DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to application no. 19/189,592, filed 25 April 2025 with a preliminary amendment filed 28 July 2025. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-40 are pending and are considered below.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,314,980. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims of the present invention are broader than claim 1 of the reference patent; claim 23 of the present invention (which depends from claims 21 and 22) is nearly identical to claim 1 of the reference patent, differing in that the body of a vehicle here “separates an interior of the vehicle from an exterior of the vehicle” whereas the body in the reference patent “includes at least one exterior surface”.
The other independent claim of the present invention simply recites the method of providing the vehicle of claim 21; the dependent claims are identical to, or patentably indistinct variations of, those of the reference patent.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims lie within statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a vehicle (manufacture) or method (process). The claim(s) recite(s) capturing an image, which is data gathering, detecting a feature within the image in no particular manner, and displaying information according to the feature, the displayed information including a menu with at least one food item.
First, displaying a menu including food is both a commercial interaction and a fundamental business practice. Restaurants have presented menus of food items for many decades before there was any such thing as a computer. Second, these are steps that can be performed mentally or with paper records. A server can observe a person, determine that the person is looking at a display of particular food items, and can provide a corresponding menu, e.g. verbally or by handing over a piece of paper. None of this presents any practical difficulty, and none requires any technology at all.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer and an unspecified vehicle which is merely used as a shelf, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment of location-aware computers. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As the claims only manipulate data about a vehicle's location and information to display based thereupon, they do not improve the "functioning of a computer" or of "any other technology or technical field". See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea "with, or by use of a particular machine", MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a "transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing", MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such data, being intangible, are not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea "in some other meaning way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment", MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim. The claim includes a vehicle with a body, but this is simply a shelf upon which the computer performing the claimed process sits.
It includes a controller, a camera and display. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification is clear, ¶ 295, that nothing more than “general purpose” devices are required, which encompasses a generic computer. It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating information and sharing information with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim elements when considered as an ordered combination – a generic computer, simply located in a vehicle, performing a chronological sequence of abstract steps – do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually.
The other independent claim is simply a different embodiment but is likewise directed to a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process. The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 22, 23, 27, 33 and 34 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated. Claims 24-26, 35 and 36 recite components which are not positively claimed as being used in any manner or having any effect on the process which is the essential feature of the independent claims. Claims 28 and 37 simply recite additional data gathering; claims 29, 30 38 and 39 consist entirely of nonfunctional printed matter, and claims 31 and 40 simply recite additional, abstract manipulation of data.
The claims are not patent eligible. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)).
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.
Claim(s) 21-25, 27 and 28, 32-35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frehn et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0324607) in view of Slutsky et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0046637).
In-line citations are to Frehn.
With regard to Claim 21:
Frehn teaches: A vehicle comprising:
a body that separates an interior of the vehicle from an exterior of the vehicle; [0054; a “food truck” would be a vehicle with such a body, as would have been known to one then of ordinary skill in the art, and could include a “set of robotic food assembly apparatuses”]
at least one camera attached to the body; [0043; “one or more digital cameras” within the “robotic sandwich assembly apparatus”]
at least one display attached to the body and visible from the exterior of the vehicle; [0015; a “touchscreen can be installed on an external housing of the robotic sandwich assembly apparatus to receive ingredient selections from the patron and to display order information prior to submission to the robotic sandwich assembly apparatus”] and
at least one on-board controller communicatively coupled to the camera and the display, [0096; the robotic sandwich assembly apparatus can be operated by a “processor” or other “computer-executable component”] the at least one on-board controller configured to:
cause the at least one camera to capture an image… the vehicle; [0043; the camera can capture various types of images within the vehicle]
detect at least one feature in the image; [0043; an image may include a “patty cooking in [a] broiler” and may mark the patty’s location, indicating it has been detected] and
cause the at least one display to present a menu of at least one food item… [0017; a “standard menu of sandwich types” is selected from which a customer may make a selection]
Frehn does not explicitly teach that an image is of a region surrounding a space, or displaying choices according to the detected at least one feature, but it is known in the art. Slutsky teaches an interactive promotion method [title] in which a video camera captures an image of a consumer and determines whether any known biometric features are detected from the scan. [abstract] It may then “display advertising images” including “a product or service augmented with one or more images of the consumer”. [id.] The consumer’s picture is captured while they are in the space surrounding the display. [Fig. 1] The detected feature may include sex, age or ethnicity. [0079] The display may include “various menus” of “options for changing the products” or the “virtual scene” comprising “the images” of the consumers. [0032] Slutsky and Frehn are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for displaying choices to consumers related to images taken by cameras.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Slutsky with that of Frehn in order to produce customized images, as taught by Slutsky; further, it is simply a substitution of known parts for others with predictable results, simply photographing surroundings as in Slutsky rather than, or in addition to, production items as in Frehn and providing output on the basis of Slutsky in place of, or in addition to, that of Frehn; the substitutions produce no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 22:
The vehicle of claim 21, wherein the at least one feature relates to a person in the image. [Slutsky, 0079 as cited above in regard to claim 21]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 21 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed vehicle. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 23:
The vehicle of claim 22, wherein the at least one feature comprises at least one of a gaze, an age, a gender, an ethnicity, a mood, a size, a body posture, a height, a nationality, clothing, or any combination thereof, for the person. [Slutsky, 0079 as cited above in regard to claim 21]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 22. First, it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed vehicle. Second, as the feature only comprises one of these, it can include other information, and any further processing can be based entirely on the other information. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 24:
The vehicle of claim 21, further comprising at least one food preparation device and at least one food preparation surface positioned in the interior of the vehicle. [0015; 0054 as cited above; Sheet 5, Fig. 5 showing the claimed surface]
With regard to Claim 25:
The vehicle of claim 21, wherein the at least one on-board controller is communicatively coupled to at least one robotic food preparation device in the vehicle. [0020; the computer controls the preparation of the food]
With regard to Claim 27:
The vehicle of claim 21, further comprising at least one of a spatial position receiver or an image-based position detection system, operable to ascertain an approximate position of the vehicle. [0052; data from GPS on a patron’s mobile device is received and used by the vehicle system to determine the patron is “within a predefined distance of [the] robotic food assembly apparatus]
With regard to Claim 28:
The vehicle of claim 27, wherein the vehicle comprises the spatial position receiver, and wherein the spatial position receiver comprises a global positioning system (GPS) receiver or a global navigation satellite system (GLONASS) receiver. [id.]
With regard to Claim 32:
Frehm teaches: A method comprising:
providing a vehicle comprising:
a body that separates an interior of the vehicle from an exterior of the vehicle;
at least one camera attached to the body; [0054; a “food truck” would be a vehicle with such a body, as would have been known to one then of ordinary skill in the art, and could include a “set of robotic food assembly apparatuses”]
at least one display attached to the body and visible from the exterior of the vehicle; [0015; a “touchscreen can be installed on an external housing of the robotic sandwich assembly apparatus to receive ingredient selections from the patron and to display order information prior to submission to the robotic sandwich assembly apparatus”] and
at least one on-board controller communicatively coupled to the camera and the display; [0096; the robotic sandwich assembly apparatus can be operated by a “processor” or other “computer-executable component”]
causing, using the at least one on-board controller, the at least one camera to capture an image… the vehicle; [0043; the camera can capture various types of images within the vehicle]
detecting, using the at least one on-board controller, at least one feature in the image; [0043; an image may include a “patty cooking in [a] broiler” and may mark the patty’s location, indicating it has been detected] and
causing, using the at least one on-board controller, the at least one display to present a menu of at least one food item… [0017; a “standard menu of sandwich types” is selected from which a customer may make a selection]
Frehn does not explicitly teach that an image is of a region surrounding a space, or displaying choices according to the detected at least one feature, but it is known in the art. Slutsky teaches an interactive promotion method [title] in which a video camera captures an image of a consumer and determines whether any known biometric features are detected from the scan. [abstract] It may then “display advertising images” including “a product or service augmented with one or more images of the consumer”. [id.] The consumer’s picture is captured while they are in the space surrounding the display. [Fig. 1] The detected feature may include sex, age or ethnicity. [0079] The display may include “various menus” of “options for changing the products” or the “virtual scene” comprising “the images” of the consumers. [0032] Slutsky and Frehn are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for displaying choices to consumers related to images taken by cameras.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Slutsky with that of Frehn in order to produce customized images, as taught by Slutsky; further, it is simply a substitution of known parts for others with predictable results, simply photographing surroundings as in Slutsky rather than, or in addition to, production items as in Frehn and providing output on the basis of Slutsky in place of, or in addition to, that of Frehn; the substitutions produce no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 33:
The method of claim 32, wherein the at least one feature relates to a person in the image. [Slutsky, 0079 as cited above in regard to claim 32]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 32 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed vehicle. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 34:
The method of claim 33, wherein the at least one feature comprises at least one of a gaze, an age, a gender, an ethnicity, a mood, a size, a body posture, a height, a nationality, clothing, or any combination thereof, for the person. [Slutsky, 0079 as cited above in regard to claim 32]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 32 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed vehicle. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 35:
The method of claim 32, wherein the at least one on-board controller is communicatively coupled to at least one robotic food preparation device in the vehicle. [0020; the computer controls the preparation of the food]
With regard to Claim 37:
The method of claim 32, wherein the vehicle comprises at least one of a spatial position receiver or an image-based position detection system, operable to ascertain an approximate position of the vehicle. [0052; data from GPS on a patron’s mobile device is received and used by the vehicle system to determine the patron is “within a predefined distance of [the] robotic food assembly apparatus]
Claim(s) 26 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frehn et al. in view of Slutsky et al. further in view of Lu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0038122).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 26:
The vehicle of claim 25, wherein the at least one robotic food preparation device is configured to autonomously prepare food items while the vehicle is traveling along a travel route.
With regard to Claim 36:
The method of claim 35, wherein the at least one robotic food preparation device is configured to autonomously prepare food items while the vehicle is traveling along a travel route.
Frehn and Slutsky teach the vehicle of claim 25 and method of claim 35, but do not explicitly teach that preparation occurs while the vehicle is moving, but this is known in the art. Lu teaches a vehicle refrigeration system [title] that may "automatically maintain a prescribed temperature in a food and beverage storage compartment" using a computer. [0041] It is used in "galley food service systems" in "vehicles such as aircraft"; [0003] it is known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time that the galley systems function while the vehicle is in motion, as that is when service takes place. It uses a "display panel" to provide notifications. [0040] Lu and Frehn are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for displaying information in the context of a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lu with that of Frehn and Slutsky in order to save energy, as taught by Lu; [0003] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply performing a food preparation step while a vehicle may be in motion as in Lu rather than at the less-specific time of Frehn; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 29 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frehn et al. in view of Slutsky et al. further in view of Dermer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0197949).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 29:
The vehicle of claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to cause the at least one display to:
present a first set of images when the vehicle is in a first defined geographic area; and
present a second set of images different from the first set of images when the vehicle is in a second defined geographic area different from the first defined geographic area.
With regard to Claim 38:
The method of claim 32, further comprising:
presenting, using the at least one on-board controller and the at least one display, a first set of images when the vehicle is in a first defined geographic area; and
presenting, using the at least one on-board controller and the at least one display, a second set of images different from the first set of images when the vehicle is in a second defined geographic area different from the first defined geographic area.
Frehn and Slutsky teach the vehicle of claim 21 and method of claim 32, including displaying menus as cited above, but do not explicitly teach varying a menu based on location, but it is known in the art. Dermer teaches a mobile food management system [title] in which when “changing locations” a “food truck’s menu changes”. [0004] The food truck operator may “inform customers of their location and current menu for any given day”. [0013] Dermer and Frehn are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing food truck operations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Dermer with that of Frehn and Slutsky in order to benefit food truck operators, as taught by Dermer; [e.g. 0007] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply basing a menu on the basis of Dermer in place of, or in addition to, that of Frehn; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 30 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frehn et al. in view of Slutsky et al. further in view of Renke (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0185983, filed 29 December 2015).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 30:
The vehicle of claim 21, wherein the at least one on-board controller is configured to cause the at least one display to cycle through displayed portions the menu.
With regard to Claim 39:
The method of claim 32, further comprising cycling, using the at least one on-board controller and the at least one display, through displayed portions of the menu.
Frehn and Slutsky teach the vehicle of claim 21 and method of claim 32, including displaying menus as cited above, but do not explicitly teach cycling through them; and though it is of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Renke teaches an animation management system [title] that can be used by a “merchant” who “operates a food truck”. [0037] A display may “rotat[e]” through “graphical menus”. [0017] Renke and Frehn are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing food truck information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Renke with that of Frehn and Slutsky in order to allow for animation in high-rate transaction systems, as taught by Renke; [0001] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply displaying a rotating menu as in Renke rather thatn the display of Frehn; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
These claims are not patentably distinct from their respective parent claims as they consist entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 31 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frehn et al. in view of Slutsky et al. further in view of Bradley et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0332535).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 31:
The vehicle of claim 21, wherein the camera comprises an image processing system configured to process images from the at least one camera to determine an approximate position of the vehicle.
With regard to Claim 40:
The method of claim 32, further comprising processing, using the at least one on- board controller, images from the at least one camera to determine an approximate position of the vehicle.
Frehn and Slutsky teach the vehicle of claim 21 and method of claim 32, including the use of cameras to capture images and determining an approximate position as cited above, but do not explicitly teach determining a position using an image, but it is known in the art. Bradley teaches a system for detecting objects within a vehicle [title] that can be used in conjunction with a “food truck service”. [0016] It may “determine the current location” of a vehicle, [0001] It may provide information about a delivery such as a “time and/or a location when the transport service was completed” which may be based in part on “one or more images”. [0046] Bradley and Frehn are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing food truck information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Bradley with that of Frehn and Slutsky in order to determine a vehicle’s location during provision of a service, as taught by Bradley; [0001] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply determining an object’s location in the manner of Bradley in place of that of Frehm; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights