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 office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on March 11, 2026 for the patent application 18/099,742 originally filed on January 20, 2023. Claims 1 and 11 are amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending. The first office action of September 11, 2025 is fully incorporated by reference into this office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been noted by the Examiner.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are not sufficient to overcome the outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections, for reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the outstanding 35 USC 103 rejections. However, new rejections under 35 USC 103 are set forth below in light of newly found prior art.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an exhibition element displaying restricted nutrimental artifacts” in claims 1 and 11 and described in instant specification paragraph [0009], “Exhibition element includes any hardware or software module. Exhibition element includes a graphical user interface (GUI). Graphical user interface, which may include without limitation a form or other graphical element having data entry fields, wherein one or more users, may enter information describing one or more user preferences and selections as described in more detail below.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “an apparatus” (i.e. a machine) and claim 11 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “generating a meal impact chart” reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as “mental processes,” which require the following limitations (as in exemplary claim 1):
“receive at least an adapted nutrimental request… associated with a user… displaying restricted nutrimental artifacts as a result of selection of one or more restriction filters, and wherein the display contains nutritional information associated with a nutrimental artifact and the nutritional information is continuously updated as restriction filters are selected;
generate meal projection data related to the at least adapted nutrimental request;
receive a meal completion datum related to the at least adapted nutrimental request…
compare the meal projection data to the meal completion datum, wherein the comparison comprises generating an intake difference datum;
classify the intake difference to datum to a meal impact chart; and
output the meal impact chart.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “an apparatus,” “a server,” “a central network,” “a user-client device,” and “an exhibition element” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “generating a meal impact chart” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “an apparatus,” “a server,” “a central network,” “a user-client device,” and “an exhibition element” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, Applicant’s claimed “an apparatus” is not explicitly defined in the disclosure.
Applicant’s claimed “a server” is described in instant specification paragraph [0012], as follows: “At least a server 112 is connected to the at least a central network 108. At least a server 112 may include any computing device as described herein, including without limitation a microcontroller, microprocessor, digital signal processor (DSP) and/or system on a chip (SoC) as described herein. At least a server 112 may be housed with, may be incorporated in, or may incorporate one or more sensors of at least a sensor… At least a server 112 may include a single computing device operating independently, or may include two or more computing device operating in concert, in parallel, sequentially or the like; two or more computing devices may be included together in a single computing device or in two or more computing devices. At least a server 112 may include one or more additional devices as described below in further detail via a network interface device… At least a server 112 may include but is not limited to, for example, at least a server 112 or cluster of computing devices in a first location and a second computing device or cluster of computing devices in a second location. At least a server 112 may include one or more computing devices dedicated to data storage, security, distribution of traffic for load balancing, and the like. At least a server 112 may distribute one or more computing tasks across a plurality of computing devices of computing device, which may operate in parallel, in series, redundantly, or in any other manner used for distribution of tasks or memory between computing devices. At least a server 112 may be implemented using a "shared nothing" architecture in which data is cached at the worker, in an embodiment, this may enable scalability of system 100 and/or computing device.”
The claimed “a central network” is described in instant specification paragraphs [0011-0012] as follows: “At least a central network 108 may include any hardware or software component. At least a central network 108 may include any of the network components as described below within this disclosure. At least a central network 108 may allow for connection of devices within system 100. Devices may include for example, desktop computer, laptop, mainframe, server, console, firewall, bridge, repeater, network interface card, switch, hub, modem, router, smartphone, tablet, webcam and the like. At least a central network 108 may be configured with different network topology including for example, mesh topology, ring topology, star topology, tree topology, bus topology, and the like… Examples of a network, such as at least a central network 108, include, but are not limited to, a wide area network (e.g., the Internet, an enterprise network), a local area network (e.g., a network associated with an office, a building, a campus or other relatively small geographic space), a telephone network, a data network associated with a telephone/voice provider (e.g., a mobile communications provider data and/or voice network), a direct connection between two computing devices, and any combinations thereof. A network may employ a wired and/or a wireless mode of communication. In general, any network topology may be used. Information (e.g., data, software etc.) may be communicated to and/or from a computer and/or a computing device.”
The Applicant’s claimed “a user-client device” is described in the specification paragraph [0009] as follows: “User-client device 104 may include an additional computing device, such as a mobile device, laptop, desktop computer and/or workstation operated by a user. At least a user-client device 104 is connected to at least a central network 108 and including an exhibition element and a processor. At least a user-client device 104 may be a mobile device.”
Applicant’s claimed “an exhibition element” is described in instant specification paragraph [0009] as including “any hardware or software module. Exhibition element includes a graphical user interface (GUI). Graphical user interface, which may include without limitation a form or other graphical element having data entry fields, wherein one or more users, may enter information describing one or more user preferences and selections as described in more detail below.” Therefore, the exhibition element may be a displayed object in a graphical user interface.
These additional elements are reasonably interpreted as generic computers or generic computing components, which provide no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitations are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 1 and 11.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ondrusz et al. (hereinafter “Ondrusz,” US 2004/0241629) in view of Grimmer et al. (hereinafter “Grimmer,” US 2018/0240542), and in further view of Scott et al. (hereinafter “Scott,” US 7,996,282).
Regarding claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claim 11, Ondrusz discloses an apparatus for generating a meal impact chart, the apparatus comprising: at least a server connected to at least a central network (Ondrusz [0006], “a database comprising information regarding the nutritional content of different foodstuffs; and a server for transferring information between a user and the database.”), the at least a server designed and configured to:
…
generate meal projection data related to the at least adapted nutrimental request (Ondrusz [0117-0119], “The server 101 calculates the user's energy requirement by comparing the user's calorific intake with the user's calorific expenditure… the server 101 calculates the number of calories that the user should be receiving from saturated fats and from unsaturated fats, as a percentage of his energy expenditure… the server 101 calculates the user's protein requirements and carbohydrate requirements on the basis of the user's weight in kilograms (kg)”);
receive a meal completion datum related to the at least adapted nutrimental request from the at least user-client device (Ondrusz [0123], “The protein, carbohydrates and fat fields 1701-1703 show both the user's actual consumption 1701a, 1702a, 1703a for the respective food category and the user's target consumption 1701b, 1702b, 1703b for the food category,” actual consumption is recorded);
compare the meal projection data to the meal completion datum, wherein the comparison comprises generating an intake difference datum (see Ondrusz Fig. 17, showing comparison between actual and target food consumption);
classify the intake difference to datum to a meal impact chart (see Ondrusz Fig. 17, showing intake differences between actual and target food consumption, broken down into various categories); and
output the meal impact chart (see Ondrusz Fig. 17, showing the impact chart).
Ondrusz does not explicitly teach receive at least an adapted nutrimental request from at least a user-client device associated with a user.
However, Grimmer discloses receive at least an adapted nutrimental request from at least a user-client device associated with a user (Grimmer [0015], “At the request of a requesting user, the method includes filtering the food data based on the user's diet type vector and the user food preference data to determine a set of available foods for the user. A food is excluded from the list of available foods for the requesting user if the food does not match the requesting user's preference data. In some embodiments, the method includes presenting to the requesting user the list of available foods matching the user's diet type.”).
Grimmer is analogous to Ondrusz, as both are drawn to the art of nutrition planning. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Ondrusz, to include receive at least an adapted nutrimental request from at least a user-client device associated with a user, as taught by Grimmer, in order to help the user have healthy and personalized consumption (Grimmer [0010]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Ondrusz in view of Grimmer does not explicitly teach wherein the user-client device is configured to present an exhibition element displaying restricted nutrimental artifacts as a result of selection of one or more restriction filters, and wherein the display contains nutritional information associated with a nutrimental artifact and the nutritional information is continuously updated as restriction filters are selected.
Grimmer does disclose filtering nutrimental artifacts (Grimmer [0015], “filtering the food data based on the user's diet type vector and the user food preference data to determine a set of available foods for the user. A food is excluded from the list of available foods for the requesting user if the food does not match the requesting user's preference data.”), but does not explicitly teach user selection of filters and continuously updating the nutrimental artifacts as filters are selected.
However, Scott discloses wherein the user-client device is configured to present an exhibition element displaying restricted nutrimental artifacts as a result of selection of one or more restriction filters, and wherein the display contains nutritional information associated with a nutrimental artifact and the nutritional information is continuously updated as restriction filters are selected (see Scott Fig. 3 and col. 7 lines 27-30, “upon selection of a category identifier 100 (e.g., Mules & Clogs) both of the filter window 56 and display window 58 of FIG. 2 are updated in real time to reflect the current selections.”; also Scott col. 7 lines 62-67, “the display window 58A is dynamic and updated in real time upon a user selection of one of the product search tools 80 disposed in the filter window 56A as well as any of the sort or filter controls provided in the display window 58A”; also Scott col. 18 lines 30-41, “the filter window 56 setting forth the search criteria and the corresponding features of the currently selected products is updated and displayed in real time in response to any customer selections,” while Scott discloses filtering product data, the data filtering process can be used to filter any type of data, including nutrimental artifacts).
Scott is analogous to Ondrusz in view of Grimmer, as both are drawn to the art of graphical user interfaces. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Ondrusz in view of Grimmer, to include wherein the user-client device is configured to present an exhibition element displaying restricted nutrimental artifacts as a result of selection of one or more restriction filters, and wherein the display contains nutritional information associated with a nutrimental artifact and the nutritional information is continuously updated as restriction filters are selected, as taught by Scott, in order to provide a more efficient way of displaying search results (Scott col. 2 lines 20-32). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claim 13, Ondrusz in view of Grimmer and Scott discloses wherein the meal projection data comprises analytical data related to a prediction of nutrient consumption by a user (see Ondrusz claim 24, “the server is operable to predict a nutritional requirement of the user”).
Regarding claim 4, and substantially similar limitations in claim 14, Ondrusz in view of Scott does not explicitly teach wherein generating the meal projection data comprises utilizing a classifier configured to receive the at least adapted nutrimental request as an input and output the meal projection data.
However, Grimmer discloses wherein generating the meal projection data comprises utilizing a classifier configured to receive the at least adapted nutrimental request as an input and output the meal projection data (Grimmer [0015], “At the request of a requesting user, the method includes filtering the food data based on the user's diet type vector and the user food preference data to determine a set of available foods for the user. A food is excluded from the list of available foods for the requesting user if the food does not match the requesting user's preference data. In some embodiments, the method includes presenting to the requesting user the list of available foods matching the user's diet type. The list of matching foods may also be ranked based on the micronutrients in the user's diet type vector and the food data corresponding to the matching foods. Many other factors may also be used to influence the ranking.”).
Grimmer is analogous to Ondrusz in view of Scott, as both are drawn to the art of nutrition planning. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Ondrusz in view of Scott, to include wherein generating the meal projection data comprises utilizing a classifier configured to receive the at least adapted nutrimental request as an input and output the meal projection data, as taught by Grimmer, in order to help the user have healthy and personalized consumption (Grimmer [0010]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, and substantially similar limitations in claim 15, Ondrusz in view of Scott does not teach training the classifier with a training data set correlating at least a user input variable to adapted nutrimental request data.
However, Grimmer discloses training the classifier with a training data set correlating at least a user input variable to adapted nutrimental request data (Grimmer [0256], “classifiers for determining nutritional recommendations based on user vitals, genotypic and/or phenotypic data can be developed or refined by training a decision rule using data from one or more training sets and applying the trained decision rule to data from users interested in receiving nutritional recommendations.”).
Grimmer is analogous to Ondrusz in view of Scott, as both are drawn to the art of nutrition planning. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Ondrusz in view of Scott, to include training the classifier with a training data set correlating at least a user input variable to adapted nutrimental request data, as taught by Grimmer, in order to help the user have healthy and personalized consumption (Grimmer [0010]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, and substantially similar limitations in claim 16, Ondrusz in view of Grimmer and Scott discloses wherein the meal completion datum comprises datum recording user consumption of a nutrimental artifact (Ondrusz [0123], “The protein, carbohydrates and fat fields 1701-1703 show both the user's actual consumption 1701a, 1702a, 1703a for the respective food category and the user's target consumption 1701b, 1702b, 1703b for the food category,” actual consumption is recorded).
Regarding claim 7, and substantially similar limitations in claim 17, Ondrusz in view of Scott does not teach every limitation of wherein generating the intake difference datum comprises utilizing a classifier configured to receive the meal completion datum as an input and output the intake difference datum, wherein the classifier is trained by a training data set correlating at least the meal projection data to meal completion data elements.
Ondrusz does disclose wherein generating the intake difference datum comprises utilizing a classifier configured to receive the meal completion datum as an input and output the intake difference datum (see Ondrusz Fig. 17, showing comparison between actual and target food consumption, broken down into various categories). Ondrusz does not teach wherein the classifier is trained by a training data set correlating at least the meal projection data to meal completion data elements.
However, Grimmer discloses wherein the classifier is trained by a training data set correlating at least the meal projection data to meal completion data elements (Grimmer [0256], “classifiers for determining nutritional recommendations based on user vitals, genotypic and/or phenotypic data can be developed or refined by training a decision rule using data from one or more training sets and applying the trained decision rule to data from users interested in receiving nutritional recommendations.”).
Grimmer is analogous to Ondrusz in view of Scott, as both are drawn to the art of nutrition planning. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Ondrusz in view of Scott, to include wherein the classifier is trained by a training data set correlating at least the meal projection data to meal completion data elements, as taught by Grimmer, in order to help the user have healthy and personalized consumption (Grimmer [0010]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, and substantially similar limitations in claim 18, Ondrusz in view of Scott teaches every limitation of wherein classifying the intake difference datum to a meal impact chart comprises utilizing a classifier configured to receive the intake difference datum as an input and output the meal impact chart, wherein the classifier is trained by a training data set correlating meal completion data elements to meal impact chart data elements.
Ondrusz does disclose wherein classifying the intake difference datum to a meal impact chart comprises utilizing a classifier configured to receive the intake difference datum as an input and output the meal impact chart (see Ondrusz Fig. 17, showing comparison between actual and target food consumption, broken down into various categories). Ondrusz does not teach wherein the classifier is trained by a training data set correlating meal completion data elements to meal impact chart data elements.
However, Grimmer discloses wherein the classifier is trained by a training data set correlating meal completion data elements to meal impact chart data elements (Grimmer [0256], “classifiers for determining nutritional recommendations based on user vitals, genotypic and/or phenotypic data can be developed or refined by training a decision rule using data from one or more training sets and applying the trained decision rule to data from users interested in receiving nutritional recommendations.”).
Grimmer is analogous to Ondrusz in view of Scott, as both are drawn to the art of nutrition planning. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Ondrusz in view of Scott, to include wherein the classifier is trained by a training data set correlating meal completion data elements to meal impact chart data elements, as taught by Grimmer, in order to help the user have healthy and personalized consumption (Grimmer [0010]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, and substantially similar limitations in claim 19, Ondrusz in view of Grimmer and Scott discloses wherein the meal impact chart comprises a data structure comprising data analyzing the impact of a meal completion datum on a user's health (see Ondrusz Fig. 17, showing a comparison of the target intake of various nutrients with the actual intake, along with an analysis of the impact on the user’s health).
Regarding claim 10, and substantially similar limitations in claim 20, Ondrusz in view of Scott does not explicitly teach every limitation of wherein training the meal impact classifier comprises utilizing the training data set further comprising the at least an adapted nutrimental request, a filter set, and a well-being input.
However, Grimmer discloses wherein training the meal impact classifier comprises utilizing the training data set further comprising the at least an adapted nutrimental request, a filter set, and a well-being input (Grimmer [0011], “The memory stores program instructions, including program instructions that are capable of implementing (i) decision tree logic that classifies user health data into predetermined diet types and micronutrient recommendations, (ii) a filtering engine to filter the food data to determine available foods for a user based on the user's diet type and the user's food preference data; and (iii) a ranking engine that ranks available meals for the user based on the micronutrient recommendations and the food data. The processor is coupled to the database and the memory and, when executing the program instructions, causes the decision tree logic to classify the user by diet type and nutrient recommendations, causes the filtering engine to determine available foods for the user and causes the ranking engine to rank and translate the micronutrient recommendations and the food data for the available foods for the user into specific food recommendations for the user.”).
Grimmer is analogous to Ondrusz in view of Scott, as both are drawn to the art of nutrition planning. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Ondrusz in view of Scott, to include wherein training the meal impact classifier comprises utilizing the training data set further comprising the at least an adapted nutrimental request, a filter set, and a well-being input, as taught by Grimmer, in order to help the user have healthy and personalized consumption (Grimmer [0010]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ondrusz in view of Grimmer and Scott, and in further view of Noel (US 2005/0080650).
Regarding claim 2, and substantially similar limitations in claim 12, Ondrusz in view of Grimmer and Scott does not explicitly teach wherein generating the at least an adapted nutrimental request comprises selecting a nutrimental artifact from a restricted nutrimental object.
Ondrusz does suggest the ability to select a nutrimental artifact from a restricted nutrimental object, since actual consumption is reported even if the user does not eat appropriate foods (Ondrusz [0122], “FIG. 17 shows a web page 1700 that the user can select for display if the field 1602 indicates that he has not been eating appropriate foods”).
However, Noel discloses wherein generating the at least an adapted nutrimental request comprises selecting a nutrimental artifact from a restricted nutrimental object (Noel [0088], “the system further provides a user interface for ordering a meal for a patient, providing warning indications when a selected meal item would cause the patient to exceed a dietary restriction, and, in some embodiments, providing an indication of accumulated dietary requirements as menu items are selected.”).
Noel is analogous to Ondrusz in view of Grimmer and Scott, as both are drawn to the art of meal planning. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Ondrusz in view of Grimmer and Scott, to include wherein generating the at least an adapted nutrimental request comprises selecting a nutrimental artifact from a restricted nutrimental object, as taught by Noel, so that each patient's intake of dietary constituents is controlled to a fine degree of specificity for that patient (Noel [0146]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on March 11, 2026 related to claims 1-20 have been fully considered, and are addressed below.
Rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues that “claim 1, as amended, is not properly categorized as a ‘mental process’ under Step 2A, Prong One because the amended limitations require a specific networked client server interaction and a continuously updated user interface workflow that cannot be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper,” and that the limitations “are directed to concrete computer functionality, including a graphical user interface element that dynamically updates displayed nutritional information in response to user selection of restriction filters, and transmission of the resulting adapted nutrimental request from a client device to a server over a central network. A human mind cannot practically perform ‘continuously updated’ interface behavior driven by filter selections, nor can a human perform the claimed client server network reception steps mentally… A human could not reasonably replicate this claimed combination of client-side dynamic interface updates and networked server receipt as a mental process.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. The MPEP directs examiners to “review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” In the present case, the claimed invention is described as the concept of “generating a meal impact chart” and the applicant is merely claiming the concept performed on a generic computer or computer environment, and is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. Therefore, the claim is considered to recite a mental process. Applicant’s use of a server to store and retrieve data, an exhibition element to continuously display information on a display, and restriction filters to limit information being displayed are all conventional computer tasks or generic computer elements used to generate a meal impact chart. The concept of “generating a meal impact chart” can be performed by humans without the aid of a computing device.
The Applicant further respectfully argues that the “July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility examples, in Example 47, Claim 3” shares similar parallels with the “server connected to at least a central network” of claim 1. The Applicant also respectfully argues that the “July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility examples, in Example 48, Claim 2” is similar to the filtering and displaying of nutritional information of claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Central to determination of eligibility of Example 47 (claim 3) is that individual network packets are intercepted and analyzed. This cannot be performed by a human, and there is no real-world analog for intercepting and analyzing network packets. In contrast, the instant invention uses a server and network to receive information on meals, analyze the meal information, and generate meal impact charts. These actions can all be performed by humans without the aid of a computing device. Also, none of these actions require the generic computer to perform any unconventional computing tasks such as using an artificial neural network to detect malicious network packets, dropping packets, and blocking future traffic from suspicious sources of Example 47 (claim 3).
Example 48 (claim 2) claims analyzing input audio signals for undesired sound sources and removing the undesired sounds from the audio signals to produce a new output audio signal. The Applicant compares this with the instant invention, which filters undesired data from nutritional data for display. However, claim 2 of Example 48 specifies specific mathematical formulas, partitioning embedding vectors into clusters, applying binary masks, synthesizing speech waveforms, and stitching together the speech waveforms to produce the new output audio signal without the undesired sounds. This differs greatly from the instant claims, which only recites applying restriction filters to data without specifying details of how the restriction filters are applied. That is, the restriction filters recited in the claims work as generic data filters that are conventional computing tasks of generic computers.
The Applicant respectfully argues that “the claim does not merely recite an abstract evaluation, but instead recites a concrete, computer-implemented client server workflow that improves the generation and presentation of meal impact analytics, aligning with the principles set forth in Berkheimer.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(a) states that “examiners should consider whether the claim ‘purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself’ or ‘any other technology or technical field.’” In the present case, the claim does not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, because a standard server, central network, and user-client device are used, and modifications are not made to these generic computing devices.
As for improvements to any other technology or technical field, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states that “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself… is not an improvement in technology.” Since the claimed invention improves the generation and presentation of meal impact analytics, which is improving the abstract idea of “generating a meal impact chart” itself, it is not an improvement in technology.
For the above reasons, the outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained.
Rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hayes et al. (US 5,311,428) Real time filter for data processing
Greystoke et al. (US 2015/0356446) Systems and methods for a learning decision system with a graphical search interface
Schwartz et al. (US 2016/0171090) Systems and methods for collaborative project analysis
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/SA/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/PETER S VASAT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights