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
This action is in response to the claims as filed on October 16, 2022. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 21, 2022 is in not in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97 as no translation or copy of some of the references were provided. Accordingly, the corresponding references that have been lined out in the IDS have not been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 8 and 18 recite “a second initial weight;” however, the claims do not recite a first initial weight, therefore, it is unclear what is meant by “second” in the claim. For purposes of claim interpretation the claims are interpreted as having at least an initial weight. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claims 9 and 19 recite “a second user-specific weight;” however, the claims do not recite a first user-specific weight, therefore, it is unclear what is meant by “second” in the claim. For purposes of claim interpretation the claims are interpreted as having at least a user-specific weight. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
In re claims 1 and 11, the claims recite the limitations “the display” at lines 21 and 23, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. In claim 1, the term “the suitability” lacks clear antecedent basis. It is unclear if this refers to the suitability mentioned in the preamble or another suitability. In claim 11, the term “the suitability” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In addition, the term “suitability” is a subjective term that is not defined by claims 1 and 11, and the specification does not provide an objective standard for ascertaining the meaning of the term “suitability” such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim.
In re claims 7 and 17, the claims recite the limitations “the suitability” at line 3, and “the display” at line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. In addition, the term “suitability” is a subjective term that is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide an objective standard for ascertaining the meaning of the term “suitability” such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim.
In re claims 10 and 20, the claims recite the limitations “the number of servings” at line 2, and “the suitability” at line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. In addition, the term “suitability” is a subjective term that is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide an objective standard for ascertaining the meaning of the term “suitability” such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim.
In re claims 12-20, the claims recite the limitations “The computer program product” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. In addition, it appears the dependency of claims 12-20 is incorrect as claims 12-20 are near duplicates of claims 2-10 except for the preamble. As claim 11 is directed to a computer program product, it is believed that the claims depending from claim 10 should depend from claim 11.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend from a rejected base claim, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons provided for the base claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination” to determine whether there are additional elements that “transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Claims 1-20 are directed to method and a non-transitory computer readable medium. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad categories of invention. However, even claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309.
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, the invention is directed towards “method for scoring a food or recipe for its suitability to one or more medical conditions inputted by a user.” (par. 1).
Independent claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
A computer implemented method for scoring a food or recipe for its suitability to one or more medical conditions inputted by a user of an application program configured to carry out the method, comprising:
receiving, from a user computing device, a user-generated query for the food or recipe, wherein the food or recipe comprises one or more food components, wherein each respective food component comprises one or more nutrients;
retrieving the one or more nutrients for each respective food component and an amount of each respective nutrient;
determining a cumulative amount of each nutrient for the food or recipe; determining a per serving amount of each nutrient for the food or recipe;
receiving, from the user computing device, the one or more medical conditions inputted by the user;
retrieving a default set of nutrient preferences for each respective medical condition, wherein the default set of nutrient preferences comprises a recommended minimum amount or maximum amount for one or more medical condition-specific nutrients;
receiving, from the user computing device, a confirmation or modification of the default set of nutrient preferences for each respective medical condition, wherein the modification is configured to override the default set of nutrient preferences for one or more nutrients;
determining, for each respective medical condition, a first score indicating the suitability of the food or recipe for the user; and
transmitting, to the display of the user computing device, the first score.
The underlined portions of claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially identical features in claim 11. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 further define the abstract idea such as by defining the additional elements and/or inputs for the abstract idea. Under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. The claims recite a method of instructing a user what to eat based on medical conditions. This is a method of organizing human activity because it is drawn to a method of managing personal behavior of the user. Furthermore, the method can be performed in the mind of a human and/or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Doctors, dietitians, and nutritionist develop recommendations for food and recipes based on their expertise, research, training, and client’s health, goals, medication conditions, weight, age, gender and more. The method and CRM in the instant application simply seek to automate this well-known activity using generic computers recited at a high level of generality, and, therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract concept sub-grouping of "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" including following rules or instructions, for example, a nutritionist planning a diet for a client.
In addition, the claims also recite a mental process. The invention encompasses making judgments about the suitability of food and recipes with respect to medical conditions. But for the recitation of the recitation of computer implemented, computing device, computer readable medium storing instructions executed by computer processor, application program, nothing in the claimed method or operations precludes the recitations from practically being performed in the mind. For example, receiving a query for the food or recipe, wherein the food or recipe comprises one or more food components, wherein each respective food component comprises one or more nutrients, can be a doctor, a dietitian, or a nutritionist reading a recipe; retrieving the one or more nutrients for each respective food component and an amount of each respective nutrient can be implemented by a doctor, a dietitian, or a nutritionist looking up and reading the ingredients in book or other medium for the recipe, determining a cumulative amount of each nutrient for the food or recipe can be performed by a doctor, a dietitian, or a nutritionist using pen and paper. Determining a per serving amount of each nutrient for the food or recipe a doctor, a dietitian, or a nutritionist reading the recipe; receiving the one or more medical conditions can be implemented by a doctor, a dietitian, or a nutritionist reading a patient’s chart; retrieving a default set of nutrient preferences for each respective medical condition, wherein the default set of nutrient preferences comprises a recommended minimum amount or maximum amount for one or more medical condition-specific nutrients can be a doctor, a dietitian, or a nutritionist thinking from their training or reading a medical journal. Receiving a confirmation or modification of the default set of nutrient preferences for each respective medical condition, wherein the modification is configured to override the default set of nutrient preferences for one or more nutrients can be a doctor, a dietitian, or a nutritionist thinking from their training or reading a medical journal to change the nutrients; determining a first score indicating the suitability of the food or recipe for the user can be performed or formulated in the mind of a doctor, a dietitian, or a nutritionist or with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of recitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Therefore, under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes.
Under prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In other words, the claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (3) are not applied with any particular machine, (4) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (5) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h).
While certain physical elements (i.e., elements that are not an abstract idea) are present in the claims, such features do not affect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. Similarly, the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of these physical elements. In recent cases, the CAFC has made it clear that the term “practical application” means providing a technical solution to a technical problem in computers or networks per se. To be patent-eligible, the claimed invention must improve the computer as a computer or network as a network. Applicant’s invention does not meet these requirements. Applicant’s invention determines/calculates a suitability score for food and recipes. This does not improve the computer qua computer or the network qua network. Instead, Applicant’s invention uses generic computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. As such, the claims are not eligible under Section 101.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements or combination of elements other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: a computing device or program product configured to perform the abstract idea.
These elements amount to generic, well-understood and conventional computer components. The use of computers to present receive and evaluate data to perform computations represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry and/or constitutes extra-solution activity. As demonstrated by Berkheimer v. HP, such computer functions cannot save an otherwise ineligible claim under §101. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The claimed features relating receiving inputs and providing outputs represent extra-solution activities that are not particular and are recited at a high level of generality.
Considered as an ordered combination, only generic computer components are present. Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the concept of making judgments by a generic computer. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. Under relevant court precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As a result, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. U.S. Patent No. 8,647,121 to Witlin et al. (“Witlin”).
In re claims 1 and 11, Witlin discloses a computer implemented method for scoring a food or recipe for its suitability to one or more medical conditions inputted by a user of an application program configured to carry out the method [Abstract], comprising: receiving, from a user computing device, a user-generated query for the food or recipe, wherein the food or recipe comprises one or more food components, wherein each respective food component comprises one or more nutrients [Fig. 2, 240, col. 7 l. 61 to col. 8, l. 2 describes selection of the food item by the user from a list of food items]; retrieving the one or more nutrients for each respective food component and an amount of each respective nutrient [Fig. 2, 250, col. 8 ll. 3-9 describes multiple nutritional values characterizing the food item identified, such as vitamins, a glycemic index, an amount of fat, an amount of cholesterol, an amount of sodium, an amount of carbohydrates, an amount of protein, and/or the like]; determining a cumulative amount of each nutrient for the food or recipe [col. 4, l. 26-col. 5, l. 6, col. 6, ll. 6-29 describe determine amount of nutrients consumed by user, for example, amount of sodium]; determining a per serving amount of each nutrient for the food or recipe [col. 4, l. 26-col. 5, l. 6, col. 6, ll. 6-29 describe determine amount of nutrients consumed by user, for example, by serving]; receiving, from the user computing device, the one or more medical conditions inputted by the user [col. 1, ll. 53-63 describe input of user medical state]; retrieving a default set of nutrient preferences for each respective medical condition, wherein the default set of nutrient preferences comprises a recommended minimum amount or maximum amount for one or more medical condition-specific nutrients [Fig. 2, col. 3, l. 45-col. 4 l. 25, col. 7, ll. 22-48 describe preferences based on medical information]; receiving, from the user computing device, a confirmation or modification of the default set of nutrient preferences for each respective medical condition, wherein the modification is configured to override the default set of nutrient preferences for one or more nutrients [Fig. 2, col. 7 ll. 49-60 describe user customization (i.e., modification) after default profile is loaded]; determining, for each respective medical condition, a first score indicating the suitability of the food or recipe for the user; and transmitting, to the display of the user computing device, the first score [Fig. 2, col. 7, l. 61-col. 8, l. 51 describe determining and displaying a grade (i.e., food score) for each food item, for example, a grade is a representation of a score normalized to a grading scale such as A to F, 1 to 10, one star to five stars, "Very Good" to "Very Bad," etc.].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 12, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Witlin in view of US Publication No 2021/0065873 by Wolf et al. (“Wolf”).
In re claims 2 and 12, Witlin discloses the one or more medical conditions inputted by the user comprises a plurality of medical conditions [col. 3, ll. 45-60, col. 7, ll. 28-48].
Witlin does not expressly teach determining for each of the plurality respective medical conditions, a first score indicating the suitability of the food or recipe for the user. However, Wolf teaches generating personalized food guidance including determining for each of the plurality respective medical conditions, a first score indicating the suitability of the food or recipe for the user [Figs. 6,¶¶20,23,37-46, 90-92, among others, describe generating a score for each condition, for example, excellent, good, bad for a food].
Witlin and Wolf are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of nutrition management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Witlin to include a first score indicating the suitability of the food or recipe for the user for each condition, as taught by Wolf, in order to provide an individual with personalized food guidance to make choosing food easier and healthier, and help them to understand how to improve their existing diet, see, e.g., ¶¶13-15.
In re claims 3 and 13, Witlin lacks, but Wolf teaches each of the plurality of medical conditions inputted by the user is assessed a first initial weight of relative importance by the application program [¶¶22,23, 47-60, among others, describes providing a relative weight for each condition used to determine suitability of food].
Witlin and Wolf are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of nutrition management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Witlin to include weight of relative importance of each condition, as taught by Wolf, in order to provide an individual with personalized food guidance to make choosing food easier and healthier, and help them to understand how to improve their existing diet, see, e.g., ¶¶13-15.
In re claims 7 and 17, Witlin lacks but Bennet Y teaches determining, for all the one or more medical conditions, a second score indicating the suitability of the food or recipe for the user; and transmitting, to the display of the user computing device, the second score [Figs. 6,¶¶20,23,37-46, 90-92, among others, describe generating a score for each condition, for example, excellent, good, bad for a food].
Witlin and Wolf are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of nutrition management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Witlin to include a first score indicating the suitability of the food or recipe for the user for each condition, as taught by Wolf, in order to provide an individual with personalized food guidance to make choosing food easier and healthier, and help them to understand how to improve their existing diet, see, e.g., ¶¶13-15.
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Witlin in view of Wolf and further in view of US Publication No 2013/0216982 by Bennet et al. (“Bennet”).
In re claims 4 and 14, Witlin in view of Wolf teaches an assessed first initial weight of relative importance for each respective medical condition. In addition, Witlin teaches adjustments of the coefficient (e.g., Step 365) used by Score Calculation Logic 125. However, the combination doesn’t teach user modification which is configured to override the first initial weight assessed by the application program.
Bennet teaches weights for medical conditions and user modification which is configured to override the first initial weight assessed by the application program [¶¶14,29,83-89, 173, 174, 183-196 describe weights associate with target values and medical conditions. The initial target profile may be modified by the user and/or a clinician, nutritionist, or analyst].
Witlin and Bennet are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of nutrition management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Witlin to include weights for medical conditions and user modification which is configured to override the
first initial weight assessed by the application program, as taught by Bennet, in order to provide personalized nutritional analysis and recommendations that are responsive to a user's current nutritional intake and the user's nutrition-related goals, see, e.g., ¶¶3-6.
In re claims 5 and 15, Witlin in view of Wolf teaches a first initial weight of relative importance for each of the plurality of medical conditions. Witlin in view of Wolf doesn’t explicitly teach the weights inputted by the user are equal. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow weighting to be equal as selection of weights will depend on the specific conditions of any one user and equal weights would be considered one possible implementation that does not prioritize one medical condition over another, for example, before consultation of with a doctor for any particular application; therefore, the choice of an explicit weight selection is part of routine food planning design; moreover, Applicant provides the equal weighting as one example and has not disclosed that the selection of equal weighting solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
In re claims 6 and 16, Witlin in view of Wolf teaches a first initial weight of relative importance for each of the plurality of medical conditions. Witlin in view of Wolf doesn’t explicitly teach the weights inputted by the user are not equal. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow weighting to be not equal as selection of weights will depend on the specific conditions of any one user and unequal weights would be considered one possible implementation prioritizes one medical condition over another, for example, before where on condition is more serious or has a greater effect on the user; therefore, the choice of an explicit weight selection is part of routine food planning design; moreover, Applicant provides the unequal weighting as one example and has not disclosed that the selection of unequal weighting solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Witlin in view of Bennet.
In re claims 8 and 18, Witlin lacks but Bennet teaches a plurality of medical condition-specific nutrients, and wherein each of the plurality of medical condition-specific nutrients is assessed a second initial weight of relative importance by the application program [¶¶14,29,83-89, 173, 174, 183-196 describe weights associates with target values and medical conditions including first and second nutrients].
Witlin and Bennet are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of nutrition management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Witlin to include weights for medical conditions and user modification which is configured to override the
first initial weight assessed by the application program, as taught by Bennet, in order to provide personalized nutritional analysis and recommendations that are responsive to a user's current nutritional intake and the user's nutrition-related goals, see, e.g., ¶¶3-6.
In re claims 9 and 19, Witlin lacks but Bennet teaches wherein the receiving, from the user computing device, a confirmation or modification of the default set of nutrient preferences for each respective medical condition is a modification; and wherein the modification assesses a second user-specific weight of relative importance for each of the plurality of medical condition-specific nutrients [¶¶14,29,83-89, 173, 174, 183-196 describe weights associate with target values and medical conditions. The initial target profile may be modified by the user and/or a clinician, nutritionist, or analyst].
Witlin and Bennet are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of nutrition management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Witlin to include weights for medical conditions and user modification which is configured to override the
first initial weight assessed by the application program, as taught by Bennet, in order to provide personalized nutritional analysis and recommendations that are responsive to a user's current nutritional intake and the user's nutrition-related goals, see, e.g., ¶¶3-6.
In re claims 10 and 20, Witlin discloses receiving, from a user computing device, the number of servings for the food or recipe [col. 6, ll. 6-29]; and determining, for each respective medical condition, the first score indicating the suitability of the food or recipe for the user based on the number of servings [Fig. 2, col. 7, l. 61-col. 8, l. 51].
Woolf lacks but Bennet teaches receiving, from a user computing device, a modification of the number of servings for the food or recipe; and determining a score for the food or recipe for the user based on the modified number of servings [¶286, among others, describe a default setting on the user device 108 may be to assume that the user would consume one serving of the food product to determine the index impact for one serving (though the user may also update the number of servings if the user desires to see the index impact for a different amount of the food product).]
Witlin and Bennet are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of nutrition management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Witlin to include weights for medical conditions and user modification which is configured to override the first initial weight assessed by the application program, as taught by Bennet, in order to provide personalized nutritional analysis and recommendations that are responsive to a user's current nutritional intake and the user's nutrition-related goals, see, e.g., ¶¶3-6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715