CTNF 18/127,380 CTNF 87444 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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.” Claims 1-20 are directed to receiving a date of use of a perishable item, determining inventory availability of the item, generating an expiration time window for the item, generating a data matrix of purchase options for the item and communicating the data matrix, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept. Step 1 – Statutory Categories As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture. Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claims 8 and 15) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”: A computer-implemented method for generating a data matrix for expiration of a perishable item and a date of use for the perishable item, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving , at a computer, a date of use of a perishable item from a device used by a user; determining , by the computer, inventory availability of the perishable item; generating , by the computer, an expiration time window for the perishable item based on expiration data for the perishable item using a knowledge database for the perishable item, the expiration data including a categorization of the perishable item and an expected shelf life; generating , by the computer, a data matrix of purchase options over a period of time, based on the expiration time window, the inventory availability, and the date of use of the perishable item; and communicating , by the computer, the data matrix to the device used by the user. The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer”, “a device” and “a knowledge database” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind (or pen and paper) or a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “computer”, “device” and “database” language, “ receiving … a date of use of a perishable item from … a user; and communicating … the data matrix to … the user ” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, “ determining … inventory availability of the perishable item; generating … an expiration time window for the perishable item based on expiration data for the perishable item … for the perishable item, the expiration data including a categorization of the perishable item and an expected shelf life; and generating … a data matrix of purchase options over a period of time, based on the expiration time window, the inventory availability, and the date of use of the perishable item ” in the context of this claim encompass mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites three additional elements – “a computer”, “a device” and “a knowledge database”. The “computer”, “device” and “database” are recited at a high-level of generality ( i.e. , as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the determining, generating and communicating steps) and data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. the receiving step). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a “computer”, “device” and “database” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “computer”, “device” and “database” are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. The claim is not patent eligible. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0000113 A1 to Eaton et al . (“Eaton”) teaches and discloses “a customizable per-compartment fruit ripening drawer enabling a user to select a desired level of ripening and a desired date of consumption for the produce in each compartment” (Eaton: Abstract and ¶¶ 0023-0024 and 0034-0037). United States Patent No. 10,796,275 B1 to Wilkins (“Wilkins”) teaches and discloses “central control 204 or UAV 100 can check the current inventory for a product to satisfy the order. As mentioned above, because the UAVs 100 provide more accurate and/or granular inventory control, the inventory can contain an accurate status for each tree 212, quadrant 214, or sector 216, enabling the desired product to be efficiently located. The inventory can include a status and an accurate location for the products. The status can include, for example, two days from ripe, one day from ripe, ripe, one day over ripe, two days over ripe, etc. So, if the consumer wishes to make guacamole tomorrow, for example, the method 400 may choose a product that is “one day from ripe.” If the consumer wishes to buy bananas to make banana bread, on the other hand, the method 400 may choose “two days over ripe.”” (Wilkins: Abstract and column 8, lines 48-42). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM. 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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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. /A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/127,380 Page 2 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/127,380 Page 3 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/127,380 Page 4 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 18/127,380 Page 5 Art Unit: 3627
Prosecution Insights