Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of claims
Claims 1-20 have been reviewed and addressed below.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicants amendment filed on 10/23/25 has been entered and are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the claims in ‘581 does not disclose receive from a user device at least an alimentary transfer descriptor as a function of alimentary transfer request and one or more vital inputs…. Therefore not identical. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Though there is an additional data used in the alimentary transfer descriptor in the instant claim , ‘581 still recite “an alimentary transfer request, said alimentary transfer request including at least a description of an alimentary collation and at least a terminal location” which is just a substitution of the data.
Applicant argues that the claims do not pertain to method of organizing human activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The vitals transfer request and the vital inputs and the analysis performed falls under certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically the interaction between the user and the device. Additionally per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), “the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.”
Applicant additional argues that the data analyzed using vital machine learning model does not organize human activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The analysis performed using vital machine learning model can still be interpreted as methods of organizing human activity since it was collected based on user’s vitals and the user device, (interaction between people). The actual calculation can also fall under mental process and mathematical concepts.
Applicant argues that the instant claim is similar to Example 47 claim 3 the instant claim improve the technical field of computing systems configured to analyze physiological data and dynamically generate optimized groupings. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claim analyzes physiological data and dynamically generate optimized groupings however unlike Example 47 claim 3 it does not block malicious networks, analyzes data and generates a grouping, similar to that of Electric Power Group v Alstom.
Applicant argues that the instant claim is similar to Example 48 Claim 2. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 48 Claim 2 disclosure states that this invention offers an improvement over existing speech-separation methods by providing a particular speech-separation technique that solves the problem of separating speech from different speech sources belonging to the same class, while not requiring prior knowledge of the number of speakers or speaker-specific training. The claim reflects the improvement discussed in the disclosure by reciting details of how the DNN aids in the cluster assignments to correspond to the sources identified in the mixed speech signal, which are then synthesized into separate speech waveforms in the time domain and converted into a mixed speech signal, excluding audio from the undesired source while the instant claim provide such improvement regarding the system.
Applicant argues that the instant claim improves the functioning of the computer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claim uses the computer to execute the abstract idea.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Applications No. 16/375523, 16/397791, 16/354111, 16/430394 and 16/430400.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 11-18, 21-28 of U.S. Patent No. 10915581. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they use similar language to claim common subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11182729. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they use similar language to claim common subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11681755. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they use similar language to claim common subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-20 are drawn to method, system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 11 recite “receive at least an alimentary transfer descriptor as a function of an alimentary transfer request and one or more vital inputs indicating a physiological status of a user”; “determining at least a user element as a function of the one or more vital inputs”, “determine as a function of the at least a user element at least a categorical constraint”, and “generate a plurality of groupings, as a function of a similarity qualifier associated with the at least categorical constraint wherein each grouping comprises alimentary transfer descriptors”; “a descriptor generator module, the descriptor generator module designed and configured to generate a plurality of alimentary transfer descriptors, wherein: each alimentary transfer descriptor describes a physical transfer process, of a plurality of physical transfer processes, to be performed by a corresponding physical performance entity of a plurality of physical performance entities”; “each alimentary transfer descriptor describes an alimentary collation to be provided during a corresponding physical transfer process; and the descriptor generator module is further configured to match an alimentary transfer descriptor of the plurality of alimentary transfer descriptors to an alimentary transfer request wherein matching the alimentary transfer descriptor to the alimentary transfer request comprises filtering the plurality of alimentary transfer descriptors as a function of a priority request of the alimentary transfer request”; and “a notifier module, the notifier module designed and configured to transmit a notification to the physical performance entities, wherein transmitting further comprises: executing a selection function on the plurality of groupings, wherein the selection function generates a selection output as a function of the plurality of selection criteria and the plurality of groupings”; “selecting the grouping based on the selection output”; and “transmitting the notification to a physical performance entity as a function of the selected grouping”.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain mental process and mathematical concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “processor”, “memory”, “process selection device”, “user client device”, “user device”, “descriptor generator module”, “selector module”, “vital machine learning model”, which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims recite the additional element of “receiving an alimentary transfer…”, “transmitting the selected alimentary transfer”, which is considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed displaying limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
Hence, 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. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
paragraph 8 that “a process selection device 104. Process selection device 104 may include any computing device as described below in reference to FIG. 10, including without limitation a microcontroller, microprocessor, digital signal processor (DSP) and/or system on a chip (SoC) as described below in reference to FIG. 10. Process selection device 104 may be housed with, may be incorporated in, or may incorporate one or more sensors of at least a sensor. Computing device may include, be included in, and/or communicate with a mobile device such as a mobile telephone or smartphone. Process selection device 104 may include a single computing device operating independently, or may include two or more computing device operating in concert, in parallel, sequentially or the like; two or more computing devices may be included together in a single computing device or in two or more computing devices. Process selection device 104 with one or more additional devices as described below in further detail via a network interface device. Network interface device may be utilized for connecting a process selection device 104 to one or more of a variety of networks, and one or more devices.”
paragraph 4, that “a descriptor generator module operating on the process selection device, the descriptor generator module designed and configured to generate a plurality of alimentary transfer descriptors”.
paragraph 4 recites that a selector module operating on the process selection device, the selector module designed and configured to select an alimentary transfer descriptor of the plurality of alimentary transfer descriptors”.
Paragraph 44 recites “additional elements of alimentary transfer request may be generated automatically. For instance, history of past user selections may be used to generate a probable terminal location, which may be set as a terminal location of an alimentary transfer request, and/or presented to a user via user device 108 for confirmation. As a further non-limiting example, a user's current and/or intended location may be received from user device 108, for instance as determined by map programs, satellite navigation facilities such as the Global Positioning System (GPS), cell tower contact and/or triangulation, or the like; for example, user may be navigating according to turn-by-turn directions to a particular location, which may be selected as terminal location. User locations received from user device 108 may be compared to past terminal locations; thus, where current or intended further user location is ambiguous and/or determined only to a low level of accuracy, user history may be matched to detected user location to determine a probable terminal location; any terminal location automatically determined by process selection device 104 may be presented to a user for confirmation”.
The claims recite the additional element of “receiving an alimentary transfer…”, “transmitting the selected alimentary transfer”, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-10, 12-20 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684