DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received on March 30, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 25 and 35 have been cancelled and amendments to claims 21, 29, 34, 37 and 39 have been entered. Therefore, claims 21-24, 26-34 and 36-42 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the prior art of record when combined with the newly discovered prior art reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-24, 26-34 and 36-42 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 42 recite limitations that are allowable over the prior art of record.
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 claim recite(s):
determining, using image data obtained from at least one camera, a characteristic of a vehicle;
for at least one point of sale unit, causing a display screen of the point of sale unit to display a description of the characteristic of the vehicle;
generating, based on the characteristic of the vehicle, a description of the characteristic of the vehicle including at least one of(i) a textual description of the vehicle or (ii) an icon representing at least the characteristic of the vehicle;
prompting an order taker to obtain order data for a customer following the determination of the characteristic; and
executing a point of sale transaction at the point of sale unit.
The steps of the method, as drafted, provide a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers observation and evaluation and sales activities or a business relationship, for example the claims perform an observation of vehicles within a drive thorough and a business relationship between a customer entering a retailer’s drive through and placing an order at a POS.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers observations and evaluations, advertising or marketing or sales activities or a business relationship, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processing” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites multiple abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite an additional element. As such, there is nothing recited that can be considered a practical
application or significantly more than the judicial exception.
To the extent that the display screen is an additional element, then this additional element would also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The display screen is a computer monitor or screen, and is recited at a high‐level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic function of displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Similarly, a
computer monitor or screen would not be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical
application, the additional element of a display (such as a computer screen) amounts to no more than
mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is patent ineligible.
A similar analysis should have been applied to claims 29 and 39 which recites essentially the same abstract idea as in claim 21.
Similarly, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception
using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. When considering the claim
as a whole, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims also are patent ineligible. For example, claims 22, 30 and 40 include the step of defining vehicle characteristics as a type of vehicle or vehicle color which further describes the
observation and evaluation of vehicles performing a sales activity. Claims 23-28 and 31-38
further describe the abstract idea with limitations directed to defining a type of vehicle, locating a vehicle, a plurality of POS terminals, defining zones, providing textual/graphical descriptions, providing a pickup screen to staff, notifying carry-out staff and alerting staff.
Examiner notes, the independent claims introduce a generating step that utilizes language that does not positively recite the act of generating an icon, which would overcome the 101 rejection because the generation of an icon with textual description of a vehicle captured by an imaging device would be a technical improvement to the functioning of the POS device and the technological field.
In the instant case, generating a textual description using image data covers observations and evaluations, and fall under the mental process grouping of abstract idea. The step can be performed by the human mind, for example identifying a vehicle color and writing the description down on pen and paper or typing the description on a computer. To the extent that generating may be interpreted as an additional element (if interpreted as a processor), then this additional element would also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. If the generating step is interpreted to include a processor, then this is recited at a high‐level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic function of processing information) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
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.
Claim(s) 21-24, 26, 28-34, 36 and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0144401 in view of Kozitsky et al., 2013/0141586 further in view of Hammadou, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0285797.
As per Claim 21, Morgan et al. discloses a method of controlling a drive through system, the method comprising:
determining, using image data obtained from at least one camera, a characteristic of a vehicle (pg.2, ¶ [0019] discusses order service 113 monitors the images for individuals, bicycles, cars, scooters, and other PEVs, when these objects are detected from the images);
displaying a prompt, via a user interface, prompting an order taker to obtain order data for a customer following the determination of the characteristic (pg.2, ¶ [0020] discusses order manager 133 raises an alert to staff, who operate a terminal associated with the POS 130), and
executing a point of sale transaction at the point of sale unit (pg.4, ¶ [0053] discusses the order manager 133 executes on a POS terminal 130 or a POS server 130 that takes the order of the individual).
Morgan et al. pg.2, ¶ [0023] teaches the workflow associated with the order taken by the staff includes the image and written description. This allows the pay window and pickup window associated with the lane to identify the proper order to obtain the proper payment from the customer and to deliver the proper ordered items for the order to the customer.
However, Morgan et al. fails to explicitly state for at least one point of sale unit, causing a display screen of the point of sale unit to display a description of the characteristic of the vehicle;
Kozitsky et al. teaches for at least one point of sale unit, causing a display screen of the point of sale unit to display a description of the characteristic of the vehicle (pg.5, ¶ [0051] discusses The user interfaces 272 and 285 with respect to the delivery points 260 and 275 displays the images 410 and 420 captured at the order processing points 210 and the delivery point 260 and 275 in order to match the order number, vehicle identification, and other details with respect to the order 240 placed in the drive-through environment 330).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of drive through order processing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morgan et al. to include the ability to specifically display images of vehicles within the drive through line as taught by Kozitsky et al., to provide a system and method for providing signature-based drive-through order tracking. Abstract
Morgan et al. teaches a system and method for capturing images of vehicles and customers in drive through lanes of a store.
Kozitsky et al. teaches a system and method for providing a signature based drive through order tracking.
However, the Morgan et al.-Kozitsky et al. combination fails to disclose generating, based on the characteristic of the vehicle, a description of the characteristic of the vehicle including at least one of (i) a textual description of the vehicle or (ii) an icon representing at least the characteristic of the vehicle1.
Hammadou teaches generating, based on the characteristic of the vehicle, a description of the characteristic of the vehicle including at least one of (i) a textual description of the vehicle (pg.2, ¶ [0034] discusses the processors may generate a textual representation of the video signal by utilizing a description language to indicate characteristics of the detected objects, such as shape, texture, color, and/or motion, for example …pg.11, ¶ [0102] discusses the textual description of the video scene may be communicated to, for example, the management and content analysis system 608 or to the network 610 disclosed in FIG. 6, where it may be stored for later retrieval or where it may be matched with other descriptions for automatic video surveillance operations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a programmable surveillance video camera fort detecting objects to generate a textual representation as in the improvement discussed in Hammadou in the system executing the method of the Morgan et al.-Kozitsky et al. combination. As in Hammadou, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to convert image data to a textual description of a video stream to identify vehicles captured by video cameras and provide a textual description with the predicted result of identifying vehicles and providing a textual description of vehicles as needed in the Morgan et al.-Kozitsky et al. combination.
As per Claim 22, Morgan et al. discloses the method of Claim 21, wherein the characteristic of the vehicle comprises at least one of (i) a type of the vehicle selected from among a plurality of predetermined types of vehicles (pg.3, ¶ [0036] discusses When a vehicle is present it can be identified as a car (gas or electric), a bike, a scooter, or any other PEV).
As per Claim 23, Morgan et al. discloses the method of Claim 22, wherein the plurality of predetermined types of vehicles comprise at least a car, a truck, and a sport utility vehicle (pg.3, ¶ [0036] discusses when a vehicle is present it can be identified as a car (gas or electric)).
As per Claim 24, Morgan et al. discloses the method of the claimed invention.
However, Morgan et al. fails to disclose determining, using the image data and a plurality of predetermined zones, a location of the vehicle along a path of a lane, the plurality of predetermined zones defined for the image data of the plurality of cameras to produce image data of the plurality of predetermined zones at different portions of the image data of the plurality of cameras; and
responsive to the vehicle arriving at an order placement location of the plurality of predetermined zones, operate the at least one point of sale unit to provide the description of the characteristic of the vehicle.
Kozitsky et al. teaches the processing circuitry further configured to:
determining, using the image data and a plurality of predetermined zones, a location of the vehicle along a path of a lane, the plurality of predetermined zones defined for the image data of the plurality of cameras to produce image data of the plurality of predetermined zones at different portions of the image data of the plurality of cameras (pg.4, ¶ [0044] discusses the payment processing unit 260 and the pick-up processing unit 275 of the POS system 200 includes separate image processing units such as a payment-point image capturing unit 262 and a pick-up point image capturing unit 276 for capturing the images 254 with respect to the vehicle 205 by detecting the presence of the vehicle 205 via the vehicle presence sensors 270 and 280); and
responsive to the vehicle arriving at an order placement location of the plurality of predetermined zones, operate the at least one point of sale unit to provide the description of the characteristic of the vehicle (pg.4, ¶ [0047] discusses the matching application 265 further displays the order 240 associated with the vehicle 205 together with the images 254 captured at the delivery points 260 and 275 and the order processing unit 210 into the user interfaces 272 and 285 to ensure the right order 240 is delivered to the customer).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of drive through order processing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morgan et al. to include the ability to capture images of vehicles within a drive through line as taught by Kozitsky et al., to provide a system and method for providing signature-based drive-through order tracking. Abstract
As per Claim 25, Morgan et al. discloses the method of Claim 21, wherein the description of the characteristic of the vehicle comprises at least one of (i) a textual description of the vehicle (pg.2, ¶ [0023] discusses Order service 113 sends the lane identifier, the image, and the written description of the vehicle, if any, and the customer back to order manager 133).
As per Claim 26, Morgan et al. discloses the method of Claim 21, further comprising operating at least one of a point of sale unit or a screen at a pickup window to provide order data associated with the vehicle, the screen being visible to staff in proximity to the pickup window (Figure 1, depicts POS 130…pg.2, ¶ [0023] discusses the workflow associated with the order taken by the staff includes the image and written description. This allows the pay window and pickup window associated with the lane to identify the proper order to obtain the proper payment from the customer and to deliver the proper ordered items for the order to the customer).
As per Claim 28, Morgan et al. discloses the method of Claim 21, further comprising:
responsive to detection of one or more of a plurality of vehicles using the image data, performing at least one of (i) initiating an alert via the point of sale unit for staff (pg.2, ¶ [0020] discusses order manager 133 raises an alert to staff, who operate a terminal associated with the POS 130, that instructs the staff to audibly notify the customer through a speaker of the drive through 140 that the customer is in an incorrect drive through lane along with audible instructions as to where the customer can find the proper drive-through lane to place an order).
As per Claim 29, Morgan et al., discloses a drive through system, comprising:
at least one point of sale unit operable to implement a point of sale (Figure 1, POS 130); and
processing circuitry configured to:
determine, using image data obtained from at least one camera, a characteristic of a vehicle (pg.2, ¶ [0019] discusses order service 113 monitors the images for individuals, bicycles, cars, scooters, and other PEVs, when these objects are detected from the images);
execute a point of sale transaction at the point of sale unit (pg.4, ¶ [0053] discusses the order manager 133 executes on a POS terminal 130 or a POS server 130 that takes the order of the individual).
Morgan et al. pg.2, ¶ [0023] teaches the workflow associated with the order taken by the staff includes the image and written description. This allows the pay window and pickup window associated with the lane to identify the proper order to obtain the proper payment from the customer and to deliver the proper ordered items for the order to the customer.
However, Morgan et al. fails to explicitly state operate a display screen of the point of sale unit to provide a description of the characteristic of the vehicle prior to obtaining order data for a customer.
Kozitsky et al. teaches operate a display screen of the point of sale unit to provide a description of the characteristic of the vehicle prior to obtaining order data for a customer (pg.4, ¶ [0044] discusses The order processing unit 210 of the POS system 200 captures an image 254 with respect to the vehicle 205 utilizing an order-point image capturing unit 212 by detecting the presence of the vehicle 205 utilizing an order-point vehicle presence sensor 230).
The cited portion of Kozitsky et al., teaches where images are captured at ordering points 210.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of drive through order processing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morgan et al. to include the ability to specifically display images of vehicles within the drive through line as taught by Kozitsky et al., to provide a system and method for providing signature-based drive-through order tracking. Abstract
Morgan et al. teaches a system and method for capturing images of vehicles and customers in drive through lanes of a store.
Kozitsky et al. teaches a system and method for providing a signature based drive through order tracking.
However, the Morgan et al.-Kozitsky et al. combination fails to disclose generating, based on the characteristic of the vehicle, a description of the characteristic of the vehicle including at least one of (i) a textual description of the vehicle or (ii) an icon representing at least the characteristic of the vehicle.
Hammadou teaches generating, based on the characteristic of the vehicle, a description of the characteristic of the vehicle including at least one of (i) a textual description of the vehicle (pg.2, ¶ [0034] discusses the processors may generate a textual representation of the video signal by utilizing a description language to indicate characteristics of the detected objects, such as shape, texture, color, and/or motion, for example …pg.11, ¶ [0102] discusses the textual description of the video scene may be communicated to, for example, the management and content analysis system 608 or to the network 610 disclosed in FIG. 6, where it may be stored for later retrieval or where it may be matched with other descriptions for automatic video surveillance operations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a programmable surveillance video camera fort detecting objects to generate a textual representation as in the improvement discussed in Hammadou in the system executing the method of the Morgan et al.-Kozitsky et al. combination. As in Hammadou, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to convert image data to a textual description of a video stream to identify vehicles captured by video cameras and provide a textual description with the predicted result of identifying vehicles and providing a textual description of vehicles as needed in the Morgan et al.-Kozitsky et al. combination.
As per Claim 30, Morgan et al. discloses the drive through system of Claim 29, wherein the characteristic of the vehicle comprises at least one of (i) a type of the vehicle selected from a plurality of predetermined types of vehicles (pg.3, ¶ [0036] discusses when a vehicle is present it can be identified as a car (gas or electric), a bike, a scooter, or any other PEV).
As per Claim 31, Morgan et al. discloses the drive through system of Claim 30, wherein the plurality of predetermined types of vehicles comprise at least a car, a truck, and a sport utility vehicle (pg.3, ¶ [0036] discusses when a vehicle is present it can be identified as a car (gas or electric)).
As per Claim 32, Morgan et al., discloses the drive through system of Claim 29, wherein the at least one camera is at least one camera of a plurality of cameras (Figure 2, Cameras 150).
However, Morgan et al. fails to disclose the processing circuitry further configured to:
determine, using the image data and a plurality of predetermined zones, a location of the vehicle along a path of a lane, the plurality of predetermined zones defined for the image data of the plurality of cameras to produce image data of the plurality of predetermined zones at different portions of the image data of the plurality of cameras; and
responsive to the vehicle arriving at an order placement location of the plurality of predetermined zones, operate the at least one point of sale unit to provide the description of the characteristic of the vehicle.
Kozitsky et al. teaches the processing circuitry further configured to:
determine, using the image data and a plurality of predetermined zones, a location of the vehicle along a path of a lane, the plurality of predetermined zones defined for the image data of the plurality of cameras to produce image data of the plurality of predetermined zones at different portions of the image data of the plurality of cameras (pg.4, ¶ [0044] discusses the payment processing unit 260 and the pick-up processing unit 275 of the POS system 200 includes separate image processing units such as a payment-point image capturing unit 262 and a pick-up point image capturing unit 276 for capturing the images 254 with respect to the vehicle 205 by detecting the presence of the vehicle 205 via the vehicle presence sensors 270 and 280); and
responsive to the vehicle arriving at an order placement location of the plurality of predetermined zones, operate the at least one point of sale unit to provide the description of the characteristic of the vehicle (pg.4, ¶ [0047] discusses the matching application 265 further displays the order 240 associated with the vehicle 205 together with the images 254 captured at the delivery points 260 and 275 and the order processing unit 210 into the user interfaces 272 and 285 to ensure the right order 240 is delivered to the customer).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of drive through order processing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morgan et al. to include the ability to capture images of vehicles within a drive through line as taught by Kozitsky et al., to provide a system and method for providing signature-based drive-through order tracking. Abstract
As per Claim 33, Morgan et al. discloses the drive through system of the claimed invention. However, Morgan et al., fails to disclose wherein the at least one point of sale unit comprises a plurality of point of sale units, each point of sale unit of the plurality of point of sale units being located at a different zone of the plurality of predetermined zones.
Kozitsky et al. teaches wherein the at least one point of sale unit comprises a plurality of point of sale units, each point of sale unit of the plurality of point of sale units being located at a different zone of the plurality of predetermined zones (Figure 4, depicts Order Processing unit 210, Payment processing unit 260 and pick-up processing unit 275).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of drive through order processing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morgan et al. to include the ability to provide multiple points of sale along a drive through as taught by Kozitsky et al., to provide a system and method for providing signature-based drive-through order tracking. Abstract
As per Claim 34, Morgan et al. discloses the drive through system of Claim 33, wherein at least one of the zones includes one or more of an entry location, an exit location, an entry to the lane, or an exit to the lane (pg.3, ¶ [0033] discusses the cloud-based drive through order service obtains the image in real time from a camera focused on an area associated with the drive-through lane), and
wherein the lane is a lane among of a plurality of lanes associated with the drive through system (pg.2, ¶ [0025] discusses a given store may include two drive-throughs 140 one for cars and one for non-cars).
As per Claim 35, Morgan et al. discloses the drive through system of Claim 29, wherein the description of the characteristic of the vehicle comprises at least one of a textual description of the vehicle (pg.2, ¶ [0023] discusses Order service 113 sends the lane identifier, the image, and the written description of the vehicle, if any, and the customer back to order manager 133).
As per Claim 36, Morgan et al., discloses the drive through system of Claim 29, wherein the drive through system further comprises at least one of a point of sale unit or a screen visible to staff at a pickup window (Figure 1, POS 130),
the processing circuitry configured to operate at least one of the point of sale unit or the screen at the pickup window to provide order data associated with the vehicle and the characteristic of the vehicle responsive to the vehicle arriving at the pickup window (pg.2, ¶ [0023] discusses the workflow associated with the order taken by the staff includes the image and written description. This allows the pay window and pickup window associated with the lane to identify the proper order to obtain the proper payment from the customer and to deliver the proper ordered items for the order to the customer).
As per Claim 38, Morgan et al. discloses the drive through system of Claim 29, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
responsive to detection of the vehicle using the image data, perform at least one of (i) initiate an alert via the point of sale unit for staff (pg.2, ¶ [0020] discusses order manager 133 raises an alert to staff, who operate a terminal associated with the POS 130, that instructs the staff to audibly notify the customer through a speaker of the drive through 140 that the customer is in an incorrect drive through lane along with audible instructions as to where the customer can find the proper drive-through lane to place an order).
As per Claim 39, Morgan et al. discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
determining, using image data obtained from at least one camera, a characteristic of a vehicle (pg.2, ¶ [0019] discusses order service 113 monitors the images for individuals, bicycles, cars, scooters, and other PEVs, when these objects are detected from the images);
for at least one point of sale unit (Figure 1, POS 130),
displaying a prompt, via a user interface, prompting an order taker to obtain order data for a customer (pg.2, ¶ [0020] discusses order manager 133 raises an alert to staff, who operate a terminal associated with the POS 130); and
executing a point of sale transaction at the point of sale unit (pg.4, ¶ [0053] discusses the order manager 133 executes on a POS terminal 130 or a POS server 130 that takes the order of the individual).
Morgan et al. pg.2, ¶ [0023] teaches the workflow associated with the order taken by the staff includes the image and written description. This allows the pay window and pickup window associated with the lane to identify the proper order to obtain the proper payment from the customer and to deliver the proper ordered items for the order to the customer.
However, Morgan et al. fails to explicitly state operating a display screen of the point of sale unit to provide a description of the characteristic of the vehicle.
Kozitsky et al. teaches operating a display screen of the point of sale unit to provide a description of the characteristic of the vehicle (pg.5, ¶ [0051] discusses The user interfaces 272 and 285 with respect to the delivery points 260 and 275 displays the images 410 and 420 captured at the order processing points 210 and the delivery point 260 and 275 in order to match the order number, vehicle identification, and other details with respect to the order 240 placed in the drive-through environment 330).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of drive through order processing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morgan et al. to include the ability to specifically display images of vehicles within the drive through line as taught by Kozitsky et al., to provide a system and method for providing signature-based drive-through order tracking. Abstract
Morgan et al. teaches a system and method for capturing images of vehicles and customers in drive through lanes of a store.
Kozitsky et al. teaches a system and method for providing a signature based drive through order tracking.
However, the Morgan et al.-Kozitsky et al. combination fails to disclose generating, based on the characteristic of the vehicle, a description of the characteristic of the vehicle including at least one of (i) a textual description of the vehicle or (ii) an icon representing at least the characteristic of the vehicle.
Hammadou teaches generating, based on the characteristic of the vehicle, a description of the characteristic of the vehicle including at least one of (i) a textual description of the vehicle (pg.2, ¶ [0034] discusses the processors may generate a textual representation of the video signal by utilizing a description language to indicate characteristics of the detected objects, such as shape, texture, color, and/or motion, for example …pg.11, ¶ [0102] discusses the textual description of the video scene may be communicated to, for example, the management and content analysis system 608 or to the network 610 disclosed in FIG. 6, where it may be stored for later retrieval or where it may be matched with other descriptions for automatic video surveillance operations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a programmable surveillance video camera fort detecting objects to generate a textual representation as in the improvement discussed in Hammadou in the system executing the method of the Morgan et al.-Kozitsky et al. combination. As in Hammadou, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to convert image data to a textual description of a video stream to identify vehicles captured by video cameras and provide a textual description with the predicted result of identifying vehicles and providing a textual description of vehicles as needed in the Morgan et al.-Kozitsky et al. combination.
As per Claim 40, Morgan et al. disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium of Claim 37, wherein the characteristic of the vehicle comprises at least one of (i) a type of the vehicle selected from among a plurality of predetermined types of vehicles using the image data (pg.3, ¶ [036] discusses when a vehicle is present it can be identified as a car (gas or electric), a bike, a scooter, or any other PEV),
wherein the plurality of predetermined types of vehicles comprise at least a car, a truck, and a sport utility vehicle (pg.3, ¶ [0036] discusses when a vehicle is present it can be identified as a car (gas or electric).
As per Claim 41, the Morgan et al.-Kozitsky et al. combination discloses the method of Claim 21. However, the Morgan et al.-Kozitsky et al. combination fails to disclose wherein the description of the characteristic of the vehicle includes the textual description of the vehicle.
Hammadou teaches wherein the description of the characteristic of the vehicle includes the textual description of the vehicle (pg.11, ¶ [0102] discusses the surveillance video camera 604 in FIG. 6, may be able to textually describe objects such as fire, intruders or speeding cars so that they may be matched with a generic description of a similar object in the management and content analysis system 608).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a programmable surveillance video camera fort detecting objects to generate a textual representation as in the improvement discussed in Hammadou in the system executing the method of the Morgan et al.-Kozitsky et al. combination. As in Hammadou, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to convert image data to a textual description of a video stream to identify vehicles captured by video cameras and provide a textual description with the predicted result of identifying vehicles and providing a textual description of vehicles as needed in the Morgan et al.-Kozitsky et al. combination.
Claim(s) 27 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0144401 in view of Kozitsky et al., 2013/0141586 in view of Hammadou, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0285797further in view of Russell et al., U.S. Patent 10,373,226.
As per Claim 27, Morgan et al. discloses the claimed invention, further comprising:
monitoring a plurality of vehicles through a lane using image data obtained from a plurality of cameras (pg.2, ¶ [0018] discusses Cameras 150 can be integrated into the drive-throughs 140 or can be separate standalone cameras 150 that are focused on the drive-through areas of the corresponding store).
Morgan et al., pg.2, ¶ [0025] further teaches order manager 133 instructs the customer to wait until called to come in, and pick up their order.
Kozitsky pg.4, ¶ [0048] teaches system 200 can be configured with a store 310 having a holding stall 320 in order to process and manage the orders 240 within the store 310. The holding stalls 320 can hold the pending orders 240 within the POS system 200. The system 200 can be enabled in an extraction mode in order to extract and store the signatures 252 and can also be made available in a matching mode in order to match the signatures 252 of the vehicle 205).
Both Morgan et al. Kozitsky and teach limitations directed toward cameras monitoring a drive through and capable of notifying customers to allow for pick-up/carry-out delivery.
Hammadou teaches generating textual descriptions from captured images.
However, the Morgan-Kozitsky-Hammadou combination fails to disclose operating, based on the image data, a carry-out alert device to notify carry-out staff regarding (i) the characteristic of a vehicle being monitored, (ii) an identification of a carry-out location where the vehicle is positioned among a plurality of carry-out locations, and (iii) order data for the vehicle at the carry-out location.
Russell teaches operating, based on the image data, a carry-out alert device to notify carry-out staff regarding (i) the characteristic of a vehicle being monitored, (ii) an identification of a carry-out location where the vehicle is positioned among a plurality of carry-out locations, and (iii) order data for the vehicle at the carry-out location (Col.22, lines 27-31 discusses once a vehicle has been identified, a worker may be selected to aid and assist the vehicle where the occupant of the vehicle has expressed a preference for or otherwise designated the worker as his or her preferred associate for delivering items….lines 32-36 discusses information regarding the automobile, the ordered items and/or the first parking location is displayed on a computer display at the available kiosk. For example, referring again to FIG. 1C, the display 132-1 at the kiosk 130-1 identifies the customer intended to receive the item 10 and the first associate and includes an image of the vehicle 170 at the parking location 145-2.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the Morgan-Kozitsky-Hammadou combination the ability to display a parking location for a pick up order as taught by Russell since 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.
As per Claim 37, Morgan et al. discloses the drive through system of the claimed invention wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
monitor one or more of a plurality of vehicles through a lane of the drive through system using the image data obtained from a plurality of cameras (pg.2, ¶ [0018] discusses Cameras 150 can be integrated into the drive-throughs 140 or can be separate standalone cameras 150 that are focused on the drive-through areas of the corresponding store).
Morgan et al., pg.2, ¶ [0025] further teaches order manager 133 instructs the customer to wait until called to come in, and pick up their order.
Kozitsky pg.4, ¶ [0048] teaches system 200 can be configured with a store 310 having a holding stall 320 in order to process and manage the orders 240 within the store 310. The holding stalls 320 can hold the pending orders 240 within the POS system 200. The system 200 can be enabled in an extraction mode in order to extract and store the signatures 252 and can also be made available in a matching mode in order to match the signatures 252 of the vehicle 205).
Both Morgan et al. and Kozitsky teach limitations directed toward cameras monitoring a drive through and capable of notifying customers to allow for pick-up/carry-out delivery.
Hammadou teaches generating textual descriptions from captured images.
However, the Morgan-Kozitsky-Hammadou combination fails to disclose operating, based on the image data, a carry-out alert device to notify carry-out staff regarding (i) the characteristic of a vehicle being monitored, (ii) an identification of a carry-out location where the vehicle is positioned among a plurality of carry-out locations, and (iii) order data for the vehicle at the carry-out location.
Russell teaches operating, based on the image data, a carry-out alert device to notify carry-out staff regarding (i) the characteristic of a vehicle being monitored, (ii) an identification of a carry-out location where the vehicle is positioned among a plurality of carry-out locations, and (iii) order data for the vehicle at the carry-out location (Col.22, lines 27-31 discusses once a vehicle has been identified, a worker may be selected to aid and assist the vehicle where the occupant of the vehicle has expressed a preference for or otherwise designated the worker as his or her preferred associate for delivering items….lines 32-36 discusses information regarding the automobile, the ordered items and/or the first parking location is displayed on a computer display at the available kiosk. For example, referring again to FIG. 1C, the display 132-1 at the kiosk 130-1 identifies the customer intended to receive the item 10 and the first associate and includes an image of the vehicle 170 at the parking location 145-2.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the Morgan-Kozitsky-Hammadou combination the ability to display a parking location for a pick up order as taught by Russell since 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHFORD S HAYLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5106. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM with Flex.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/ASHFORD S HAYLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
1 The Examiner notes, the italicized portions of the above claim is used to denote intended use and are given little patentable weight. The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation.
Prosecution Insights