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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed on 9-26-25 has been entered and are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the amended does not fall under certain methods of organizing human activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The interaction between the user and the computer device that performs the determining steps are still part of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II). In the instant claim the interaction between the user and the computer device falls under certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. user input and rejecting refreshment instruction set).
Applicant argues that amended claims provides a technical solution. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claim uses user information to generate a refreshment instruction set for the user. It uses a generic computer component to execute the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that similar to Bascom the instant claim are non-conventional, and non-generic arrangement of process steps. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike in Bascom where it had an “unusual” arrangement of known elements, the instant claim uses a generic computer component in a generic manner wherein it executes the identified abstract idea. The claim features that they assert are unconventional under step 2B are the same features that have been found/identified as abstract in step 2A.
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, 7-11, 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.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 7-11, 16-20 are drawn to method and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 11, recite “determine an alimentary style relating to the user selection using an alimentary style classifier wherein determining the alimentary style comprises: receiving training data correlating the health condition to a corresponding alimentary style; iteratively training the alimentary style classifier, wherein the alimentary style classifier is configured to receive the nourishment as an input and determining the alimentary style as output of the alimentary style”, “retrieve a plurality of recipes relating to the alimentary style”, “classify the plurality of recipes as a function of the health condition wherein classifying comprises receiving the plurality of recipes”, “generating a refreshment instruction set, wherein generating the refreshment instruction set comprises: generating an adherence label as function of a previously generated refreshment instruction set”; “receiving training data correlating the health condition as an input to the plurality of recipes”; “receiving by the recipe machine learning model; the plurality of recipe as an input”; “training comprises: iteratively updating the training data as a function of the adherence label”, and “generating the refreshment instruction set as an output of the recipe machine learning model”, “output the refreshment instruction set wherein outputting the refreshment instruction set comprises identifying an appointment relating to the user as a function of the schedule”, “locating a constructed refreshment contained within the refreshment instruction set”, “assigning the constructed refreshment on a day of the appointment”, “updating the training data of the alimentary style classifier as a function of the output”, “receive a user refreshment activity comprising action that the user took in response to the refreshment instruction set”, “determine an adherence label using a first classification algorithm based on the refreshment activity”, “update the refreshment instruction set based on the adherence label”, “transmit the refreshment instruction set”, “receive a user response rejecting the refreshment instruction set”, “transmit a second refreshment instruction”.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity by identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “computing device” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. That the abstract idea may be performed by specifically “computing device”, “remote device”, “training a recipe machine learning model using the training data”, “retraining the recipe machine learning using the updated training data”, “GUI” are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims recite the additional element of “receive from a remote device a user selection the user selection identifying a nourishment and a health condition of a user” “transmits using a graphical user interface, the refreshment instruction set to the remote device which includes sliders that are user adjustable to indicate the user’s preference of various refreshments”, “transmit a second refreshment instruction set to the remote device” which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do 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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion
-paragraph 17 recites that “computing device 104 is configured to receive from a remote device 108 a user selection 112 relating to nourishment and a health condition of a user. A remote device 108 includes any additional computing device, such as a mobile device, laptop, desktop, computer, and the like. A remote device 108 may include without limitation, a display in communication with computing device 104, where a display may include any display as described herein. Computing device 104 receives a user selection 112 from remote device 108 utilizing any network methodology as described herein”.
-paragraph 15 recites that “Computing device 104 may include any computing device 104 as described in this disclosure, including without limitation a microcontroller, microprocessor, digital signal processor (DSP) and/or system on a chip (SoC) as described in this disclosure. Computing device 104 may include, be included in, and/or connect with a mobile device such as a mobile telephone or smartphone”.
The claims recite the additional element of “receive from a remote device a user selection the user selection identifying a nourishment and a health condition of a user” “transmits using a graphical user interface, the refreshment instruction set to the remote device which includes sliders that are user adjustable to indicate the user’s preference of various refreshments”, “transmit a second refreshment instruction set to the remote device”, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 7-10, 16-20 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
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 REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached on (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684