DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/3/2025 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
3. This communication is in response to the communication filed 12/3/2025. Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, and 18 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 11 are currently amended. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15, 17, and 19-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
4.1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because while the claims (1) are to a statutory category (i.e., process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, the claims (2A1) recite an abstract idea (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon); (2A2) do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and (2B) are not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In regards to (1), the claims are to a statutory category (i.e., statutory categories including a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). In particular, independent claims 1 and 11, and their respective dependent claims are directed, in part, to a device and method for calculating a therapeutic remedy result.
In regards to (2A1), the claims, as a whole, recite and are directed to an abstract idea because the claims include one or more limitations that correspond to an abstract idea including mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer. For example, independent claims 1 and 11, as a whole, are directed to calculating a therapeutic remedy result by recording a user vibrancy datum, identifying a therapeutic remedy, calculating a therapeutic remedy result, receiving a nutrition datum, generating a nutritional response curve, and determining a nutrient impact which are human activities and/or interactions and therefore, certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer. The dependent claims include all of the limitations of their respective independent claims and thus are directed to the same abstract idea identified for the independent claims but further describe the elements and/or recite field of use limitations.
Furthermore, assuming arguendo, the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activities, the claims, nevertheless, are directed to an abstract idea because the claims, except for certain limitations (* identified below in bold), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. That is, other than reciting the certain additional elements, nothing in the claims precludes the limitations from being practically performed in the mind and/or with pen and paper.
CLAIM 1:
A device for calculating a therapeutic remedy result, the device comprising:
a sensor; and
a computing device in communication with the sensor, wherein the computing device is further configured to:
locate, using a k-means clustering algorithm, a user vibrancy record wherein the user vibrancy record contains a plurality of user vibrancy datum, wherein the k-means clustering algorithm is configured to a user vibrancy datum as a function of at least a therapeutic constitutional inquiry;
identify a therapeutic remedy instruction set as a function of the user vibrancy datum, wherein the therapeutic remedy instruction set comprises a therapeutic remedy;
calculate a therapeutic remedy result that associates the user vibrancy datum and the therapeutic remedy with a therapy response curve, wherein calculating the therapeutic remedy result further comprises:
iteratively training a therapy machine learning process using therapy training data, wherein the therapy machine learning process uses the user vibrancy datum and the therapeutic remedy as an input, and generates a therapy response curve and a therapeutic remedy result as an output, wherein training the therapy machine learning process using the therapy training data improves generation of therapeutic remedy results from the therapy machine learning process; and
generating the therapeutic remedy result as a function of the trained therapy machine learning process;
receive a user nutrition datum;
generate a nutritional response curve as a function of the user nutrition datum; and
determine a nutrient impact, wherein determining the nutrient impact comprises:
receiving the output of the trained therapy machine learning process as an input into a nutrient impact machine learning model; and
generating the nutrient impact as a function of the nutrient impact machine learning model and the output of the therapy machine learning process; and
display the nutrient impact and the nutritional response curve on a graphical user interface located on the at least a computing device;
comparing the therapy response curve to the nutritional response curve.
CLAIM 3:
The device of claim 1, wherein displaying the therapy response curve and the nutritional response curve comprises displaying the nutritional response curve overlaid on top of the therapy response curve.
CLAIM 5:
The device of claim 1, wherein the device is a wearable device.
CLAIM 7:
The device of claim 1, wherein: the device further comprises a display; and the computing device is further configured to display the difference between the nutritional response curve and the therapy response curve on the display.
CLAIM 9:
The device of claim 1, wherein determining the nutrient impact using the nutrient impact machine learning model comprises: receiving nutrient impact training data, wherein the nutrient impact training data comprises sets of therapy response curves and nutrient response curves correlated to nutrient impacts; and training the nutrient impact machine learning model using the nutrient impact training data.
CLAIM 10:
The device of claim 1, wherein the user nutrition datum comprises information regarding nutrients ingested by the user over a period of time.
CLAIM 11:
A method of calculating a therapeutic remedy result, the method comprising:
locating, using a k-means clustering algorithm, a user vibrancy record wherein the user vibrancy record contains a plurality of user vibrancy datum, wherein the k-means clustering algorithm is configured to a user vibrancy datum as a function of at least a therapeutic constitutional inquiry;
identifying by the device, a therapeutic remedy instruction set as a function of the user vibrancy datum, wherein the therapeutic remedy instruction set comprises a therapeutic remedy;
calculating by the device, a therapeutic remedy result that associates the user vibrancy datum and the therapeutic remedy with a therapy response curve, wherein calculating the therapeutic remedy result further comprises:
iteratively training a therapy machine learning process using therapy training data, wherein the therapy machine learning process uses the user vibrancy datum and the therapeutic remedy as an input, and generates a therapy response curve and a therapeutic remedy result as an output, wherein training the therapy machine learning process using the therapy training data improves generation of therapeutic remedy results from the therapy machine learning process; and
generating the therapeutic remedy result as a function of the trained therapy machine learning process;
receiving, by the device, a user nutrition datum;
generating, by the device, a nutritional response curve as a function of the user nutrition datum; and
determining, by the device, a nutrient impact, wherein determining the nutrient impact comprises:
receiving the output of the trained therapy machine learning process as an input into a nutrient impact machine learning model; and
generating the nutrient impact as a function of the nutrient impact machine learning model and the output of the therapy machine learning process; and
displaying, by the device, the nutrient impact and the nutritional response curve on a graphical user interface located on the at least a computing device.
CLAIM 13:
The method of claim 11, wherein displaying the therapy response curve and the nutritional response curve comprises displaying the nutritional response curve overlaid on top of the therapy response curve.
CLAIM 15:
The method of claim 11, wherein the device is a wearable device.
CLAIM 17:
The method of claim 11, further comprising displaying a difference between the nutritional response curve and the therapy response curve on a display.
CLAIM 19:
The method of claim 11, wherein determining the nutrient impact using the nutrient impact machine learning model comprises: receiving nutrient impact training data, wherein the nutrient impact training data comprises sets of therapy response curves and nutrient response curves correlated to nutrient impacts; and training the nutrient impact machine learning model using the nutrient impact training data.
CLAIM 20:
The method of claim 11, wherein the user nutrition datum comprises information regarding nutrients ingested by the user over a period of time.
* The limitations that are not in bold are not abstract and/or can be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen paper. The limitations that are in bold are considered “additional elements” that are further analyzed below in subsequent steps of the 101 analysis.
In regards to (2A2), the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements in the claims (i.e., * identified above in bold) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea; merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; and/or simply append technologies and functions, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea (i.e., the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer).
Here, the additional elements (e.g., device, sensor, computing device, a therapy machine learning process, display, wearable device, a nutrient impact machine learning model, etc.) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer technologies. Moreover, the claims recite “the computer device is further configured to”, “by the device”, etc. devoid of any meaningful technological improvement details and thus, further evidence the additional elements are merely being used to leverage generic technologies to automate what otherwise could be done manually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the additional elements do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field—the additional elements merely recite general purpose computer technology; the additional elements do not recite applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition—there is no actual administration of a particular treatment; the additional elements do not recite applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine—the additional elements merely recite general purpose computer technology; the additional elements do not recite limitations effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing—the additional elements do not recite transformation such as a rubber mold process; the additional elements do not recite applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment—the additional elements merely leverage general purpose computer technology to link the abstract idea to a technological environment.
In regards to (2B), the claims, individually, as a whole and in combination with one another, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of (A) a generic computer structure(s) that serves to perform computer functions that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., computers); and/or (B) functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Here, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer technologies. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer technologies cannot provide an inventive concept.
Moreover, paragraphs [0051]-[0053] of applicant's specification (US 2023/0197244) recites that the system/method is implemented using a computing device including a mobile device such as a smartphone, tablet, laptop, desktop, and the like which are well-known general purpose or generic-type computers and/or technologies. The use of generic computer components recited at a high level of generality to process information through an unspecified processor/computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). 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.
Furthermore, the additional elements are merely well-known general purpose computers, components and/or technologies that receive, transmit, store, display, generate and otherwise process information which are akin to functions that courts consider well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, such as, performing repetitive calculations; receiving or transmitting data over a network; electronic recordkeeping; retrieving and storing information in memory; and sorting information (See, for example, MPEP § 2106).
Therefore, the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 12/3/2025.
5.1. Applicant argues, on pages 8-xxxxxxx of the response, that the pending amended claims are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims, as amended, (1) are not directed to an abstract idea and more specifically, neither to certain methods of organizing human activity nor mental steps; (2) recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application; and (3) recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In regards to (1), it is respectfully reiterated that the claims are directed to and recite an abstract idea. For example, the claims are directed to calculating a therapeutic remedy result for an individual (e.g., patient) with a medical condition by, in part, receiving an individual’s data, determining a nutrient impact, etc. Implementing these steps to provide a therapeutic remedy result for an individual are considered human interactions and/or activities and thus, the claims fall under the abstract category of certain methods of organizing human activity—this encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer (e.g., a therapeutic professional using a computer to determine a therapeutic remedy result). Moreover, the claims also fall under the abstract category of a mental process. For example, nothing precludes a person from identifying a therapeutic remedy instruction set as a function of the user vibrancy datum, calculating a therapeutic remedy result, generating the therapeutic remedy result, receive user data, generating a nutritional response curve, determining a nutrient impact, generating a nutrient impact, comparing the therapy response curve to the nutritional response curve, etc. in the human mind and/or with pen and paper using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. While the claims may recite limitations that cannot be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper, these limitations are considered additional elements that are analyzed in subsequent steps of the 101 analysis, as detailed in section 4, supra.
In regards to [2]-[3], it is reiterated that the additional elements recited in the pending amended claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea; merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; and/or simply append technologies and functions, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea (i.e., the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer), as detailed in section 4, supra. For example, the sensor and computing device are used to record a user vibrancy datum and the graphical user interface is used to display data—these are standard functions of such technologies with no new improved features implemented to perform these standard functions and thus, are considered merely extra-solution activity. Moreover, the other additional elements (i.e., machine learning, nutrient impact machine learning model, etc.) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer technologies (e.g., automating steps using well-known technologies that otherwise could be performed manually by a human, etc.). In other words, the focus of the pending amended claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Lastly, it is also noted that the pending amended claims are analogous to 101 patent-ineligible Claim 2 from Example 47 of the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. For example, patent-ineligible Claim 2 from Example 47 includes an artificial neural network (ANN) that receives data, processes the data to generate input data, trains the ANN using an algorithm to detect and analyze data anomalies and in turn generate anomaly data that is output to the user. Similarly, the pending amended claims includes a machine learning component that receives sensor data, processes the data using an algorithm to generate data (e.g., vibrancy data, remedy results, etc.), and generates a nutrient impact and a therapy and nutritional response curve that are output to the user. Like Claim 2 from Example 47, the pending amended claims do not recite or are directed to a technological improvement that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and thus, are patent-ineligible subject matter.
As such, it is respectfully submitted that the pending amended claims are directed to and recite an abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and thus, are not patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tomaszewski whose telephone number is (313)446-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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 H Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/MICHAEL TOMASZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681