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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 29 January 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
In the response filed on 29 January 2026, the following changes have been made: claim 35 has been added. The status identifiers for claims 1, 12, and 23 are incorrect.
Claims 1-35 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objection
Claims 35 is objected to because it recites the limitation "the national library of medicine” since it has not been previously introduced in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/166,427 and Application No. 63/166,416 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. For claims 1, 12, and 23 the prior-filed applications do not provide support for “and the remaining calories quantity being less than or equal to zero”, “wherein the increase intake goal feature is based on an increase amount that is limited to less than or equal to the smaller of the remaining calories quantity”, “a difference between the optimum intake value minus the intake value of the one of the categories”, and “an excerpt feature that displays one or more excerpts upon which the relationships
of the related factors and the selected conditions were based and a document identifier link that links to a document from which the excerpt was taken.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of these intake goal, intake value features, and including the excerpt value features respectively in the prior filed applications. For claims 2, 13, and 24 the prior-filed applications do not provide support for “further wherein the graphical user interface includes an increase performance goal feature.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of this graphical user interface feature in the prior filed applications. For claims 7, 18, and 29 the prior-filed applications do not provide support for “wherein each of the one or more additional increase intake goal features is based on one of the food categories whose intake value is less than an optimum intake value for that food category.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of this increased intake feature in the prior filed application. For claims 8, 19, and 30 the prior-filed applications do not provide support for “decrease goal features, wherein each of the one or more increase goal features is based on one of the food categories whose intake value is greater than an optimum intake value for that food category.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of this decreased goal feature where somehow the increase goal feature being based on one of the food categories in the prior filed applications. For claims 9, 20, and 31 the prior-filed applications do not provide support for “and a combination of an intake increase in the first of the food categories with a matching intake decrease in a second of the food categories whose intake value is greater than an optimum intake value for the second of the food categories.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of this decreased goal feature where somehow the increase goal feature being based on one of the food categories in the prior filed applications. For claim 34 the prior-filed applications do not provide support for “wherein the knowledge base includes millions of tuples.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of the knowledge base including millions of tuples in the prior filed applications. Accordingly, claims 1-35 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of t
invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 34 contains the recitation “the knowledge base includes millions of tuples.” Applicant’s recitation of the knowledge base including millions of tuples appears to constitute new matter. As will be explained below in the arguments, there is no disclosure or suggestion of millions of tuples. Applicant is clearly trying to stretch the disclosure of the specification with hypotheticals. Additionally, applicant’s specification simply states that the data sources that can be coupled to the knowledge base includes publications in the National Library of Medicine and other data. It does not specifically state that it is using/downloading all the data from all the data sources nor does it quantify or place a limit on the number of tuples derived (needing to be in the millions). MPEP 2163 notes, “The proscription against the introduction of new matter in a patent application (35 U.S.C. 132 and 251) serves to prevent an applicant from adding information that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981); see also MPEP §§ 2163.06 through 2163.07 for a more detailed discussion of the written description requirement and its relationship to new matter.” Accordingly, a rejection for addition of new matter is necessary.
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 1-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a machine (claims 1-11 and 34-35), an article of manufacture (claims 12-22), and process (claims 23-33).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recite steps of
a processor;
a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing a knowledge base, the knowledge base including a plurality of tuples, wherein each tuple of the tuples includes a condition, one or more factors that affect the condition, and a relationship that describes how the one or more factors affect the condition, wherein one or more of the factors are foods that each belong to one of a plurality of food categories;
and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a personal health platform, wherein when executed by the processor the personal health platform is operable to:
store a user profile of the user, the user profile including a remaining calories quantity based on a difference between a sum of intake values for each of the food categories and a predetermined optimum total caloric intake value for the user;
generate a goal graphical user interface, wherein the goal graphical user interface includes a replace goal feature, an increase intake goal feature and a series of digital prompts that indicate to user to input personal characteristics of the user; and
provide a navigation graphical user interface comprising:
a condition selection component that enables the user to select one or more of the conditions as selected conditions;
a knowledge base navigation component including one or
more relationship strength features and a graphically displayed network web whose structure is based on the tuples of the knowledge base, wherein the structure of the network web includes nodes representing the selected conditions and visible connections between each of the nodes and one or more related factors of
the factors that have an identified relationship with the selected conditions
according to the tuples that include the selected conditions, wherein the visible connections graphically indicate how the one or more factors affect the selected conditions;
a highlight feature that displays a list of the related factors and the selected
conditions of the network web as concurrently displayed, and enables selection of a subset of the related factors and the selected conditions;
wherein the navigation user interface dynamically alters the network web as
concurrently displayed based on the subset such that the related factors and the
selected conditions of the subset are emphasized within the network web with
respect to the related factors and the selected conditions that are not a part of the subset; and
an excerpt feature that displays one or more excerpts upon which the
relationships of the related factors and the selected conditions were based and a
document identifier link that links to a document from which the excerpt was
taken;
wherein the relationship strength features enable the user to selectively input changes to one or more relationship strength threshold values associated with the selected conditions and
the knowledge base navigation component dynamically alters the network web as concurrently displayed based on the input changes to the relationship strength threshold values, wherein the altering of the network web is such that the one or more related factors included in the network web is modified to only be a set of the related factors whose identified relationship to the selected conditions, according to the tuples that include the selected conditions, falls within one or more relationship strength ranges defined by the relationship strength threshold values for the selected conditions;
wherein the personal characteristics include the intake values for the plurality of food categories,
wherein the replace goal feature is based on one of the food categories selected as a subject for an increase intake goal and either the intake value of the one of the categories exceeding an optimum intake value for the one of the categories or the remaining calories quantity being less than or equal to zero,
wherein the increase intake goal feature is based on the one of the food categories selected as the subject for the increase intake goal, the intake value of the one of the categories being less than the optimum intake value for the one of the categories and the remaining calories quantity being less than or equal to zero,
wherein the increase intake goal feature is based on an increase amount that is limited to less than or equal to a smaller of the remaining calories quantity and a difference between the optimum intake value minus the intake value of the one of the categories.
Claims 12 and 23 recite similar limitations as claim 1 but for the recitation of generic computer components.
These steps of creating a personalized health plan to promote healthy nutrition choices to one or more users, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity but for recitation of generic computer components but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the italicized portions from managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people through managing personal behavior of the user by organizing the activity around promoting healthy intake goal which has been historically been performed by humans. This could be analogized to considering historical usage information while inputting data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements, non-italicized portions identified above for claims 1, 12, and 23, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of a processor; a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a personal health platform, wherein when executed by the processor the personal health platform is operable; a generate a goal graphical user interface, wherein the goal graphical user interface includes a replace goal feature, an increase intake goal feature and a series of digital prompts that indicate to user to input personal characteristics of the user; provide a navigation graphical user interface comprising: a condition selection component that enables the user to select one or more of the conditions as selected conditions; a graphically displayed network web whose structure is based on the tuples of the knowledge base; a highlight feature that displays a list of the related factors and the selected conditions of the network web as concurrently displayed; wherein the navigation user interface dynamically alters the network web as concurrently displayed; an excerpt feature that displays one or more excerpts […] and a document identifier link; and, the knowledge base navigation component dynamically alters the network web as concurrently displayed based on the input changes to the relationship strength threshold values amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing a knowledge base; and, store a user profile of the user amounts to mere data storage since it does not add meaningful limitations to the storage performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Each of the above additional elements therefore only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computer components or other machines within their ordinary capacity, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the above claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception in particular fields such as recitation of a processor; generate a goal graphical user interface, wherein the goal graphical user interface includes a replace goal feature, an increase intake goal feature and a series of digital prompts that indicate to user to input personal characteristics of the user; provide a navigation graphical user interface comprising: a condition selection component that enables the user to select one or more of the conditions as selected conditions; wherein the navigation user interface dynamically alters the network web as concurrently displayed; and, the knowledge base navigation component dynamically alters the network web as concurrently displayed based on the input changes to the relationship strength threshold values, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f); and, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a personal health platform, wherein when executed by the processor the personal health platform is operable; a graphically displayed network web whose structure is based on the tuples of the knowledge base; a highlight feature that displays a list of the related factors and the selected conditions of the network web as concurrently displayed; and, an excerpt feature that displays one or more excerpts […] and a document identifier link, e.g., commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f).
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as recitation of non-transitory computer-readable memory storing a knowledge base; and, store a user profile of the user, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2-11, 13-22, and 24-34 reciting particular aspects of creating a personalized health plan to promote healthy choices to one or more users including
[Claims 2, 13, & 24] wherein the personal characteristics include a current performance value for one or more types of physical activity and one or more types of social activity, and further wherein the goal graphical user interface includes an increase performance goal feature, the increase performance goal feature based on one of the types of physical activity or social activity selected as a subject for an increase performance goal, the increase performance goal feature indicating a quantity of more time the user would like to spend performing the one of the types than the current performance value for the one of the types;
[Claims 3, 14, & 25] wherein the user profile includes nutrition score that is based on the intake values of each of the food categories and a completion percentage of the increase intake goal;
[Claims 4, 15, & 26] wherein the nutrition score is based on an increased intake value, the increased intake value representing the intake value of the one of the food categories increased by result of the completion percentage multiplied by the increase amount;
[Claims 5, 16, & 27] wherein the increase intake goal feature includes a duration that defines when the increase intake goal ends and a frequency that defines how many times compliance with the increase intake goal is checked during the duration, and further wherein the completion percentage is equal to a number of times the user indicated compliance with the increase intake goal divided by an amount of times compliance with the increase intake goal was checked during the duration;
[Claims 6, 17, & 28] wherein the replace goal feature is based on an intake increase in the one of the food categories with a matching intake decrease in a second of the food categories whose intake value is greater than an optimum intake value for the second of the food categories;
[Claims 7, 18, & 29] wherein the goal graphical user interface includes one or more additional increase intake goal features, wherein each of the one or more additional increase intake goal features is based on one of the food categories whose intake value is less than an optimum intake value for that food category and the remaining calories quantity being greater than zero;
[Claims 8, 19, & 30] wherein the goal graphical user interface includes one or more decrease goal features, wherein each of the one or more decrease goal features is based on one of the food categories whose intake value is greater than an optimum intake value for that food category;
[Claims 9, 20, & 31] wherein the goal graphical user interface includes a suggested replace goal feature, wherein the suggested replace goal feature is based on the remaining calories quantity being not greater than zero and a combination of an intake increase in the first of the food categories and a matching intake decrease in a second of the food categories whose intake value is greater than an optimum intake value for the second of the food categories;
[Claims 10, 21, & 32] wherein the second of the food categories is selected by the user from a list of all of the food categories whose intake value is greater than the optimum intake value for that food category;
[Claims 11, 22, & 33] wherein the one of the food categories that is the subject for the increase intake goal comprises a food that belongs to the one of the food categories;
[Claim 34] wherein the knowledge base includes millions of tuples;
[Claim 35] wherein the plurality of tuples within the knowledge base are from information stored in a plurality of locations, comprising published literature, patents, clinical trial information, gray literature, government reports, publications in the national library of medicine, census data and scientific reports;
these italicized portions are methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components since they merely describe types of data and determinations that can be performed by humans).
Step 2A Prong 2
Dependent claims 2, 7-9, 13, 18-20, 24, and 29-31 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (the additional limitations in claims 2, 13, and 24 (and further wherein the goal graphical user interface includes an increase performance goal feature); claims 7, 18, and 29 (wherein the goal graphical user interface includes one or more additional increase intake goal features); claim 8, 19, and 30 (wherein the goal graphical user interface includes one or more decrease goal features); and, claims 9, 20, and 31 (wherein the goal graphical user interface includes a suggested replace goal feature) amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Dependent claims 2, 7-9, 13, 18-20, 24, and 29-31 recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, see [0053] which discloses off-the-shelf devices and [0052] which discloses off-the-shelf memory types. There is no indication that these additional elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, in consideration of all the facts, the present invention is not a patent-eligible invention under USC 101. Additionally, it is evident that the present claims cover any graphical, relational network connecting food factors to health conditions and thus monopolizes the judicial exception; “monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)).
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed on 29 January 2026 have been considered, but are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the USC 112(a) rejection, the applicant argues on pages 13 to 18 that the present specification does in fact support the limitation of "the knowledge base including millions of tuples." Applicant cites [0052], [0058]-[0060], [062], and [0063] to showcase the various databases that can be accessed. Applicant states that the specification describes that each sentence of each document is able to be analyzed as to whether it is able to be a basis for a tuple such that a single document is able to be the basis for any number of tuples. The use of National Library of Medicine (e.g., PubMed) in [0059] is pointed to as how the PubMed website includes more than 37 million documents where analyzing 1/37th of the documents would still include millions of tuples. Accordingly, applicant asserts that support for the amendment of “millions” is found throughout the specification. Applicant then points to the use of “and/or” where “and” includes all the data sources such as in [0063]. In response to the November 18, 2024 office action’s assertion that the specification does not state that it requires all the data sources nor does it quantify or place a limit on the number of tuples derived needing to be in the millions, applicant points to [0059] which discloses a list of various data sources and the use of the term “and” where it can be clearly contemplated that the sources are able to include all of the listed sources. Applicant also states that “the sources 108” are able to include to all of the examples where the information is downloaded and parsed into a plurality of documents which are analyzed to determine pairs of health conditions and/or the factors that affect those conditions; thus, describing in some embodiments all of the data sources being used. Applicant asserts that while the specification may not place a limit on the number of tuples derived by using the exact term "millions," one skilled in the art would understand that using the process of the extraction module performed on all of the sources described in order to generate the knowledge base, would cause the knowledge base to include millions of tuples. In response to the November 18, 2024 office action’s assertion that the data sources are only accessed on an as needed basis for the knowledge base, applicant asserts that the specification explicitly teaches that the information of all of the sources 108 is downloaded (and then turned into the tuples of the knowledge base). With respect to the examiner’s assertion questioning the applicant’s use of PubMed, which mainly contains abstracts of documents, applicant states that even if based solely on the abstracts of the over 37 million documents of PubMed, because the abstracts generally include such conclusions/findings one skilled in the art would understand that the described parsing of the abstracts would still produce millions of tuples even if only 1/37th of the abstracts included a single such finding/conclusion. Applicant states that despite the examiner’s assertion, many of the full text documents of PubMed are free. Applicant presents the example of searching for the term “heart” with the filter of "free full text" produced 629,086 results all of which provide free access to the full text. Applicant cites Figure 2 showing the data sources can include both PubMed Abstracts as well as Commercial-use PubMed Full Text. In response to the March 12, 2025 office action, applicant disagrees with the examiner’s assertion of the applicant’s language being a hypothetical and argues that the present specification [0059] and [0063] supports the applicant’s detailed argument that their claim is not a hypothetical. Applicant also disagrees with the examiner’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have contemplated the applicant’s invention by arguing that even though the specification does not disclose the exact number of tuples, verbatim support is not required as one skilled in the art would understand that the applicant contemplated such a claimed quantity. In particular, while the present specification may not use the exact term "millions," one skilled in the art would understand that using the process of the extraction module performed on all of the sources described in order to generate the knowledge base, would cause the knowledge base to include millions of tuples.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. Examiner still asserts that it is evident that the applicant is clearly trying to stretch the disclosure with their explanation and citation of multiple paragraphs all of which provide absolutely zero support to the recitation of using millions documents to produce millions of tuples. This conclusion was further confirmed by multiple subject matter experts. The applicant’s specification lists examples of data sources such as PubMed, patents, government reports, etc. from [0059] and asserts that with the use of the word “and” it can be contemplated that the listed sources are able to include all of the listed sources. Examiner is not convinced with this assertion. The applicant did not invent data sources like PubMed and there is no disclosure in the specification that the applicant’s invention is using/downloading all the data from all the data sources, nor is there disclosure/support to form the asserted “millions” of tuples from the data sources. The specification where data sources and knowledge base are coupled to a network as shown in Figure 1. Referencing the cited portions in comparison to Figure 1 of the applicant’s specification, it can be seen that nowhere in the specification is there disclosure of using a specific quantity (i.e., millions) of data sources or documents (to form the millions of tuples). Rather, in order to cure the deficiency of their specification, the applicant resorted to creating a hypothetical where since at least one data source discloses 37 million citations (PubMed), the assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the knowledge base includes millions of tuples. This is an egregious assertion by the applicant that is not based on fact; how does the examiner know the applicant is using the version of PubMed that has 37 million citations and not previous versions? Where is the applicant’s hypothetical supported in the specification? The asserted contemplation is the applicant’s own hypothetical, and hypotheticals are certainly not a consideration under USC 112(a). Even if for argument’s sake applicant is using all of the listed data sources, it does not mean that applicant is using a compilation of millions of documents to form the millions of tuples for the knowledge base. Thus, applicant’s claim language for the knowledge base including “million” of tuples constitutes new matter. The applicant is still unable to point to any proper part of their specification that explicitly discloses how the “millions” of tuples are formed for the knowledge base in a manner as described in the present hypothetical arguments; instead, relying on the disclosure of the conjunction “and” & the supposed “contemplation” one of ordinary skill in the art would have. Furthermore, for the portions of specification and Figure 2 number 108 cited by the applicant simply point to the availably of a variety of data sources. Again, having a variety of data sources available is not the same as using all of that data from the data sources. The recitation of “all” is not the same as “millions” because “all” could mean one document. On page 16 of the arguments the applicant resorts to creating the hypothetical that since [0059] downloads information from the “the sources 108”, then “the sources 108” can include all the listed examples & “for each of the documents.” Examiner again points out this a hypothetical by applicant that is not based on fact whatsoever. Applicant’s hypothetical doesn’t change the fact that the specification is barren on how exactly the millions of tuples are formed for the knowledge base.
For instance, between steps 108 and 202 where is disclosure that millions of data points are indeed being used? Applicant has still not provided a response or evidence to this question.
Also, where is disclosure that those same amount (i.e., millions) of data points are being sent to steps 204 and 212? Applicant has still not answered nor provide evidence for this question either.
Examiner submits that it seems the data sources the applicant is referring to are coupled to the network and only accessed on an as needed basis for the knowledge base. In response, applicant asserts that the present specification explicitly teaches that the information of all of the sources 108 is downloaded (and then turned into the tuples of the knowledge base). Examiner counters by pointing out that applicant’s explicit teaching relies on interpreting the specification through a hypothetical lens & not based on facts. In another example, applicant asserts on page 17 in response to the examiner’s assertion of paywalls that the specification doesn’t disclose bypassing paywalls of PubMed to hypothetically access documents, applicant counters by presenting another hypothetical in which abstracts could be used. Examiner disagrees and points out the applicant, in presenting another hypothetical, has not provided evidence to support use of abstracts from PubMed to form the “millions” of tuples; regardless, the specification has zero disclosure of such a hypothetical. Lastly, on page 17 the applicant presents various hypothetical scenarios for PubMed involving terms such as heart, brain, and foot with a “full text” filter. Examiner again submits that applicant has presented hypothetical calculations with no evidence being provided/cited as support. In conclusion, examiner, in accordance with the MPEP, finds the applicant’s reliance on hypothetical arguments as unpersuasive. The facts are clear: the applicant has no support in the entirety of the specification for their inclusion of new matter of “millions”. Applicant’s response to the examiners arguments in the March 12, 2025 action is still not persuasive. Applicant asserts that verbatim support is not required, but examiner counters by pointing out applicant’s insistence on the language of “millions” is language that the courts call an “imaginary specific example” as there is no disclosure/support in the specification even if it is easy to imagine such a disclosure. In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995, 154 USPQ 118, 123 (CCPA 1967) (“If n-propylamine had been used in making the compound instead of n-butylamine, the compound of claim 13 would have resulted. Appellants submit to us, as they did to the board, an imaginary specific example patterned on specific example 6 by which the above butyl compound is made so that we can see what a simple change would have resulted in a specific supporting disclosure being present in the present specification. The trouble is that there is no such disclosure, easy though it is to imagine it.” (emphasis in original)). Applicant keeps pointing to the fact that there’s “37 million documents”, but examiner points out there is zero disclosure in the specification that the applicant is in fact using the most updated version of PubMed versus previous versions of PubMed which would surely have less than the “37 million documents”; applicant is relying on hypotheticals. MPEP 2161.01 notes, “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.” The applicant fails the “reasonable conclusion” test set forth by the Federal Circuit. Examiner had also previously consulted multiple subject matter experts previously on this matter and they all asserted the applicant added new matter; the arguments being unpersuasive. Therefore, USC 112(a) rejection has been strongly maintained.
Regarding the USC 101 rejection, on pages 18 to 31 that the applicant argues that the claims have been amended to recite the technical arrangement of a navigation graphical user interface. Applicant draws attention to the "101 Reminders memo by Charles Kim regarding the mental process grouping. Applicant also draws attention to Ex parte Desjardins, specifically the portion that states: "[a]t the same time, the claims at issue stand rejected under§ 103. This case demonstrates that§§ 102, 103 and 112 are the traditional and appropriate tools to limit patent protection to its proper scope. These statutory provisions should be the focus of examination." Applicant asserts that the claims include a technological improvement under Step 2A, prong 2 as they describe multiple navigation features, a network web and the relationship strength features (including that the network web comprises visible connections between nodes representing conditions and the factors related to those conditions) as well as the dynamic user interaction with the relationship strength features of the GUI resulting in dynamic changes to the network web as adjacently/concurrently presented thereby providing improved functionality in navigating the network web/knowledge base. Applicant then repeats the same arguments made above with respect to the technical problem and technical solution by trying to link [0003] to [0051] and [0058]. Additionally, applicant provides a high level/non-technical explanation of how the tuples are being derived and data is being processed through use of generic computer components. Applicant also still makes the unpersuasive argument that millions of tuples are being formed. Furthermore, the applicant cites [0066] and [0072] to explain how their design choice to improve upon the abstract idea is an improvement to computer technology. Applicant lists 5 benefits of the invention and asserts that the specification describes these benefits.
In response to the examiner’s arguments in the November 18, 2024 that the problem in the specification has nothing to do with knowledge base navigation, applicant argues that [0003] in conjunction with [0051] and [0058] does support and present a problem associated with knowledge base navigation. Applicant explains that they’re not asserting that the claimed navigation graphical user interface is an
improvement to manual reductionist strategies, but to the technical problem of the navigation of complex digital knowledge bases. Applicant also states that because the immensely complex information is stored in a knowledge base, the described problem of paragraph 0003 of "digesting and analyzing" the immensely complex information takes the form of a problem of navigating the knowledge base where the immensely complex information is stored (e.g., a knowledge base navigation problem); the abstract problem presented in paragraph 0003 is translated to the problem of the navigation of the knowledge base. Applicant further asserts that although the word “navigation” is not used in the specification, it is well understood that immensely complex things (i.e., immensely complex matrices of information interconnected across multiple scales and multiple morbidities) are difficult to navigate due to their complexity (as well as their size). Applicant states that although advances of AI and machine learning may be able to harness volumes of data, the navigation of the harnessed data is still a problem that must be solved in order for the data to be useful to humans. In response to the examiner’s argument on the March 12, 2025 office action, applicant argues that they did not assert that “useful to humans” provides eligibility under USC 101, rather that navigation via a computer is a technical problem and the claimed navigation graphical user interface provides an improvement to this technical problem. In particular, when the data is stored in a
digital knowledge base (and thus must be navigated via a computer), this problem is a technical problem that requires a technical solution (i.e. a dedicated navigation graphical user interface). Applicant then compares the claims to the claims in Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1008-9 (Fed. Cir. 2018) to assert that the claim does not describe a generic graphical user interface using generic buttons, but rather specifies a navigation graphical user interface that constructs and enables dynamic navigation/adjustment of a network web that graphically illustrates connections between each condition and the factors that affect the condition, wherein the connections between the condition and the factors graphically indicate how the factors affect the condition. Specifically, this specific implementation improves graphical user interfaces for navigating knowledge bases by enabling a user dynamically adjust/control relationship strengths, observe the dynamic changes to the network web based on that adjustment in real time, and therefore better understand the complex web of connections/relationships between the factors and the conditions of the knowledge base and thus better navigate the knowledge base in order to understand how strongly conditions relate to and/or are affected by one or more factors. In response to examiner’s assertion that applicant is not solving a technical problem in the environment which the computer implemented claims are confined to, applicant argues that knowledge base navigation is a technical problem because knowledge bases are generally very large and include complex sets of data that are only able to be maintained and stored on and navigated via a computer. Applicant maintains that the invention solves a technical problem unique to computers with navigation of extremely large and complex sets of data and that the solution is similar to Data Engine Techs., LLC v. Google LLC. Applicant also compares the claims to Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc. to assert how the use of a web network interface in order to facilitate navigation through a knowledge base is not a conventional computer implementation of known procedures and thus is removed from abstract ideas. Applicant explains how the interface present is an improved user interface since this is significantly different from describing the bare functionality of enabling the input/output of data at a high level of generality. Applicant cites [0068] of the specification to explain that the claims are not directed to the abstract idea and/or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by providing a specific improvement to graphical user interfaces. In response to the examiner’s argument on the March 12, 2025 office action asserting that the knowledge base navigation is not a technological problem, but rather is another way of saying the invention is still directed to the same non-technological problem associated with manual reductionistic strategies/methodologies in parsing large and complex data, applicant argues that the creation of the knowledge base of factor/condition/relationship tuples provides a solution to the problem using manual reductionistic strategies/methodologies. Applicant asserts that the resulting knowledge base is immensely such that navigation of knowledge base is a technological problem because it can only be accessed electronically via a user interface. Applicant states that while the complexity in the specification is with respect to parsing large and complex data, the complexity creates multiple problems including a technological problem with navigating a complex knowledge base. With respect to the examiner’s assertion on the March 12, 2025 office action that applicant’s problem is not limited to computers, applicant asserts that navigation of a complex knowledge base of tuples is limited to computers and therefore an improvement. Additionally, with respect to the examiner’s argument on the March 12, 2025 office action that applicant is not solving a problem with knowledge base navigation if they’re using a reduced amount of data, applicant argues that the claimed presently claimed invention is not designed to be an improvement to the navigation of all possible complex data sources, but rather is specifically structured to improve problems with the navigation of a complex knowledge base comprised of millions of condition/factor/relationship tuples; that the claimed navigation graphical user interface would likely not improve the navigation of all the data from all the data sources and is specifically structured to be an improvement in navigating a complex knowledge base of condition/factor/relationship tuples. Applicant also asserts that as the prosecution developed and the claims were amended to include additional features (thereby changing the scope of the claims), an additional improvement was provided where the prior use of the argument relating to the "goals" improvement has no effect on the merit of the additional "navigation user interface" improvement argument.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. Examiner asserts that the arguments still do not help advance prosecution. Applicant points to the "101 Reminders memo by Charles Kim regarding the mental process grouping, but examiner points out the present claims were not rejected under the mental process grouping. Applicant also draws attention to Ex parte Desjardins to suggest that the present claims shouldn’t be rejected under USC 101, but examiner points out that Ex parte Desjardins recited an improvement towards machine learning; this is clearly not the case for the present application. USC 101 is still a foundational part of U.S. patent law and has not been changed by Congress for 10+ years. With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the present specification provides a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner asserts that the claims in Data Engine Techs., LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1009, 128 USPQ2d 1381, 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2018) presented a specific interface and implementation for navigating complex three-dimensional spreadsheets using techniques unique to computers. This is certainly not the case for the present claims. Applicant has not created a specific interface (as further explained below). Applicant is using a generic computer for its benefits. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to ‘implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer’, it cannot save OIP's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). The MPEP provides that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field can signal eligibility, see MPEP 2106.05(a), and provides examples of improvements to computer functionality, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), and improvements to any other technology of technical field, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool”. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification' s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. Unlike Enfish, the instant claimed invention appears to improve upon a judicial exception rather than a problem in the software arts. Rather than improving a computer's algorithm (i.e., solving a technically based problem), the claimed invention purports to solve the non-technological problem of “overlooking of health results from interactions of multiple in-the-body molecules and processes and many external factors” (pg. 1 of the specification) by providing a personalized health system that reorganizes data for presentation with a goals function to promote healthy choices to one or more users. Examiner disagrees that with the applicant’s arguments that the problem has to do with knowledge base navigation; the disclosure is stretched by the applicant to assert this hypothetical problem. There is no discussion in the specification regarding a technological problem with displays, interfaces, or even knowledge base navigation. Even so, applicant’s arguments still do not change the fact that the problem disclosed in the specification is specifically with respect to manual reductionistic strategies/methodologies providing incomplete solutions due to the large volumes of data involved in digesting and analyzing immensely complex matrices of information; this clearly doesn’t point to an issue with computer technology. In other words, the applicant’s main/glaring issue is that specification does not show or describe a deficiency in the technology. This asserted solution to knowledge base navigation by the applicant is basically still directed to the same non-technological problem associated with manual reductionistic strategies/methodologies in parsing large and complex data; in other words, an improvement to the abstract idea (i.e., performing data manipulation) and not computer technology. In the present arguments, applicant asserts that navigation problem of knowledge base is a technological problem because the knowledge base can only be accessed electronically via a user interface, resulting in the solution of a navigation graphical user interface; however, examiner disagrees and points out there is zero evidence to support the applicant’s assertion of the problem of knowledge base being a technological problem. Complexity of data/information established in the specification is not a technological problem. Applicant’s assertion of [0003] in conjunction with [0051] & [0058] translating into problems that were seemingly not disclosed at the filing of the application is a clear stretch of the present disclosure which is not a statement of fact. Even if given the benefit of the doubt, applicant’s own specification [0003] provides evidence showing that reductionist strategies have been in use for data 'over the past hundred years' which defeats the applicant’s assertion that the established problem in the specification is not rooted in computer technology. As far as the solution presented in the claims, applicant is simply using computers in place of humans to aid in the handling of data/variables that is difficult through manual reductionistic strategies ([0003] of specification). There is no interface claimed, but rather a particular display with a design choice that is intuitive to the applicant themselves. The “complex matrices” or complex information the applicant is trying to insist upon is about the size of data and does not indicate any problem with present or existing computer technology. It is clearly evident that the applicant is improving upon the judicial exception and not improving computer technology. Case in point, it can be seen on page 23 of the arguments, applicant asserted 5 benefits the invention supposedly provides with no citation to which portions of the specification support those supposed 5 benefits. As can be seen, applicant has clarified the record by listing standard computer operations. The navigation user interface, network web, and highlighting features are tools to display data, and not to solve a technological problem.
The examiner asserts the following facts which the applicant has not been able to dispute with evidence:
1) the invention does NOT involve a novel algorithm or data structure that significantly improves the computer's functionality
2) the invention does NOT involve a new hardware component or configuration that works with the computer to achieve a specific technical benefit and
3) the computer is NOT used in a completely new way demonstrating a significant technical advancement. Improvement to manual reductionistic strategies is not an improvement to computer technology.
Applicant’s invention already exists in the form of mobile apps such as a digital diary or specifically MyFitnessPal, LifeSum, WeightWatchers, Cronometer, and MyNetDiary. The present claims cover any graphical, relational network connecting food factors to health conditions and thus also monopolizes the judicial exception; “monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)). If the applicant truly believes that the claimed invention provides a technical improvement to the technical problem of the navigation of complex digital knowledge bases, then the applicant can make the record on what would infringe this invention. This would help answer the question of whether the claims do or do not place a monopoly on any sort of abstract idea and are instead directed to particular technical improvements. Thus, examiner does not see how the present claims improve the functioning of a computer or provide improvements to any other technology or technical field. The claimed invention still appears similar to the example of improvements that are insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality such as arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)(viii). Applicant asserts this is not the case with their citation of Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 Fed. Appx. 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017). However, examiner counters that in Trading Technologies, the court agreed with the trial court’s finding that the claims-at-issue “require[d] a specific, structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure that is addressed to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art.” Id. at *20-21. Examiner submits that for an improvement to GUI technology, the court has stated that the solution has to be specific in nature in response to the problem, as cited in the Trading Technologies case: “the claims require a specific, structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure that is addressed to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art.” Again, in the present invention, the manner in which data is displayed utilizing a web of connections is arranging data in a way that is intuitive to the applicant themselves; a design choice and not an improvement. Paragraphs [0051] and [0058] are describing the applicant’s design choice for using knowledge base navigation. The claimed limitations do not present a functionality of an interface, but rather a particular arrangement of data that is absolutely disconnected from any user involvement; claims themselves also do not show any user involvement. All the applicant is doing is using existing computer technology and applying their own design with goal features. In response to the examiner’s assertion that applicant is using a reduced set of data thus contracting their own arguments, applicant argues that the claimed invention is not designed to be an improvement to the navigation of all possible complex data sources, but rather is specifically structured to improve problems with the navigation of a complex knowledge base comprised of millions of condition/factor/relationship tuples. Examiner disagrees since this response by the applicant presents the same hypothetical statement that is unsupported by the specification (i.e., the assertion that there’s “millions” of these tuples). Examiner points out that the claimed limitations have no indication in the specification that the operations recited invoke any inventive programming, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (fed Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”). An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement to computer technology. To show an involvement of a computer assists in improving technology, the claims must recite details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). When the examiner previously argued that [0003] of the specification already establishes the fact that advances in AI and machine learning “have made it possible to harness the large volumes of data involved in digesting and analyzing immensely complex matrices of information interconnected across multiple scales and multiple morbidities”, applicant countered with the assertion that “although advances of AI and machine learning may be able to harness volumes of data, the navigation of the harnessed data is still a problem that must be solved in order for the data to be useful to humans.” Applicant had also cited [0051] multiple times to assert the usefulness benefit. Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s assertion that the present invention being “useful to humans” provides eligibility under USC 101. The “useful to humans” does not fall under the considerations identified by the courts in MPEP 2106 as integrating a judicial exception into a practical application. The applicant tries to backtrack the “useful to humans” in the present arguments asserting that the applicant was drawing attention to the technical problem of navigation via a computer, but examiner points out this still doesn’t change the fact that 1) there is no discussion in the specification of a problem with displays making it difficult to navigate data and 2) applicant’s invention is still improving upon the abstract idea. This further supports the examiner’s assertion that the present invention does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems the courts found that the claims were “directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality…” (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The present invention does not meet the condition set forth by the court and is thus not integrated into a practical application.
On pages 32 to 34 the applicant argues that for Step 2B the additional elements provide an unconventional knowledge base navigation interface that improves the technical field of knowledge base navigation user interfaces such that they are sufficient to ensure that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Applicant asserts that the additional elements provide unconventional digital navigation features such as dynamically adjusting network webs, linked excerpts, branches between nodes that indicate relationships and/or other unconventional features. Bascom is cited to support the assertion that the claims provide an ordered combination by enabling the navigation of immensely complex knowledge bases via an unconventional knowledge base navigation user interface. Applicant requests withdrawal of the USC 101 rejection.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. With regard to Bascom, examiner points out that Bascom is not similar to the present application because Bascom claimed a technical improvement in the art i.e., a technology-based solution to filter content on the internet while the present application is not presenting an improvement to computer technology (as indicated above). The claim does not include features that provide a specific technological improvement beyond arranging data in a way that is intuitive to the applicant themselves; a design choice. There is no evidence in the specification to support that the asserted interface is specific, non-routine, and non-conventional (e.g., an interface for mobile phones that facilitates scaling similar to regular computers). Furthermore, the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). The remaining claims are still rejected under USC 101. The applicant has not demonstrated that their invention is inventive; thus, the present invention is not patent-eligible under USC 101. The "significantly more" standard has not been satisfied as has been confirmed by multiple subject matter experts. The applicant has not demonstrated that their invention is inventive, and thus the invention is still not patent-eligible under USC 101. Therefore, the USC 101 rejection has been maintained.
Prior Art Cited but Not Relied Upon
Didžiokaitė, G., Saukko, P., & Greiffenhagen, C. (2018). Doing calories: The practices of dieting using calorie counting app MyFitnessPal. In Metric culture (pp. 137-155). Emerald Publishing Limited.
This reference is relevant since it discloses allowing users to track daily calorie goals and other health metrics through MyFitnessPal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WINSTON FURTADO whose telephone number is (571)272-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00 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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/WINSTON R FURTADO/Examiner, Art Unit 3687