Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status
2. This communication is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 10.21.2025. Claims 1-20 have been amended; and new set of claims 9-21-40 have been added. Therefore, claims 21-40 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for examination, as detailed below.
Oath/Declaration
3. The Applicant's oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) dated 11.13.2025 has been acknowledged by the Examiner. The cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims. As requested by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initially, signed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Priority / Filing Date
5. Applicant's claim for priority of the PRO 62/191,772 filed on 07.13.2015 is acknowledged. The Examiner takes the PRO date of 07.13.2015 into consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 21-40 are directed to system and method for enhancing ordering using incentives and location-based delivery points.
Independent claim 21 has been identified as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 21 recites the abstract idea of coordinating the preparation and pickup of a restaurant order based on the preparation time of the selected menu, comprising the steps of:
receiving an order from a user from a menu associated with a restaurant;
analyzing at least one selected menu item;
determining a preparation time for the selected menu item;
determining a pick-up time for the order based at least in part on the preparation time; and
communicating a notification to one or more devices of delivery staff.
These limitations, when considered together, recite managing and coordinating a restaurant order and the interaction between a restaurant or order processing entity and delivery personnel based on the expected preparation of the order. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea, specifically, certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes:
a) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: including commercial interactions and managing interactions between people; receiving a restaurant order from a user; determining a preparation time for the ordered menu item; determining a pickup time based on the preparation time; and notifying delivery staff of the order ready and pickup time.
These limitations organize and coordinate the commercial interaction between a customer, restaurant order processing entity, and delivery personnel for preparation and pickup of a restaurant order.
b) Mental Processes: including observations, evaluations, judgments, and determinations that can practically be performed in the human mind; analyzing the selected menu item; determining a preparation time; and determining a pickup time based on the preparation time.
These limitations involve evaluations and judgments that can be performed mentally in the human mind or by using pen and paper.
Accordingly, claim 21 recites the abstract idea of coordinating the preparation and pickup of a restaurant order based on the preparation time of the selected menu item. Further, evidence is cited to: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.
The additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim further recites the additional elements of: “one or more data processing units”, and “one or more devices of delivery staff”. The data processing units are merely used as tools to perform the abstract idea by receiving order information, analyzing the selected menu item, determining preparation and pickup times, and communicating the resulting information. Similarly, the delivery staff devices merely receive the notification indicating the determined order ready time and pick time.
Accordingly, these additional elements and components, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality, do not improve the functioning of a computer itself or to another technology. Rather, the additional elements merely use computer components as tools to perform and communicate the restaurant order coordination information. Therefore, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to generic computer components used as tools to perform the abstract idea
Accordingly, claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Consequently, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., system and method for enhancing ordering using incentives and location-based delivery points) without significantly more.
Accordingly, claim 21 is not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Furthermore, claims 22-30, 32-35, and 37-40 define the same that is present in their respective independent claims 21, 31, and 36 are considered to be part of the abstract idea above and merely act to further limit it. In the dependent claims, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer functioning in a standard mode of operation or matters that are routine and conventional in the field. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Additionally, claims 22-30, 32-35, and 37-40 do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claims 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riel-Dalpe et al., Pub. No.: US 2015/0262121 in view of Marx et al., Pub. No.: US 2014/0279081.
As per claim 1, Riel-Dalpe discloses a method comprising the steps of:
receiving, by one or more data processing units, an order from a user, the order comprising information related to at least one selected menu item from a menu associated with a restaurant [see at least the abstract (e.g., receiving an order for the menu item from a customer interface, the order identifying a selected menu item and an address for the delivery), and as illustrated in FIG. 1 below]:
FIG. 1 is an example block diagram of the example system showing the various tools used to communicate the relevant information between the players and a central database.
PNG
media_image1.png
512
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
analyzing, by the one or more data processing units, the at least one selected menu item [see at least ¶0075 (e.g., Customer order receiver 3903 is illustrated in FIG. 40. In the first step 4005, the information about the order content (customer and address, restaurant, menu items, special instructions, etc.) is received. In the case of a credit card order, the credit card information can also be received 4005), and as illustrated in FIG. 40 below]:
FIG. 40 shows a flow chart of example steps for the Customer order receiver.
PNG
media_image2.png
365
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
determining, by the one or more data processing units, a preparation time for the selected menu item [see at least the abstract (e.g., a preparation completion notification indicating that preparation of the menu item has ended), ¶0149 (e.g., increment 2017 and decrement 2019 buttons are provided for the cooking staff to correct the preparation time for the order. Other equivalent methods for correcting the default preparation time can also be used including numerical entry and slider), and as illustrated in FIG. 20 below)]:
FIG. 20 is an example user interface of the delivery management system software tool used by the restaurant operator.
PNG
media_image3.png
418
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
communicating, by the one or more data processing units, a notification to one or more devices of delivery staff [see at least ¶0185 (e.g., receiving a preparation completion notification indicating that preparation of the menu item has ended; dispatching the order for delivery, including an identification of the available delivery vehicle and the address; receiving a displacement notification indicating that the menu item is being displaced by the available delivery vehicle; retrieving geopositional data representing a geographical position of the available delivery vehicle; sending a displacement notification to the customer interface including an indication of the geographical position of the available delivery vehicle)], the notification indicating a time the order is ready [see at least ¶0018 (as illustrated in FIG. 11 (block 1103)), and presented below]:
FIG. 11 is an example user interface of the main delivery management system software tool, showing an information list for an order in the "Ready" state.
PNG
media_image4.png
453
721
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Riel-Dalpe discloses all elements per claimed invention as explained above. Riel-Dalpe further discloses: determining a pick-up estimated delay, the pick-up estimated delay representing a time delay estimated for the arrival of the available delivery vehicle for pick-up of the menu item after preparation, the method further comprising determining a recommended order preparation beginning time using the pick-up estimated delay and the preparation estimated delay and wherein the sending a request for preparation is one of timed with the recommended order preparation beginning time and includes the order preparation beginning time.
Riel-Dalpe does not expressly disclose determining a pick-up time for the order based at least in part on the preparation time. However, Marx discloses determining a pick-up time for the order based at least in part on the preparation time [see at least ¶0019 (e.g., an estimated pickup time entered), ¶0061 (e.g., The notification typically will also include the estimated pickup time), ¶0065 (e.g., order may also include an estimated pickup time), and as illustrated in FIG. 6 below]:
FIG. 6 is a flowchart that demonstrates the method performed by the C-A MD shown in FIG. 1 in accordance with another illustrative embodiment.
PNG
media_image5.png
652
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Marx in order to provide a wide variety of events may occur that prevent the point in time at which preparation of the food product has been completed from coinciding with the point in time at which the consumer arrives at the establishment to pick up the order [Marx: ¶0004].
As per claim 22, Riel-Dalpe discloses determining an order queue of a plurality of orders based on the pick-up time [see claim 21 above]; and determining a delivery staff queue based on the order queue [see at least ¶0099 (corresponding preparation time periods into a queue 860 of memory device 840), and as illustrated in FIG. 7].
FIG. 7 is a block diagram of a host computer system located at a retail food establishment that receives notifications from a MD and schedules food preparation tasks that are to be performed to prepare a pickup order.
PNG
media_image6.png
342
351
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As per claim 23, Riel-Dalpe discloses further comprising: communicating notification signals at the restaurant location, the notification signals providing indications as to the order queue and the delivery staff queue [see at least the rejection of claims 21 and 22 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Riel-Dalpe and Marx, as noted in claims 21 and 22 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 23 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claims 21 and 22. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claims 21 and 22 are applicable to claim 23. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claims 21 and 22, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claims 24-27, Riel-Dalpe discloses: monitoring the order queue and delivery staff queue; detecting a pick-up of an order based on the monitoring; and updating at least one of the order queue and delivery staff queue based on the detecting the pick-up of the order [¶0028 (e.g., updating a status)]; wherein the order further comprises information related to a location of the user; determining a mapping between a location of the restaurant and the location of the user; analyzing the mapping; and determining a delivery time for physically transmitting the order from the restaurant to the location of the user; wherein the pick-up time for the user is further based on the delivery time [see at least the rejection of claims 21-23 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Riel-Dalpe and Marx, as noted in claims 21-23 above. In light of the preceding examination, claims 24-27 are hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claims 21-23. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claims 21-23 are applicable to claims 24-27. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claims 21-23, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 28, Riel-Dalpe discloses wherein the location of the user is continuously changing based on travel by a vehicle of the user, wherein the delivery time is dynamically updated based on the changes to the location of the user [see at least ¶0063 (e.g., continuously or periodically updates as the location of the consumer 302 relative to the establishments 301a-301c changes. Based on position and/or heading and/or other information processed by the C-A program 210, the establishment selection/notification program 200 may cancel a notification and issue a notification to a different one of the establishments if it determines that the likelihood determination has changed)];
10. Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riel-Dalpe in view of Marx, and further of Yu et al., Pub. No.: US 2015/0006005.
As per claims 29 and 30, Riel-Dalpe discloses in view of Yu wherein the delivery staff is associated with a third party delivery service, wherein the delivery staff comprises at least one of a self-driving vehicle and drone [see at least Yu: abstract and ¶004 (e.g., autonomous unmanned road vehicles and how they can be used to make deliveries)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Yu in order to provide an autonomous unmanned road vehicle for an improved delivery service [Yu: ¶0003 background].
11. Claims 31-35, which are parallel to claims 21-30 in terms of scope,
limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined
above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and
underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 21-30. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 21-30].
12. Claims 36-40, which are parallel to claims 21-30 in terms of scope,
limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined
above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and
underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 21-30. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 21-30].
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The PTO-1449 forms have been reviewed and considered.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
15. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 517-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
16. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Garcia Ade/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights