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 1,4-11 and 13 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 value rating. Under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l), mathematical concepts including relationships and equations are drawn to abstract ideas. With respect to claims 1, 4-9 and 11, 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, mental processes including methods of analyzing information are a category of abstract ideas under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lII).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the provision of generic computer components does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea.
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. 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. Regarding apparatus claims 9 and 16, 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 and system for receiving and analyzing information, and displaying the results of the analysis, is directed to an abstract idea. See 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). Each of the recited steps – accessing nutritional data, determining dry weight values of a food item’s nutrients, combining individual dry weight values of certain nutrients to obtain a total dry weight value, determining a nutrient density value, determining an energy value, determining an energy density, determining a base rating value, and displaying the base rating value– is a mental process pertaining to receiving and analyzing information. The method is performed by 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. The claimed method does not require the use of a particular machine, as a generic computer system is not a “particular machine” under Alice, nor does it result in the transformation of a physical article. Rather, the result of the claimed method is a determination and display of a base rating value, which itself is an abstract concept.
While claim 1 as amended recites the steps of installing an app onto a mobile device, entering information on the app using an interface and using a barcode or QR code scanner to acquire nutrition data from a food product, these steps are not sufficient to amount to substantially more than the abstract idea. Rather, the steps of installing an app, entering data and acquiring information via a barcode scanner are insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim recites generic and well-known computer components, used in their customary way, and does not involve any advancement in the technology of data retrieval and processing. The limitation of using a barcode scanner further amounts to mere data gathering. See e.g. In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989), as cited in MPEP 2106.05(g), which held that performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation was insignificant extra-solution activity. See also Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014), cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(2), which held that a step of electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document was insignificant extra-solution activity. The step of using a barcode or QR scanner to determine nutrition information is analogous to the steps of performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation and electronically scanning a document, and is also not sufficient to constitute substantially more than the abstract idea. A computer system including these features is not a “particular machine” under MPEP 2106.05(b).
Dependent claims 4-11 and 13 also fail to recite limitations which would overcome the rejection. These claims are generally directed to the types of information being received and analyzed as part of the method. Again, generic computer components are being used in their routine and conventional way. With respect to claim 13, the step of consuming food under certain circumstances is human activity under MPEP 2106.04(a)(1)(II), and also constitutes extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim does not involve any technological advancement in consuming food. Because the claimed invention does not involve significantly more than the abstract concept of analyzing information, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. For the reasons discussed above and in the previous Office action, the claim amendments reciting the inclusion of generic computer components is not sufficient to overcome the rejection and impart patentability.
The claimed invention remains directed to an abstract mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. Whether a claim “contains limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind” is not the test for patentability, as numerous claim limitations not practically performable in a human mind have been held to constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, or mere data gathering. As discussed above, the human mind is not capable of converting a physical document into electronic data; however, this step does not improve technical capture of information from the document, as held in numerous decisions (In re Grams, Content Extraction, see also Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 2019 USPQ2d 281076 (Fed. Cir. 2019), as cited in MPEP 2106.04(c)(1)(III)). The use of a computer system and other generic components including a mobile app with an interface installed on a mobile device and a barcode scanner or QR cold scanner to implement the mental process is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, as discussed above.
With respect to the argument that the system allows for “near-instantaneous” determination of health value of a food item in real-time, mere automation of mental processes to improve efficiency is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality when the increased speed results from the inherent capabilities of the generic computer system. 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). Additionally, the “synthesi[s] of new information…used as a tool for evaluating different foods” does not constitute a transformation of a particular object to a different state or thing, nor does not constitute an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, analyzing information, and displaying the results of the analysis, is an abstract mental process under Electric Power Group and Content Extraction.
Because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract mental process implemented by a general-purpose computer system, the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101 as reciting unpatentable subject matter.
Conclusion
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
September 9, 2025