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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/08/2026 has been entered.
Remarks
This Office Action is responsive to Applicants' Amendment filed on January 08, 2026, in which claims 1 and 16 are amended. No claims have been newly cancelled or added. Claims 1-16 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the rejections of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C 101 as directed towards abstract ideas, Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments but respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that within the telephonic interview on 11/25/2025, Examiner indicated that the current amendments would overcome the existing rejections under 35 U.S.C 101, and that the current amendments are eligible over 35 U.S.C 101 at least at Step 2B as significantly more than any recited abstract ideas.
Although Examiner agrees that the material within paragraph [0061], if integrated into claims 1 and 16, would cause those claims to overcome 35 U.S.C. 101, Examiner considers the current amendments to fall short of significantly more than any recited abstract idea. First, according to MPEP 2106.05(f), “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’”. Examiner considers the new limitation and when the phytotherapy product is not available, creating a hybrid predicted to have the second set of physiological effects to fall into this category, because no mechanism of action is described for “creating a hybrid”. Further, it is unclear whether “creating a hybrid” refers to creation of a theoretical hybrid, which would fall under the abstract idea of evaluation, or creation of a tangible or physical hybrid, which would by definition not be a mental process.
With regards to the rejections of claims 1, 3, 6-12, and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindeman (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0379610), further in view of Kaucky et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0019138), further in view of Selick et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0073069), further in view of Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0268472), further in view of Nejad and Gideon “BiDirectional Neural Networks and Class Prototypes”, Applicant’s argument that the claims as amended overcome the rejections are persuasive. None of the cited prior art, alone or in combination, teaches the limitation and when the phytotherapy product is not available, creating a hybrid predicted to have the second set of physiological effects, recited within claims 1 and 16 as amended. Further search has not yielded any prior art that would anticipate or in combination render obvious the claims as amended, and thus claims 1, 3, 6-12, and 15-16 are allowable over the prior art. For at least this reason, any claims that depend on claim 1, 3, 6-12, or 15-16 are also allowable over the prior art. However, Examiner notes that claims 1-16, although allowable over the prior art, are not in condition for allowance due to being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as well as a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1,
Claim 1 recites the limitation and when the phytotherapy product is not available, creating a hybrid predicted to have the second set of physiological effects. This limitation is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly defined. First, it is unclear whether “creating a hybrid” refers to theoretical creation of a hybrid, such as by predicting a novel combination of plant cultivars that would likely have the set of physiological effects, or refers to physical creation of a hybrid, such as by breeding a new plant hybrid that has the set of physiological effects. Second, it is unclear whether “when the phytotherapy product is not available” refers to available as in existing or able to be obtained, or available as in possessed or “in stock”. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as reading “and when the phytotherapy product is not preexisting, predicting a plant hybrid predicted to have the second set of physiological effects”.
In reference to dependent claims 2-15, claims 2-15 do not cure the deficiencies noted in the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, these claims are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 16,
Claim 16 is a medium version of claim 1 with no other substantial differences, and therefore has indefinite scope for the same reason given for claim 1.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1 - “Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes, the claim is directed towards a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1 - “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?”:
The limitation of reading a first product profile, the first product profile comprising a first plurality of compound identifiers and a first plurality of concentrations, each of the first plurality of compound identifiers identifying a compound and each of the first plurality of concentrations being associated with one of the first plurality of compound identifiers, wherein the first plurality of compound identifiers comprises a cannabinoid recites an observation of the product profile, including its associations, which is a mental process, which is an abstract idea, regardless of if it’s performed on a generic computer.
The limitation of reading observational data regarding a plurality of subjects, each of the plurality of subjects having consumed a first product conforming with the first product profile recites an observation of the observational data, which is a mental process, which is an abstract idea, regardless of if it’s performed on a generic computer.
The limitation of determining from the observational data a first set of physiological effects associated with the first product profile recites an evaluation of the observational data, which is a mental process, which is an abstract idea, regardless of if it’s performed on a generic computer.
The limitation of each of the second plurality of compound identifiers identifying a compound and each of the second plurality of concentrations being associated with one of the second plurality of compound identifiers, wherein the second plurality of compound identifiers comprises the cannabinoid recites an evaluation of the compound identifiers, which is a mental process, which is an abstract idea, regardless of if it’s performed on a generic computer.
The limitation of determining, by the trained artificial neural network, a second set of physiological effects associated with the second product profile based on the first product profile, the second product profile, and the first set of physiological effects recites an evaluation of the second product profile, the file product profile, and the first set of physiological effects, which is a mental process, which is an abstract idea, regardless of if it’s performed on a generic computer.
The limitation of and recommending a phytotherapy product based on the second set of physiological effects associated with the second product profile recites a judgement of a phytotherapy product to recommend, after an evaluation of physiological effects, which is a mental process, which is an abstract idea, regardless of if it’s performed on a generic computer.
Step 2A, Prong 2 - “Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”:
The limitation of training a bidirectional artificial neural network using the first product profile and the first set of physiological effects recites mere instructions to apply training in a phytotherapy product data environment, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application, MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f).
The limitation of providing a second product profile to the trained artificial neural network recites the mere extra-solution activity of data gathering, as all uses of a neural network require input data to be provided, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application, MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(g).
The limitation of and when the phytotherapy product is not available, creating a hybrid predicted to have the second set of physiological effects recites mere instructions to apply creation of a hybrid, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application, MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f).
Step 2B - “Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”:
The limitation of training a bidirectional artificial neural network using the first product profile and the first set of physiological effects recites mere instructions to apply training in a phytotherapy product data environment, which is not significantly more than any recited judicial exceptions, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of providing a second product profile to the trained artificial neural network recites transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional, MPEP 2106.05(d).II.i.
The limitation of and when the phytotherapy product is not available, creating a hybrid predicted to have the second set of physiological effects recites mere instructions to apply creation of a hybrid, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, claim 1 is found to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 2,
Claim 2 adds the additional limitations to claim 1:
providing a third set of physiological effects to the trained artificial neural network recites the mere extra-solution activity of data gathering, as all uses of a neural network require input data to be provided, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application, MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(g), and which is also transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional, MPEP 2106.05(d).II.i.
determining, from the trained artificial neural network, a third product profile associated with the third set of physiological effects based on the first product profile, the first set of physiological effects, and the second set of physiological effects recites an evaluation of the file product profile, the first set of physiological effects, and the second set of physiological effects, which is a mental process, which is an abstract idea, regardless of if it’s performed on a generic computer.
the third product profile comprising a third plurality of compound identifiers and a third plurality of concentrations, each of the third plurality of compound identifiers identifying a compound and each of the third plurality of concentrations being associated with one of the third plurality of compound identifiers, wherein the third plurality of compound identifiers comprises the cannabinoid recites an evaluation of the compound identifiers and concentrations, which is a mental process, which is an abstract idea, regardless of if it’s performed on a generic computer.
Therefore, claim 2 is found to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 3,
Claim 3 adds the additional limitations to claim 1:
reading characteristic data regarding the plurality of subjects recites an observation of the characteristic data, which is an abstract idea, regardless of if it’s performed on a generic computer.
training the artificial neural network using the characteristic data regarding the plurality of subjects recites mere instructions to apply training in a phytotherapy product data environment, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application, MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f), and which is not significantly more than any recited judicial exceptions, MPEP 2106.05(f).
reading characteristic data regarding a target user recites an observation of the characteristic data, which is an abstract idea, regardless of if it’s performed on a generic computer.
wherein determining the second set of physiological effects is further based on the characteristic data regarding the target user recites an evaluation of the characteristic data, which is an abstract idea, regardless of if it’s performed on a generic computer.
Therefore, claim 3 is found to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 4,
Claim 4 adds the additional limitations to claim 1:
reading characteristic data regarding the plurality of subjects recites an observation of the characteristic data, which is an abstract idea, regardless of if it’s performed on a generic computer.
training the artificial neural network using the characteristic data regarding the plurality of subjects recites mere instructions to apply training in a phytotherapy product data environment, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application, MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f), and which is not significantly more than any recited judicial exceptions, MPEP 2106.05(f).
providing a third set of physiological effects to the trained artificial neural network recites the mere extra-solution activity of data gathering, as all uses of a neural network require input data to be provided, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application, MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(g), and which is also transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional, MPEP 2106.05(d).II.i.
reading characteristic data regarding a target user recites an observation of the characteristic data, which is an abstract idea, regardless of if it’s performed on a generic computer.
determining a third product profile associated with the third set of physiological effects based on the first product profile, the first set of physiological effects, the second set of physiological effects, and the characteristic data regarding the target user recites an evaluation of the first product profile, the sets of physiological effects, and the characteristic data, which is an abstract idea, regardless of if it’s performed on a generic computer.
Therefore, claim 4 is found to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 5,
Claim 5 adds the additional limitation of wherein the characteristic data comprise a genotypic profile, a metabolic profile, a proteomic profile, a lipomic profile, a microbiomic profile, a disease diagnosis, or a symptom to claim 4, which merely recites additional details on the characteristic data that is observed, without changing that reading characteristic data regarding the plurality of subjects, as recited in claim 4, is a mental process and an abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 5 is found to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 6,
Claim 6 adds the additional limitation of wherein the first product profile further comprises a delivery route to claim 1, which merely recites additional details on the first product profile that is observed, without changing that reading a first product profile, the first product profile comprising a first plurality of compound identifiers and a first plurality of concentrations, as recited in claim 1, is a mental process and an abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 6 is found to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 7,
Claim 7 adds the additional limitation of wherein at least one of the plurality of compound identifiers further identifies an isoprenoid or a terpene to claim 1, which merely recites additional details on the first product profile, which includes compound identifiers, that is observed, without changing that reading a first product profile, the first product profile comprising a first plurality of compound identifiers and a first plurality of concentrations, as recited in claim 1, is a mental process and an abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 7 is found to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 8,
Claim 8 adds the additional limitation of wherein the first product profile corresponds to a plant hybrid to claim 1, which merely recites additional details on the first product profile that is observed, without changing that reading a first product profile, the first product profile comprising a first plurality of compound identifiers and a first plurality of concentrations, as recited in claim 1, is a mental process and an abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 8 is found to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 9,
Claim 9 adds the additional limitation of wherein at least one of the plurality of compound identifiers corresponds to a plant, and wherein the at least one of the plurality of compound identifiers comprises taxonomic information of the plant, proteomic information of the plant, lipomic information of the plant, or genotypic information of the plant to claim 1, which merely recites additional details on the first product profile, which includes compound identifiers, that is observed, without changing that reading a first product profile, the first product profile comprising a first plurality of compound identifiers and a first plurality of concentrations, as recited in claim 1, is a mental process and an abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 9 is found to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 10,
Claim 10 adds the additional limitation of wherein the second product profile corresponds to a plant hybrid to claim 1, which merely recites additional details on the second product profile that is transmitted to the neural network, without changing that providing a second product profile to the trained artificial neural network, as recited in claim 1, is merely data gathering, as all uses of a neural network require input data to be provided.
Therefore, claim 10 is found to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 11,
Claim 11 adds the additional limitation of wherein the characteristic data regarding the target user comprise a genotypic profile, a metabolic profile, a proteomic profile, a lipomic profile, a microbiomic profile, a disease diagnosis, or a symptom to claim 3, which merely recites additional details on the characteristic data that is observed, without changing that reading characteristic data regarding a target user, as recited in claim 3, is a mental process and an abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 11 is found to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 12,
Claim 12 adds the additional limitation of wherein the first product profile corresponds to a plant extract to claim 1, which merely recites additional details on the first product profile that is observed, without changing that reading a first product profile, the first product profile comprising a first plurality of compound identifiers and a first plurality of concentrations, as recited in claim 1, is a mental process and an abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 12 is found to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 13,
Claim 13 adds the additional limitation of wherein the first product profile comprises supplemental information regarding the plant, the supplemental information comprising growth conditions, growth procedures, strain conditions, harvesting conditions, harvesting procedures, drying conditions, drying procedures, processing conditions, processing procedures, extraction conditions, extraction procedures, storage conditions, or storage procedures to claim 12, which merely recites additional details on the first product profile that is observed, without changing that reading a first product profile, the first product profile comprising a first plurality of compound identifiers and a first plurality of concentrations, as recited in claim 1, the parent of claim 12, is a mental process and an abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 13 is found to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 14,
Claim 14 adds the additional limitation of wherein reading observational data comprises: reading sensor data from a biometric sensor to claim 1, which is an observation of the biometric sensor data, which is a mental process, which is an abstract idea, regardless of if it’s performed on a generic computer.
Therefore, claim 14 is found to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 15,
Claim 15 adds the additional limitation of further comprising: compiling the observational data regarding the plurality of subjects by administration of a cognitive test, a game, or a survey to claim 1, which is an observation of the cognitive test, game, or survey, which is a mental process, which is an abstract idea, regardless of if it’s performed on a generic computer.
Therefore, claim 15 is found to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 16,
Claim 16 recites a computer-readable medium containing instructions for performing the function of the method of claim 1. All other limitations in claim 16 are substantially the same as those in claim 1, therefore the same rationale for rejection applies.
Therefore, claim 16 is found to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 contain subject matter that is allowable over the prior art, but are not in condition for allowance due to the pending 112(b) and 101 rejections.
The closest identified prior arts include:
Lindeman (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0379610) teaches a method and system for gathering feedback about cannabis products from users, including reported physiological and psychological effects, and then displaying the gathered information in graph format.
Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0268472) teaches methods and systems for identifying herbal medicines for treating illnesses, including by using neural networks, such as by providing a set of symptoms to a neural network.
None of the above references, alone or in combination, teach the limitation and when the phytotherapy product is not available, creating a hybrid predicted to have the second set of physiological effects. No new herbal products or medicines are said to be created in the found prior art on recommendation; the found prior art is only concerned with preexisting herbal products.
A search for the prior arts with PE2E Search and ip.com InnovationQ+ Search has been conducted. Besides patent databases, searching over non-patent literature databases such as Google Scholar has also been performed. The prior arts searched and investigated in patent and non-patent domains do not fairly teach or suggest the above limitations recited in independent claims 1 and/or 16. All other claims depend on claim 1 and are allowable at least by dependence. Therefore, claims 1-16 and are allowable over the prior art, although they remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Buscema et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0256006) teaches simulating clinical trials of drugs using a neural network.
Shah et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0166175) teaches conducting trials where a drug is administered to subjects, identifying side effects of the drug present in a fraction of the subjects, and using data analysis techniques, including use of neural networks, to identify the chemical cause of the side effects.
Kraft (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0041778) teaches determination of optimal drug combinations for particular patients based on patient information such as risk factors for disease.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR A NAULT whose telephone number is (703) 756-5745. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 12 - 8.
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, Miranda Huang can be reached at (571) 270-7092. 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.
/V.A.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2124
/Kevin W Figueroa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2124