DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final office action in response to claims on 05/12/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending. The effective filing date is 02/11/2023.
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 .
Response to Express Abandonment
The Request for Express Abandonment was denied because the fee was not paid.
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 abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1- Claims 1-10 are directed to a method, which is a statutory category. Claims 11-20 are directed to a system, which is a statutory category. Claims 1-20 pass step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1- The independent claim 1, and similarly claim 11, recite:
receiving, using a communication device, one or more user data associated with one or more users from one or more devices, wherein the one or more users comprises one or more customers of one or more restaurants (receiving information is claim to collect information, which is a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
analyzing, using a processing device, the one or more user data using one or more machine learning models, wherein the one or more machine learning models is trained for detecting a degree of affinity of the one or more users towards one or more ingredients based on the one or more user data (analyzing information is a claim to a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
determining, using the processing device, one or more preferences of the one or more customers based on the analyzing, wherein the one or more preferences comprises one or more selection parameters for selecting one or more of the one or more ingredients (making a determination is also part of analyzing information, which is a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
determining, using the processing device, one or more recipes preferred by the one or more customers based on the determining of the one or more preferences, wherein the one or more recipes is created using one or more of the one or more ingredients (making a determination is also part of analyzing information, which is a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
generating, using the processing device, a menu of the one or more restaurants for the one or more customers based on the determining of the one or more recipes, wherein the menu is comprised of one or more foods created using the one or more recipes (creating a menu is part of everyday business practices, which is marketing a commercial activity, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) Other examples of subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors include: structuring a sales force or marketing company, which pertains to marketing or sales activities or behaviors, In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2009));
transmitting, using the communication device, the menu to one or more restaurant devices associated with the one or more restaurants (sending information is a method of transferring information, and is a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); and
storing, using a storage device, the one or more preferences of the one or more users for the one or more recipes in a distributed ledger (storing information can be performed in the human mind, the fact that storage is on a computer is not enough to be more than a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53).
Step 2A, Prong 2- The additional elements in claim 1, and similarly claim 11, include a communication device, a processing device and storage device. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the three different devices are used to implement the abstract idea. Under MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) when the claim invokes computers as a tool, and is used in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks, does not show integration into a practical application. Therefore, when a communication device sends information, a processing device makes decisions and a storage device stores information, they act as a tool to perform the abstract function and do not go beyond mere linking.
Step 2B-The claim 1, and similarly claim 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements are recited as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There are no additional details other than the recitation of a name to be significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims- Claims 2-10 and 12-20 further describe additional steps of analyzing, determine, storing and identifying, which continue to follow the abstract steps of mental processes of sending and analyzing information. There are no additional element to integrate into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1-20 remain ineligible under 101.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2009/0157752 A1 Gonzalez teaches recipe management (Abstract), but fails to teach machine learning or NFTs.
US 2023/0071093 A1 Madhusudhan et al. teaches platform for NFTs (Abstract), but fails to teach restaurants.
US 2024/0214203 A1 Gordin et al. teaches using recipes for NFT (Abstract), but fails to teach machine learning.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: no reference was found to “detect a degree of affinity of the one or more users towards one or more ingredients based on the one or more user data”. Additionally, the obviousness and motivation to combine the creation of NFTS with recipe management is also lacking.
Conclusion
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA E SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9501. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 9:00 AM-5PM EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/JESSICA E SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627