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 09.08.2025. Claims 1, 2, and 5-20 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for examination, as detailed below.
Oath/Declaration
3. The Applicant's oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant' s submission of the Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) have been acknowledged by the Examiner. The cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed, signed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Priority / Filing Date
5. Applicant's claim for priority of US Application filed on 07.13.2015 is acknowledged. The Examiner takes the US Application date of 07.13.2015 into consideration.
Double Patenting
6. The 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,315,023. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the clams are directed to the same invention.
See Table of Claim 1 Below:
Current Application Number
US Patent Number
12,315,023
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by one or more data processing units, over a network, one or more contact information pertaining to one or more customers; determining a list of restaurants based on the contact information, such as delivery address, customer location, or both; receiving a selection of a restaurant from the list to initiate an order for the one or more customers; transmitting, via the one or more data processing units and based on the one or more contact information, one or more notifications to of one or more customer computing devices associated with one or more customers, wherein the one or more notifications comprise a prompt to at least a menu associated with the restaurant; receiving, by the one or more data processing units, one or more selections of items ordered from the menu associated with the restaurant; and transmitting, by the one or more data processing units, the one or more selections of items included in the order to one or more data processing units associated with the restaurant to cause the items to be prepared.
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a selection of one or more restaurants to initiate an order for a plurality of customers, wherein the one or more restaurants are associated with a plurality of interconnected restaurant location servers that uses a feedback loop to update an overall order queue used for selecting a restaurant location, wherein each restaurant location comprises at least one processor to process the order; transmitting, via a computing device and based on contact information, one or more notifications to a plurality of customer computing devices associated with the plurality of customers; receiving, by the computing device, one or more selections of items ordered from the one or more restaurants; and transmitting, by the computing device to at least one of the plurality of interconnected restaurant location servers, the one or more selections of items included in the order to one or more computing devices associated with the one or more restaurants to cause the items to be prepared, wherein the overall order queue is used to select the restaurant location for each of the one or more restaurants.
Conclusion
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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