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 .
Status of Claims
In the response filed on 18 May 2026, the following changes have been made: claims 1, 12, 23, 34 and 35 have been amended.
Claims 1-35 are currently pending and have been examined.
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”, “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 excerpt feature retrieves the excerpts from source documents corresponding to the tuples and associates the excerpts with the corresponding
nodes or connections in the network web.” 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 § 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, wherein the plurality of tuples are generated by parsing a plurality of documents obtained from one or more data sources, identifying conditions and factors within the documents, and determining relationships between the conditions and the factors;
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 knowledge
base is structured as a graph comprising nodes representing the conditions, and
factors and edges representing the relationships between the conditions and the
factors, 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;
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 dynamically altering the network web comprises filtering the plurality of tuples based on the relationship strength threshold values and reconstructing the network web to include only nodes and connections corresponding to tuples satisfying the 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;
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, wherein dynamically altering the network web based on the subset further
comprises filtering the plurality of tuples to include only those tuples associated
with 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 excerpt feature retrieves the excerpts from source documents corresponding to the tuples and associates the excerpts with the corresponding nodes or connections in the network web;
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; store a user profile of the user; and, retrieves the excerpts from source documents corresponding to the tuples amounts to mere data gathering and storage since it does not add meaningful limitations to the retrieving and 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 retrieves the excerpts from source documents corresponding to the tuples, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); 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 plurality of tuples are generated from a plurality of documents obtained from a plurality of data sources;
[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 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 18 May 2026 have been considered, but are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the USC 112(a) rejection, applicant has amended claim 34 to remove the recitation "millions of tuples". Therefore, USC 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the USC 101 rejection, on pages 16 to 31 that the applicant argues that the claims are not directed to methods of organizing human activity since the claims recite a specific computational pipeline where these operations transform unstructured textual data into a structured relational dataset which cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Applicant compares the claims to Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305-06 (Fed. Cir. 2018), asserting that the present claims transform unstructured documents into structured tuples stored in a graph-based knowledge base, thereby improving how relational data is processed and utilized by the computer system. 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 then cites various court decisions asserting the supposed eligibility of transforming unstructured data into structured relational format and as well as the interface that enables dynamic filtering and reconstruction of a network representation. 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 amendments and arguments still do not help advance prosecution. In fact, the arguments further justify the examiner’s analysis on why the USC 101 should not be withdrawn. Examiner first points out that the applicant confuses judicial exceptions by disagreeing with the examiner’s analysis that the claims are not directed to methods of organizing human activity, and then arguing that the claims cannot be practically be performed in the human mind. Applicant also does not elaborate on what the mean by “scale and computational elements” as it relates to the present claims. Next, examiner also wants to make the record clear that the applicant has clarified on record (in their arguments pages 16 to19) that the invention is “transforming unstructured textual data into a structured relational dataset.” Applicant tries to draw a parallel to multiple court cases on the patent eligibility of data transformation, but that parallel is based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the court cases. Neither the courts nor the USPTO have found data processing and transformation to be eligible. MPEP 2106.05(c) clearly states that the transformation means that the “article” has changed to a different state or thing. An “article” includes a physical object or substance where the physical object or substance must be particular, meaning it can be specifically identified. Examiner is not sure what article is being transformed in the claims. Applicant is mistaken if they believe that data can be considered a physical object or substance. Applicant’s data manipulation into a different format is absolutely not a particular transformation. MPEP 2106 explains that the courts have already ruled on this matter where, for data, mere “manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’” has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). This supports the examiner’s analysis that the applicant’s invention is clearly a design choice, as will be further explained below. The factual conclusion is that the structuring of a knowledge base as a "graph comprising nodes and edges" and enabling a user to interact with it is akin to organizing data in a logical table. While this may make the interface more useful to a human, it does not improve the actual functioning, speed, or capabilities of the computer itself.
In respect to the "101 Reminders memo by Charles Kim” pointed out by the applicant 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 31 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights