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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/23/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 02/23/26.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 02/23/26.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, filed 02/23/26, is insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the last Office action because at least the following:
The Declaration notes that performing balancing of energy expenditure by a user with food intake by the user utilizes matrix mathematics (Declaration, [0024]), while also stating that not every balancing and optimizing process utilizes matrix mathematics (Declaration, [0043]). Independent claims 1 and 17 do not limit the balancing and/or optimization processes to require matrix mathematics, a graphics processing unit for performing the matrix operations (Declaration, [0029]), nor any other process which could not be performed in the human mind.
The Declaration notes that a recipe portion-size optimizer finds the scaling factors using a merit function, and further, where each ingredient in the base recipe is multiplied by a scaling factor (Declaration, [0025-0028]), however, the claims do not recite a recipe portion-size optimizer, nor multiplying each ingredient by a scaling factor found using matrix processing techniques.
The claims broadly recite “measuring activity data of the user”. As indicated in the Declaration, measuring activity data of the user is a generic process, wherein activity data can be typically measured and transmitted by mobile and wearable devices comprising sensors (Declaration, [0044]). Thereby, this limitation encompasses the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, as noted in the Final Rejection, filed 01/15/26.
The Declaration argues that the technological improvement is optimization of the recipe by more than a single factor, such as for a particular nutrient or an amount of calories, in part by utilizing matrix operations (Declaration, [0054-0058]). However, the claims do not recite scaling factors (plural) for each recipe, nor optimizing each ingredient of a stored recipe to produce an appealing meal and/or avoid optimizing entire meal components out of a meal (see, e.g., Specification, [0019] & [0059-0068], wherein an energy scaling factor and nutrient scaling factor are multiplied by the standard amount of an ingredient in a base recipe to determine an amount of that ingredient the user should mix into the meal).
With respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant first argues that the claims are drawn to a process of balancing energy expenditure by a user with food intake by the user, and optimizing that balancing by multiplying a scaling factor by an energy amount of a stored recipe to obtain an optimized recipe having an optimized energy amount, wherein the balancing and optimizing are performed using matrix mathematics (Remarks, filed 02/23/26, pp. 9-10). Applicant contends that the elements of representative claim 1 cannot practically be performed in the human mind for at least these reasons (Remarks, filed 02/23/26, pp. 11-13). However, as noted above, the claims do not limit the balancing and/or optimization processes to require matrix mathematics, a graphics processing unit for performing the matrix operations, nor any other process which could not be performed in the human mind. Claim 1 recites in part “generating, at the at least one processor, a scaling factor for each said stored recipe received at the processor; and optimizing each said stored recipe by multiplying, at the at least one processor, each said scaling factor by said energy amount of each said stored recipe to obtain an optimized recipe having an optimized energy amount”. These limitations, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts, but for the recitation of the generic computing component (at least one processor). That is, a human could mentally generate a scaling factor for each stored recipe comprising an energy amount by, for example, division of a number of servings (see Specification, [0166], “The scaling factors could be a percent of the standard portion size.”). Additionally, and/or alternatively, generating a recipe scaling factor each stored recipe encompasses a mathematical concept, specifically mathematical calculations (e.g., scaling factor = desired total energy amount / original total energy amount). Furthermore, the optimizing each said stored recipe by multiplying each scaling factor for each stored recipe by said energy amount of each recipe encompasses a mental process which can practically be performed in the human mind and/or using pen and paper to perform the multiplication, and/or a mathematical concept, specifically mathematical calculation performed through multiplication of the known/calculated values.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 requires “measuring activity data of the user” which would be impossible for a user to acquire while swimming, skiing, or cycling, or performing other such exercise” (Remarks, filed 02/23/26, p. 11). As noted above, claim 1 broadly recites the limitation “measuring activity data of the user”, which is recited at a high level of generality and is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, which does not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Additionally, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a mathematical concept because the claims are not directed to a mathematical formula, and further, because the claims link the matrix operations described in the Specification and a practical application in the real world (Remarks, filed 02/23/26, pp. 12-15). However, as noted in the previous Non-Final Rejection, filed 09/24/25, and Final Rejection, filed 01/15/26, the mathematical concept encompassed by the claims is mathematical calculations, which is distinct from the category of mathematical formulas (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Moreover, Applicant argues that claim 1 sets forth a technological improvement of optimizing meal components or meals by utilizing matrix operations (Remarks, filed 02/23/26, pp. 15-16). However, as noted above, the claims do not recite scaling factors (plural) for each recipe, nor optimizing each ingredient of a stored recipe to produce an appealing meal and/or avoid optimizing entire meal components out of a meal (see, e.g., Specification, [0019] & [0059-0068], wherein an energy scaling factor and nutrient scaling factor are multiplied by the standard amount of an ingredient in a base recipe to determine an amount of that ingredient the user should mix into the meal). The claim must reflect the disclosed improvement. However, claim 1 recites the optimization of a recipe without further reciting an improvement to the optimization. For example, the Specification and previous Remarks recite wherein prior art optimization of a recipe can result in nonsensical results (Specification, [0019]; Remarks, filed 12/05/25, p. 14, e.g., an unappealing meal and/or the optimization of entire meal components out of a meal). Though, claim 1 does not recite any limitations which would overcome this problem. Particularly, the claim recites optimizing each recipe by multiplying the scaling factor by the energy amount of the stored recipe, which does not encompass optimizing each ingredient of the stored recipe to produce an appealing meal and/or avoid optimizing entire meal components out of a meal.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that claim 2 requires “controlling, from the at least one processor, said at least one measurement device to control at least one characteristic of said optimized recipe”, which links the balancing and optimizing of claim 1 to controlling a physical measurement device and is thereby patent-eligible (Remarks, filed 02/23/26, pp. 16-17). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations of claim 2 are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data transmission) and use of a generic device (at least one measurement device) for performing its routine function. The claim does not include any additional elements that improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology, apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) & (e)).
With respect to the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues that claim 17 includes at least one output device including a digital scale, or a physical device that is not an abstraction, and thus, claim 17 is patent eligible (Remarks, filed 02/23/26, p. 17). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “at least one output device including a digital scale” is recited in the preamble of the claim and does not perform any functionality, similar to the “at least one measurement device” recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the claim is similarly rejected, as there is no evidence that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) & (e)).
Lastly, Applicant further argues that claim 18 recites physical, non-abstract limitations that render claim 18 patent eligible (Remarks, filed 02/23/26, p. 17). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “at least one output device” is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere automation of a manual process. The Specification further demonstrates that the additional element is recited for its well-understood, routine, and conventional functionality, referring to the element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of such elements to satisfy enablement (see Specification, [0022], the “Summary” section, which is the only location which discusses an “output device”). Moreover, for instance, a human (e.g., nutritionist/instructor/caretaker/etc.), or the user themselves through visual observation (i.e., a mental process), can be instructed to add an ingredient to a digital scale, and based on a reading/output of the weight measurement on the scale, be instructed to stop adding an ingredient when a target weight of said ingredient is reached and/or to remove an amount of said ingredient when a target weight is reached. There is no indication in the Specification that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) & (e)).
For these reasons, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as presented in detail below.
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 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim 1 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” which falls within the “article of manufacture” statutory category of invention.
[Step 2A – Prong 1] The claim recites limitations which can practically be performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and/or mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Claim 1 recites: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions that configure at least one processor that is in communication with at least one memory unit, at least one storage device connected to said at least one memory unit, at least one input device, and at least one measurement device, to perform balancing of energy expenditure by a user with food intake by the user by:
determining a basal energy expenditure of the user (mathematical concept: mathematical calculation);
measuring activity data of the user;
calculating energy expenditure for physical activities of the user from said activity data (mathematical concept: mathematical calculation);
adding said basal energy expenditure of the user to said energy expenditure for physical activities of the user to obtain a total energy expenditure (mathematical concept: mathematical calculation);
storing, at the at least one storage device, at least one stored recipe for the production of at least one meal component and an energy amount corresponding to said at least one meal component, each said stored recipe having at least one ingredient;
receiving, at the at least one processor, said at least one said stored recipe;
generating, at the at least one processor, a total recommended energy intake for the user based on said total energy expenditure (mental process: evaluation/judgment/opinion; mathematical concept: mathematical calculation);
generating, at the at least one processor, a scaling factor for each said stored recipe received at the at least one processor (mental process: evaluation; mathematical concept: mathematical calculation); and
optimizing each said stored recipe by multiplying, at the at least one processor, each said scaling factor by said energy amount of each said stored recipe to obtain an optimized recipe having an optimized energy amount, wherein said optimized recipe minimizes an energy difference between said total recommended energy intake and said optimized energy amount of said recipe (mental process: evaluation; mathematical concept: mathematical calculation);
wherein said optimizing is subject to at least one constraint.
As indicated above, the limitations of determining a basal energy expenditure of the user, calculating an energy expenditure for physical activities of the user from gathered activity data, and adding said basal energy expenditure of the user to said energy expenditure for physical activities of the user to obtain an energy expenditure encompass, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical concepts, specifically mathematical calculations. That is, basal energy expenditure is determined using a known equation with user-dependent variables of age, weight, and height (see Specification, [0130-0131], wherein the Harris-Benedict formula for basal metabolic rate is used to calculate basal metabolic rate), energy expenditure for physical activities can be calculated using various formulas or lookup tables (see Specification, [0142-0143]), and obtaining the total energy expenditure is calculated through addition of the calculated basal energy expenditure to the calculated energy expenditure for physical activities. Moreover, the limitations of generating a total recommended energy intake for the user, generating a recipe scaling factor for each said stored recipe received at the at least one processor, and optimizing each said stored recipe by multiplying each said recipe scaling factor by said energy amount of each said stored recipe to obtain an optimized recipe having an optimized energy amount, wherein said optimized recipe minimizes an energy difference between said total recommended energy intake and said optimized energy amount of said recipe encompass, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, mental processes, or limitations that can be performed in the human mind and/or using pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts but for the recitation of a generic computing component (at the at least one processor). That is, a human (e.g., coach, nutritionist, doctor, etc.) can mentally generate/determine a total recommended energy intake for the user (e.g., based on user characteristics, such as gender, age, weight, height, and physical activity level), as well as generate a scaling factor for recipes (e.g., division of a number of servings – see Specification, [0166], “The scaling factors could be a percent of the standard portion size.”). Additionally, and/or alternatively, generating a total recommended energy intake for a user and generating a recipe scaling factor for each said stored recipe encompasses a mathematical concept, specifically mathematical calculations. Moreover, optimizing each recipe by multiplying each said scaling factor by a known/calculated energy amount of each said stored recipe to obtain an optimized recipe having an optimized energy amount, wherein said optimized recipe minimizes an energy difference between said total recommended energy intake and said optimized energy amount of said recipe encompasses a mental process which can practically be performed in the human mind and/or using pen and paper to perform the multiplication, and/or a mathematical concept, specifically mathematical calculation performed through multiplication of the known/calculated values. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s).
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim fails to recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. The limitation of measuring activity data of the user is recited at a high level of generality and is directed to the insignificant extra-solution of data gathering, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, the additional limitations of storing, at the at least one storage device, at least one stored recipe for the production of at least one meal component and an energy amount corresponding to said at least one meal component, each said stored recipe having at least one ingredient, and receiving, at the at least one processor, said at least one said stored recipe, encompass insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution data storage and data gathering) which also cannot integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Moreover, the additional limitations of “at least one processor in communication with at least one memory unit, at least one storage device connected to said at least one memory unit, at least one input device, and at least one measurement device”, and performing the above-recited abstract idea(s) at the at least one processor are directed to instructions to apply the abstract idea(s) using generic computing components and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h). The at least one storage device and at least one processor for performing the claimed functions are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere automation of a manual process. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) & (e)). Therefore, the claim is directed to the abstract idea(s).
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computing components and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a computer environment (field of use) cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A – Prong 2, nor provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Moreover, the additional limitations of measuring activity data of the user, storing known/calculated data, and receiving at least a portion of said data amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Furthermore, the Specification further demonstrates that the additional elements (at least one processor, at least one memory unit, at least one storage device, at least one input device, and at least one measurement device) are recited for their well-understood, routine, and conventional functionality, referring to the elements 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 elements to satisfy enablement.
Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that configures at least one processor, the at least one processor in communication with the at least one input device, at least one output device including a digital scale, and at least one storage device to perform functions comparable to those of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected similarly to independent claim 1.
Claims 2-16, 18, and 20-21 are dependent on claims 1 and 17, respectively, and therefore recite the same abstract idea(s) noted above. While the dependent claims may have a narrower scope than the independent claims, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) & (e)). Therefore, claims 2-16, 18, and 20-21 are also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BRANDLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BRANDLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715