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.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response and amendments, filed 11/12/2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 13, 26 are pending upon entry of this Amendment. The previous objections and 112 rejections and 112 f interpretations are withdrawn due to amendments. Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejections of claims have been fully considered, and 101 rejections are updated based on the amendments as cited in this action, in short Examiner response is :
physical measurements and physical component such as “a sensor measuring nutritional component concentrations in a spot urine, the nutritional component concentrations being a sodium ion concentration…” are additional that do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application, because it is not that these components (sensor) have a practical application, the analysis is , and a known measurement (concentrations) does not provide an practical application to the abstract and mental steps. If the search for the inventive concept is the measurement and claimed structure, then it is a practical application of the abstract and mental steps, but here it is not the case, as the system has a known structure.
Also limitation “processor” is a routine and common computer environment with processor and generic known element, limitations such as and “processors configured to acquire…” or “processor configured to define….” , “processor configured to refer….”, “processor configured to compare….”are routine and common computer environment with processor and generic known parameters and Performing a mental process in a computer environment performing generic functions and/or recite a mental process because they can be performed in the human mind and do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application, and do not recite additional limitations that present a practical application or amount to “significantly more” as they are routine and generic computer performing generic functions do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claim 26 is
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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
There is not antecedent basis for “the diet evaluation comment” , the limitation is needed to clearly be defined. For examination it is interpreted as an outputting by the processor on a display.
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, 5, 7-8, 13, 26 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, 5, 7-8 are directed to a directed to a system (i.e., a machine) and claim 13, 26 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claims 1, 5, 7-8, 13, 26 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.
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea. The Examiner submits that the following underlined limitations constitute and directed toward at least one abstract idea.
More specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A dietary habit evaluation system comprising:
a sensor measuring nutritional component concentrations in a spot urine, the nutritional component concentrations being a sodium ion concentration, a potassium ion concentration, a magnesium ion concentration, a urea-nitrogen concentration, and a creatinine concentration,
an acquisition control processor configured to acquire the nutritional component concentrations in the spot urine based on a measurement signal from the sensor and to calculate and acquire 4 types of spot urine nutritional component indexes contained in the spot urine excreted by a human by using the acquired nutritional component concentrations, the 4 types of 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 magnesium/creatinine ratio indicating a ratio of a magnesium ion concentration to a creatinine concentration, an urea- nitrogen/creatinine ratio indicating a ratio of a urea-nitrogen concentration to the creatinine concentration, and a sodium/creatinine ratio indicating a ratio of the sodium ion concentration to the creatinine concentration [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite: calculations that are mathematical concepts and therefore, are abstract];
a determination control processor configured to acquire reference values corresponding to the 4 types of spot urine nutritional component indexes [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite “a mental process” because the claimed limitations are analogous to an observation/evaluation/judgment/ /organization that can be performed in the human mind] from first memory, to compare each acquired spot urine nutritional component index with a corresponding reference value preset for each of spot urine nutritional component indexes, and to determine that the acquired sodium/potassium ratio is appropriate when the sodium/potassium ratio is less than the corresponding reference value, that the sodium/potassium ratio is inappropriate when the sodium/potassium ratio is the corresponding reference value or more,
that the acquired magnesium/creatinine ratio is appropriate when the magnesium/creatinine ratio is the corresponding reference value or more, that the magnesium/creatinine ratio is inappropriate when the magnesium/creatinine ratio is less
than the corresponding reference value,
that the acquired urea-nitrogen/creatinine ratio is appropriate when the urea- nitrogen/creatinine ratio is the corresponding reference value or more, that the urea- nitrogen/creatinine ratio is inappropriate when the urea-nitrogen/creatinine ratio is less than the corresponding reference value,
that the acquired sodium/creatinine ratio is appropriate when the sodium/creatinine ratio is less than the corresponding reference value, and that the sodium/creatinine ratio is inappropriate when the sodium/creatinine ratio is the corresponding reference value or more [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite “a mental process” because the claimed limitations are analogous to an observation/evaluation/judgment/ /organization that can be performed in the human mind];
a decision control processor configured to define 16 types of reference diet evaluation patterns 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 processor, to refer to a pattern sheet stored in second memory in advance , the pattern sheet storing the 16types of the reference determination results for each of the spot urine nutritional component indexes in association with the 16 types of reference diet evaluation patterns and diet evaluation numerical values indicating a goodness or badness of the diet evaluation pattern, to match each determined determination result with the corresponding reference determination result on the pattern sheet for each of the spot urine nutritional component indexes, to decide a specific reference diet evaluation pattern from the pattern sheet as a diet evaluation pattern of the human when all determination results match the corresponding reference determination results on the pattern sheet, and to acquire the diet evaluation numerical value associated with the specific reference diet evaluation pattern, the diet evaluation numerical value being set to a higher value as the number of appropriate determinations increases; [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite “a mental process” because the claimed limitations are analogous to an observation/evaluation/judgment/ /organization that can be performed in the human mind]
an output control processor configured to refer to a comment sheet stored in third memory in advance, the comment sheet storing the reference diet evaluation patterns in association with diet evaluation comments that improve a balance of a diet corresponding to each reference diet evaluation pattern, to compare the decided specific diet evaluation pattern with the reference diet evaluation pattern on the comment sheet, to acquire the diet evaluation comment from the comment sheet when the decided specific diet evaluation pattern matches one of the reference diet evaluation patterns on the comment sheet, and to output the acquired diet evaluation comment[the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite “a mental process” because the claimed limitations are analogous to an observation/evaluation/judgment/ /organization that can be performed in the human mind];
a questionnaire control processor configured to receive an input of a frequency of a bad habit being a habit of consuming fried foods or the habit of consuming sweets, to refer to a bad habit questionnaire sheet stored in fourth memory in advance, the bad habit questionnaire sheet storing a bad habit, bad habit frequencies, the corresponding bad habit numerical values, the bad habit numerical value being set to be lower as the bad habit frequency is higher, to compare the input of the frequency of the bad habit with the bad habit frequency of the bad habit in the bad habit questionnaire sheet, and to acquire the bad habit numerical value from the bad habit questionnaire sheet when the input of the frequency of the bad habit matches the bad habit frequency of the bad habit on the bad habit questionnaire sheet[the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite “a mental process” because the claimed limitations are analogous to an observation/evaluation/judgment/ /organization that can be performed in the human mind], and
wherein the output control processor calculates a total value by adding the acquired bad habit numerical value to the acquired diet evaluation numerical value, and outputs the total value[the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite: calculations that are mathematical concepts].
Furthermore, the independent claim 13, has the same limitations (although with method language) that are abstract identified below with underlined limitations and additional which are identified as bold as following:
A dietary habit evaluation method comprising:
a measuring step, performed by a sensor for measuring nutritional component concentrations in a spot urine, the nutritional component concentrations being a sodium ion concentration, a potassium ion concentration, a magnesium ion concentration, a urea-nitrogen concentration, and a creatinine concentration,
an acquisition control step, performed by a processor,
for acquiring the nutritional component concentrations in the spot urine based on a measurement signal from the sensor and for calculating and acquire 4 types of spot urine nutritional component indexes contained in the spot urine excreted by a human by using the acquired nutritional component concentrations,
the 4 types of 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 magnesium/creatinine ratio indicating a ratio of a magnesium ion concentration to a creatinine concentration, an urea- nitrogen/creatinine ratio indicating a ratio of a urea-nitrogen concentration to the creatinine concentration, and a sodium/creatinine ratio indicating a ratio of the sodium ion concentration to the creatinine concentration;
a determination control step, performed by a processor,
for acquiring a reference value corresponding to the 4 types of spot urine nutritional component indexes from first memory,
for comparing each acquired spot urine nutritional component index with a corresponding reference value preset for each of spot urine nutritional component indexes,
and for determining that the acquired sodium/potassium ratio is appropriate when the sodium/potassium ratio is less than the corresponding reference value, that the sodium/potassium ratio is inappropriate when the sodium/potassium ratio is the corresponding reference value or more,
that the acquired magnesium/creatinine ratio is appropriate when the magnesium/creatinine ratio is the corresponding reference value or more, that the magnesium/creatinine ratio is inappropriate when the magnesium/creatinine ratio is less than the corresponding reference value,
that the acquired urea-nitrogen/creatinine ratio is appropriate when the urea- nitrogen/creatinine ratio is the corresponding reference value or more, that the urea- nitrogen/creatinine ratio is inappropriate when the urea-nitrogen/creatinine ratio is less than the corresponding reference value,
that the acquired sodium/creatinine ratio is appropriate when the sodium/creatinine ratio is less than the corresponding reference value, and that the sodium/creatinine ratio is inappropriate when the sodium/creatinine ratio is the corresponding reference value or more ;
a decision control step, performed by a processor,
for defining 16 types of reference diet evaluation patterns 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 processor of the determination control step,
for referring to a pattern sheet stored in second memory in advance, the pattern sheet storing the 16 types of the reference determination results for each of the spot urine nutritional component indexes in association with the 16 types of reference diet evaluation patterns and diet evaluation numerical values indicating a goodness or badness of the diet evaluation pattern,
for matching each determined determination result with the corresponding reference determination result on the pattern sheet for each of the spot urine nutritional component indexes,
for deciding a specific reference diet evaluation pattern from the pattern sheet as a diet evaluation pattern of the human when all determination results match the corresponding reference determination results on the pattern sheet, and
for acquiring a the diet evaluation numerical value associated with the specific reference diet evaluation pattern, the diet evaluation numerical value being set to a higher value as the number of appropriate determinations increases;
an output control step, performed by a processor,
for referring to a comment sheet stored in third memory in advance, the comment sheet storing the reference diet evaluation patterns in association with diet evaluation comments that improve a balance of a diet corresponding to each reference diet evaluation pattern,
for comparing the decided specific diet evaluation pattern with the reference diet evaluation pattern on the comment sheet,
for acquiring the diet evaluation comment from the comment sheet when the decided specific diet evaluation pattern matches one of the reference diet evaluation patterns on the comment sheet,
and for outputting the acquired diet evaluation comment
a questionnaire control step, performed by a processor,
for receiving an input of a frequency of a bad habit being a habit of consuming fried foods or the habit of consuming sweets,
for referring to a bad habit questionnaire sheet stored in fourth memory in advance, the bad habit questionnaire sheet storing a bad habit, bad habit frequencies, the corresponding bad habit numerical values, the bad habit numerical value being set to be lower as the bad habit frequency is higher,
for comparing the input of the frequency of the bad habit with the bad habit frequency of the bad habit in the bad habit questionnaire sheet, and
for acquiring the bad habit numerical value from the bad habit questionnaire sheet when the input of the frequency of the bad habit matches the bad habit frequency of the bad habit on the bad habit questionnaire sheet, and
wherein the output control step calculates a total value by adding the acquired bad habit numerical value to the acquired diet evaluation numerical value, and outputs the total value.
also remaining 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 for the same reasons 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, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea:
an acquisition control processor, a determination control processor, first memory, a decision control processor, second memory, an output control processor, third memory, and a questionnaire control processor.
The examiner finds that the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) because they merely invoke machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process and the sensor is being used in its ordinary capacity of measuring: a sensor measuring nutritional component concentrations in a spot urine, the nutritional component concentrations being a sodium ion concentration, a potassium ion concentration, a magnesium ion concentration, a urea-nitrogen concentration, and a creatinine concentration
The examiner finds that the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) because they merely invoke machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process and the acquisition control processor is being used in its ordinary capacity of acquiring information: an acquisition control processor configured to acquire the nutritional component concentrations in the spot urine based on a measurement signal from the sensor.
the output control step in claim 13 and outputs a total value by adding the BMI numerical value to the acquired diet evaluation numerical value, the acquired bad habit numerical value, and the acquired good habit numerical value, is only data collection does not integrate abstract to a practical application, and outputs a total value…and the diet evaluation comment when the magnesium/creatinine ratio is the inappropriate determination, is an inappropriate determination comment that lists necessary foods of seaweed, seeds/nuts, and dairy products to improve the magnesium/creatinine ….are additional elements that amount to insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04 (d)(2).
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 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).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
limitations such outputs a total value, output control step are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (“WURC”) which is supported by the court case (SEE : Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); and Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978)) discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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