DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 12/16/2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11, 37-40, 41, 43-44 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/16/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Regarding Applicant request on page 6 of the remarks about a fresh analysis of claims 41 and 43, Examiner notes that these limitations have been addressed as part of the dependent claim analysis below and they do not change the scope or the result of the eligibility analysis since these limitations do not add significantly more to the claims.
Examiner notes that the amended limitations argued by Applicant on page 6 of the remarks merely perform a function of sending and receiving data, specifically “monitoring at an automatic chemical product dispenser at a food establishment the amount of chemical product automatically dispensed to generate chemical product dispenser data; sending the dispenser data to a computing device; determining, by the computing device, a threshold value for chemical product usage based on historical dispenser data for the food establishment; and generating an indication when current chemical product usage falls below the threshold.”
Applicant submits on pages 7-9 of the remarks that under Step 2a, Prong One, the amended claim is no longer directed to a “mental process”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that under the analysis of claims under step 2A of the Alice framework, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the present claims are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process. The “mental processes” grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.
Applicant submits that “the amended claim recites concrete operations that cannot be practically performed mentally: monitoring, at a particular machine (an automatic chemical product dispenser), the amount of chemical product automatically dispensed to generate dispenser data; electronically sending that device-generated data to the computing device; and generating a threshold-based alert when current usage falls below the computed threshold.” Applicant further submits that Step 2A, Prong One was misapplied. Examiner respectfully disagrees, although the claims as argued by Applicant “require machine-only data and computations that are not practically performable in the human mind.” The Examiner notes that all of these steps are mental steps aided by a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Applicant submits on page 10 that “The automatic dispenser monitoring, device-to-computer transmission, threshold determination from historical dispenser data, and threshold-based alert generation are all additional elements that, taken together, integrate any alleged exception into a practical application in a specific technological context (sensor-equipped dispensers used to control and improve food-safety operations). Applicant further the claim as a whole integrate any such concept into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two by improving a technological process (i.e., food-safety monitoring and mitigation) using particular machine data and concrete control outputs.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the present claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a matter that imposes meaningful limit to the judicial exception. The additional elements recited in the claims are just applying the use of a generic computer environment to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements do not provide improvement to the computer technology and do not provide a meaningful link of the abstract idea to a practical application.
Applicant submits on page 11 that “Under Step 2B, the amended claim also recites "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea. The specific, integral use of an automatic chemical product dispenser to generate sensor-derived data, coupled with threshold determination and conditional alert generation tied to real-time usage, amounts to "significantly more" than merely applying the idea on a computer.” Further, Applicant submits on page 12 that “under Step 2B, the claims recite an inventive concept in the ordered combination of their elements that amounts to "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea.” Examiner notes that when determining whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B the analysis takes into consideration whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines." Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 658, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)). See MPEP 2106.05(c). Furthermore, the additional elements recited in the claims are merely reciting the use of a generic computer to perform generic computer functions of storing and transmitting data. These generic computer functions do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 37-39, 41, 43-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-11, 37-39, 41, 43-44 are directed to a method for mapping food safety data with actionable factors. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-11, 37-39, 41, 43-44 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process, making the claims eligible under Step 1. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to monitoring… at a food establishment, food safety data including an amount of chemical product automatically dispensed… to generate the chemical product dispenser data; sending… chemical product dispenser data; receiving… food safety data associated with the food establishment… the food safety data including the chemical product dispenser data…; mapping the food safety data to a set of actionable factors to create an actionable factor data set associated with the food establishment; determining…a food safety performance score associated with the food establishment based on the actionable factors mapped to the food safety data; determining… a predictive risk associated with the food establishment based on the food safety data, wherein the predictive risk includes a probability that the food establishment will fail an integer number of standardized health department inspection questions; determining…a threshold value for chemical product usage based on historical chemical product dispenser data for the food establishment; generating, for display… an indication of the determined food safety performance score and the determined predictive risk, including an indication when current chemical product usage falls below the threshold; and providing a product recommended to address the determined predictive risk. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim recites additional elements: “an automatic chemical product dispenser”; “a computing device”; “one or more data sources”; “display on a user computing device”; dependent claim 5 recited “a hand hygiene compliance system”. The dependent claims recite “generating a notification to a mobile computing device”; “display on the user computer device a graphical user interface”; dependent claim 39 recites “a probabilistic classifier neural network”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1A and 1B and related text and [0052]; [0207] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “Server computing device(s) 30 includes one or more processor(s) 36 and a database 40 or other storage media that stores the various data and programming modules required to monitor and/or evaluate food safety performance for the one or more food establishments 14A-14N. Processor(s) 36 may include one or more general purpose processors (e.g., single core microprocessors or multicore microprocessors) or one or more special purpose processors (e.g., digital signal processors). Processor(s) 36 are operable to execute computer- readable program instructions, such as analysis module 32 and/or reporting module 34.”; “In some examples, the systems, methods, and/or techniques described herein may encompass one or more computer-readable media comprising instructions that cause a processor, such as processor(s) 202, to carry out the techniques described above. A "computer-readable medium" includes but is not limited to read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), non-volatile random-access memory (NVRAM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory a magnetic hard drive, a magnetic disk or a magnetic tape, an optical disk or magneto-optic disk, a holographic medium, or the like.” The neural network is recited so generically that it can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. The use of an automatic chemical product dispenser would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
Dependent claims 2-11, 37-39, 41, 43 and newly added claim 44 further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11, 37-39, 41, 43-44 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above. Although the prior art made of record discloses systems and methods for tracking food safety data and creating actions to address food safety risks, the prior art does not specifically disclose the sequence of steps as recited in the claims: “…receiving, by a computing device, food safety data associated with the food establishment from one or more data sources, the food safety data including the chemical product dispenser data from the automatic chemical product dispenser…”; “…determining, by the computing device, a predictive risk associated with the food establishment based on the food safety data, wherein the predictive risk includes a probability that the food establishment will fail an integer number of standardized health department inspection questions…”
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm 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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625