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 . This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 12/22/25. Claims 1, 18 and 20 are amended, claim 3 is canceled. Claims 1, 2, and 4-20 are pending.
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, 2, and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a method for presenting food information, suitable for a device for presenting food information. The limitation of obtaining a recommended calorie intake of a user, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a device” language, “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally obtaining a recommended calorie intake of another user. Similarly, the limitations of: determining and generating are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 1. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – a device. The device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claim 2, and 4-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2014/0349256 A1 to Connor (hereinafter “Connor”) in view of US Publication No. 2022/0319665 A1 to Wang (hereinafter “Wang”).
Concerning claim 1, Connor discloses a method for presenting food information, suitable for a device for presenting food information (Abstract), comprising:
obtaining a recommended calorie intake of a user (paragraph [0133]);
determining a reference portion size of each of a plurality of food types based on the recommended calorie intake (paragraphs [0132], [0133], [0136]);
determining a relative portion size of the reference portion size of each of the food types relative to a reference object (paragraphs [0121], [0122] – using object of known size for estimating the size of a portion of food);
determining a food volume corresponding to the relative portion size of each of the food types according to an object volume of the reference object (paragraphs [0121], [0122]); and
generating a pie chart according to the food volume corresponding to each of the food types (paragraphs [0119], [0229]).
Connor discloses wherein the reference portion sizes of the food types are expressed in different units (paragraphs [0121], [0122]), however lacks specifically disclosing, and Wang discloses wherein the reference object comprises at least one of a palm and a fist of the user; wherein the object volume is calculated based on a three-dimensional geometric model corresponding to said at least one of the palm and fist of the user (paragraphs [0059]-[0062], [0167]-[0170] – 3D models of reference objects may be determined including the palm and fist of the user to determine object volume). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of a palm and a fist for a reference object as disclosed by Wang in the system of Conner in order to have a system which offers versatility in measuring, thereby improving the system’s accuracy.
Concerning claim 2, Connor discloses wherein the step of obtaining the recommended calorie intake of the user comprises: obtaining physiological information of the user, and determining an ideal weight of the user; and determining the recommended calorie intake of the user based on the ideal weight of the user (paragraphs [0012], [0132], [0133]).
Concerning claim 4, Connor discloses wherein the step of determining the reference portion size of each of the food types based on the recommended calorie intake comprises: obtaining a lookup table, wherein the lookup table records a plurality of predetermined calories and a plurality of predetermined food portion sizes corresponding to each of the predetermined calories, and the predetermined food portion sizes respectively correspond to the food types; finding a specific predetermined calorie closest to the recommended calorie intake among the predetermined calories, and determining the reference portion size of each of the food types according to the predetermined food portion sizes corresponding to the specific predetermined calorie (paragraphs [0121], [0122], [0132], [0133], [0136]).
Concerning claim 5, Connor discloses wherein the food types comprise a first food type, there is a first proportional relationship between a unit portion size of the first food type and the reference object, and the step of determining the relative portion size of the reference portion size of each of the food types relative to the reference object comprises: determining the relative portion size of the reference portion size of the first food type relative to the reference object based on the reference portion size of the first food type and the first proportional relationship (paragraphs [0121], [0122], [0132], [0133], [0136]).
Concerning claim 6, Connor discloses the food types further comprise a second food type, there is a second proportional relationship between a unit portion size of the second food type and the reference object, and the step of determining the relative portion size of the reference portion size of each of the food types relative to the reference object further comprises: determining the relative portion size of the reference portion size of the second food type relative to the reference object based on the reference portion size of the second food type and the second proportional relationship, wherein the first proportional relationship is different from the second proportional relationship (paragraphs [0121], [0122], [0132], [0133], [0136]).
Concerning claim 7, Connor discloses wherein the food types comprise a first food type, and the step of determining the food volume corresponding to the relative portion size of each of the food types according to the object volume of the reference object comprises: multiplying the relative portion size corresponding to the first food type by the object volume as the food volume corresponding to the relative portion size of the first food type (paragraphs [0121], [0122], [0132], [0133], [0136]).
Concerning claim 8, Connor discloses wherein the pie chart comprises a plurality of specific sectors corresponding to the food types, and a central angle corresponding to each of the specific sectors is positively correlated with the corresponding food volume (paragraphs [0121], [0122], [0132], [0133], [0136])..
Concerning claim 9, Connor discloses wherein the step of generating the pie chart according to the food volume corresponding to each of the food types comprises: obtaining a volume sum of the food volumes corresponding to the food types, and determining a volume ratio of the food volume corresponding to each of the food types in the volume sum; determining the central angle corresponding to each of the food types according to the volume ratio corresponding to each of the food types, and drawing the pie chart (paragraphs [0119], [0121], [0122], [0132], [0133], [0136], [0229])
Concerning claim 10, Connor discloses wherein the step of drawing the pie chart comprises: obtaining a reference angle for an i-th food type among the food types, and drawing a sector from the reference angle, wherein a central angle of the sector corresponds to the central angle of the i-th food type, the sector has a first side and a second side with a length of a predetermined radius, and the first side of the sector corresponds to the reference angle, wherein 1≤i≤N, where N is a number of the food types (paragraphs [0121], [0122], [0132], [0133], [0136]).
Concerning claim 11, Connor discloses wherein in response to i being 1, the reference angle is 0 degrees, and in response to i being greater than 1, the step of obtaining the reference angle comprises: obtaining a reference sector corresponding to an (i-1)-th food type among the food types, wherein the reference sector has a first reference side and a second reference side; using an angle corresponding to the second reference side as the reference angle (paragraphs [0121], [0122], [0132], [0133], [0136], [0251]).
Concerning claim 12, Connor discloses wherein the recommended calorie intake comprises a recommended calorie intake for a single day or a recommended calorie intake for a single meal (paragraphs [0121], [0122], [0132], [0133], [0136]).
Concerning claims 13 and 19, Connor discloses further comprising: obtaining an actual intake volume of each of the food types by the user; and presenting an intake progress of each of the food types in the pie chart according to the actual intake volume of each of the food types (paragraphs [0119], [0121], [0122], [0132], [0133], [0136], [0229]).
Concerning claim 14, Connor discloses wherein the food types comprise a first food type, and the step of obtaining the actual intake volume of each of the food types by the user comprises: obtaining a first intake portion size of the first food type; determining a first intake food volume corresponding to the first intake portion size according to the object volume of the reference object, and using the first intake food volume as the actual intake volume of the first food type (paragraphs [0121], [0122], [0132], [0133], [0136]).
Concerning claim 15, Connor discloses wherein the step of obtaining the first intake portion size of the first food type comprises: obtaining a first image, wherein the first image comprises an object image region corresponding to the reference object and a food image region corresponding to first food, and the first food belongs to the first food type; determining the first intake portion size of the first food type based on a ratio between the object image region and the food image region (paragraphs [0121], [0122], [0132], [0133], [0136]).
Concerning claim 16, Connor discloses wherein the food types comprise a first food type, the pie chart comprises a first sector corresponding to the first food type, the first sector has a reference angle and a first central angle, and the intake progress of the first food type is characterized as a second sector, wherein the second sector starts from the reference angle and has a second central angle, and a ratio between the second central angle and the first central angle corresponds to an actual intake ratio of the first food type by the user (paragraphs [0121], [0122], [0132], [0133], [0136]).
Concerning claim 17, Connor discloses further comprising: obtaining an intake of each of the food types in three meals set by the user, and generating a plurality of reference pie charts corresponding to the three meals (paragraphs [0119], [0121], [0122], [0132], [0133], [0136], [0229]).
Concerning claims 18 and 20, see the rejection of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – a device. The device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim amendments have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection. Additional explanations and citations have been provided in the Office Action above to address the claim amendments.
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 MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715