DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Applicant’s amendments dated 4/2/26 are hereby entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/547,678, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 of this application. Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 depends on the disclosure made in F15 in Applicant’s PGPUB support and this figure does not appear in Applicant’s ‘678 filing. Therefore, the effective filing date of Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 is that of 9/3/20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 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) without significantly more.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by human being and/or training/employing a machine learning model in a particular technological environment.
In regard to Claims 1 and 11, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); in terms of the Applicant claiming:
A method for arranging transport of adapted nutrimental artifacts with user-defined requirements, the method comprising:
[receiving] physiological data of a user…filter, wherein the physiological data is stored […] to iteratively update the restriction requirement datum;
analyzing […] the correlated dietary filter…artifact;
receiving, from the user […] the at least a restricted nutrimental datum and at least one food condition;
generating at least a first filter set […] as a function…information [including] filter[ing] out nutrimental objects […], wherein generating the at least a first filter set further comprises:
querying a biological extraction data [file] comprising:
a fluid sample table correlating fluid-based biological extraction inputs and abnormal test result ranges to dietary restriction filters;
a sensor data table correlating sensor-detected physiological parameters; and
abnormal threshold ranges to dietary restriction filters, or a genetic sample table correlating genetic test results and genetic predispositions to dietary restriction filters, and
wherein the at least a first filter set is generated as a function of a match between the at least a restricted nutrimental datum and at least one restriction filter derived from the biological extraction data [file];
classifying the at least one food condition utilizing a food condition [algorithm], wherein…comprises:
receiving food condition training data…objects;
training, iteratively, the food condition [algorithm]…[algorithm]…[algorithm];
outputting the nutrimental object…[algorithm];
updating the food condition training data…object;
training iteratively the food condition [algorithm]…[algorithm]…[algorithm]; and
outputting an updated nutrimental object…[algorithm];
transmitting […] the at least a first filter set […];
retrieving […] a sustenance provider datum and a physical performer instruction set;
generating […] a sustenance provider instruction set, and the physical performer instruction set as a function of at least a sustenance provider datum and at least a physical performer datum and the at least an adapted nutrimental request;
selecting […]at least a sustenance provider and the at least a physical performer as a function of the at least a sustenance provider instruction set and the at least a physical performer instruction set; and
transmitting […] the selection of at least a sustenance provider and the selection of the at least a physical performer […].
In regard to Claims 1 and 11, Applicant claims training/employing a machine learning model in a particular technological environment, which has been held by the CAFC to be abstract in decisions such as Recentive Analytics.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being and/or training/employing a machine learning model in a particular technological environment
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., a computing device, sensors, a central network, a user-client device, a database, and/or training/employing machine learning algorithms such as a classifier and/or lazy learning process, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., a computing device, sensors, a central network, a user-client device, a database, and/or training/employing machine learning algorithms such as a classifier and/or lazy learning process, these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements and are claimed for the generic, well-known, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are generic, well-known, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F1-2 and text regarding same in Applicant’s PGPUB in regard to a computing device, sensors, central network, and/or a user-client device; and p92-93 in regard to training/employing machine learning algorithms/classifiers; and p38-40 in regard to a lazy learning process; and, e.g., p45 in regard to employing a database.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues in regard to the rejection made under 35 USC 101 that its claimed subject matter is analogous to that of McRO is not persuasive. The invention claimed in McRO was held to be patent eligible because it concerned an improvement to a physical display:
PNG
media_image1.png
370
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SAP America v. Investpic (2017-2081; 5/15/18), slip. op., page 9.
Applicant’s invention, however, does not claim an improvement to any physical display.
Applicant further argues on page 5 of its Remarks that it has not claimed an abstract idea in the form of a mental process because its has claimed a sensor that continuously detects data. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because those limitations are not identified as part of the abstract idea in the 101 rejection made supra.
Applicant further argues on page 6 of its Remarks:
PNG
media_image2.png
162
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. To the extent that Applicant’s claimed limitations require looking up data in a table that is well within the ability of human being to perform mentally. For reasons including, were it not within that ability a human being could no conceive of a computer program to perform that function. What is more, to the extent that Applicant is arguing that its abstract idea when embodied as computer code may perform this task faster than a human being can perform it mentally this does not render patent eligible subject matter. See Bancorp Services v. Sun Life (2011-1467; 7/26/12), slip. op., page 21 (“and the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”)
Applicant further argues on pages 6-7 of its Remarks:
PNG
media_image3.png
196
662
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
124
644
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. There is no such holding in Enfish. What is more, the CAFC held in Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp (2023-2437; 4/18/25) that claims directed to iteratively training a machine learning model are not patent eligible. See, e.g., from the claim invalidated in Recentive:
PNG
media_image5.png
132
468
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Id., page 4.
Applicant argues that it has claimed a “practical application” and thereby claimed patent eligible subject matter under the Mayo test. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The Mayo test is a legal test and “practical application” is not part of the Mayo test but is, instead, a burden placed on examiners by the Office when they are making a 101 rejection employing the Mayo test. Simply invoking “practical application” but without citing specific legal authority in support of Applicant’s argument that it has claimed patent eligible subject matter under the two-part Mayo test, therefore, does not provide a proper basis or rationale as to why the 101 rejection being made is allegedly deficient.
Applicant argues that claiming its database comprising a specific set of data is not well-known, routine, and conventional and, thereby, adds “significantly more” to its abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive to the extent that the claimed data set and querying of that data set are identified as being part of the abstract idea and not as elements claimed in addition to that abstract idea. The fact, therefore, that this feature may ostensibly be novel and/or non-obvious is not relevant to the Mayo analysis.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from 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.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.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights