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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/12/26 has been entered.
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 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. 63/005,823, 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 example, the ‘823 application fails to provide adequate support or enablement for the claimed limitations in regard to a customizable indication-dependent platform, a computing device having one or more processors, an application programming interface, an application, user devices, one or more processors, a memory storing instructions, and/or a non-transitory computer readable medium containing computer-executable instructions; as well as there is not adequate support or enablement for the claimed algorithm in regard to generating…, receiving…, storing…, generating…, and generating. Applicant’s priority date is, therefore, the date of its PCT as 4/1/21.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-22 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by human being and/or recite a method of organizing human activity.
In regard to Claims 1, 8, and 15 the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or recite a method of organizing human activity in terms of claiming the teaching/training/evaluation of a human subject’s which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., In re Noble Systems Corporation (non-precedential) in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] method of monitoring collagen levels and recommending dietary intake […], the method comprising:
[…] assessing a user-specific collagen level [by] send[ing] to a first user […] a prompt to [provide] user attributes to assess the user-specific collagen level;
receiving […] from the first user […] one or more user attributes of the user to assess the user-specific collagen level for the user;
storing, based on the first user […] and the one or more user attributes, a user profile associated with the user;
receiving […] from a second user […] associated with the user, the one or more user attributes of the user;
recognizing [...] based on the one or more user attributes received from the second user […] the user profile of the user;
generating […] an assessment of the user-specific collagen level for the user; and
generating, based on the user profile, a recommendation for a dietary intake for the user; and
sending […] to the second user, a prompt for the user to obtain one or more specific products…collagen level.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being and/or recite a method of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., a customizable indication-dependent platform, a computing device having one or more processors, an application programming interface, an application, user devices, one or more processors, a memory storing instructions, a non-transitory computer readable medium containing computer-executable instructions, and/or providing a product to a human being, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., a customizable indication-dependent platform, a computing device having one or more processors, an application programming interface, an application, user devices, one or more processors, a memory storing instructions, a non-transitory computer readable medium containing computer-executable instructions, and/or providing a product to a human being, these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements and are claimed for the generic, well-known, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are generic, well-known, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., Figure 1 in Applicant’s specification and text regarding same and p32 regarding providing a product.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.7C. 103 as being unpatentable over PGPUB US 20210057076 A1 by Neumann (“Neumann”), in view of PGPUB US 20180108272 A1 by Ahmad et al (“Ahmad”), further in view of PGPUB US 20090123903 A1 by Weitenberner (“Weitenberner”).
In regard to Claims 1, 8, and 15, Neumann teaches a method of monitoring collagen levels and recommending dietary intake via a customizable indication-dependent platform, the method comprising:
generating, by a computing device having one or more processors […] an application for assessing a user-specific collagen level;
sending…user-specific collagen level;
(see, e.g., F1, 121 in regard to “computing device” and “application”; see, e.g., F13, 1310 in regard to “entry of user attributes” that are used to determine nourishment for the user; see, e.g., p50 in regard to nourishment comprising a collagen supplement (“to assess the user-specific collagen level”));
receiving…to assess the user-specific collagen level for the user;
(see, e.g., p103 in regard to “by the computing device and from a user device”; see also F1, 104 in regard to “user device”);
storing, based on the first user device and the one or more user attributes, a user profile associated with the user;
(see, e.g., p99);
[…]
generating, by the computing device, an assessment of the user-specific collagen level for the user; and
(see, e.g., p99, in regard to information in the user history database being employed to determine nourishment for the user (“information contained within user history database 620 may be used in generating at least a first filter set as a function of at least a restricted nutrimental datum from a user-client device using mathematical algorithms, loss functions, and/or machine learning processes as described above. As another non-limiting example, information contained within user history database 620 may be used in selecting at least a sustenance provider and selecting at least a physical performer using mathematical algorithms, loss functions, and/or machine learning processes as described above”); see, e.g., p50 in regard to nourishment comprising a collagen supplement);
generating, based on the user profile, a recommendation for a dietary intake for the user; and
sending, by the application, to the [first] user device, a prompt […]
(see, e.g., F13, 1335);
Furthermore, to the extent to which the cited prior art may fail to specifically teach the claimed visual appearance of the prompt provided to the user, such visual appearance of the prompt has no functional relationship to the computer screen up on which it appears and, therefore, fails to distinguish over the cited prior art. See MPEP 2111.05.
Furthermore, to the extent the cited prior art may fail to teach employing an application programming interface, however, in an analogous reference Ahmad teaches that functionality (see, e.g., p73);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have implemented the method otherwise taught by Neumann by employing an API as taught by Ahmad, in order to increase the overall flexibility of the software by enabling different software systems to communicate, share data, and work together efficiently.
Furthermore, to the extent the cited prior art may fail to teach the remaining claimed limitations, in an analogous reference, Weitenberner teaches employing a single user account on a website (see, e.g., p21) that may be accessed by one of a plurality of computers (see, e.g., p20);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been added the functionality taught by Weitenberner to the method otherwise taught by Neumann, in order to increase the overall flexibility for the user by allowing him/her to access the software from a first device and then from a second device by using the same user profile.
In regard to Claims 2, 9, and 16, Neumann teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p56-57 and 61.
In regard to Claims 3, 10, and 17, Neumann teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F13, 1310 and p103 in regard to receiving well-being goal as a restriction requirement (“health goal”); see, e.g., p57 in regard to restriction requirements including personal data such as biological extraction input (“physiological data”); see, e.g., F13, 1315 in regard to generating a restricted nutrimental data as a function of the restriction requirements (“determining, based on a comparison…the recommendation for the dietary intake for the user.”)
In regard to Claims 4, 11, and 18, Neumann teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F13, 1320 and 1325 in regard to filtering the unrestricted nutrimental object as a function of a filter set.
In regard to Claims 5, 12, and 19, Neumann teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p53.
In regard to Claims 6, 13, and 20, Neumann teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p32 in regard to employing the user’s medical condition as a restriction requirement.
In regard to Claims 21-22, Neumann teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F13, 1335.
Response to Arguments
All of Applicant’s claims have been rejected under 35 USC 101 under the Mayo test as claiming abstract ideas and without claiming “significantly more”. The Mayo test is a legal test and, as such, the question in regard to making such a rejection is what is the most analogous case law in terms of identifying whether an applicant has claimed patent eligible versus ineligible subject matter. To that end, the 101 rejections made supra cite legal authorities in regard to why the Applicant is alleged to have claimed patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo test. Applicant’s argument in regard to the rejections made under the Mayo test provides no citation to any relevant legal authority and, therefore, there is effectively no way to respond to that argument. To the extent that Applicant appears to be arguing that it has claimed “significantly more” by embodying its claimed abstract idea by employing computing devices such use of computing devices is, however, well-known, routine, and conventional. See, e.g., the CAFC’s decision in Ultramercial in regard to embodying an abstract idea by employing the internet (i.e., a collection of networked computing devices) as not being “significantly more”.
Applicant argues on page 11 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 103:
PNG
media_image1.png
312
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. The rejection provides a rationale to combine that such a combination would “increase the overall flexibility of the software by enabling different software systems to communicate, share data, and work together efficiently.” Applicant provides no basis or rationale why this is not the case. In regard to Applicant’s second argument, Weitenberner teaches it was known to allow a single user to employ multiple different devices to access his/her account, and the combination made in the rejection is to increase the overall flexibility for the user by allowing him/her to access the software from a first device and then from a second device by using the same user profile, which teaches the claimed limitations in question.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights