DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to claims filed on 2/27/2023 in relation to application 18/043,129.
The instant application claims benefit to foreign application #EP20193534.3 with a priority date of 8/31/2020.
The Pre-Grant publication #20230320400 is published on 10/12/2023.
Claims 2-5,8,9,13,21-24,28,30 and 31.
Claims 1 6,7,10-12,21-24, 25-27, 29 are pending.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 6,7,10-12,21-24, 25-27, 29 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. The claimed invention is to process and a computer devices (20) and thus fall within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1 and 25 are directed to a system for providing a personalized fiber composition and recommendation module to an individual by way of calculation from a profile. All of these involve steps drawn to concept categorized as actions that are receiving, observing, identifying, generating, evaluating and judging textual inputs. A concept that is mental processes and by including administrating products an individual based on CAZyme profile and personalized fiber recommendations, and feedback analysis are processing of information within a category of managing behavior of certain methods of human activity. The use of CAZyme profile and the nutrition determination using some literary guidance involved could categorize and identify product is by use of mathematical calculations within some mathematical concepts Hence a grouping of an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1 YES).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to be significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of “a computer system with interface display”, “a processor’, “a memory’, "network remote storage", "databases of individual profile”, “CAZyme profile”, “dietary assessment tool” , “ biological samples”, ”administering of product” are merely use of generic computer functions and computer parts for use of standard calculations and display.
The amendments that comprising of assessing a dietary intake of the individual using a dietary assessment tool, wherein the dietary assessment tool is selected from the group consisting of: a diet history questionnaire, a short dietary assessment instrument, a food frequency questionnaire, technology based tools used in dietary intake assessment, and any combination thereof are part of pre- or post-solution activity based on available technology.
The assignment of individual to a CAZyme profile cluster of different CAZyme profile clusters using the dietary intake of the individual, the different CAZyme profile clusters being samples grouped together according to a similarity of CAZymes profiles and the different CAZyme profile clusters being predefined using fecal samples and dietary habits of volunteers. The personalized fiber recommendation is designed by analyzing CAZymes enriched in the CAZyme profile cluster to which the individual is assigned again is part of analysis method, filtering known available in art primarily based on diet type, user's goals, or food preferences. Hence not indicative of integration of a practical application (Step 2A: Prong 2 No).
The steps in the recited claims that are highlighted are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities known in art. Fig.5 of the instant specification discloses computing device with generic hardware to implement the process claimed here. Application pages 0006-0007 in reference to figure 5 of specification clearly indicate a computer implemented system is determining CAZyme profile for example from question answer sessions for individual. For example in case of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, the activities of storing and retrieving of information in a memory of consumer electronic for a field of use purposes are recognized to be computer functions well-understood, routine, and conventional, when they are claimed in a merely generic manner.
The dependent claims describe additional limitations that serve only to apply, modify and further describe the abstract idea. The displaying of data, transmitting confirmation of food and beverages, fiber and other values, output modules, listing of receipt and reviewing of personalized fiber recommendation, identification of form of consumable dietary fiber selection from fiber foodstuff groups, CAZyme profile clusters and dietary assessments are pre and post solution activities. The server, processor activities to instruct and use of communication or any improvement resulting from the claimed invention has nothing to do with the claimed computing devices. Instead, the improvement, if there is one, is in terms of the applicant’s particular method for collecting data, analyzing data, and providing an output based on that analysis of instant food values. (Step 2A: Prong 1 YES). The operation of the instant case is further based on generic computer processing of comparison, calculations and aggregation of information from components and peripherals such as from input devices, output interface and interactive network elements. There are inputs and calculations done. Some on known CAZyme breakdown. Feedback analyses are processing of information within a category of managing behavior of certain methods of human activity, but all are operating under generic conditions. The recitations are not improving the functioning of a computer itself that could qualify this to be significantly more (Step 2A: Prong 2 No). It is found such recognized computer functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, in receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 i.e. utilizing intermediary computer servers to forward information. All these elements are interpreted as part of generic "computing device” or “system” as identified above to implement the abstract idea and thus not enough to qualify as significantly more. They do not improve the functionality of the computer or another technology (Step 2B: No).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicants’ arguments/amendments filed on 6/1/2026 have been considered.
Upon further consideration, no new ground(s) for rejection made since simple amendments is not changing the scope of the claims.
More response to argument is as follows:
35USC101
Applicants’ arguments on pages 1-2 of remarks on 6/1/2025 applicant indicated that claims 1, 25,26 as amended are complying with 35USC101 and are patent eligible without providing evidential support. Examiner respectfully traverses the integrating alleged judicial exception into a practical application by covering a particular solution to a problem.
The instant specification illustrates that "fiber composition administration" as used herein typically administered on a daily basis. The reference towards some short breaks in the administration, such as a break of two to four days during the period of administration and the determination of ideal duration of the administration of the composition is done by a person skilled in the art. The composition as found for an individual is administered by way of providing as a food product, a beverage product, and/or dietary supplement. Hence consumables that can be consumed to help individuals reach an optimal daily basis are a personalized fiber intake based on their personal CAZyme profile and not because of machine improvement. Figure 5 also shows an example of a system of a host of devices corresponding to one or more servers and/or other common computing devices usable to implement at least portions of the computerized system as recommended.
35USC101
Applicants’ arguments on pages 7-9 of remarks on 1/29/2025 applicant indicated that independent claims 1, 25 is integrating alleged judicial exception into a practical application by covering a particular solution to a problem. For example, the present specification states that "[to]o date, dietary interventions and product development have focused on increasing total fiber consumption [...] without accounting for fiber diversity and considering the individual microbiome's capability to utilize those fibers".
Examiner respectfully traverses and the abstract idea here is not patent eligible subject matter under the Mayo test, where human beings are tested to provide with a personalized recommendation. Another case that could be cited is In re Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, which concerned a method of providing a personalized haplotype for a human individual. See 201288_inreboardoftrusteesofthelelandstanfordjuniorun.pdf.
In terms of argument about “practical application” it is not part of the Mayo test but is instead a burden placed on the examiner by the Office when making a 101 rejection under Mayo. In other words, if the applicant simply says they have claimed a “practical application” and without citing case law in support of their argument then their argument does not carry much weightage since “practical application” by itself doesn’t mean anything in terms of “Mayo” based rejections. MPEP has cited examples from case law. But in terms of their specific argument here the claimed invention would “allow the user to selectively and customizable access what classes at each recommendation has been involved in assigning the individual to a CAZyme cluster using the assessed dietary intake query. That appears to be like good “utility” (i.e., that their invention is useful to people) and not “subject matter eligibility” (i.e., that their invention is patent eligible under Mayo). But, of course, these are two separate burdens under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2104(III) and (IV).
This instant case is not reasonably different from a Mayo perspective and hence rejected under 35USC101 maintained.
Following Traversals/Remark are retained as a summarized from prior comments so
as to address varied apriority interpretations. This is also answering proactively
some of the new questions that may arise because of current arguments:
35USC103
Applicant on pages 9-10 remarks of previous argument 8/18/2025 that the prior art Grimmer and Bhattacharya, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest assessing a dietary intake of an individual using a dietary assessment tool and assigning the individual to a CAZyme cluster using the assessed dietary intake. Additionally, it is alleged that office action fails to provide any reasoning that a skilled artisan would have to use the filtering engine 115 in Grimmer to assign an individual a CAZyme cluster as disclosed in Bhattacharya (PLOS one). Further, nothing in Grimmer and/or Bhattacharya (PLOS one) would have motivated a skilled artisan to assign the individual to a CAZyme cluster using the dietary intake. The filtering engine 115 of Grimmer filters meals and recipes from a database based on macronutrient classification, diet type, user's goals, or food preferences. The cited portions of secondary art Bhattacharya merely disclose the variation of CAZymes across different geographies."1
Amended Claim 1 recites, in part, determining a CAZyme profile of the individual comprising: assessing a dietary intake of the individual using a dietary assessment tool, and assigning the individual to a CAZyme profile cluster of different CAZyme profile clusters using the dietary intake of the individual. Additionally, amended Claim 25 recites, in part, a system configured to: assess a dietary intake of the individual using a dietary assessment tool and assign the individual to a CAZyme profile cluster of different CAZyme profile clusters using the dietary intake of the individual. Grimmer and Bhattacharya (PLOS one), alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest at least the explicit dietary assessment tool and assignment to individual to a CAZyme profile cluster of different CAZyme profile cluster recited in claim language.
Applicant in another previous argument on page 10 of remarks on 1/29/2025 about art Grimmer discloses a personalized meal/diet plan based on physiological health data. Examiner however indicated that Grimmer does not disclose or suggest determining a CAZyme profile of an individual, as recited in the present claims, Bhattacharya (PLOS one) and other NPL discloses carbohydrate active enzyme (CAZyme) families within the gut microbiome and implements a determination of a CAZyme profile that could be incorporated into Grimmer system to result in shifting away from utilizing physical health data of an individual for a personalized recommendation since a person skilled in the art would be inclined to find solutions to problem if and when carbohydrate enzymes could profitably be used.
35USC103 was thus withdrawn.
Some of examiner’s response may have cited a different portion of an applied reference but do not go further and merely elaborate upon, what is taught in the previously cited portion of a reference. Thus, the rejection does not constitute a new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 SADARUZ ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3137. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm CST.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/S.Z/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
September 9, 2026
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights