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 . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed February 2, 2026, are responsive to the office action mailed October 2, 2026. Claims 1 and 3-21 were previously pending. Claims 1 and 16 have been amended and claims 7 and 15 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-14, and 16-21, are therefore currently pending and considered in this office action.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 112 in the previous office action
Claims 1, 3-15, and 21, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The amendment has overcome this ground of rejection of the claims.
Claim 7 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 has been cancelled rendering moot this ground of rejection of that claim.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 103 in the previous office action
Claims 1, 3-6, 10-14, 16-17, and 19-20, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilger (Paper No. 20240928; US Patent 9,697,551) in view of Vaananen (Paper No. 20240928; US Patent 9965798) and further in view of Dalal et al. (Paper No. 20240928; US PG PUB 20200245913), and claims 8-9 and 18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilger (Paper No. 20240928; US Patent 9,697,551) in view of Vaananen (Paper No. 20240928; US Patent 9965798), further in view of Dalal et al. (Paper No. 20240928; US PG PUB 20200245913), and further in view of Barbu et al. (Paper No. 20240928; US PG PUB 20070270692). The amendment has overcome these grounds of rejection of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 101 in the previous office action
Applicant’s arguments filed February 2, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-14, and 16-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant states “conventional search engines at the time of the effective filing date (November 30, 2021) … were not able to parse food product websites that were presented in different formats.” Remarks p.9. Examiner disagrees with this statement and/or believes that it mischaracterizes the claims by implication. The present claims recite inter alia, “extracting, via the network interface from one or more web pages referenced by a product website of a manufacturer, text data associated with a food product”. It was old and well known long before 2021 that search engines have been capable of extracting data from the universe of websites and delivering it in response to a query, regardless of the display format of the universe of websites. Food product websites are no different. Applicant appears to be conflating display format with data structure format. E.g., applicant later refers to example 42, but example 42 is directed to converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users, allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. The presently claimed invention is directed only to extracting information from websites, processing the data, and producing a table of the resulting data for display in response to a query, all performed by a lone processor. Applicant refers to “improvements to natural language processing recited in the independent claims,” but the claims do not recite “natural language processing.” Such improvements are not inherently technical and would need to pass the tests for eligibility.
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, 3-6, 8-14, and 16-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 1, 3-6, 8-14, and 21, are directed to a process and claims 16-20 are directed to a machine. All claims are therefore within statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“extracting, … from one or more web pages referenced by a product website of a manufacturer, text data associated with a food product, wherein the text data comprises a plurality of text strings; detecting a plurality of keywords by representing the plurality of text strings as vectors in a high-dimensional space and searching the high-dimensional space using Euclidian distances; detecting one or more numerical values within the plurality of text strings by identifying substrings containing digits 0-9 and converting the substrings containing digits 0-9 to real numbers, and detecting a unit of measure associated with each numerical value based on a substring immediately following the numerical value; creating a plurality of substrings from the text strings, wherein the plurality of substrings comprise a plurality of keywords associated with the food product and a plurality of numerical values associated with the food product, wherein creating the plurality of substrings comprises placing divisions between detected numerical values and detected keywords, and grouping divisions between two consecutive detected keywords to reduce a search space over possible divisions; creating a hierarchical model comprising the plurality of substrings, wherein the hierarchical model comprises a dependency graph of the plurality of keywords associated with the food product and numerical values associated with the food product, wherein the dependency graph connects the plurality of keywords with the numerical values associated with the food product; constructing, using the hierarchical model, a product-information record for the food product from the plurality of keywords and the plurality of numerical values by using a dynamic programming algorithm to assign the plurality of numerical values to the plurality of keywords, wherein the dynamic programming algorithm is configured to memorize partial sums to obtain a global minimum solution; storing the product-information record for the food product …, wherein storing comprises adding the product-information record as a row in a table with columns storing at least a product name, a product manufacturer, and at least one nutritional attribute value of the food product; receiving, … a query identifying a food category and one or more nutritional constraints; querying the table … based on the query to identify one or more food products satisfying the food category and the one or more nutritional constraints; and causing display … of a results table identifying the one or more food products satisfying the query.” Claim 1.
A careful analysis of the above limitations, each on its own and all together combined, results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they altogether simply recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the groupings of abstract ideas described as mathematical concepts, such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations, and certain methods of organizing human activity, for example commercial interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. The additional elements in present claims 1, 3-6, 8-14, and 16-21, include a web server having a network interface, a processor, a non-transitory memory storing a data repository, and a web interface served by the web server. These additional elements have been considered alone, in combination, and altogether as a whole with the functions they perform, e.g., the network interface is a transmission medium, the memory stores the data repository that stores data, and the web interface is another transmission medium that is served by the web server. The processor extracts data via the network interface, stores data in the repository, as a table, receives query data via the web interface, queries the table, and causes display of results via the web interface. In summation, the processor is broadly and generally recited as performing all of the claimed steps in terms of the intended results of functionally nonspecific activities, including mathematical and other data processing steps. The additional elements therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a processor and other generic elements of a generic computer environment. The claims are otherwise entirely a recitation of abstract ideas. The substantive process is recited only by descriptions of abstract intended results of the steps without indicating any particular functional acts performed by any particular device or structural element. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, they do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, they do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and they fail to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims. Any elements that are not abstract are identified broadly and generally as applying the method, and the method itself is described only by way of the intended functional results of abstract activities, without reference to any particular technologically functional acts or specific technical steps performed by any particularly identified machines, and without reference to its use in conjunction with any particular item of manufacture.
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the sparse additional elements of the claims are simply props supporting instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). All claims invoke generic computers or other machinery merely as tools to perform an abstract process. Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). The claims merely implement abstract ideas using generic devices and fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of the surrounding technology. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 3-14 and 17-21 do not contribute any additional elements other than those already discussed and do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas that further describe various data elements, calculations, and processing steps, used in implementing the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one."). Claim 14 recites “using computer vision” but fails to present any additional elements and so the recitation is purely conceptual and abstract. In instances where such steps are recited without reference to any device performing the function or only with reference to generic devices broadly claimed as performing all steps, they are considered part of the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it,” as explained above).
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-6, 8-14, and 16-21, are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-14, and 16-21, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of potentially allowable subject matter.
The independent claims recite limitations noted above, including inter alia
constructing/construct, “using the hierarchical model, a product-information record for the food product from the plurality of keywords and the plurality of numerical values by using a dynamic programming algorithm to assign the plurality of numerical values to the plurality of keywords, wherein the dynamic programming algorithm is configured to memorize partial sums to obtain a global minimum solution”. Claims 1 & 16.
The most closely applicable prior art has been previously introduced and distinguished by amendment and argument during the course of prosecution and no combination of Bilger, Vaananen, Dalal, and/or Barbu teaches, suggests, anticipates, discloses, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably renders obvious at least the above noted limitation.
The most closely applicable prior art not previously discussed is Yerva et al. (Pub. No. US 2026/0010572 A1), Hadad (Pub. No.: US 2019/0295440 A1), and D. Ribeiro et al. (non-patent literature listed as item U on attached form PTO-892).
Yerva teaches a health tracking system determining a ranked list of data records by ranking the list of data records using a machine learning-based ranking model based on a descriptive string and nutritional data of data records regarding a respective consumable item. It teaches receiving a query string, retrieving data records, generating nutrition information vectors from the nutritional data of the first data record and a second nutrition information vector from the nutritional data of a second data record, and generating a third nutrition information vector based on the query string, using an embedding function of the machine learning model, the embedding function being learned in a training process of a machine learning model, and determining first data record and the second data record is more relevant to the query string based at least in part on the first nutrition information vector, the second nutrition information vector, and the third nutrition information vector. Yerva does not however disclose at least the limitation noted above and therefore does not teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination as also recited above.
Hadad teaches providing personalized food and health management recommendations, comprising mapping foods by abstracting information from data to develop a food ontology, collecting and aggregating data sets related to food, health, or nutritional information of a user, from a plurality of sources in two or more data formats and converting the data sets into a standardized format. Hadad does not however teach at least the limitation noted above and therefore does not teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination as also recited above.
D. Ribeiro teaches personalized food recommendation systems to inform people on best dietary practices by suggesting healthy foods and nutritionally balanced meals adjusted to their preferences, including integration of data available from different sources with different representations by collecting and integrating data from multiple sources including recipe websites, food blogs and nutrition databases. It includes web scraping, identifying ingredients, estimating nutritional content and matching ingredients with food products. D. Ribeiro does not however teach at least the limitation noted above and therefore does not teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination as also recited above.
Other noteworthy prior art includes the previously cited Miao (Paper No. 20250930; CN1114443268) and Jayaraman et al. (Paper No. 20250930; Patent No. US 10,970,491 B2). Jayaraman teaches a corpus of text strings is associated with vector representations of words in the text string. An ANN is trained with one or more sub strings of the text strings in which the word appears. A relevant subset of the vector representations is identified and the text strings that are associated with the relevant subset of the vector representations is transmitted. Jayaraman however does not disclose at least the limitation noted above and therefore does not teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination as also recited above.
Miao teaches obtaining text data and capturing keywords by screening for candidate keyword string, screening a character string that reaches the keyword screening condition, and taking the screened character string as a field keyword matched with a first field. Miao however does not disclose at least the above noted limitation and therefore does not teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination as also recited above.
Another Non-Patent Literature article is Fang, Jiaqi (cited on form PTO-892 attached to paper no. 20240928). Fang does not disclose, anticipate, or otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious at least the above noted limitation and therefore does not teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination as also recited above.
In light of the above and examiner’s overall review of the prior art it is examiner’s conclusion that the body of prior art currently known to the examiner does not alone or in combination disclose, anticipate, or otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the above noted features of the present method. It should be noted that this conclusion is based on the presence of all claimed features as they operate in conjunction rather than solely on any one feature or isolated group of features.
The most relevant applicable and nonduplicative prior art having been introduced, addressed, and distinguished, including by amendment and argument during the course of prosecution, it is examiner’s position that together with the above the record is clear with regard to the reasons for allowability of the claimed invention over the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. 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.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 May 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights