DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status
This action is a Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 06/17/2026.
Claims 1, 20, and 27 have been amended.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-20, 22-27, and 29 remain pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims in the previous office action have been maintained.
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, 6, 7, 9-20, 22-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-19, 24-26, 28, 29 are directed towards a method; claims 20, 22 are directed towards a computing device; and claim 27 is directed towards a computer program embodying program code on a non-transitory medium, all of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
With respect to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-20, 22-27, and 29, the independent claims (claims 1, 20, and 27) are directed to managing of consumer selections and consumption, In independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1, In a decision support environment having a plurality of consumable commodity items available to users having preferences for weighing values associated with consumed resources in view of a personal value structure of the user, a method for coalescing and rendering a quantitative value rating apportioned to an item, comprising:
gathering, for a plurality of items available for consumption, attributes indicative of values associated with production of each item of the plurality of items available for consumption, gathering the attributes further comprising:
gathering preexisting data indicative of the items:
for each item of the plurality of items, collecting ingredient information about each respective item;
gathering, from the ingredient information, for each item, a list of ingredients or nutrition associated with the item;
organizing an entry for each item of the plurality of items, the entry associating the attributes with the item;
receiving. from a graphical user interface, a selection of an item contemplated for consumption and purchase;
comparing the computed qualifying criteria with a predetermined magnitude of qualifying criteria;
these steps fall within and recite an abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes the managing personal behavior such as social activities and following rules or instructions (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, If the identified limitation(s) falls within any of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106, the analysis should proceed to Prong Two. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites the additional elements of, GUI, database (Claim 20, GUI, network interface, database, device, engine; Claim 27, processor GUI, database.) The claims recite the steps are performed by the GUI, database.
The limitations of
storing, in a database of items, the list of ingredients and the percentage composition corresponding to each ingredient;
storing, in the database, for each item of the plurality of items, the attributes indicative of an effect or impact related to placing the item into a stream of commerce;
computing, for each entry, based on the attributes, qualifying criteria for assessing the values impacted in conjunction with a purchase of the item, the qualifying criteria further defined by at least one qualifying criteria score including a nutrition score. a processing score. an environmental score. and a health score, each qualifying criteria score indicative of a scalar value, the qualifying criteria score representative of an aspect including at least one of health, sustainability or welfare, and based on the attributes of the item having a relevant bearing on the respective qualifying criteria score;
rendering, via the graphical user interface, a purchase recommendation of the item contemplated for consumption, based on the comparison indicating an alignment of the computed qualifying criteria with the predetermined magnitude of qualifying criteria.
are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, the limitations are recited as being performed by GUI, database. The GUI, database are recited at a high level of generality. In limitation (a), GUI, database are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). GUI, database are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements are the GUI, database. The additional elements were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting.
However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of
storing, in a database of items, the list of ingredients and the percentage composition corresponding to each ingredient;
storing, in the database, for each item of the plurality of items, the attributes indicative of an effect or impact related to placing the item into a stream of commerce;
computing, for each entry, based on the attributes, qualifying criteria for assessing the values impacted in conjunction with a purchase of the item, the qualifying criteria further defined by at least one qualifying criteria score including a nutrition score. a processing score. an environmental score. and a health score, each qualifying criteria score indicative of a scalar value, the qualifying criteria score representative of an aspect including at least one of health, sustainability or welfare, and based on the attributes of the item having a relevant bearing on the respective qualifying criteria score;
rendering, via the graphical user interface, a purchase recommendation of the item contemplated for consumption, based on the comparison indicating an alignment of the computed qualifying criteria with the predetermined magnitude of qualifying criteria.
are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to transmitting and processing data are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. 10 As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a processor to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-19, 22-26, and 29 are not directed to any additional claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims. In this case, the claims are rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2; and step 2b. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 9, 19 recite public access network; claims 22 recite a device to render data; claim 28 recite mobile device interface. The dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-19, 22-26, and 29 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-19, 22-26, and 29 recites public access network, GUI, mobile device interface which are considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and analyzing data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 recites public access network, GUI, mobile device interface which merely recites an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-19, 22-26, and 29 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in independent claims 1, 20, and 27. Therefore claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-19, 22-26, and 29 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Page 9 of 13
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 06/17/2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, at pg. 12-14 Applicant argues with respect to claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea.
In response to the 35 USC § 101 claim rejection argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner did consider each claim and every limitation both individually and as a whole, since the grounds of rejection clearly indicates that an abstract idea has been identified from elements recited in the claims. Using the two-part analysis, the Office has determined there are no elements, in the claim sufficient enough to ensure that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As recited, the claims are directed towards:
In a decision support environment having a plurality of consumable commodity items available to users having preferences for weighing values associated with consumed resources in view of a personal value structure of the user, a method for coalescing and rendering a quantitative value rating apportioned to an item, comprising:
gathering, for a plurality of items available for consumption, attributes indicative of values associated with production of each item of the plurality of items available for consumption, gathering the attributes further comprising:
gathering preexisting data indicative of the items:
for each item of the plurality of items, collecting ingredient information about each respective item;
gathering, from the ingredient information, for each item, a list of ingredients or nutrition associated with the item;
storing, in a database of items, the list of ingredients and the percentage composition corresponding to each ingredient;
organizing an entry for each item of the plurality of items, the entry associating the attributes with the item;
storing, in the database, for each item of the plurality of items, the attributes indicative of an effect or impact related to placing the item into a stream of commerce
receiving. from a graphical user interface, a selection of an item contemplated for consumption and purchase:
computing, for each entry, based on the attributes, qualifying criteria for assessing the values impacted in conjunction with a purchase of the item, the qualifying criteria further defined by at least one qualifying criteria score including a nutrition score. a processing score. an environmental score. and a health score, each qualifying criteria score indicative of a scalar value, the qualifying criteria score representative of an aspect including at least one of health, sustainability or welfare, and based on the attributes of the item having a relevant bearing on the respective qualifying criteria score;
comparing the computed qualifying criteria with a predetermined magnitude of qualifying criteria; and
rendering, via the graphical user interface, a purchase recommendation of the item contemplated for consumption, based on the comparison indicating an alignment of the computed qualifying criteria with the predetermined magnitude of qualifying criteria.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer as recited is a generic computer component that performs functions.
Examiner finds the claim recite concepts which are now described in the 2019 PEG as certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular the claims recites limitations for managing of consumer selections and consumption, which constitutes methods related to managing personal behavior such as social activities and following rules or instructions which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. The user interface and electronic device are comprised of generic computer elements to perform an existing business process. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology.
Regarding, the steps at pg. 2 that Applicant points to as practical application are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the steps and arguments at pg. 2 of:
“In contrast, the disclosed and claimed approach employs a highly focused data gathering and synthesis approach, a database storage medium organizing the data according to the specific scores and attributes, and integrating with a specifically tailored user interface for querying and rendering the highly organized data.”
“claim 1 has been amended to emphasize that the knowledge base generation and population includes storing, in the database, for each item of the plurality of items, the attributes indicative of an effect or impact related to placing the item into a stream of commerce,”
seems to describe a “particular way” of managing of consumer selections and consumption are part of the abstract idea. “ The Applicant is basically relying on the system elements as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application but those system elements aren't really utilized in any particular manner. Additionally, this argument supports that the claims are directed towards the Organizing Human Activity, by collecting and analyzing data to determining the data’s impact on a stream of commerce. The Examiner finds Applicants aforementioned remarks are directed to improving a business process/operation and not improvements to a technology or technological field.
Furthermore, the argument “rather informing the user of products analyzed according to user selected attributes related to a nutrition score, a processing score, an environmental score, and a health score. .” the Applicant is admitting that the application is directed to improving the user’s experience and not the system software or any type of computer or structure.
Lastly, the Applicant argues at pg. 3 that, “Similarly, personal “behavior and relationships” are avoided (this sounds like social media apps) because unilateral user interaction is the operational mode. Exchanges are with the database, not with another human/user- there is no social interaction component.” , but right above this argument the Applicant states that “rather informing the user of products analyzed according to user selected attributes”, thus meaning that the claims are direct the human interactions.
Additionally, the Examiner would like to point the Applicant to the 2019 PEG, in which managing of consumer selections and consumption will fall under. The 2019 PEG which states:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Krishnan., U.S. Pub. 20160135485, (discussing the processing of food on an industrial level.).
Casper et al., W.O. Pub. 2013181524, (discussing the processing changing the composition of food).
Cai et al., Dietary Patterns And Their Correlates Among Middle-Aged And Elderly Chinese Men: A Report From The Shanghai Men's Health Study, https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/03570C2FA3A577DBD0EE63D2C6308186/S0007114507750900a.pdf/div-class-title-dietary-patterns-and-their-correlates-among-middle-aged-and-elderly-chinese-men-a-report-from-the-shanghai-men-s-health-study-div.pdf , British Journal of Nutrition (2007), 98, 1006–1013, (discussing the analyzing the dietary patterns to understand the impact of food.).
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 UCHE BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri..
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/UCHE BYRD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights