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 .
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 1-9 and 28-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method for rating the quality of food in a plurality of foods including performing calculations to arrive at a food quality value. Under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l), mathematical concepts including relationships and equations are drawn to abstract ideas. With respect to claims 1-5, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l) also notes that “a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because ‘[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.’ In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989).”. Additionally, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lII), mental processes are abstract ideas, including mental processes implemented using a generic computer system.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the factors set forth in MPEP 2106.05. Such factors include:
• Improvements to another technology or technical field;
• Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself;
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine;
• Transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state of being;
• Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or
• Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Further guidance is provided by Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014). Alice held that a method of mitigating settlement risk was drawn to an abstract idea. Alice further held that the performance of the method performed on a computer did not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea, and thus the claimed invention was drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea:
These cases demonstrate that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not enough for patent eligibility. Mayo, supra, at_(slip op., at 3). Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’” Bilski, supra, at 610-611. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to “implement]” an abstract idea “on ... a computer,” Mayo, supra, at_(slip op., at 16), that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our §101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, see 717 F.3d, at 1286 (Lourie, J., concurring), wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of “additional feature]” that provides any “practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Mayo, 566 U.S., at_(slip op., at 8-9).
Id at pp 1983-1984. Alice further held that apparatus claims drawn to a computer system were subject to the same analysis as the method claims, and were also not patentable subject matter:
Petitioner's claims to a computer system and a computer-readable medium fail for substantially the same reasons. Petitioner conceded below that its media claims rise or fall with its method claims. En Banc Response Brief for Defendant-Appellant in No. 11 -1301 (CA Fed.) p. 50, n. 3. As to its system claims, petitioner emphasizes that those claims recite “specific hardware” configured to perform “specific computerized functions.” Brief for Petitioner 53. But what petitioner characterizes as specific hardware— a “data processing system” with a “communications controller” and “data storage unit,” for example, see App. 954, 958, 1257—is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer will include a “communications controller” and “data storage unit” capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method bclaims. See 717 F.3d, at 1290 (Lourie, J., concurring). As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers.” Id., at 1291 (quoting Bilski, 561 U.S., at 610-611).
Id. at pp 1984-1985. Turning to the claimed invention, a method of providing food suitability grade is an abstract idea. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(ll)(D) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351 -52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which held that a method and system for receiving and analyzing information, and displaying the results of the analysis, is also directed to an abstract idea. The claims are directed to a system and method comprising a generic computing device which under Alice is not sufficient to impart patentability to the system or method.
Consideration of the factors listed above pertaining to what is significantly more than the judicial exception, as viewed in light of the holding in Alice, weighs against patentability. While the method includes the use of a computer, the method does not involve an improvement in the function of a computer or other technology. Rather, generic computer components are used in their usual and customary way to perform the method. Mere automation of mental processes to improve efficiency is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017), as cited in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015), as cited in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-9, and independent claim 28 (as well as its dependent claims 29-36) also fail to recite limitations which would overcome the rejection. These claims are generally directed to the types of information being analyzed as part of the method, and various specific equations used to calculate a food quality value. While claim 28 recites the use of a barcode scanner to receive information, this is not sufficient to integrate the abstract mental process into a practical application, as the barcode scanner is merely a tool used in its usual and customary way. See Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 2019 USPQ2d 281076 (Fed. Cir. 2019), as cited in MPEP 2106.04(d)(III), which held that a method of electronically processing paper checks, including a step of scanning paper checks, was directed to an abstract idea. The court held that the claims “did not improve the technical capture of information from a check to create a digital file or the technical step of electronically crediting a bank account”, nor did the claims “improve how a check is scanned.” The barcode scanner of the present invention is analogous to the check scanner of Solutran, in that it is a generically recited scanning device used in its usual way to receive information. The claimed invention does not represent an improvement in barcode scanning technology. See also Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014), which held that electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document was a well-understood, routine and conventional activity not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of analyzing received information. Because the claimed invention does not involve significantly more than the abstract concept of analyzing information and displaying the results of the information, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments to the claims do not overcome the previous rejections.
With respect to the arguments concerning the steps of installing an application, entering user-specific data, and aligning a barcode scanner with a barcode, these steps amount to trivial human behavior and insignificant extra-solution activity. Under MPEP 2106.5(g), factors to be considered in determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity include:
Whether the extra-solution limitation is well-known,
Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention),
Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting.
Each of these factors weighs heavily in favor of a determination that each of the above limitations is insignificant extra-solution activity. Installing an application is extremely well-known, does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim, and amounts to necessary gathering. Entering user-specific data is also extremely well-known, does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim, and amounts to necessary gathering. Aligning a barcode with a scanner also is extremely well-known, does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim, and amounts to necessary gathering. As discussed in prior Office actions, Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) held that a computer-implemented system comprising a database storing information regarding loan packages, an interface which prompts a user to enter personal information, and a grading module which calculates a user’s credit grading. Mortgage Lender is this directly on point in determining whether entering user-specific data via an interface is a meaningful limitation. The interface of Mortgage Grader was inherently installed prior to use; patentability cannot rest on such installation. Previous Office actions also discussed the holding in Content Extraction that the use of a scanner to extract information did not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of analyzing information. Any use of a scanner (barcode or otherwise) inherently involves a step of aligning the scanner with the item to be scanned. Such a step is not a meaningful limitation.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, as noted by applicant that decision held that the filtering system was an advance over prior art computer filters, i.e., an improvement in technology. Conversely, applicant’s invention does not provide an advance in the technology of applications, or interfaces, or scanners, or any other technology. Each of the elements is generic, used as a tool to implement an abstract mental process, and does not constitute an “ordered” combination of elements which would transform the claim into a patent-eligible invention. That the invention is “related to a specific user’s needs” does not amount to substantially more than the abstract idea; again, Mortgage Grader is directly on point in holding that being “related to a specific user’s needs” is not a meaningful limitation or technological advancement. The holding in McRo also rests on there being a specific technological advancement in the technology of lip synchronization and is not analogous to the present invention, as discussed in the previous Office action.
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 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 KURT FERNSTROM whose telephone number is (571)272-4422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached on 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 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.
/KURT FERNSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
October 30, 2025