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 Status: Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the claim amendments filed on November 17, 2025 overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Pavlov et al. (US Pre Grant Publication 2022/0005580) in view of Goran (US Pre Grant Publication 2016/0232201), see p. 7-8 of Applicant’s Response to Non-final Rejection, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a system.
To determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility, the claim is evaluated according to a stepwise process as described in MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.03-2106.04.
The instant claims are evaluated according to such analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, Claim 1 is directed towards a system.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the judicial exception relied upon by the instantly claimed invention is an abstract idea, and the limitation that sets forth or describes the abstract idea is: obtain a habit indicator of a user; identify a habit profile, wherein identifying the habit profile further comprises: retrieving a behavioral parameter comprising at least a social interaction parameter; determining a behavioral normality, wherein determining the behavioral normality further comprises: determining a user cohort; classifying the user to the user cohort; determining a baseline behavioral pattern for the user cohort; comparing the baseline behavioral pattern for the user cohort to a behavioral pattern for the user; determining a behavioral divergence as a function of the behavioral parameter and the behavioral normality; and identifying the habit profile as a function of the behavioral divergence and the habit indicator using a habit machine-learning model; determine an edible as a function of the habit profile and a likelihood parameter identifying a probability of a user to consume an edible, wherein the likelihood parameter is determined from a user taste profile and an edible profile with flavor variables obtained from a flavor directory; and generate a nourishment program as a function of the edible.
The reason that the above limitations are abstract idea is because they are directed to mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The above steps can be performed in the mind or by hand.
The 2019 revised§ 101 guidance makes clear that the "mental process" category of abstract ideas does not only apply to steps actually carried out mentally; it also applies to the types of processes that could be carried out mentally, but are instead carried out using generic processing/collection technology.
Please see the following analogous types of data manipulations that courts have found to be abstract ideas (all taken from MPEP § 2106.04):
collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites an additional element “computing device”, which can be interpreted as a generic processor. The computing device does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because it is merely using a generic processor as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claim recites additional element “computing device”. The additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because it is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to the instantly rejected dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10, these claims when analyzed as a whole are also 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 a judicial exception and/or do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claims 11-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method.
To determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility, the claim is evaluated according to a stepwise process as described in MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.03-2106.04.
The instant claims are evaluated according to such analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, Claim 11 is directed towards a method.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the judicial exception relied upon by the instantly claimed invention is an abstract idea, and the limitation that sets forth or describes the abstract idea is: obtaining a habit indicator of a user; identifying a habit profile, wherein identifying the habit profile further comprises: retrieving a behavioral parameter comprising at least a social interaction parameter; determining a behavioral normality, wherein determining the behavioral normality further comprises: determining a user cohort; classifying the user to the user cohort; determining a baseline behavioral pattern for the user cohort; comparing the baseline behavioral pattern for the user cohort to a behavioral pattern for the user; determining a behavioral divergence as a function of the behavioral parameter and the behavioral normality; and identifying the habit profile as a function of the behavioral divergence and the habit indicator using a habit machine-learning model; determining an edible as a function of the habit profile and a likelihood parameter identifying a probability of a user to consume an edible, wherein the likelihood parameter is determined from a user taste profile and an edible profile with flavor variables obtained from a flavor directory; and generating a nourishment program as a function of the edible.
The reason that the above limitations are abstract idea is because they are directed to mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The above steps can be performed in the mind or by hand.
The 2019 revised§ 101 guidance makes clear that the "mental process" category of abstract ideas does not only apply to steps actually carried out mentally; it also applies to the types of processes that could be carried out mentally, but are instead carried out using generic processing/collection technology.
Please see the following analogous types of data manipulations that courts have found to be abstract ideas (all taken from MPEP § 2106.04):
collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites an additional element “computing device”, which can be interpreted as a generic processor. The computing device does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because it is merely using a generic processor as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claim recites an additional element “computing device”. The additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because it is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to the instantly rejected dependent claims 12-15 and 17-20, these claims when analyzed as a whole are also 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 a judicial exception and/or do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VYNN V HUH whose telephone number is (571)272-4684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at (571) 270-5213. 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.
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/V.V.H./
Vynn Huh, March 7, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights