (business relations, sales activities); and furthermore this activity is disembodied as recited in claim 1 because there is no computer, hardware, or discernible means by which the “requesting” is performed, whereas independent claims 18/23 rely on generic computer implementation of the “determining,” and but for the generic computer implementation, the “determining” could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
in response to receiving a message from the business party indicating that the group of orders are completed, querying an order database maintained by the business party to verify whether the group of orders are completed (The “in response to…querying an order database” step describes activity considered a fundamental economic practice (order processing/management) and/or or commercial interactions (business relations, sales activities); and furthermore this activity is disembodied as recited in claim 1 because there is no computer, structure, hardware, software, or other discernible means by which the “querying” is performed or by which the database is embodied, wherein it is further noted that a database is understood in the art as being an organized collection of information (e.g., a list, a table, rolodex), which can be queried whether or not computer-implemented, and claim 1 can therefore be implemented mentally or at most with the aid of pen and paper and human observation/evaluation to query the order completion required by this claim step; although it is noted that independent claims 18/23 rely on generic computer implementation to perform the “querying,” it is further noted that, but for the generic computer implementation, the “querying” could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion); and
in response to the group of orders being verified as completed, updating a state of the group of orders to indicate that the orders are completed (The “in response to…updating a state” step describes activity considered a fundamental economic practice (order processing/management) and/or or commercial interactions (business relations, sales activities); and furthermore this activity is disembodied as recited in claim 1 because there is no computer, structure, hardware, software, or other discernible means by which the “updating” is performed, and claim 1 can therefore be implemented mentally or at most with the aid of pen and paper and human observation/evaluation to update the order completion state; although it is noted that independent claims 18/23 rely on generic computer implementation to perform the “updating,” it is further noted that, but for the generic computer implementation, the “updating” could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion).
Independent claims 18 and 23 recite similar limitations as those set forth in claim 1 as discussed above, and have therefore been determined to recite the same abstract idea as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 does not recite any additional elements. Independent claims 18 and 23 include additional elements directed to at least one processor, at least one memory, the at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processor (claim 18) and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon (claim 23), and an order database when computer-implemented as in claims 18/23. The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claim 1 does not recite any additional elements. Independent claims 18 and 23 include additional elements directed to at least one processor, at least one memory, the at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processor (claim 18) and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon (claim 23), and an order database when computer-implemented as in claims 18/23. These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions/software to perform the abstract idea, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment), similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). Notably, the Specification suggests that virtually any computing device under the sun could be used to implement the invention (See, e.g., Spec. at par. [0128]), noting for example that “The computing device/server 900 is in the form of a general- purpose computing device”). Accordingly, the generic computer implementation merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 19-22 recite the same abstract idea(s) as recited in the independent claims, and have been determined to recite further details/steps falling under the same “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (fundamental economic practices, commercial interactions, business relations, sales activities), and/or “Mental Processes” (steps that can be implemented in the human mind) abstract idea groupings discussed above along with the same generic computing elements as independent claims 18/23, which merely serve the purpose of tying the invention to a particular technological environment and which, as discussed above, is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the claims (Examiner’s Note: The Step 2A2 and 2B findings applied to the generic computing elements in the discussion of independent claims 18/23 is applicable here as well). The producer module and consumer module (claims 6-7), have no discernible structure or form in the Specification (See, e.g., pars. 50, 64-67, and 69-72), which merely describes the functions performed by the producer module and consumer module. As noted above in the §112(b) rejection, these modules will be interpreted for purposes of examination as being implemented by a generic computer which, for substantially the same reasons addressing the generic computing elements above, are in sufficient to satisfy Steps 2A2 or 2B of the eligibility inquiry.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 1-6, 13-14, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Werbitt (US 2004/0068441) in view of Oh et al. (US 2023/0034443, hereinafter “Oh”).
Claims 1/18/23: As per claim 1, Werbitt teaches a method for processing an order (pars. 46, 150, 188, and Figs. 11-13: receives and authenticates orders made by portable patron units 102 and then routes the orders to an appropriate fulfillment center computer; Methods for patron service system; central unit 106 processes the transaction information by routing orders or requests to appropriate staff members or fulfillment centers to be carried out), comprising:
determining a group of orders associated with a target time window, the group of orders being uncompleted (pars. 38, 40, 129, 134, and Figs. 8-9: display information relating to the status of any open order, open tab, etc. including the real-time status of any order and estimated time to that order's delivery; receive notification of open orders made by a patron including details of one or more pending orders; Dynamic information that a staff member may view on display screen 800 may include a quantity of patrons currently logged onto the system, the quantity of orders pending);
requesting a business party associated with the group of orders to execute the group of orders (pars. 46-47, 80-81, 133-134, and Fig. 12: alerts one or more portable staff units 104 that the order is ready for pickup and delivery to a patron; Order/service application 326 also facilities displaying a notification indicating (i) when an order or request is ready for delivery to a patron from a fulfillment center; Display screen 800 may include a delivery notification icon 814 indicating how many orders are ready for delivery in fulfillment centers);
in response to receiving a message from the business party indicating that the group of orders are completed, querying an order database maintained by the business party to verify whether the group of orders are completed (pars. 145, 173, and 177: Once an order is delivered to a patron, a staff member may press order delivered icon 908, which prompts portable patron unit 104 to send a message to central unit 106 closing out the open order; Once an order is delivered, the order may be closed by touching a button or other means of selection on portable staff unit 104 to indicate that the order has been delivered; quantity of outstanding orders pending that have not been delivered and closed-out may be displayed; See also, paragraph 104: Database application 482 may also maintain data associated with staff performance, such as the number of orders completed, time used to fulfill orders, etc. [which necessarily occurs after staff has indicated that orders have been delivered, and which is interpreted as a verification of order completion since it amounts to a means to validate, corroborate, substantiate, etc. the staff member’s previous indication of completed orders] Typically, information maintained in one or more databases 112 may be accessed [i.e., queried] by various other program applications 130 when requested).
With respect to the limitation of in response to the group of orders being verified as completed, updating a state of the group of orders to indicate that the orders are completed, Werbitt separately teaches verifying orders as completed as well as updating a state of a group of orders to indicate they have been completed (Werbitt, at least pars. 38, 40, 81, 126, 145, 161, and 173: e.g., Once an order is delivered to a patron, a staff member may press order delivered icon; display information relating to the status of any open order, open tab, etc. including the real-time status of any order and estimated time to that order's delivery; Using display area 714, a patron may be kept abreast of the status of his order in real-time), but does not specifically teach the updating as being in response to the verification as required by the limitation of in response to the group of orders being verified as completed, updating a state of the group of orders to indicate that the orders are completed.
Oh teaches:
in response to the group of orders being verified as completed, updating a state of the group of orders to indicate that the orders are completed (par. 93 and Fig. 11: When the electronic device (e.g., the electronic device 100 of FIG. 1) receives the delivery completion information, it may confirm that the delivery of the order has been completed, and may change the status 311 from the state ‘in progress’ to the state ‘completed’ to provide the information corresponding thereto to the customer (e.g., the customer 300 of FIG. 1)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Werbitt with Oh because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer aided order management features, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of order processing, and because modifying Werbitt by incorporating Oh’s status update responsive to verification that orders are completed, as claimed, would serve the motivation to provide users with real-time status orders (Werbitt at par. 38) and to monitor staff performance in processing orders (Werbitt at par. 192); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 18 and 23 are directed to an electronic device with at least one processor and memory and to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for performing substantially similar limitations as those recited in claim 1 and discussed above. Werbitt, in view of Oh, teaches an electronic device with at least one processor and memory and to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for performing the limitations discussed above (Werbitt at pars. 53, 89-92, and Fig. 4: computing system; one or more processors; computer readable media; volatile/non-volatile memory; See also, Oh at par. 36 and Fig. 1), and claims 18 and 23 are therefore rejected using the same references and for substantially the same reasons as set forth above.
Claims 2/19: Werbitt further teaches wherein determining the group of orders associated with the target time window comprises: and obtaining the group of orders associated with the target time window (pars. 38, 40, 129, 134, and Figs. 8-9: receive notification of open orders made by a patron including details of one or more pending orders; Dynamic information that a staff member may view on display screen 800 may include a quantity of patrons currently logged onto the system, the quantity of orders pending), but does not teach determining the target time window based on a predetermined time period.
Oh teaches determining the target time window based on a predetermined time period (par. 105: electronic device may provide the information after the completion of delivery after the order request to the customer in the form of a history for a predetermined period of time, and the predetermined period of time may be one month).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Werbitt/Oh with Oh’s predetermined time period when determining the target time window, as claimed, in order to serve the motivation to ensure order completion in accordance with an expected delivery time provided to the customer (Oh at par. 53); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 3/20: Werbitt further teaches wherein determining a group of orders associated with a target time window comprises: querying order data maintained by the business party to determine a first query result indicating whether the group of orders are completed; and determining the group of orders that are uncompleted based on the first query result (pars. 15, 38, 40, 104, 129, 134, claim 7, and Figs. 8-9: enable staff members to view information about orders; display information relating to the status of any open order, open tab, etc. including the real-time status of any order and estimated time to that order's delivery; receive notification of open orders made by a patron including details of one or more pending orders; data associated with … orders completed…may be accessed; displaying a status of open orders/requests on the portable staff units; Dynamic information that a staff member may view on display screen 800 may include a quantity of patrons currently logged onto the system, the quantity of orders pending [wherein Figs. 8-9 display an example of a display screen enabling staff members to, e.g., select an icon to access/query open orders for a specified date/time]).
Claims 4/21: Werbitt further teaches wherein determining the group of orders associated with the target time window comprises: querying a copy of order data corresponding to the order database deployed locally at an order compensator to determine a second query result indicating whether the group of orders are completed; and determining the group of orders that are uncompleted based on the second query result (pars. 104, 143-147, 157, 177, and Fig. 9: describing/displaying a screen providing details about one or more pending orders to a staff member, including various items ordered, and which may be updated to reflect items delivered and thus closed out, including functionality for accessing both pending orders and delivered/completed orders – e.g., exemplary display screen 900 providing details about an order to a staff member. Display screen 900 is typically prompted after a staff member selects ordered icon; Display screen 900 may also specify items ordered 904 such as a type of liquor, brand of water, etc.; Database application 482 may also maintain a history of transaction data…Database application 482 may also maintain data associated with staff performance, such as the number of orders completed, time used to fulfill orders, etc. Typically, information maintained in one or more databases 112 may be accessed; Once an order is delivered to a patron, a staff member may press order delivered icon 908, which prompts portable patron unit 104 to send a message to central unit 106 closing out the open order; outstanding orders pending that have not been delivered and closed-out may be displayed; access information about the previous order).
Claims 5/22: Werbitt further teaches wherein determining the group of orders that are uncompleted from the group of orders based on the second query result comprises: in response to the second query result indicating that the group of orders are all completed, querying the order data maintained by the business party to determine a third query result indicating whether the group of orders are completed; and determining the group of orders that are uncompleted based on the third query result (pars. 104, 143-147, 157, 177, and Fig. 9: wherein Werbitt describe functionality for querying pending and completed orders, which may be repeated any number of times, e.g., second query, third query…etc . with completion results provided based thereon, e.g., order still pending, order has been delivered/completed – e.g., exemplary display screen 900 providing details about an order to a staff member. Display screen 900 is typically prompted after a staff member selects ordered icon; Display screen 900 may also specify items ordered 904 such as a type of liquor, brand of water, etc.; Database application 482 may also maintain a history of transaction data…Database application 482 may also maintain data associated with staff performance, such as the number of orders completed, time used to fulfill orders, etc. Typically, information maintained in one or more databases 112 may be accessed; Once an order is delivered to a patron, a staff member may press order delivered icon 908, which prompts portable patron unit 104 to send a message to central unit 106 closing out the open order; outstanding orders pending that have not been delivered and closed-out may be displayed; access information about the previous order; pars. 129-143 and Fig. 8: describing/displaying a display screen for staff members to view/query patron orders).
Claim 6: Werbitt further teaches wherein requesting the business party associated with the group of orders to execute the group of orders comprises: generating, by a producer module, a first task associated with the group of orders; and requesting, by a consumer module, the business party to execute the group of orders according to the first task (pars. 6, 46-47, 62, 81, 96, 133, 173, and 179-181: e.g., information that may be transmitted in response to a patron's request; routing orders to appropriate fulfillment centers; Display screen 800 may include a delivery notification icon 814 indicating how many orders are ready for delivery in fulfillment centers 109. If an order was ready for delivery, the staff member could select icon 814, which would prompt a window or new display screen to appear on display device 116 that would describe which orders were ready for delivery, and details of the orders, such as the fulfillment center 109 location of the prepared orders, the identification of the patron waiting to receive the order; managing staff member assignments and deployment of portable staff units among staff members of resort 101, and other information to be displayed on either portable patron units 102 or portable staff units; Control unit 201 can be implemented with one or more memory components… computer-executable instructions in the form of program applications, routines, modules and other application; portable staff units 104 may receive a notification of a page from a portable patron unit 102 that a patron is requesting immediate service).
Claim 13: Werbitt further teaches in response to the group of orders being verified as uncompleted, re-requesting the business party to execute the group of orders (pars. 40, 126, and 134: describing notification to portable staff unit of pending orders, wherein a pending order is interpreted as being verified as uncompleted, and wherein the additional notification to staff of such pending orders is considered a re-request since it occurs subsequent to any initial order placement/request by the patron – e.g., portable staff unit 104 is configured to receive notification of open orders made by a patron including details of one or more pending orders; staff member may select icon 816, which would prompt a window or new display screen to appear on display device 116 that would describe specific details about the pending order; Display area 714 may indicate real-time information relating to a pending order. For example, display area 714 may indicate that an order is currently pending in the kitchen and thus is not available for delivery by a waiter yet; See also, Figs. 5-7: display icon that may be selected by a patron to page a staff member, which may include follow-up requests from a patron regarding their order(s), such as for canceling or correcting an order, which functions as a re-request to a yet-to-be-completed order).
Claim 14: Werbitt further teaches wherein the business party provides a query interface for querying the order database, and an execution interface for requesting orders to be executed (pars. 129-143 and Figs. 8-9: describing/displaying a display screen for staff members to view/query patron orders; See also, par. 112-128 and Figs. 5-7: describing/displaying an interactive interface to enable patrons to submit order requests, e.g., food/beverage orders, resort service requests, an icon to page a staff member).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Werbitt (US 2004/0068441) in view of Oh et al. (US 2023/0034443, hereinafter “Oh”), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Patel-Zellinger et al. (US 2016/0328781, hereinafter “Patel”).
Claim 7: Werbitt further teaches wherein the group of orders is a first group of orders, and the method further comprises: obtaining, by the producer module, a consumption state of a group of historical tasks associated with a historical time window (pars. 38, 40, 129, 134, and Figs. 8-9: display information relating to the status [i.e., consumption state or previously placed orders] of any open order, open tab, etc. including the real-time status of any order and estimated time to that order's delivery [i.e., historical time window]; receive notification of open orders made by a patron including details of one or more pending orders; Dynamic information that a staff member may view on display screen 800 may include a quantity of patrons currently logged onto the system, the quantity of orders pending), … ; determining, by the producer module, a target historical task that is unconsumed from the group of historical tasks (par. 120: allows a patron to automatically order another round of drinks or other items previously ordered by selecting icon 612. Selecting icon 613 may display items that the patron previously ordered during the day, making it easy to view previous order and order one or more items based on the logged history [i.e., a previous order yet-to-be ordered again is a target historical task that is unconsumed]); determining, by the producer module, a second group of orders associated with the target historical task, the second group of orders being uncompleted (par. 120: allows a patron to automatically order another round of drinks or other items previously ordered by selecting icon 612. Selecting icon 613 may display items that the patron previously ordered during the day, making it easy to view previous order and order one or more items based on the logged history [i.e., a previous order that is yet-to-be ordered again is uncompleted unless/until the patron repeats the order by selecting this option]); and generating, by the producer module, a second task associated with the second group of orders, causing the consumer module to request the business party to execute the second group of orders according to the second task (par. 120: allows a patron to automatically order another round of drinks or other items previously ordered by selecting icon 612. Selecting icon 613 may display items that the patron previously ordered during the day, making it easy to view previous order and order one or more items based on the logged history [i.e., repeating a previous/historical order or set of orders represents a second task, i.e., a request to re-order the same item(s) as previously ordered]), but does not explicitly teach, a length of the historical time window being greater than that of the target time window.
Patel teaches, a length of the historical time window being greater than that of the target time window (pars. 73, 83, 92, and 99: projected delivery time and date estimate is compared to an originally projected delivery estimate, or other benchmark, to identify delayed shipments; electronically identifying a delayed order, the delayed order relating to a shipment of a particular product that is undelivered to a destination, wherein the delayed order is delayed relative to an original delivery estimation for delivery of the shipment of the particular product to the destination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Werbitt/Oh with Patel because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer aided order management features, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of order processing, and because modifying Werbitt/Oh to incorporate Patel’s feature wherein a length of a historical time window is greater than that of a target time window, as claimed, would serve the motivation to identify and prevent potential delays in processing/delivery of orders (Werbitt at par. 6) in pursuit of fulfilling requests in a timely and efficient manner (Werbitt at par. 3); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Werbitt (US 2004/0068441) in view of Oh et al. (US 2023/0034443, hereinafter “Oh”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jha et al. (US 2019/0333130, hereinafter “Jha”).
Claim 8: Werbitt, in view of Oh, teaches generating a task associated with the group of orders (as discussed above in the rejection of parent claim 1, which is incorporated herein), but does not teach iteratively performing the following at least once: in response to determining that execution of the task fails or has timed out, re-executing the task to re-request the business party to execute the group of orders; and in response to a number of times the task is re-executed exceeding a threshold number or the task having expired, marking the task as unsuccessful.
Jha teaches iteratively performing the following at least once: in response to determining that execution of the task fails or has timed out, re-executing the task to re-request the business party to execute the group of orders; and in response to a number of times the task is re-executed exceeding a threshold number or the task having expired, marking the task as unsuccessful (par. 53: If the user is unavailable at the location [i.e., execution of the task fails], redelivery is attempted (e.g., a second delivery attempt the next day) [i.e., re-executing the task]. However, if delivery of the order at the time-slot is not possible, or if the customer is unavailable, subsequent redeliveries are attempted in some examples (e.g., delivery attempts over three days). If after a defined maximum number of delivery attempts, the user is still unavailable for delivery, an alternative delivery place and time-slot overlapping with his or her graph 306 is suggested, and delivery of the order is attempted at this new place and time-slot (after receiving user confirmation first). If the customer is still unavailable, such as after a defined number of delivery attempts, the order is returned to the warehouse [i.e., task marked as unsuccessful]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Werbitt/Oh with Jha because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer aided order management features, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of order processing, and because modifying Werbitt/Oh to incorporate Jha’s feature for re-executing a task request when execution of a task fails or is timed out and marking a task as unsuccessful when re-executing a task exceeds a threshold number, as claimed, would serve the motivation to provide a delivery scheme that adapts to changing customer behavior (Jha at par. 16) and to fulfill business requests in a timely and efficient manner (Werbitt at par. 3); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 9: Werbitt does not teach the limitation of claim 9.
Jha further teaches wherein re-executing the task comprises: determining a time interval for re-execution; in response to requesting the re-execution of the task being not the first occurrence, determining a target instant according to a historical instant of a last re-execution and the time interval; and re-executing the task at the target instant (par. 53: redelivery is attempted (e.g., a second delivery attempt the next day) [i.e., time interval for re-execution]. However, if delivery of the order at the time-slot is not possible, or if the customer is unavailable, subsequent redeliveries are attempted in some examples (e.g., delivery attempts over three days). If after a defined maximum number of delivery attempts, the user is still unavailable for delivery, an alternative delivery place and time-slot overlapping with his or her graph 306 is suggested, and delivery of the order is attempted at this new place and time-slot (after receiving user confirmation first). If the customer is still unavailable, such as after a defined number of delivery attempts, the order is returned).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Werbitt/Oh/Jha to include Jha’s features for determining a time interval for re-execution and determining a target instant according to a historical instant or a last re-execution and time interval, as claimed, in order to serve the motivation to provide a delivery scheme that adapts to changing customer behavior (Jha at par. 16) and in pursuit of a business fulfilling tasks/requests (e.g., deliveries) in a timely and efficient manner (Werbitt at par. 3); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 10: Werbitt does not teach the limitation of claim 10.
Jha further teaches wherein determining the time interval for re-execution comprises: determining a number of times that the task has been re-executed; and determining the time interval based on the number of times, causing the time interval to be positively correlated with the number of times (par. 53: describing attempt on the next day, and over a three day interval, though not necessarily each day, such that the number of times a redelivery may be attempted could be a next-day attempt followed by a two-day re-delivery attempt – e.g., redelivery is attempted (e.g., a second delivery attempt the next day). However, if delivery of the order at the time-slot is not possible, or if the customer is unavailable, subsequent redeliveries are attempted in some examples (e.g., delivery attempts over three days). If after a defined maximum number of delivery attempts, the user is still unavailable for delivery, an alternative delivery place and time-slot overlapping with his or her graph 306 is suggested, and delivery of the order is attempted at this new place and time-slot (after receiving user confirmation first)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Werbitt/Oh/Jha to include Jha’s features for determining a number of times for re-execution and determining a time interval based on the number of times such that the interval and number of times are positively correlated, as claimed, in order to serve the motivation to provide a delivery scheme that adapts to changing customer behavior (Jha at par. 16) and in pursuit of a business fulfilling tasks/requests (e.g., deliveries) in a timely and efficient manner (Werbitt at par. 3); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 11: Werbitt does not teach the limitation of claim 11.
Jha further teaches maintaining execution information associated with the re-execution of the task, the execution information indicating at least one of the following: order information of the group of orders, execution description information about re-execution, reason description information about execution failure or execution timeout of the task (par. 53: describing re-execution attempts on subsequent days, including return of an order to the warehouse when such delivery attempts over, e.g., three days, reach a maximum number of delivery attempts – e.g., redelivery is attempted (e.g., a second delivery attempt the next day). However, if delivery of the order at the time-slot is not possible, or if the customer is unavailable, subsequent redeliveries are attempted in some examples (e.g., delivery attempts over three days). If after a defined maximum number of delivery attempts, If the customer is still unavailable, such as after a defined number of delivery attempts, the order is returned to the warehouse 312 in some example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Werbitt/Oh/Jha to include Jha’s features for maintaining execution information associated with re-execution of the task indicating execution timeout, as claimed, in order to serve the motivation to provide a delivery scheme that adapts to changing customer behavior (Jha at par. 16) and in pursuit of performing business operations in a timely and efficient manner (Werbitt at par. 3), that is, if a reasonable number of attempts are made and the delivery is infeasible, it would be appreciated in terms of efficiency to merely abandon future delivery attempts and return the order to the warehouse as suggested in par. 53 of Jha; and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12: Werbitt does not teach the limitation of claim 12.
Jha further teaches providing the execution information for analyzing the task (par. 53: describing re-execution attempts on subsequent days and return of an order if delivery is not made after a maximum number of attempts, which necessarily requires the tracking and providing/analyzing of the number of delivery attempts by Jha’s order fulfillment system in order to ascertain how many delivery attempts have been made, and whether the maximum number has been reached – e.g., redelivery is attempted (e.g., a second delivery attempt the next day). However, if delivery of the order at the time-slot is not possible, or if the customer is unavailable, subsequent redeliveries are attempted in some examples (e.g., delivery attempts over three days). If after a defined maximum number of delivery attempts, If the customer is still unavailable, such as after a defined number of delivery attempts, the order is returned to the warehouse 312 in some example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Werbitt/Oh/Jha to include Jha’s features for providing execution information for analyzing the task, as claimed, in pursuit of performing business operations in a timely and efficient manner (Werbitt at par. 3) and to analyze and resolve problems (e.g., increased cost) associated with multiple delivery attempts (Jha at par. 25); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
P. Czapiewski et al., "Integrated, computer-aided order fulfillment," in Computer, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 99-102, April 1999: discloses automated order processing features to facilitate quicker order processing with higher accuracy and lower cost.
S. Vonolfen et al., "Optimizing assembly line supply by integrating warehouse picking and forklift routing using simulation," Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), Berlin, Germany, 2012, pp. 1-12: discloses features for optimizing order processing, including batch order processing, an integrated simulation and optimization model, and individual models for order slotting and picking in a warehouse environment.
Issing (US 2013/0253697): discloses features for managing order picking tasks, including detecting non-completed picking orders and running such picking orders again through the order-picking system (par. 13).
Trounce (US 2013/0275255): discloses features for creating, ordering, and processing packages.
Goldberg (US 2005/0289013): discloses an order management system, including features for tracking and storing order status (at least par. 82) and for processing queries related thereto (at least pars. 80, 88, 106, and 115).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Timothy A. Padot whose telephone number is 571.270.1252. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30 - 5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571.270.5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TIMOTHY PADOT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
06/23/2026
Prosecution Insights