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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Rejection Under 101
Applicant's arguments filed 06/04/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the feedback-driven improvement represents an improvement to the system itself and not abstract data organization. The principle of Desjardins applies to the claims, even though they are not directed to training a machine learning model, where the specification identifies an improvement to how a claimed component operates overtime and thus the improvement should be credited as an additional element at Step 2A Prong Two rather than dismissed as part of the abstract. The feedback and mapping update would benefit from a more detailed analysis as contemplated by Desjardins.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Applicant’s argument appears to be directed to the amendments and is therefore moot. However, the amended claims are unlike the Desjardin example, because as Applicant already identified, the claims are not directed to training a machine learning model. Receiving feedback and mapping information are part of the abstract idea of following rules in order to organize information and provide a nutrition recommendation for an individual, they are not additional elements that would be analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two. These elements fall under the abstract idea. See the updated rejection for further clarification.
Applicant argues the feedback loop is an additional element. The Office does not explain why receiving feedback of vital signs or blood tests after treatment and using feedback to update mapping is organizing human activity rather than a technical improvement to the system.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Applicant’s argument appears to be directed to the amendments and is therefore moot. However, as discussed above, the limitations of receiving feedback is analogous to receiving information/input and is classified as an instructional step that is part of what the claims are encompassing… following rules or instructions in order to organize medical information and other pertinent information in order to make a nutrition recommendation for the patient. The updated mapping using the feedback limitation is analogous to updating information/input and similar as the other limitation, it is considered an instructional step. These limitations are not technical in nature but rather are instructional in order to get to that nutritional recommendation. Therefore, the limitations are part of the abstract idea and not considered additional elements. See the updated rejection below.
Applicant argues that the characterization of the feedback-driven improvement mechanisms is inconsistent with Examples 47 and 48 of the July 2024 Guidance. Example 47 claim 3 considers steps (d)-(f) additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improving the functioning of the computer. Example 48 claim 2 recited steps (f) and (g) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The feedback-driving improvement mechanisms are structurally analogous to the additional elements found to integrate those examples into a practical application.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the amended claims are unlike Example 47 claim 3 because in that example they are using an artificial neural network to detect malicious network packets. The limitations (d)-(f) were determined not to recite a mental process because they could not be performed in the mind. Here in Applicant’s claim we are not working with a mental process nor do we have limitations that fall outside of the abstract idea of organizing human activity. The limitations at issue are part of the abstract idea since they are classified as instructional steps that are part of what the claim is encompassing… following rules or instructions in order to organize medical information and other pertinent information in order to make a nutrition recommendation for the patient. Applicant’s claims are unlike Example 48 claim 2 because that claim is directed to separating speech. The limitations (f) and (g) of that example were found to not fall under any of the abstract idea groupings, whereas with Applicant’s claim the limitations are understood to be instructional steps to organize medical information and other pertinent information in order to make a nutrition recommendation for the patient. Thus, the limitations fall under the abstract idea of organizing human activity. See the updated rejection below.
Applicant argues that in view of Desjardins the meaningful technical limitations are should not be evaluated at such a high level of generality such that they are dismissed without adequate explanation. The Office characterizes the feedback loop as part of the abstract idea without any detailed analysis. The improvement identified in the specification should be credited as an additional element not subsumed into the abstract idea.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the entire claim of the exemplary claim is reproduced in the analysis thus demonstrating the exact claim language was considered thoroughly. Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (CA FC 1993). Looking at the claim language of the exemplary claim, the limitations at issue are understood to be instructional limitations, not technical features, that are part of the abstract idea. The additional elements identified (see bolded elements in Step 2A Prong Two) do not amount to a technical improvement. See the updated rejection below.
Applicant argues that treating virtually every claim limitation as part of the abstract idea, including the continuously updated mapping, the effectiveness comparison to stored treatment outcomes, and the feedback loop, leaves nothing as an additional element to evaluate in Step 2A Prong Two. Desjardins reinforces the point to not evaluate the claims at a high level of generality at Step 2A Prong Two.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the goal is not to make sure there are limitations left over to evaluate as additional elements, but rather to determine what limitations fall under the abstract idea and which ones are considered additional elements. For Applicant’s claim many of the recited limitations are understood to be instructional steps to organize medical information and other pertinent information in order to make a nutrition recommendation for the patient. Thus, the limitations fall under the abstract idea of organizing human activity. While this is the case, there are still many limitations that were additional elements needing to be evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two (see the bolded elements below). The bolded elements were evaluated according to the guidance of the MPEP. See the updated rejection for further clarification.
Applicant argues that even if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the ordered combination of elements amounts to significantly more. The record does not contain evidence that the specific combination of continuously updating mappings…(see remarks pg. 15) was well understood, routine, and conventional. Additionally, claim 17 narrows the recommendation to provide specificity that reinforces non-conventionality of the claimed combination. The fact that the claims are free of prior art further supports this point.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the limitations at issue in the remarks (see pg. 15), are part of the abstract idea and are not considered additional elements. The additional elements are bolded in the rejection below. Additionally, the limitations of claim 17, as Applicant points out, further narrows the recommendation, which is part of the abstract idea. Thus, as discussed below, this only serves to further the abstract idea. Examiner notes that the 101 and 103 rejections are separate and distinct analyses therefore the fact that the claims are free of prior art does not factor into the 101 conventionality analysis.
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., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo Test
Claims 1-7, 15-20 are drawn to a method, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 8-14 are drawn to a system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. apparatus).
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo Test - Prong One
The independent claim 8 (and substantially similar with independent claim 1, 15) recites:
A system for creating a context-based personalized nutrition recommendation over a network, the system comprising:
a plurality of electronic devices each comprising a device processor and memory and configured to receive:
genetic information of an individual of a plurality of individuals, determined by a genetic test configured to determined genetic information of a corresponding individual; and medical information of the individual, therapeutic objectives of the individual, and lifestyle information of the individual;
a plurality of sensors each in communication with a corresponding electronic device, the plurality of sensors comprising a position sensor, an accelerometer, and a heart rate monitor, wherein each electronic device is configured to determine an updated location of each of the plurality of individuals and to retrieve real-time air quality data associated with the updated location based on location data from the position sensor, and wherein the electronic device is configured to determine fitness data of the individual based on motion data from the accelerometer and heart rate data from the heart rate monitor; and
a server comprising a server processor and memory, wherein the memory is configured to store: a food micronutrient database including food nutrient data for a plurality of foods, wherein the food nutrient data for each food includes proximates data, inorganics data, micronutrients data, vitamin fractions data, fatty acid compositions data, and bioactive compounds data; an oral supplement micronutrient database including nutrient data for a plurality of oral supplements; a topical treatment database including nutrient data for a plurality of topical treatments; an inhaled nutrition therapy database including nutrient data for a plurality of inhaled nutrition therapies; an intravenous nutrition therapy database including nutrient data for a plurality of intravenous nutrition therapy formulas; an intramuscular nutrition therapy database including nutrient data for a plurality of intramuscular nutrition therapy formulas; and a mapping of genetic information, medical information, therapeutic objectives, lifestyle information, air quality data, and fitness data to one or more micronutrients, wherein the mapping is continuously updated based on feedback received after individuals are treated with an identified micronutrient and a recommended route of delivering the micronutrient, wherein treatment of multiple individuals with different genetic information, medical information, therapeutic objectives, lifestyle information, air quality data, and fitness data improves accuracy and specificity of the mapping, wherein the server is in communication with the electronic device, and is configured to:
receive, over the network in real time, updated data comprising food data, oral supplement data, topical treatment data, inhaled nutrition therapy data, intravenous nutrition therapy data, intramuscular nutrition therapy data;
receive, over the network in real time, an updated mapping of the genetic information, the medical information, the therapeutic objectives, the lifestyle information, the air quality data, and the fitness data;
use the updated mapping to identify the one or more micronutrients for each of the plurality of individuals based on the updated data, the updated genetic information of each of the individuals determined by the genetic test, the medical information, the therapeutic objectives, the lifestyle information, the fitness data of each of the plurality of individuals and the air quality data;
identify at least two of a food from the updated food data, an oral supplement from the updated oral supplement data, a topical treatment from the updated topical treatment data, an inhaled nutrition treatment from the inhaled nutrition treatment data, an intravenous nutrition therapy formula from the intravenous nutrition therapy data, and an intramuscular nutrition therapy formula from the intramuscular nutrition therapy data that provide the identified one or more micronutrients;
determine an effectiveness for the individual of each of the at least two based on the genetic information of each of the plurality of individuals determined by the genetic test, the medical information, the therapeutic objectives, the lifestyle information, the fitness data, and the air quality data by comparing contextual information of the individual to stored treatment outcomes from other individuals having similar contextual information;
recommend one of the at least two based on a cost and the effectiveness for the individual of each of the food, the oral supplement, the topical treatment, the inhaled nutrition treatment, the intravenous nutrition therapy formula, and the intramuscular nutrition therapy formula, wherein the effectiveness for the individual is based on the genetic information of the individual determined by the genetic test, the medical information of the individual, the therapeutic objectives of the individual, the lifestyle information of the individual, the fitness data of the individual, and the real-time air quality data;
receive feedback on the effectiveness of the recommended on of the at least two, wherein the feedback comprises at least on of objective feedback comprising vital signs or blood tests and subjective feedback comprising indications from the individual about whether symptoms lessened; and
update the mapping of the genetic information, the medical information, the therapeutic objectives, the lifestyle information, the air quality data, and the fitness data to the one or more micronutrients and to routes of delivering the one or more micronutrients based on the feedback to improve future recommendations for the individual and for other individuals.
These underlined elements recite an abstract idea that can be categorized, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, to cover the management of personal behavior or interactions (i.e., following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the system with an electronic device, plurality of sensors, processor, memory, server, network, wearable devices, genetic tests, databases, the limitations of this claim encompass following rules or instructions in order to organize medical information and other pertinent information and make a nutrition recommendation for the patient. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers management of personal behavior or interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Any differences in the other independent claims is construed as part of the abstract idea unless discussed below in the analysis. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 reciting particular aspects of the abstract idea).
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo Test - Prong Two
The independent claim 8 (and substantially similar with independent claim 1, 15) recites:
A system for creating a context-based personalized nutrition recommendation, over a network the system comprising: (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
a plurality of electronic devices each comprising a device processor and memory and configured to receive: (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
genetic information of an individual of a plurality of individuals, determined by a genetic test (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (merely insignificant extrasolution activity steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and (general linking to a technological environment as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(h)) configured to determined genetic information of a corresponding individual; and medical information of the individual, therapeutic objectives of the individual, and lifestyle information of the individual;
a plurality of sensors each in communication with a corresponding electronic device, the plurality of sensors comprising a position sensor, an accelerometer, and a heart rate monitor, wherein each electronic device is configured (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) to determine an updated location of each of the plurality of individuals and to retrieve real-time air quality data associated with the updated location based on location data from the position sensor, and wherein the electronic device is configured to determine fitness data of the individual based on motion data from the accelerometer and heart rate data from the heart rate monitor; and
a server comprising a server processor and memory, wherein the memory is configured to store: a food micronutrient database including food nutrient data for a plurality of foods, wherein the food nutrient data for each food includes proximates data, inorganics data, micronutrients data, vitamin fractions data, fatty acid compositions data, and bioactive compounds data; an oral supplement micronutrient database including nutrient data for a plurality of oral supplements; a topical treatment database including nutrient data for a plurality of topical treatments; an inhaled nutrition therapy database including nutrient data for a plurality of inhaled nutrition therapies; an intravenous nutrition therapy database including nutrient data for a plurality of intravenous nutrition therapy formulas; an intramuscular nutrition therapy database including nutrient data for a plurality of intramuscular nutrition therapy formulas; and a mapping of genetic information, medical information, therapeutic objectives, lifestyle information, air quality data, and fitness data to one or more micronutrients, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (merely insignificant extrasolution activity steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g))wherein the mapping is continuously updated based on feedback received after individuals are treated with an identified micronutrient and a recommended route of delivering the micronutrient, wherein treatment of multiple individuals with different genetic information, medical information, therapeutic objectives, lifestyle information, air quality data, and fitness data improves accuracy and specificity of the mapping, wherein the server is in communication with the electronic device, and is configured to: (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
receive, over the network in real time (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), updated data comprising food data, oral supplement data, topical treatment data, inhaled nutrition therapy data, intravenous nutrition therapy data, intramuscular nutrition therapy data;
receive, over the network in real time (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), an updated mapping of the genetic information, the medical information, the therapeutic objectives, the lifestyle information, the air quality data, and the fitness data;
use the updated mapping to identify the one or more micronutrients for each of the plurality of individuals based on the updated data, the updated genetic information of each of the individuals determined by the genetic test (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), the medical information, the therapeutic objectives, the lifestyle information, the fitness data of each of the plurality of individuals and the air quality data;
identify at least two of a food from the updated food data, an oral supplement from the updated oral supplement data, a topical treatment from the updated topical treatment data, an inhaled nutrition treatment from the inhaled nutrition treatment data, an intravenous nutrition therapy formula from the intravenous nutrition therapy data, and an intramuscular nutrition therapy formula from the intramuscular nutrition therapy data that provide the identified one or more micronutrients;
determine an effectiveness for the individual of each of the at least two based on the genetic information of each of the plurality of individuals determined by the genetic test (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), the medical information, the therapeutic objectives, the lifestyle information, the fitness data, and the air quality data by comparing contextual information of the individual to stored treatment outcomes from other individuals having similar contextual information;
recommend one of the at least two based on a cost and the effectiveness for the individual of each of the food, the oral supplement, the topical treatment, the inhaled nutrition treatment, the intravenous nutrition therapy formula, and the intramuscular nutrition therapy formula, wherein the effectiveness for the individual is based on the genetic information of the individual determined by the genetic test (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), the medical information of the individual, the therapeutic objectives of the individual, the lifestyle information of the individual, the fitness data of the individual, and the real-time air quality data;
receive feedback on the effectiveness of the recommended on of the at least two, wherein the feedback comprises at least on of objective feedback comprising vital signs or blood tests and subjective feedback comprising indications from the individual about whether symptoms lessened; and
update the mapping of the genetic information, the medical information, the therapeutic objectives, the lifestyle information, the air quality data, and the fitness data to the one or more micronutrients and to routes of delivering the one or more micronutrients based on the feedback to improve future recommendations for the individual and for other individuals.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations, which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitations of the system with an electronic device, plurality of sensors, processor, memory, server, network, wearable devices, genetic tests, databases, thereby invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see applicant’s specification [0007], [0028], [0030]-[0031], [0043], [0048], [0060], [0077]-[0080] see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of using genetic tests to collect data, memory and databases for storing different types of data amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as genetic tests to determine genetic information, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claim 2 which recites the recommending is performed by a first application on an electronic device and receiving updated information over a network, which amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea; claim 3 recites the updated data comprises available options at the locations of the individual thus furthering the abstract idea; claim 4 recites receiving a recommendation request thus furthering the abstract idea; claim 5 recites developing a nutrition plan based on air quality data associated with a location of the individual, which furthers the abstract idea; claim 6 recites adjusting the nutrition plan based on certain updated information, which furthers the abstract idea; claim 7 recites adjusting the nutrition plan based on certain updated information, which furthers the abstract idea; claim 9 recites the server comprising multiple servers thus invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea; claim 10 recites the sensor disposed within the electronic device, thus invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea; claim 11 recites sensor disposed within a wearable device, thus invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea; claim 12 recites the electronic device configured to receive recommendation requests, thus invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea; claim 13 recites develop a nutrition plan based on information thus furthering the abstract idea; claim 14 recites the electronic device comprising a mobile device thus invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea; claim 16 recites lifestyle information comprises information about physical activities… preferences of the individual, thus furthering the abstract idea; claim 17 recites the individual having diabetes and recommending an oral supplement thus furthering the abstract idea; claim 18 recites receiving fitness data and developing a nutrition plan based on information, thus furthering the abstract idea; claim 19 recites determining location and air quality data of the individual and then adjusting the nutrition plan based on that information thus furthering the abstract idea; claim 20 recites adjusting the nutrition plan based on updated information thus furthering the abstract idea; and claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 additional limitations which generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo Test for Claims
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 discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than elements which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as using he system with an electronic device, plurality of sensors, processor, memory, server, network, wearable devices, genetic tests, databases, e.g., Applicant’s spec describes the computer system with it being well-understood, routine, and conventional because it describes in a manner that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such elements to satisfy 112a. (See Applicant’s Spec. [0007], [0028], [0030]-[0031], [0043], [0048], [0060], [0077]-[0080]); using a server, processor, memory, network, different databases, etc. e.g., merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and/or insignificant application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)): The courts have recognized the following laboratory techniques, such as using genetic tests to determine information, as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (e.g., see MPEP 2106(d)(II)): Analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants (e.g., see Genetic Techs., 818 F.3d at 1377; 118 USPQ2d at 1546); using genetic tests to collect data, e.g., applying conventional diagnostic methods to detect a natural phenomenon, CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., 40 F.4th 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2022) {as noted in the PTAB decision dated 07/18/2025}; using memory for storing different data e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The following represent examples that courts have identified as generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)): Limiting the abstract idea data related to genetic testing, because limiting application of the abstract idea to genetic testing is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g. see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and are generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of environment. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-20 are free of prior art over Neumann (US 2021/0005304) in view of Hanlon et al. (US 2012/0290327), Donalds (US 2018/0032682), and Berthon et al., “Nutrition and Respiratory Health—Feature Review”, March 5, 2015, Nutrients, Vol. 7, 1618-1643. The prior art references, or reasonable combination thereof, could not be found to disclose, or suggest all of the limitations found in the independent claims. The closest prior art is Neumann (US 2021/0005304), which teaches a diagnostic engine configured to record biological extraction from a user and generate a diagnostic output using the extraction and training data. Hanlon et al. (US 2012/0290327) teaches a nutrition assessment and tools for enabling users to achieve health-related goals based on their needs. Donalds (US 2018/0032682) teaches using user data, such as, physiological data, emotional affect data, or both, to determine a user state. Berthon et al., “Nutrition and Respiratory Health—Feature Review” teaches relationships between dietary patterns, nutrition intake and weight status at different stages in life. The references taken solely, or in combination, fail to provide the required limitations, and modification of any complementary combination of the references of record would be impermissible hindsight and not provide any advantages over their present application. The dependent claims are also free of prior art due to their corresponding dependency of the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Grimmer et al. (WO 2018/081175) teaches a system and method for recommending foods to a user based on health data. In some embodiments, the classifiers for determining nutritional recommendations are based on user vitals, genotypic or phenotypic data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA R COVINGTON whose telephone number is (303)297-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 - 5 MT.
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, Jason B. Dunham can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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.
/AMANDA R. COVINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights