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
Claims 1-7, 10-16, are addressed below. Claims 8-9, 17-20 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on 10/9/25 has been entered and are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the amended claims does not fall under methods of organizing human activities. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps of the geofence is configured to identify permanent and temporary locations which are then adjusted still falls under certain methods of organizing human activity since the elements are based on the interaction of the user with the computer, for example the input selection by the user and the location of the user. The interaction of the user with the system falls under certain methods of organizing human activity. Per MPEP the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping 2106.04(a)(2)II. Additionally the geofence is a perimeter of the user, which is just another data pertaining to the user that is used in the analysis.
Additionally examiner indicated that the claims can fall under mathematical concepts since the machine learning model being trained can be mathematical concepts.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are is integrated into a practical application similar to that of Example 39. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims in Example 39 is directed to “creating a first training set comprising the collected set of digital facial images, the modified set of digital facial images, and a set of digital non-facial images; training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set; creating a second training set for a second stage of training comprising the first
training set and digital non-facial images that are incorrectly detected as facial images after the first stage of training; and training the neural network in a second stage using the second training set”. The instant claim determines refreshments recipe recommendations. The computer has not been improved rather it uses the generic computer and a high level machine learning model to execute the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are is integrated into a practical application similar to that of Example 47 claim 3. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims in claim 3 is directed to detecting anomalies in network traffic, detecting anomaly with network packets, then detecting a source address, then dropping the malicious network packets in real time and blocking future traffic from the source addresses therefore enhancing security by acting in real time to proactively prevent network intrusions. The instant claim determines refreshments recipe recommendations based on user selections and user’s location. The computer has not been improved rather it uses the generic computer to execute the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that like Berkheimer the elements are non-conventional and specific arrangements. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim features that they assert are unconventional under step 2B are the same features that have been found/identified as abstract in step 2A.
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 1-7, 10-16, 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.
Step 1:
Claims 1-7, 10-16, are drawn to method and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 10, recite “receive a user selection relating to nourishment”, “determine an alimentary style relating to the user selection using an alimentary style classifier, wherein the alimentary style classifier utilizes the user selection relating to nourishment as an input, and outputs the alimentary style”, “retrieve a plurality of recipes relating to the alimentary style”, “receive a schedule associated with a user”, “identifying a user location within a geofence by selecting a geofence based on past user location data”, ”training a machine learning model with training obtain form record of previous iterations of implementing the machine training model”, “receive a user location”, “inputting the user location into the machine learning model configured to correlate to the user location to a geofence of a plurality of geofences based on past user activity”, “outputting the geofence wherein the geofence is configured to identify permanent and temporary locations”, “adjust the geofence based on the identified permanent and temporary locations”, “train a recipe machine learning model using the training data, wherein the recipe machine learning model is trained correlating a plurality of recommended refreshments to the user selection”, “generate a refreshment instruction set within the adjusted geofence using the trained recipe machine learning model”, “generate a plurality of recommended refreshments as a function of the refreshment instruction set generated using the trained recipe machine learning model wherein generating a plurality of recommended refreshments comprises utilizing the user selection as an input and outputting a plurality of recommended refreshment and generate a list of elements wherein the list of elements is used to create the plurality of recommended refreshments”.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas and “Mathematical Concepts”. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “computing device” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. That the abstract idea may be performed by specifically “computing device”, “remote device”, are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims recite the additional element of “receive from a remote device a user selection the user selection identifying a nourishment and a health condition of a user”, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
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.
Hence, the 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. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion
-paragraph 17 recites that “computing device 104 is configured to receive from a remote device 108 a user selection 112 relating to nourishment and a health condition of a user. A remote device 108 includes any additional computing device, such as a mobile device, laptop, desktop, computer, and the like. A remote device 108 may include without limitation, a display in communication with computing device 104, where a display may include any display as described herein. Computing device 104 receives a user selection 112 from remote device 108 utilizing any network methodology as described herein”.
-paragraph 15 recites that “Computing device 104 may include any computing device 104 as described in this disclosure, including without limitation a microcontroller, microprocessor, digital signal processor (DSP) and/or system on a chip (SoC) as described in this disclosure. Computing device 104 may include, be included in, and/or connect with a mobile device such as a mobile telephone or smartphone”.
The claims recite the additional element of “receive from a remote device a user selection the user selection identifying a nourishment and a health condition of a user”, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 11-16 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
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 REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Shahid R Merchant can be reached on (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684