Detailed Notice
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are currently pending.
Claims 8 and 18 are canceled.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected.
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 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
In the instant case, claims 1-7 and 9-10 are directed toward a system (i.e., machine) and claims 11-17, and 19-20 are directed toward a method (i.e. a process). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A—Prong 1:
Independent claims 1 and 11 recites steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitations of a certain method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Claim 1 recites: “A system for generating an otolaryngological functional program, the system comprising: a computing device, the computing device configured to: receive a nourishment program relating to a user; determine an otolaryngological functional program wherein determining further comprises: retrieving a user lifestyle factor; and determining the otolaryngological functional program as a function of the nourishment program and the user lifestyle factor using a functional machine-learning model which comprises: receiving functional training data, wherein the functional training data correlates a plurality of nourishment program and user lifestyle data to a plurality of otolaryngological data; training the functional machine-learning model using the functional training data; and determining the otolaryngological functional program using the trained functional machine- learning model; provide a treatment outcome to the user by modifying the nourishment program as a function of the otolaryngological functional program bl identifying a functional activity contained within the otolaryngological functional program; and modifying a meal recommendation as a function of the functional activity”.
The limitations of receive a nourishment program relating to a user; determine an otolaryngological functional program wherein determining further comprises: retrieving a user lifestyle factor; and determining the otolaryngological functional program as a function of the nourishment program and the user lifestyle factor… which comprises: receiving functional training data, wherein the functional training data correlates a plurality of nourishment program and user lifestyle data to a plurality of otolaryngological data; and determining the otolaryngological functional program; provide a treatment outcome to the user by modifying the nourishment program as a function of the otolaryngological functional program by identifying a functional activity contained within the otolaryngological functional program; and modifying a meal recommendation as a function of the functional activity, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions—in this case the aforementioned steps recite a receiving, determine, retrieving, provide, modifying, and identifying, which is properly interpreted as a “personal behavior”), but instead automates the process via a computer model, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements”, and will be discussed in further detail below.
Further, the abstract idea of claim 11 is identical as the abstract idea of claim 1. This limitation, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, also falls under the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17, and 19-20 include other limitations, as well as specific step of data to be processed, received, and applied, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea and do not add and additional elements, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 11. However, recitation of an abstract idea is not the end of the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis. Each of the claims must be analyzed for additional elements that indicate the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application to determine whether the claim is considered to be “directed to” an abstract idea.
Step 2A—Prong 2:
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception—for example, the recitation of “system”, “computing device”, and “functional machine-learning model”, which amount to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see FIG. 1-4 and [0008]-[0009], of the present specification, and see further MPEP 2106.05(f);
Generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, for example, “a computing device, the computing device configured to”, “using a functional machine-learning model”, “training the functional machine-learning model using the functional training data”, and “using the trained functional machine- learning model”, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of technology/the environment of computers, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
Merely acquiring information for further analysis by the system and the particular manner of acquisition is not described or shown to be important, for example, “receive a nourishment program relating to a user”, “retrieving a user lifestyle factor”, and “receiving functional training data”, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering because it merely functions tangentially to the main idea of the invention and serves only to bring in the data necessary for the inventions main analysis, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17, and 19-20 include other limitations, but as stated above, the limitations recited by these claims do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1 and 11, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, which even when reevaluated under the considerations of Step 2B of the analysis, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17, and 19-20 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1 and 11, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements (i.e., “receive a nourishment program relating to a user”, “retrieving a user lifestyle factor”, and “receiving functional training data”), add extra solution activity, which comprises limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in a particular field as demonstrated by:
Relevant court decisions (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/2025 have been fully considered. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection, Applicant argues the claims do not recite an abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps of receiving, determine, retrieving, provide, modifying, and identifying are all steps that a person can conduct/perform, as instructions, with pen and paper, other people/professionals, and/or via computer tools. The “system”, “computing device”, and “functional machine-learning model” are not part of the abstract idea, but are additional elements that are being used to link/apply the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims still recite an abstract idea, especially as a certain method of organizing human activity.
Applicant argue any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. More specifically, Applicant argues the system for generating an otolaryngological functional program demonstrates a practical application and technological improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements (i.e., “system”, “computing device”, and “functional machine-learning model”) are recited at a very high level, therefore they amount to generic computer tools. The additional elements are merely being linked or applied to generate an otolarynlogical functional program, which is not a technological improvement. Generating a program is not a technological improvement, but a possible improvement to the abstract idea. The abstract idea cannot integrate itself into a practical application.
Applicant also argues the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the additional elements alone or in combination are recited at a high level and merely link or apply the abstract idea. Furthermore, the steps of receiving data or information (i.e., receiving a nourishment program), is also extra solution activity in the form of data gathering. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more and the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejection and 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection, the closest prior art, Inwald (US 20220028527 A1), discloses a method of dosing food and nutrients for an individual patient, by collecting data from the individual patient including food and nutrients to be taken by the patient, analyzing the data in view of dosing criteria established based on outside data, and determining a dose for each food and nutrient taken by the individual patient. A logic engine for dosing food and nutrients, including an algorithm stored on non-transitory computer readable media for collecting outside data to establish criteria for dosing food and nutrients to an individual patient and patient data and storing outside data and patient data in a database, analyzing the individual patient data in view of criteria established from the outside data, and determining a dose for each food and nutrient to be taken. The second closes prior art, Wicka (US 20150262499 A1), discloses a health management system that guides and encourages users to make healthy lifestyle choices. The closest prior arts do no teach “receiving functional training data, wherein the functional training data correlates a plurality of nourishment program and user lifestyle data to a plurality of otolaryngological data; training the functional machine-learning model using the functional training data; and determining the otolaryngological functional program using the trained functional machine- learning model”. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RACHAEL SOJIN STONE whose telephone number is (571)272-8798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM - 5 PM (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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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.
/R.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/MICHAEL I EZEWOKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681