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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 19, 2025 has been entered.
Priority
The following Priority section from the previous Office Action is reprinted as the priority has not been rectified and the current specification has not been amended to remove the claim of priority.
This application makes reference to or appears to claim subject matter disclosed in Application No. 62/931,804, filed November 7, 2019. If applicant desires to claim the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), the instant application must contain, or be amended to contain, a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS) in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.
If the instant application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. If the application is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c). A benefit claim filed after the required time period may be accepted if it is accompanied by a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (see 37 CFR 1.78(c)) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (see 37 CFR 1.78(e)). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and by 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted), (2) the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m), and (3) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m) are not required. Applicant is still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 by filing an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the reference (or, if the application was filed before September 16, 2012, by filing either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76). See MPEP § 211.02.
With regards to the instant application, Applicant’s petition dated September 30, 2024 was dismissed for failure to comply with requirements under 37 CFR 1.78(c), see Petition Decision dated December 6, 2024. Applicant must submit a new petition per the Petition Decision with the accompanying requirements or amend the specification.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 19, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17 are noted as amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 26, “and an alarming indication a reasoning” should read “and an alarming indication reasoning”.
In claim 17, line 26, “and an alarming indication a reasoning” should read “and an alarming indication reasoning”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite an electronic device performing a process, the process, and a non-transitory CRM comprising program code for causing a processor to perform, the process for controlling nutritional consumption. The process includes the steps of determine, based on the received nutritional information of the first item, the obtained nutritional information of the second item, and the received personal information, whether a nutritional conflict is caused among the first item, the second item, and the personal information including the medical history of the consumer. The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are determining a nutritional conflict between two items and a user’s personal information. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically a mental process (judgement) capable of being performed in the mind, but for the recitation of the additional elements and steps discussed below. If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process, the limitations fall under the abstract idea judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1, 9, and 17 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional elements include hardware components of memory [claims 1], a processor [claims 1 and 17], an input readable circuit [claim 1], a transceiver [claim 1], an electronic device, at least one external electronic device, and a display, and the additional steps of obtaining, using a QR code or a bar code, nutritional information of a first item; transmitting, to at least one external electronic device, the nutritional information of the first item, wherein the nutritional information of the first item is saved and updated in the electronic device and the at least one external electronic device; obtaining, using the QR code or the bar code, nutritional information of a second item; receiving, from the at least one external electronic device, personal information including a medical history of a consumer and the nutritional information of the first item stored in the at least one external electronic device in response to obtaining the nutritional information of the second item; displaying, on the display, an information window including nutritional elements included in the first item and the second item, a nutritional restriction, a nutritional benefit, a harmful reaction, nutritional element deficiencies, and an alarming indication reasoning to not consume at least one of the first item or the second item based on the determination that the nutritional conflict is caused by the first item, the second item, and the personal information; and transmitting, to the at least one external electronic device, content of the information window for saving the content of the information window to the at least one external electronic device; wherein the transmitted content of the information window is displayed on the display of the at least one external electronic device for sharing the content of the information window with the at least one external electronic device. The additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional steps are mere data gathering, transmitting data over a network, storing (including saving/updating memory), and displaying data related to the practice of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g) for mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) for transmitting data over a network and storing information in memory, and see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) for displaying a result being insufficient and well-understood, routine, and conventional). The recitation of an “alarming indication” is recited at a high level of generality and, under its BRI, is merely a type of data/notification being displayed that is displaying the result of the abstract ideas (specifically the determination of a nutritional conflict between two items). Further, the included details of a food combination, the nutritional elements/deficiencies, and the reasoning to not consume the items together are merely defining data being presented/manipulated and are results of the abstract ideas (determinations) and displaying the gathered data that one could merely write on a piece of paper. The other additional elements of hardware components are generic computing components for performing the above method. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea. As such, these additional elements fall under the “apply it” limitation of the judicial exception. As such, the additional elements are merely generic computer components used to apply the judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional elements and steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional steps of obtaining, using a QR code or a bar code, nutritional information, saving information to memory, updating the memory, transmitting data via a transceiver, retrieving data from the memory, transmitting and retrieving data between devices, and displaying the resulting information of the process are insignificant extra-solution activity performed before and after the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more alone or in combination. The additional elements of computer hardware components, including a memory, processor, and transceiver, used to perform the process are generic computing components/device used to apply the judicial exception and therefore fall under the “apply it” limitation of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more. As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception alone or in combination because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the practice of the abstract idea and/or are well understood, routine, and conventional. Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 17 are not directed to eligible subject matter as they are abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are dependent from claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively, and include all the limitations of the independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claims 2-7, 10-15, and 18-20 recite further abstract ideas as the claims recite further steps of determining characteristics of the user or item and identifying information based on the determinations. As such, these claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite judgements and observations that are capable of being performed in the human mind and are thereby reciting abstract ideas that cannot integrate into the judicial exception of the independent claim into a practical application, amount to significantly more, or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional steps of displaying the resulting information are insignificant extra-solution activities of merely displaying the result of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more than or meaningfully limit the judicial exceptions. For these reasons, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 8 and 16 recite further structure and steps of the memory and input readable circuit, specifically storing user characteristics in the memory and the circuit including a camera and/or a QR or barcode reader. As modern cellphones and other generic computing devices have cameras that can operate as QR or barcode readers, the recited structural elements, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computing components/a generic computing device for implementing the judicial exception. Therefore, the claimed limitations fall under the “apply it” limitation of the judicial exception and fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
Accordingly, claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 recite abstract ideas without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, see pages 18-26, filed August 19, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments at pages 18-25 are largely a summary of the amendment and claimed invention and repeatedly state that each step/additional element is a “significant improvement to a computer device. Applicant fails to detail how the steps are a significant improvement and, as discussed above, based on the generic nature of the computing device, lack of a clear technical improvement such as improved functionality, processing, or new function for computing technology, and the additional elements being well-understood, routine, and conventional processes, the additional elements are not evidence of a practical application or significantly more. Examiner agrees with Applicant that the additional elements are not mental processes (aside from the step of determining the nutritional conflict which under its broadest reasonable interpretation is a mental process as discussed above) but, as discussed above, are generic and well-understood, routine, and conventional computer processes including transmitting, saving, and displaying data. As previously discussed, while not identical to the listed limitations in the MPEP, the claimed limitations are sufficiently similar to the functions enumerated by the courts under their broadest reasonable interpretation as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and are insignificant extra-solution activity. Examiner notes the additional elements were/are considered separately and in combination with the recited abstract ideas to determine if the additional elements, individually or in combination, amount to a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exceptions, not if the additional elements are not themselves abstract ideas. Therefore, the limitations are not improving the function of the computing device but merely using the device to perform the abstract ideas and the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
With regard to Applicant’s argument on page 26, Applicant argues the hardware components are specifically defined in the claims and the specification and show sufficient evidence that the claimed electronic device is not a generic computing device and generic components. Examiner notes that the hardware components are not specifically defined, meaning the components are not specific or evidence of a particular machine beyond a generic computing device, in the claims or specification and the specification even states, per paragraph 0084, “various components in FIGURE 7 could be combined, further subdivided, or omitted and additional components could be added according to particular needs” and, per paragraph 0069, “the electronic device may comprise personal laptops, tablet computers, and desktop computers” and “smartphones and personal digital assistance”. Taken in consideration with the claims, this is evidence that the claimed electronic device is a generic computing device and generic components as discussed in the rejection above. Therefore, the electronic device is a generic device used to apply the abstract ideas and the steps discussed above and is used to apply the judicial exceptions using generic computing processes and components. Per the rejection above, the claims are directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more. Therefore, the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, Kang Hu can be reached on (571)270-1344. 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.
/CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715