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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on September 18, 2025, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1-5, 7, and 9 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method of accessing likelihood of market success of a flavor for a consumable product. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites the method of accessing likelihood of market success of a flavor for a consumable product. The claim recites the steps: collecting input information from a consumer regarding food related preference; analyzing the input information: produce a segment membership probability score, compare the membership probability scores across segment, and assign a consumer a segment with the highest segment membership probability score; assign the consumer to one of a plurality of distinct consumer segments based on the consumer’s food related preferences; collecting input information from the consumer regarding preference level of the at least one flavor; analyzing the input information and assigning the preference level of at least one flavor; calculating a flavor preference score corresponding to the preference level of the at least one flavor within each distinct consumer segment; determining the impact of the at least one flavor within each distinct consumer segment based on the segment membership probability score and flavor preference score; and preparing a consumable product based on the determined impact of the at least one flavor, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations.
The claim recites the limitations: collecting input information from a consumer regarding food related preference, analyzing the input information: produce a segment membership probability score, compare the membership probability scores across segment, and assign a consumer a segment with the highest segment membership probability score, assign the consumer to one of a plurality of distinct consumer segments based on the consumer’s food related preferences, collecting input information from the consumer regarding preference level of the at least one flavor, analyzing the input information and assigning the preference level of at least one flavor, calculating a flavor preference score corresponding to the preference level of the at least one flavor within each distinct consumer segment, and determining the impact of the at least one flavor within each distinct consumer segment based on the segment membership probability score and flavor preference score, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computing device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites “using a computer algorithm configured to produce a segment membership probability score” are mathematical Concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements a computer and computer software, and using the computer to perform the collecting, analyzing, producing, comparing, assigning, collecting, analyzing, calculating, and determining steps. The processor in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing generic computer functions of collecting, analyzing, producing, comparing, assigning, collecting, analyzing, calculating, and determining steps) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements recite generic computer components the computer and computer software that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the computer). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the computer to perform collecting, analyzing, producing, comparing, assigning, collecting, analyzing, calculating, and determining, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element of the computer, evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TL! Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit) -- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claim 7, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method for determining distinct consumer segments to assign consumers based on input information. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites the method for determining distinct consumer segments to assign consumers based on input information. The claim recites the steps: receiving input information from a consumer related to the consumer’s food related preferences; calculating a segment membership probability score; assigning the segment with the highest score, producing a segment membership probability score; comparing the segment membership probability scores across the distinct consumer segment; assigning the consumer to the distinct consumer segment with the highest score; wherein the accuracy of assigning the consumer to the correct distinct comer segment is in the range of 83% to 93%, receiving input information from the consumer regarding preference level of at least one flavor, calculating a flavor preference score, generating a flavor strategy report including the impact of the at least one flavor within each distinct consumer segment; and preparing a consumable product based on the strategy report, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations.
The claim recites the limitations: receiving input information from a consumer related to the consumer’s food related preferences, calculating a segment membership probability score, assigning the segment with the highest score, producing a segment membership probability score, comparing the segment membership probability scores across the distinct consumer segment, assigning the consumer to the distinct consumer segment with the highest score, wherein the accuracy of assigning the consumer to the correct distinct comer segment is in the range of 83% to 93%, receiving input information from the consumer regarding preference level of at least one flavor, calculating a flavor preference score, generating a flavor strategy report including the impact of the at least one flavor within each distinct consumer segment, and outputting the flavor strategy report, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computing device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites “a computer algorithm that produces a segment membership probability score” are mathematical Concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements a processor and computer software instruction, and using the processor to perform the steps of: receiving, calculating, assigning, producing, comparing, assigning, receiving, calculating, generating, and outputting. The processor in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing generic computer functions of receiving, calculating, assigning, producing, comparing, assigning, receiving, calculating, generating, and outputting steps) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor and computer software instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a processor to perform the steps of receiving, calculating, assigning, producing, comparing, assigning, receiving, calculating, generating, and outputting, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). The additional element of the processor, evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TL! Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit) -- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
(Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claim 9, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites the method the steps: collecting input information from a consumer regarding to at least one food related to preference; analyzing the input information: produce a segment membership probability score, compare the membership probability scores across segments, and to assign a consumer a segment with the highest segment membership probability score…; collecting input information from the consumer regarding preference level…; analyzing the input information and assigning the preference level…; calculating a flavor preference score…; determining the impact of the at least one flavor…; and preparing a flavor for a consumable product based on the determined impact of the at least one flavor within each distinct consumer segment, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations.
The claim recites the limitations: collecting input information from a consumer regarding to at least one food related to preference; analyzing the input information: produce a segment membership probability score, compare the membership probability scores across segments, and to assign a consumer a segment with the highest segment membership probability score…; collecting input information from the consumer regarding preference level…; analyzing the input information and assigning the preference level…; calculating a flavor preference score…; determining the impact of the at least one flavor, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computing device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites “a computer algorithm configured to produces a segment membership probability score” are mathematical Concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements a computer and computer software instruction, and using the computer to perform the steps of: collecting, analyzing, producing, comparing, calculating, assigning, and determining. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing generic computer functions of collecting, analyzing, producing, comparing, calculating, assigning, and determining steps) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements recite generic computer components the computer and computer software instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the computer to perform the steps of receiving, calculating, assigning, producing, comparing, assigning, receiving, calculating, generating, and outputting, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). The additional element of the processor, evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TL! Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit) -- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
(Step 2B: NO).
The Berkheimer Memorandum mandates that an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
(1) a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s);
(2) a citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s);
(3) a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); or
(4) a statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s), which satisfies the requirements set forth in MPEP § 2144.03.
In this case, the present Specification described in page 4, lines 13-20 of using well-known computer systems to perform the method. Thus, the applicant provides (1) a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements.
Dependent claims 2-5 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent- ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the claim simply provides further input information, the claim recites the limitations wherein the input information is obtained from the consumer by questioning means, that falls under the category of Organizing human activity and Mental processes as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 3-4, the claim recites the automated data analysis is performed using software, that is additional element, is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 5, the claim recites the software is cluster assignment software that utilized a typing tool to calculate a segment membership probability score…, that is additional element, is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7, and 9 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
5. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior art, alone or in combination, which discloses at least the limitations of “analyzing the input information of step (a) using a computer algorithm configured to produce a segment membership probability score, compare the membership probability scores across segments, and to assign a consumer a the segment with the highest segment membership probability score, to assign the consumer to one of a plurality of distinct consumer segments based on the consumer’s food related preferences, calculating a flavor preference score corresponding to the preference level of the at least one flavor within each distinct consumer segment; and determining the impact of the at least one flavor within each distinct consumer segment based on the segment membership probability score and flavor preference score” recited in the independent claim 1; “calculating for each consumer, by the at least one processor, a segment membership probability score for each distinct consumer segment and assigning the segment with the highest score to the consumer, wherein each distinct consumer segment has a computer algorithm that produces a segment membership probability score, the segment membership probability scores are compared across the distinct consumer segments, and the consumer is assigned to the distinct consumer segment with the highest score, wherein the accuracy of assigning the consumer to the correct distinct consumer segment is in the range of 83% to 93%, calculating, by the at least one processor, a flavor preference score corresponding to the preference level of the at least one flavor within each distinct consumer segment; and generating, by the at least one processor, a flavor strategy report, including the impact of the at least one flavor within each distinct consumer segment based on the segment membership probability score and flavor preference score”, recited in the independent claim 7; “analyzing the input information of step (a) using a computer algorithm configured to produce a segment membership probability score, compare the membership probability scores across segments, and to assign a consumer a the segment with the highest segment membership probability score, to assign the consumer to one of a plurality of distinct consumer segments based on the consumer's food related preferences, wherein the distinct consumer segments are selected from the group consisting of trailblazer, investigator, follower and hesitator, wherein no consumer segment is defined by a specific demographic, and wherein each of said plurality of distinct consumer segments has a computer algorithm that produces a segment membership probability score, the segment membership probability scores are compared across the distinct consumer segments, and the consumer is assigned to the distinct consumer segment with the highest score”, recited in the independent claim 9.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7, and 9 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
1. In response to the Applicant’s arguments that the new features added to the pending claims: Claim 1 “…preparing a consumable product based on the determined impact of the at least one flavor within each distinct consumer segment”; Claim 7 “…preparing a consumable product based on the flavor strategy report”; Claim 9 “…preparing a flavor for a consumable product based on the determined impact of the at least one flavor within each distinct consumer segment”, are integrated into a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the new features added “preparing a consumable product” are Organizing Human Activity.
The claims recite the method of collecting consumers behavior regarding to their flavors, analyzing the collected information, assigning consumer segments, determining the impact of the flavor for each consumer segment, and preparing a consumable product based on the determined impact of the flavor within each consumer segment (see Specification, pages 1-2), thus, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2. In response to the Applicant’s arguments that the pending claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements a processor and computer software instruction, and using the processor to perform the steps of: receiving, calculating, assigning, producing, comparing, assigning, receiving, calculating, generating, and outputting. The processor in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing generic computer functions of receiving, calculating, assigning, producing, comparing, assigning, receiving, calculating, generating, and outputting steps) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor and computer software instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
3. In response to the Applicant’s arguments that the pending claims provide an improvement to the technology, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
While the applicant states that “the claimed process is limited to process steps that are specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in the conventional industry practice for determining the impact of a flavor”, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea of assessing market success of a flavor for a consumable product, rather than to any technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus, even when considering the elements in combination, the claims as a whole do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
According, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
7. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
8. Claims 1-5, 7, and 9 are rejected.
9. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ayzenshtat et al. (US 2019/0073685) disclose methods and systems to identify affinity between segment attributes and product characteristics.
McCauley et al. (US 10,204,349) disclose a system and method for customer segment analysis.
Evans et al. (US 2013/0173336) disclose a user device provides the consumer information to a lifestyle application platform, and receives, from the lifestyle application platform, a consumer profile for the consumer based on the consumer information.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. 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.uspto.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.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 January 17, 2026