DETAILED ACTION
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
There are antecedent basis issues in dependent claims 5-6, 8,17,19,21,22,25 due to improper use of “the”, such as:
Claim 5
The dietary habit evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein:
it is determined that a lower the sodium/potassium ratio, a less a higher the intake of vegetables and fruits consumed in a diet of human,
the reference value of the sodium/potassium ratio is determined based on a desired daily intake of sodium and a desired daily intake of potassium of a human,
it is determined that a higher the magnesium/creatinine ratio, a higher the intake of seaweed, seeds, and dairy products consumed in the diet of human,
Claim 6
Last line “the obtained inappropriate determination comments” should be corrected to “the outputted inappropriate determination comments”.
Claim 8
Line 4: higher value, the more appropriate
Claim 16:
Last two lines: “the obtained inappropriate determination comments” should be corrected to “the outputted inappropriate determination comments”.
Claim 17
Line 4: higher value, the more appropriate
Claim 19
Line 4: higher value, the more appropriate
Claim 21
The dietary habit evaluation system according to claim 20, wherein:
it is determined that a lower the sodium/potassium ratio, a less a higher a diet of human,
Claim 22
Line 3: “or the habit of consuming sweets,” should be corrected to “or a habit of consuming sweets,”
Claim 25
Line 2: “a questionnaire of the frequency of the good habit being the habit of consuming soybeans or the habit of” should be corrected to “a questionnaire of the frequency of a good habit being a habit of consuming soybeans or a habit of”.
Applicant should review all the claim lines to ensure addressing such improper use of “the” or “a”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 12, 15-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites:
“a decision control unit deciding a reference diet evaluation pattern of a combination of reference determination results matching each of the determination results for each of the determined spot urine nutritional component indexes in 16 types of reference diet evaluation patterns formed by combining the reference determination results of the appropriate determination or the inappropriate determination for each of the spot urine nutritional component indexes;”[emphasis added]
what is “deciding “here? Based on the claim language and even the disclosure in specification it is not clear what is decided? Does it mean defining each reference diet evaluation pattern? Or what? what is “matching” here? Does it mean comparing each index with their reference value preset and determining as appropriate or inappropriate based on comparison with their reference value preset? If yes, this limitation already has been claimed performed with “determination control unit”? if not, what is it?
As best understood, and based on the specification, it seems this limitation is reciting fig.16, therefore, examiner interprets this limitation as: defining 16 types of reference diet evaluation pattern of combination of each of 4 types of the spot urine nutritional component indexes and their determination results which are either appropriate or inappropriate based on the determination control unit.
Claim 12 has same limitation “a decision control step for decides a reference diet evaluation pattern of a combination of reference determination results matching each of the determination results for each of the determined spot urine nutritional component indexes in 16 types of reference diet evaluation patterns formed by combining the reference determination results of the appropriate determination or the inappropriate determination for each of the spot urine nutritional component indexes.” and rejected and interpreted in a similar way.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 is dependent on the canceled claim 2.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim 7 is not examined as it is not clear on which claim it depends.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
an acquisition control unit , a determination control unit, a decision control unit, an output control unit in claims 1, 6, 8, 15, 17-19 and a questionnaire control unit in claims 22 and 24 and a BMI control unit in claims 26 and 27, an acquisition control step, a determination control step, a decision control step , an output control step in claim 12. Based on the specification , e.g., figs.14-15 and the disclosure related in the specification these units are different parts of processor and the related data processing and inputting outputting data in the computer system.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 4-6, 8, 12, 15-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
2019 Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG): Step 1:
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 15-27 are directed to a directed to a system (i.e., a machine) and claim 12 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claims 1, 4-6, 8, 12, 15-27 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
2019 PEG: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groupings of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing limitations constitute: (a) “certain methods or data processing of organizing human activity” because they represent a concepts relating to managing human behavior and/or tracking or organizing information”; and/or (b) “a mental process” because the claimed limitations are analogous to an observation/evaluation/judgment/ /organization that can be performed in the human mind.
More specifically claims 1 and 12, recite limitations : an acquisition control unit that is obtaining or receiving gathering data (here data such as sodium/potassium ratio indicating a ratio of a sodium ion concentration to a potassium ion concentration) can be directed toward abstract ideas, mentally process a determination control unit that is comparing these data with reference data , and determining whether or not the spot urine nutritional component index is an appropriate determination or an inappropriate determination that is abstract and can be performed with pen/paper or mentally process, a decision control unit, presenting16 types of reference diet evaluation patterns formed by combining the reference determination results of the appropriate determination or the inappropriate determination for each of the spot urine nutritional component indexes that is mental process, abstract idea, and the process that can be done on paper, an output control unit outputting a diet evaluation comment for maintaining the current diet when the reference determination results for each of the spot urine nutritional component indexes are all appropriate determinations, and outputting a diet evaluation comment that lists necessary foods to improve the spot urine nutritional component index of the inappropriate determination when the reference determination result includes the inappropriate determination in the reference determination results of the spot urine nutritional component indexes that can be directed toward abstract ideas and can be performed with pen/paper or mentally process without significantly more. The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the independent claims are directed toward at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, the dependent claims include limitations that merely further define the abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) or fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below.
2019 PEG: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea.
Regarding the additional limitations of the processors, memory, program codes, the Examiner submits that these limitations are mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by merely using a computer to perform the process (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see 2019 PEG, Page 55 and MPEP § 2106.05).
For these reasons, representative independent claims 1 and 12 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claims include limitations that merely further define the abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) or fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application).
2019 PEG: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claims 1 and 12 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1, 4-6, 8, 12, 15-27 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 4329123 B2 (see JP2006029819A that is the same family for citation)
A dietary habit evaluation system (e.g., ¶0001) comprising:
an acquisition control unit (in 5/ 52 figs.1-3) acquiring spot urine nutritional component indexes (e.g., sodium chloride obtained from urine ¶0046) contained in one spot urine excreted by a human (using urine component measuring unit 9 of figs.1-3 ¶0018), the spot urine nutritional component indexes being a sodium/potassium ratio indicating a ratio of a sodium ion concentration to a potassium ion concentration;
a determination control unit (part of 52) comparing (e.g., S103,S108 in fig.7) the spot urine nutritional component index (e.g., NaCl/K in S108) with a reference value preset for the spot urine nutritional component index (e.g., 5 in S108) for each of spot urine nutritional component indexes (NaCl/K), and determining whether or not (S112/or S110) the spot urine nutritional component index (NaCl/K)is an appropriate determination (S112) or an inappropriate determination (S110)for each of the spot urine nutritional component indexes (NaCl/K) based on the determination result of whether or not the spot urine nutritional component index is the reference value or more (S109/S111/S112);
a decision control unit;
an output control unit outputting a diet evaluation comment for maintaining the current diet when the reference determination results for each of the spot urine nutritional component indexes are all appropriate determinations, and outputting a diet evaluation comment that lists necessary foods to improve the spot urine nutritional component index of the inappropriate determination when the reference determination result includes the inappropriate determination in the reference determination results of the spot urine nutritional component indexes.
NAGATA,JP 3565051 B2
A dietary habit evaluation system comprising:
an acquisition control unit (e.g., fig.4 216) acquiring spot urine nutritional component indexes contained in one spot urine (300) excreted by a human (user), types of the spot urine nutritional component indexes being a sodium (e.g., ¶0026¶0085) , potassium (¶0085) ion concentration, a creatinine ratio (e.g., fig.21,23 and or ¶0029¶0067);
a determination control unit (in controller 200,400 of fig.1-3 that process the comparisons given in fig.20) comparing the spot urine nutritional component index(figs.20-21 /e.g., ¶0105) with a reference value preset for the spot urine nutritional component index for each of spot urine nutritional component indexes, and determining whether or not the spot urine nutritional component index is an appropriate determination or an inappropriate determination for each of the spot urine nutritional component indexes based on the determination result of whether or not the spot urine nutritional component index is the reference value or more (advises are given based on the comparison with normal range);
an output control unit ( ¶0010 I/O port controller 200 connected to display 491 of fig.1-3 that output advises in e.g.,) outputting a diet evaluation comment for maintaining the current diet when the reference determination results for each of the spot urine nutritional component indexes are all appropriate determinations, and outputting a diet evaluation comment that lists necessary foods to improve the spot urine nutritional component index of the inappropriate determination when the reference determination result includes the inappropriate determination in the reference determination results of the spot urine nutritional component indexes (¶0059).
JP 4797103 B2
The treatment guideline information generation means multiplies the urine volume by the urine concentration of ions of sodium, potassium ion concentration , magnesium, creatinine ion concentration to a creatinine concentration, an urea-nitrogen, creatinine ion concentration that all 4 type ration of ion concentrations are obvious variants of the cited ratios.
Frayer-Williams US 20200049722 A1 teaches the correlation of ratio of M/C in urine spot and dairy products and seeds intake in food and JP2006029819A teaches ratio of sodium chloride / potassium is 5 or more, an improvement index related to the intake of sodium chloride and potassium in the diet, that is, excessive intake of salt or lack of ingested vegetables and fruits It is possible to easily determine whether or not there is a need for improving eating habits, and it can be disclosed to the user.
Mann, US 20060281188 A1
Teaches an acquisition control unit acquiring spot urine nutritional component indexes contained in one spot urine excreted by a human and determination control unit comparing the spot urine nutritional component index with a reference value preset for the spot urine nutritional component index for each of spot urine nutritional component indexes, but it is only for a patient with hypertension or congestive heart failure who must control their salt intake carefully.
SUN, CN 104698160 A
WANG, CN 104569438 A
SUN and WANG both teach invention but for male (SUN) or female (WANG), and an acquisition control unit acquiring spot urine nutritional component indexes contained in one spot urine excreted by a human and determination control unit comparing the spot urine nutritional component index with a reference value preset for the spot urine nutritional component index for each of spot urine nutritional component indexes, but it is only for a male or female hypertension patient whether the salt intake is not exercise and directs their lifestyle and medical treatment.
JP 2003302397 A
provide a urine component measurement apparatus for estimating a concentration of a particular component in urine and an absolute quantity of the particular component in the excreted urine by the urine concentration of ions of sodium, potassium ion concentration , magnesium, creatinine ion concentration to a creatinine concentration, an urea-nitrogen, creatinine ion concentration that all 4 type ration of ion concentrations are obvious variants of the cited ratios.
JP 7604726 B2
Teaches an acquisition control unit acquiring spot urine nutritional component indexes contained in one spot urine excreted by a human and determination control unit comparing the spot urine nutritional component index with a reference value preset for the spot urine nutritional component index for each of spot urine nutritional component indexes, but it is for monitoring determine whether your calcium intake is excessive or insufficient.
US 20110086428 A1
Teaches an acquisition control unit acquiring spot urine nutritional component indexes contained in one spot urine excreted by a human and determination control unit comparing the spot urine nutritional component index with a reference value preset for the spot urine nutritional component index for each of spot urine nutritional component indexes, but it is for monitoring the intake of medicine and comparing with reference values.
EP 3537153 A1
Teaches an acquisition control unit acquiring spot urine nutritional component indexes contained in one spot urine excreted by a human and determination control unit comparing the spot urine nutritional component index with a reference value preset for the spot urine nutritional component index for each of spot urine nutritional component indexes, but it is for monitoring deficiency of certain ion concentrations in the urine samples.
CA 3057240 A1
Teaches an acquisition control unit acquiring spot urine nutritional component indexes contained in one spot urine excreted by a human and determination control unit comparing the spot urine nutritional component index with a reference value preset for the spot urine nutritional component index for each of spot urine nutritional component indexes, but it is for monitoring ratio of urinary-sodium-to-urinary-creatinine.
CA 2709143 A1
Teaches an acquisition control unit acquiring spot urine nutritional component indexes contained in one spot urine excreted by a human and determination control unit comparing the spot urine nutritional component index with a reference value preset for the spot urine nutritional component index for each of spot urine nutritional component indexes, but it is for determining a subject's 24-hour urinary excretion of an analyte from a single sample of the subject's urine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855