DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5, 11-13, and 15 are currently amended.
Claims 21-24 are newly added.
Claims 4, 6, 14, and 16 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15, and 17-24 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 .
Response to Arguments
35 USC 112
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 02/17/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 rejection of 12/01/2025 has been withdrawn.
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 1 includes specific limitations/devices that impose meaningful limits on practicing the judicial exception including requiring the computer system to integrate and utilize specific physical devices that apply specific operations of gathering specific data, processing the gathered data, and storing processed data. Applicant further argues that the claim 1 recite specific operations that are rooted in the computer system technology and that storing items in a co-occurrence graph is a specific technical mechanism for representing the items in the database rather than using conventional formats. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Here, the computer technology Applicant refers to does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of identifying recipes and items for the recipe, because they merely link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., implementation via computer). While the claims include additional elements of a computer system comprising a processor and computer-readable medium, item visual recognition module, a network, a device, a digital file including one or more image and one or more videos, an analysis module, a database a graphical user interface with cart object, and control element, the additional elements are claimed at a high level of generality and do not amount to a particular device or an unconventional device. Rather, the additional elements are generic components that act to merely apply the abstract idea on a computer or use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of identifying recipes/items. There is nothing to suggest both in the specification or in the claims that the device, item visual recognition module, analysis module, database, and/or GUI is recited at a level of specificity that imposes a meaningful limit.
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 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea of receiving forma user, a file including one or more images of inside of one or more food storage units of the user, identifying a plurality of items, storing identifiers of the plurality of items as part of user personalization data associated with the user, accessing the user personalization data associated with a user, the user personalization data comprising identifiers of a set of items with which the user interacted; for each recipe of a set of recipes: accessing an association table that stores degrees of association between pairs of items, the association table represented as a co-occurrence graph of the pairs of items that were previously purchased together by a plurality of users; for each of asset of item of a respective set of items of each recipe, obtaining, form the association table, a degree of association between each item and an item of the user personalization data; computing a score for each recipe using the degree of association for each item, wherein the score is indicative of how pertinent each recipe is to the user; selecting from the set of recipes and using the score for each recipe of the set of recipes, a recipe including a set of items; identifying a list of items from the set of items that are not in cart for the user and that are not in the plurality of items; and responsive to identifying the list of items, causing, using information about the items, information about the recipe and information about current content of the cart, rendering in a single view a plurality of items included in the cart, rendering a notification for the user to consider adding additional items to the cart to complete all ingredients for the recipe; rendering, below the notification, a name of the recipe and timing information for preparing the recipe; and rendering, in a single view and below the name of the recipe and the timing information, a list of items linked to the cart displayed, the cart being updated with the list of items.
The recited limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Se MPEP 2106.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because in particular the claims recite receiving a file, identifying a plurality of items, storing identifiers of the plurality of items, accessing data, accessing a table, obtaining a degree of association, computing a score, and selecting a recipe based on the score by a computer system comprising a processor, a computer-readable medium, a visual recognition module, analysis module, and database as well as using a device associated with a user. The claim further recites causing a device to generate a GUI, wherein the GUI comprises rendering, in a single view, a first/second scrollable component including the list of items linked to the cart object displayed at the GUI, the cart object being updated with the list of items in response to a single selection of an add-all control element displayed at the GUI. The computer system/processor, computer-readable medium, device, item visual recognition module, analysis module, digital file with images/videos, database, graphical user interface with cart object, component, and control element in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of accessing data, receiving a file, identifying a plurality of items, storing identifiers of the plurality of items, accessing data, accessing a table, obtaining a degree of association, computing a score, and selecting a recipe based on the score by a computer system comprising a processor, a computer-readable medium, a visual recognition module, analysis module, and database and causing a device to generate a GUI, wherein the GUI comprises rendering, in a single view, a first/second scrollable component including the list of items linked to the cart object displayed at the GUI, the cart object being updated with the list of items in response to a single selection of an add-all control element displayed at the GUI amount to not no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reasons these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-3 and 7-10, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-3 and 7-10 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for claims 4-5 and 21-22, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. In addition, they recite the additional elements of a food storage unit, a machine learned model to identify items within the food storage unit, and table builder module. The storage unit, machine-learned model, and table builder module in the claims are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Independent claims 11 and 20 recite the same abstract idea represented in representative claim 1, as well as substantially similar additional elements. The additional elements in independent claims 11 and 20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Similarly, the dependent claims 12-13, 15, 17-19, and 23-24 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claims 2-3, 5, 7-10, and 21-22. Therefore, the additional elements to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claims 2-3, 5, 7-10, and 21-22, respectively. Thus, dependent claims 12-13, 15, 17-19, and 23-24 are also ineligible.
Subject Matter Free From Prior Art
As discussed in the 12/01/2025 Office Action, Claims 1, 11, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. Claims 2-3, 5, 7-10, 12-13, 15, 17-19, and 21-24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of subject matter free from prior art:
The Examiner hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence neither anticipates nor renders obvious the particular combination of elements as claimed. That is, the Examiner emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
One piece of pertinent prior art is Achan et al. (US 2019/0236676) disclosing accessing user personalization data associated with a user comprising identifiers of a set of items with which the user interacted, for each recipe of a set of recipes obtaining a degree of association between each item and an item of the user personalization data, computing a score for each recipe using the degree of association for each item, selecting a recipe including a set of items, identifying a list of items from the set of items that are not in a cart object for the user, displaying GUI including list of items linked to the cart object and an add all control element. See Achan at least paragraph [0044], [0048], [0052], [0058]-[0061], [0065], [0071], [0077], [0079], Fig. 4. Another piece of pertinent prior art is Wu (US 2024/0289823) disclosing accessing an association table that stores degrees of associations between pairs of items and obtaining form the table a degree of association between the items. See Wu at least paragraph [0099], [0128], Fig. 8 & 9. Another piece of pertinent prior art is Eidem et al. (US 2024/0303687) disclosing a relatedness graph that indicates relationships between items and/or products of one or more third parties using a plurality of sources such as purchase history. See Eidem at least paragraph [0033]. Another piece of pertinent prior art is NPL: “Recipe recommendation using ingredient networks” (Teng, C.Y., Lin, Y.R. and Adamic, L.A., Recipe recommendation using ingredient networks, 2012, June, In Proceedings of the 4th annual ACM web science conference, pp. 298-307.) disclosing recommending recipes based on frequently co-occurring ingredients. However, neither Achan, Wu, Eidem, “recipe recommendation using ingredient networks”, nor any other pieces of prior art expressly anticipate or render obvious the particular combination of elements as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRITTANY E BARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-2861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/B.E.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688