DETAILED ACTION
This office action is based on the claim set submitted and filed on 05/15/2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 09/27/2023 and 01/10/2024 are in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are considered by the Examiner.
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 Langi, 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 l.32I(c) or l.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(1)(1) - 706.02(1)(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 l.32l(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-inf o-1.js p.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 6 of Pat. No. 11,688,507. The claims at issue are not identical and they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed toward addressing a similar scope. The table/chart below exhibits the similarity* between the independent claim while claim 1 and 11 of the current application ‘162 discloses equivalent elements for as in claims 1 and 11 of the reference patent ‘507.
*Similarities highlighted in BOLD
Application No. 18/197,162 (Current App)
Pat. No. 11,688,507- (Reference App)
Claim 1
Claim 1
a computing device, wherein the computing device is configured to:
a computing device, the computing device configured to:
receive a metabolic component from at least a sensor;
obtain a metabolic component from an input as a function of an informed advisor and a medical assessment as evidencing a condition of a metabolic system of a user
identify a metabolic panel as a function of the metabolic component, wherein identifying further comprises:
identify a metabolic panel as a function of the metabolic component, wherein identifying further comprises:
receiving a status grading as a function of metabolic guideline;
receiving a status grading as a function of a metabolic guideline;
ascertaining a metabolic functional goal;
ascertaining a metabolic dysfunction present in the user;
ascertaining a basal metabolic rate goal
ascertaining a body composition goal;
identifying the metabolic panel as a function of the status grading, metabolic functional goal, and metabolic component using a metabolic machine-learning model;
specifying which parameters of metabolic panel data to obtain as a function of a metabolic machine-learning model, wherein the specifying comprises:
receiving metabolic training data, wherein the training data correlates metabolic component to metabolic panel;
training the metabolic machine-learning model using the metabolic training data; specifying which parameters of metabolic panel data to obtain as a function of the metabolic panel data and the metabolic machine-learning; and providing an updated metabolic machine-learning model, which incorporates a new metabolic component that relates to a modified basal metabolic rate goal;
determine a metabolic item as a function of the metabolic panel;
determine an edible to be consumed by the user as a function of metabolic panel data obtained, wherein determining the edible further comprises:
receiving a nourishment composition from an edible directory, wherein the edible directory comprises a database of edibles identified as a function of one or more metabolic components and arranged in a distributed hash table, wherein the distributed hash table includes a plurality of nourishment composition table sets;
producing a nourishment demand as a function of the metabolic panel, wherein producing the nourishment demand further comprises: receiving a nourishment goal;
ascertaining a metabolic divergence as a function of the nourishment goal and a metabolic panel, wherein the metabolic divergence includes a transgression parameter, wherein the transgression parameter identifies a variance limit of the metabolic divergence for a chromosome;
producing the nourishment demand as a function of the metabolic divergence;
determining the edible as a function of the nourishment composition, the ascertained metabolic dysfunction, and the nourishment demand using an edible machine-learning mode
generate a metabolic program as a function of the metabolic item and a metabolic life style outcome, wherein generating comprises:
generate a nourishment program as a function of the edible and a desired metabolic outcome using a nourishment machine-learning model.
obtaining the metabolic life style outcome;
identifying keywords of the metabolic panel and the metabolic life style outcome;
matching the metabolic panel and the metabolic life style outcome using the keywords;
generating the metabolic program as a function of the match
Claim 11
Claim 6
The claim recites similar limitation as in claim 1 above
The claim recites similar limitation as in claim 1 above
As per the above chart, it shows the similarities in the reference patent ‘507 and the current patent application ‘162 independent claim(s) which exhibits a broader and more generic than the patent ‘507 as such the current application is the species and the reference patent is the genus. Thus, this is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims are obvious variations of one another.
Examiner note that the subject matter disclosed in the claim invention ‘162 recite similar concept in the patent application ‘507 as described in the above and in light of the filed limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(1). However, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed, and even original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function, See MPEP 2161.01(1) citing in part Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349 ("[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention's boundaries.").
Specifically, with regard to computer-implemented functional claims, the specification must provide a disclosure of the computer and the algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention, including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function. MPEP 2161.01(1).
Claim 6 and 16 recite “wherein the metabolic life style outcome comprises a life style outcome, wherein the life style outcome further comprises a treatment outcome”, for which the subject matter of the underlined limitation(s) was/were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As best understood, the limitation describes a lifestyle outcome comprises a treatment outcome but the specifications don’t have the support for the level of detail in the claims as such it appears that there is no support for the recitation in the original disclosure of the present application for this limitation. As described in applicant’s specification [0035], there is not explicit disclosure as filed describing the feature as claimed but describing a metabolic outcome comprises a treatment outcome.
The examiner takes the position that with respect to these limitations or features of the claims, the specification fails to provide an adequate written description of the invention to an extent that would sufficiently show that applicant was in possession of an invention that could operate as claimed. Simply disclosing a vague description, without actually explaining how to perform the function(s) claimed, results in a written description problem under 112(a). The examiner has no idea how applicant actually contemplated doing these steps because nothing is disclosed other than the broad disclosure of the specification as mentioned above. For the Examiner to be able to search this aspect of the invention, the Examiner must ascertain how Applicant is accomplishing the disclosed result of the method steps being claimed.
Therefore, applicant has failed to show the actual subject matter in their possession at the time of the invention in a way sufficient to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. Therefore, these limitations of the claims are considered to be new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-10 are drawn to an apparatus/system, and Claim 11-20 is drawn to method, and each of which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine and a process). Claims 1-20 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the steps of the claim for the invention represents an abstract idea of a series of steps that recite a process for generating a nutrition/diet program for a user metabolic disfunction. Collecting a user data to determine a goal for addressing metabolic dysfunction is an abstract idea that could have been performed by a human mind but for the fact that the claims recite a general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea for which both the instant claims and the abstract idea are defined as metal process that can be performed using human mind with the aid of pencil and paper.
Independent Claim 1 recites the steps of:
“a computing device, wherein the computing device is configured to:
receive a metabolic component from at least a sensor;
identify a metabolic panel as a function of the metabolic component, wherein identifying further comprises:
receiving a status grading as a function of metabolic guideline;
ascertaining a metabolic functional goal; and
identifying the metabolic panel as a function of the status grading, metabolic functional goal, and metabolic component using a metabolic machine-learning model;
determine a metabolic item as a function of the metabolic panel; and
generate a metabolic program as a function of the metabolic item and a metabolic life style outcome, wherein generating comprises:
obtaining the metabolic life style outcome;
identifying keywords of the metabolic panel and the metabolic life style outcome;
matching the metabolic panel and the metabolic life style outcome using the keywords; and
generating the metabolic program as a function of the match”.
Independent Claim 11 recite similar steps to Claim 1.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitations by a human mind with aid of pen and paper, thus, an abstract idea, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, the limitations encompass a user the ability to collect a metabolic components of a user and categorize the components panel providing a score or grading to determine the user metabolic status and define a metabolic goal, and generate a program for the metabolic goal, which are steps that that could have been performed by a human to implement the abstract idea and are steps reciting mental process that could have been performed using a human mind with aid of pen and paper but other than the mere nominal recitation of "computing device", to implement the abstract idea for performing the steps of observing, evaluating, judgment and opinion which can be performed using a human mind with the aid of pencil and paper, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim limitations (in BOLD) recite an abstract idea. Any limitations not identified above as part of the Mental Process are deemed "additional elements," and will be discussed in further detail below.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas, linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements such as “computing device, sensor, machine learning model ” that iteratively takes input data and analyzes said data to determine an output to performing generic computer functions for determining a metabolic dysfunction such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and a mere data gathering process that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04(d). For example, using a machine learning (ML) model without disclosing any specific steps or process of how the ML is performing the steps of the claim, uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 "merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, looking at the claim as a whole, individually and 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception because as mentioned above, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, recited at a high level of generality, do not present improvements to another technology or technical field, nor do they affect an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, that amount to no more than mere instruction to perform the abstract idea such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to apply the exception using generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 include all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and 11, and therefore likewise incorporate the above-described abstract idea. While the depending claims add additional limitations, such as
As for claims 2-3, 6-10, 12, 15-17, and 20, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human mind with the aid of pen and paper but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible.
As for claims 4-5, 13-14, and 18-19, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human mind with the aid of pen and paper but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. The claims recite additional elements “carbon dioxide sensor, flow sensor, computing device” that implement the identified abstract idea. These hardware components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., general purpose computers/components implementing generic computer functions; applicant's specification makes no mention of any specific hardware) to perform the steps, e.g., “measure a ..., generating...” that amounts to no more than the words "apply it" with a computer because it appears to intend to do so, which would still amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements amount to more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component and have been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6-12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed et al. (US 2021/0050089 A1- “Mohammed”) in view of Turner (US 12,019,657 Bl)
Regarding Claim 1, Mohammed teaches a system for generating a metabolic program, the system comprising:
a computing device, wherein the computing device is configured to:
receive a metabolic component from at least a sensor Mohammed discloses user health status based on metabolic information received from different sources, such as wearable sensors and lab test data for obtaining nutrition data of a user identifying metabolic states of the user as such impaired, functional, etc. (Mohammed: [Fig. 8A-B], [0034], [0044], [0049], [0055])
identify a metabolic panel as a function of the metabolic component Mohammed discloses a nutrition database that stores nutrition data profile [metabolic panel] of a user which includes information such as parameter values for macronutrient (e.g., protein, fat, carbohydrates, etc.), micronutrient (e.g., Vitamins, sodium, magnesium, etc.), and biota nutrients (e.g., lactococcus, lactobacillus, etc.), calories, cholesterol, macromolecules measurements, vitamins concentration, etc. (Mohammed: [Table 1], [0033], [0065], [0119]),
wherein identifying further comprises:
receiving a status grading as a function of metabolic guideline; Mohammed discloses determine metabolic state of an individual/user based on nutrition database and label output condition of metabolic state providing a rating [grading] for the user metabolic state (poor/impaired, functional, optimal) or a status of an organ such as heart health rating (Mohammed: [Fig. 13 J-K], [0033], [0042], [0046], [0051], [0070], [0094], [0107], [0111])
ascertaining a metabolic functional goal Mohammed discloses tailoring a recommendation with objectives for improving measurements to optimize metabolic levels [metabolic functional goal] a set of objectives to improves a metabolic health that includes schedule food or meal, supplement, etc. and the type of food and amount to be consumed for addressing a condition or abnormalities (Mohammed: [0043], [0081-0083], [0094], [0099-0101]);
identifying the metabolic panel as a function of the status grading, metabolic functional goal, and metabolic component using a metabolic machine-learning model; Mohammed discloses using a machine learning model is trained to process the metabolic state, objectives to improve and optimize the metabolic levels, and the metabolic components associated with identified user metabolic profile, for example, based on components, contribution to health improvement and state of the user, each food is assigned a label using machine learning techniques (Mohammed: [claim 1], [0077-0078], [0101-0103], [0118], [0120], [0162]),
determine a metabolic item as a function of the metabolic panel; Mohammed discloses using a machine learning model to determine, for example, glucose impact associated with a food item nutrition data (Mohammed: [Table 1], [0133], [0162])
generate a metabolic program as a function of the metabolic item and a metabolic life style outcome Mohammed discloses personalizing metabolic treatment recommendation [metabolic program] based on metabolic food item(s) and lifestyle metabolic outcome (Mohammed: [Fig. 4, 8], [claim 1], [0051], [0081]), wherein generating comprises:
obtaining the metabolic life style outcome Mohammed discloses obtaining lifestyle choices and nutrition to determine metabolic state of the user (Mohammed: [0069];
identifying keywords of the metabolic panel and the metabolic life style outcome;
matching the metabolic panel and the metabolic life style outcome using the keywords Mohammed discloses matching predicted and true metabolic states [0093], [0193]),
generating the metabolic program as a function of the match Mohammed discloses identifying a candidate food item and based on matching predicted and true metabolic states, generate a user-specific treatment recommendation (Mohammed: [Fig. 5], [claim 12], [0193]).
however, does not expressly discloses identifying keywords to match metabolic profile and metabolic outcome.
Turner teaches
identifying keywords of the metabolic panel and the metabolic life style outcome;
Turner discloses converting medical records that includes profile, reports, treatment or therapy, etc. into machine-encoded text using an optical character reader (OCR) and identifying keywords, text, characters, etc. (Turner: [Fig. 1], [col. 10, line 4-29], [col. 11, line 6-27])).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the platform of Mohammed matching process of metabolic baseline profile and actual metabolic outcome to incorporate OCR to recognized text or keywords to be included in the matching process, as taught by Turner which help integrate recognized data into entity and ability data and incident remediation profile (Turner: [col. 10, line 18-19]).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Mohammed and Turner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the metabolic component comprises a biomarker Mohammed discloses metabolic biomarkers (Mohammed: [Table 1], [0107]).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Mohammed and Turner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the metabolic life style outcome comprises a life style outcome, wherein the life style outcome further comprises a treatment outcome Mohammed discloses predicting a metabolic response [treatment outcome] based on received data such as nutrition data for the metabolic state [metabolic outcome] and provide recommendation describing a treatment for change in the metabolic state to improve the user metabolic impermeant provide recommendation steps to inhibit or reverse a condition, e.g., counteract Down Effect (Mohammed: [0049-0052], [0081-0083])
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Mohammed and Turner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the metabolic life style outcome comprises a metabolic outcome, wherein the metabolic outcome further comprises a prevention outcome Mohammed discloses based on received data such as nutrition data for the metabolic state [metabolic outcome] and provide recommendation steps to narrow number of nutrition to inhibit a condition, e.g., counteract Down Effect (Mohammed: [0083]).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Mohammed and Turner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein: the metabolic panel comprises an activity; and
the computing device is further configured to generate a life style program of the metabolic program as a function of the activity Mohammed discloses generating a recommendation for improving a user metabolic state and outlining a treatment plan and guidelines to improve the metabolic health of the user that includes activities such as exercise and sleep regimen for lifestyle program such as providing recommended physical activity and/or sleep (Mohammed: [0008], [0063], [0070], [0081], [0084]).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Mohammed and Turner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein: the metabolic panel comprises an edible; and
the computing device is further configured to generate a nourishment program of the metabolic program as a function of the edible Mohammed discloses generating a recommendation for improving a user metabolic state and outlining a treatment plan and guidelines to improve the user metabolic health that includes personalized food or nutritional item(s) recommended to consume, e.g., consume green tea or replace refined carbs with wholegrain food (Mohammed: [0008], [0051], [0070], [0081], [0084]).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Mohammed and Turner teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the edible comprises a refrained edible Mohammed discloses food items which are to be avoided by a user (Mohammed: [0100], [0138], [0174]).
Regarding Claim 11, Mohammed teaches a method for generating a metabolic program, the method comprising:
the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding Claim 12 and 16-20, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to claims 2 and 6-10, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claims 3-5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed et al. (US 2021/0050089 A1- “Mohammed”) in view of Turner (US 12,019,657 Bl) in view of Meirav et al (US 2021/0085247 A1– “Meirav”)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Mohammed and Turner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the metabolic component comprises a respiratory exchange ratio (RER)
However, Mohammed and Turner do not teach the metabolic component comprises a respiratory exchange ratio
Meirav teaches
the metabolic component comprises a respiratory exchange ratio (RER) Meirav discloses information relating to metabolic data comprising respiratory information such as oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) production where the two have different CO2-to-oxygen respiratory exchange ratios (Meirav: [0017], [0088])
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the platform of Mohammed to include collecting metabolic data comprising respiratory exchange ratio (RER), as taught by Meirav since such data may produce information relating to metabolic data, like energy (calories) consumed, or to estimate the fraction of such calories obtained from metabolizing carbohydrates vs. fats (Meirav: [0017]).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Mohammed and Turner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least a sensor comprises a carbon dioxide sensor, wherein the carbon dioxide sensor is configured to measure a carbon dioxide in a user's breath
However, Mohammed and Turner do not teach a sensor comprises a carbon dioxide sensor to measure a carbon dioxide in a user's breath
Meirav teaches
wherein the at least a sensor comprises a carbon dioxide sensor, wherein the carbon dioxide sensor is configured to measure a carbon dioxide in a user's breath Meirav discloses information relating to metabolic data comprising respiratory information such as oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) production using sensors such as CO2 sensor (Meirav: [0017], [0026], [0088]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the platform of Mohammed to include CO2 sensor for collecting metabolic data comprising respiratory exchange ratio (RER), as taught by Meirav since such data may produce information relating to metabolic data, like energy (calories) consumed, or to estimate the fraction of such calories obtained from metabolizing carbohydrates vs. fats (Meirav: [0017]).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Mohammed and Turner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least a sensor comprises a flow sensor, wherein the flow sensor is configured to measure a flow of the user's breath
However, Mohammed and Turner do not teach a sensor comprises a flow sensor to measure a flow of the user's breath
Meirav teaches
a sensor comprises a flow sensor, wherein the flow sensor is configured to measure a flow of the user's breath Meirav discloses information relating to metabolic data comprising respiratory information such as oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) production using sensors such as flow sensor (Meirav: [0017], [0026-0028], [0088])
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the platform of Mohammed to include sensory method for measuring flow rate for collecting metabolic data comprising respiratory exchange ratio (RER), as taught by Meirav since such data may produce information relating to metabolic data, like energy (calories) consumed, or to estimate the fraction of such calories obtained from metabolizing carbohydrates vs. fats (Meirav: [0017]).
Regarding Claim 13-15, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to claims 3-5, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Prior Art Cited but not Applied
The following document(s) were found relevant to the disclosure but not applied:
US 2021/0196195 “Hadley” discloses platform accesses a metabolic
profile for a patient and biosignals recorded for the patient to determine a metabolic state of the patient
US 2020/0022618 “MCCLUNG” discloses determine energy expenditure associated with different physical activities (rest to vigorous activity) and/or the macronutrients oxidized to provide providing metabolic energy during those activities.
US 2013/0158367 “Pacione” discloses estimating total energy expenditure of the user for measuring total body metabolism.
The references are relevant since it discloses collecting patient metabolic data and tracking patient health and treatment recommendation
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAAELDIN ELSHAER whose telephone number is (571)272-8284. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, MAMON OBEID can be reached on Mamon.Obeid@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/ALAAELDIN M. ELSHAER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687