DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 6/22/2023 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (and similar claims 10 and 16) recites “wherein the one or more products have at least one of the freshness level and the expiration date within a first predetermined threshold.” While the limitation is not indefinite, the examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “wherein the freshness level and the expiration date of the one or more products are each within a predetermined threshold” or similar, in order to improve the clarity of the claims.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 recite “A computer-implemented method…” (i.e. a process); claims 10-15 recite “A computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising: program instructions to…” (i.e. an article of manufacture – see spec. filed 6/22/2023 at ¶ 0090); and claims 16-20 recite “A computer system comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer readable storage media; program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors…” (i.e. a machine). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Note: The originally filed specification at ¶ 0090 specifies that “A computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media.” Therefore, claim 10 cannot be construed as including transitory signals or carrier waves (e.g. “signals per se”) under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and passes Step 1.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 10, and 16 (using claim 1 as representative) recite limitations for:
gathering…an inventory of one or more products stored in the plurality of smart refrigerators and a set of data related to the inventory,
wherein the set of data related to the inventory includes at least one of a freshness level of the one or more products and an expiration date of the one or more products;
generating…a recipe suggestion based on the one or more products stored in the plurality of smart refrigerators, wherein the one or more products have at least one of the freshness level and the expiration date within a first predetermined threshold;
responsive to one or more users each associated with one or more of the plurality of smart refrigerators accepting the recipe suggestion, gathering…a subset of the one or more products involved in the recipe suggestion from respective smart refrigerators of the plurality of smart refrigerators to prepare the recipe suggestion,
wherein the subset of the one or more products gathered are delivered to a central location; and
responsive to determining a meal has been prepared, delivering…a respective portion of the meal to each household of the one or more users
The limitations of independent claims 1, 10 and 16 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. receiving information on items in a plurality of refrigerators of users to generate and receive acceptance from the users of a recipe suggestion using the items in the plurality of refrigerators according to a freshness or expiration date, gathering the items in a central location to prepare a meal according to the recipe, and then delivering respective portions of the meal to each of the users) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis. Note that “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), claim limitations which recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of judicial exceptions. Therefore, since the processes described by the limitations above covers both commercial interactions and managing interactions between people (receiving information on items in a plurality of refrigerators of users to generate and receive acceptance from the users of a recipe suggestion using the items in the plurality of refrigerators according to a freshness or expiration date, gathering the items in a central location to prepare a meal according to the recipe, and then delivering respective portions of the meal to each of the users), the claims fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The examiner notes that the specific steps for “wherein the subset of the one or more products gathered are delivered to a central location; and…delivering…a respective portion of the meal to each household of the one or more users,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g. commercial interactions such as performing a delivery service.
In addition, as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), “the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ grouping.”
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[T]he "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” and “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” The limitations recited by the representative independent claims 1, 10, and 16 above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and but for the use of generic computer components, cover concepts (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) that can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper. For example, the “gathering…an inventory…and a set of data” and “gathering…a subset of the one or more products…” step amount to observation or evaluation, while the “generating…a recipe suggestion,” “accepting the recipe suggestion,” and “determining that a meal has been prepared” steps fall under evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. Therefore, as claims 1, 10 and 16 include at least several limitations that recite mental processes (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), but for the recitation of generic computer components in the claims, the claims fall under the “mental processes” category of judicial exceptions (i.e. abstract ideas).
As claims 1, 10 and 16 are identified by the examiner as reciting concepts that fall under more than one abstract idea grouping (i.e. “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes”), the examiner considers the limitations together as a single abstract idea for the purposes of the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two:
Claims 1, 10, and 16 recite the following additional elements:
“creating, by one or more processors, a virtual refrigerator network by connecting a plurality of smart refrigerators” of claim 1 and the similar limitations of claims 10 and 16
“A computer-implemented method” and “the one or more processors” (e.g. “by the one or more processors”) of claim 1
“A computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising: program instructions to…” of claim 10
“A computer system comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer readable storage media; program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors, the stored program instructions comprising: program instructions to…”
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 1, 10 and 16 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. receiving information on items in a plurality of refrigerators of users to generate and receive acceptance from the users of a recipe suggestion using the items in the plurality of refrigerators according to a freshness or expiration date, gathering the items in a central location to prepare a meal according to the recipe, and then delivering respective portions of the meal to each of the users) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A computer-implemented method” and “the one or more processors” of claim 1; “A computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising: program instructions to…” of claim 10; and “A computer system comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer readable storage media; program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors, the stored program instructions comprising: program instructions to…” of claim 16). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
The limitations for “creating, by one or more processors, a virtual refrigerator network by connecting a plurality of smart refrigerators” and that the refrigerators correspond to a set of “smart” refrigerators of claim 1 (and similar limitations of claims 10/16) only generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (where a plurality of smart refrigerators are connected), and at best, describes the use of generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to receive and/or transmit data between one another. In addition that the delivery of the products to a central location and delivery of portions of a meal to respective users is carried out using the processor does not recite anything more the mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components because the claims do not recite any specific control mechanism for controlling machinery (e.g. a drone or other delivery vehicle) by the processor in order to perform delivery.
Furthermore, the use of the one or more processors for gathering information on a subset of the products from the smart refrigerators describes electronically receiving/transmitting data, and also amounts to the use of computers in their ordinary capacity (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data). The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, but instead also indicates that the claims recite mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components.
Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 10 and 16 do not include additional elements, whether considered alone or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. receiving information on items in a plurality of refrigerators of users to generate and receive acceptance from the users of a recipe suggestion using the items in the plurality of refrigerators according to a freshness or expiration date, gathering the items in a central location to prepare a meal according to the recipe, and then delivering respective portions of the meal to each of the users) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A computer-implemented method” and “the one or more processors” of claim 1; “A computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising: program instructions to…” of claim 10; and “A computer system comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer readable storage media; program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors, the stored program instructions comprising: program instructions to…” of claim 16).
See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
The limitations for “creating, by one or more processors, a virtual refrigerator network by connecting a plurality of smart refrigerators” and that the refrigerators correspond to a set of “smart” refrigerators of claim 1 (and similar limitations of claims 10/16) only generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (where a plurality of smart refrigerators are connected), and at best, describes the use of generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to receive and/or transmit data between one another. In addition that the delivery of the products to a central location and delivery of portions of a meal to respective users is carried out using the processor does not recite anything more the mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components because the claims do not recite any specific control mechanism for controlling machinery (e.g. a drone or other delivery vehicle) by the processor in order to perform delivery.
Furthermore, the use of the one or more processors for gathering information on a subset of the products from the smart refrigerators describes electronically receiving/transmitting data, and also amounts to the use of computers in their ordinary capacity (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data). The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more, but instead also indicates that the claims recite mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components.
Considering the additional elements as an ordered combination does not add anything that amounts to significantly more. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent Claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20:
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 10 and 16 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2 recites “wherein the plurality of smart refrigerators is each connected through an application programming interface” – which does not add a technological improvement or inventive concept but instead adds generic computer components after the fact, and at best generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Claims 3, recite limitations which merely describe the abstract idea above, for:
wherein each of the plurality of smart refrigerators are located within a pre-determined distance from each other (claim 3)
wherein the inventory of the one or more products stored in the plurality of smart refrigerators and the set of data related to the inventory are gathered from at least one of the one or more users each associated with the one or more of the plurality of smart refrigerators and one or more of a plurality of cameras located in one or more of a plurality of doors of the one or more of the plurality of smart refrigerators (claim 5)
Claims 4, 11, and 17 recites steps that further describe the abstract idea and add mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (creating…a first user profile…and storing…the first user profile in a database” using generic computer components (“the processor,” “a database,” and “program instructions to”). Storing information in a database and receiving a set of data from a first camera and a drone also describes the use of generic computer technology in its ordinary capacity (to store and receive data).
Claims 6, 12 and 18 recite further limitations that describe the abstract idea and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (track the one or more products added to the virtual shopping cart of the supermarket, validate the one or more products against an inventory of the first smart refrigerator of the plurality of smart refrigerators, and responsive to determining that there is a risk of food waste, output an alert notification to the first user) using generic computer components (“by the one or more processors” of claim 6, “program instructions to” of claim 12, and “program instructions to” of claim 18). The step to connect to a virtual shopping cart of the supermarket also at most describes generic communications between computers, and amounts to the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive and/or transmit data.
Claim 7, 13, and 19 recite further limitations that describe the abstract idea and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (comparing a first picture of a first product input by at least one of the first user associated with a first smart refrigerator of the plurality of smart refrigerators and the first camera of the one or more of the plurality of cameras located in the one or more of the plurality of doors of the one or more of the plurality of smart refrigerators to a second product in a second picture from a library of pictures; determining whether a color of the first product is similar to a color of the second product in the second picture in the library of pictures; and calculating an age of the first product) using generic computer components (“by the one or more processors” of claim 7; “program instructions to” of claims 13/19). The first camera of a plurality of cameras is merely associated with, or descriptive of the source of the first picture, and even if the camera were explicitly used to take the picture (which is not currently recited), it would at most describe the use of a generic camera in its ordinary capacity (to take pictures).
Claims 8, 14, and 20 recite further limitations that describe the abstract idea and add mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (delivering, while delivering the respective portion of the meal to each household of the one or more users, food waste resulting from a preparation of the meal to be used as compost, the first household being selected based, at least in part, on: analyzing, a ground condition of the first household when gathering the one or more products from the one or more users to prepare the recipe suggestion; and determining the ground condition of the first household is below a second predetermined threshold) using generic computer components (“the one or more processors” of claim 8; and “program instructions to” of claims 14/20).
Claims 9 and 15 specify the respective portion of the meal is delivered to each household of the first user and the one or more contributing users using a drone – this limitation does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (delivery performed by a drone) and does not recite a specific technical mechanism for controlling the drone itself, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Nothing in dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20, considered alone or as an ordered combination, recite an inventive concept, an improvement to the functioning of computers or a technological field, or otherwise recite meaningful limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under § 101.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-20 are novel and nonobvious over the prior art.
Claim 1 recites “A computer-implemented method comprising: creating, by one or more processors, a virtual refrigerator network by connecting a plurality of smart refrigerators; gathering, by the one or more processors, an inventory of one or more products stored in the plurality of smart refrigerators and a set of data related to the inventory, wherein the set of data related to the inventory includes at least one of a freshness level of the one or more products and an expiration date of the one or more products; generating, by the one or more processors, a recipe suggestion based on the one or more products stored in the plurality of smart refrigerators, wherein the one or more products have at least one of the freshness level and the expiration date within a first predetermined threshold; responsive to one or more users each associated with one or more of the plurality of smart refrigerators accepting the recipe suggestion, gathering, by the one or more processors, a subset of the one or more products involved in the recipe suggestion from respective smart refrigerators of the plurality of smart refrigerators to prepare the recipe suggestion, wherein the subset of the one or more products gathered are delivered to a central location; and responsive to determining a meal has been prepared, delivering, by the one or more processors, a respective portion of the meal to each household of the one or more users.”
No combination of the prior art teaches a method or system that gathers information about a plurality of products (including freshness levels and expiration dates) stored in a plurality of different users refrigerators of one or more users in order to suggest and receive acceptance of a recipe that uses the combined products from the plurality of different refrigerators having a freshness level and expiration date within a first predetermined threshold, and then subsequently gathering the products and preparing a meal using the recipe suggestion that is then delivered in respective portions to each household of the one or more users.
Relevant prior art:
US 20210406545 A1 to Dulski et al. (Dulski) teaches a smart camera assembled in a refrigerator that monitors inventory of products inside the refrigerator for freshness and expiration dates (Dulski: ¶ 0083, ¶ 0093, ¶ 0109-0114), and suggests recipes that use ingredients that are close to expiration in order to reduce food waste (Dulski: ¶ 0115, ¶ 0134-0135, ¶ ). Users may also correlate and share recipes with other users, vote on a recipe as a group, form user groups, and suggest a group meal or recipe for the day (Dulski: ¶ 0137-0141).
WO2017135742A1 (see attached English translation cited herein) teaches a food ingredient management system that generates creative recipes by collecting an internal image from a camera of a refrigerator, and uploading the image of the food ingredient in the refrigerator to a food ingredient management server (last paragraph Pg. 20 – second paragraph Pg. 21). The food ingredient server than analyzes the ingredients in the refrigerator in order to provide recipes back to a first terminal (pgs. 21-23).
US 7907054 B1 to Nguyen teaches that “multiple systems 10 used by separate households can be linked to allow recipe and theme exchanges and the coordination of potluck type meals. For example, when planning a Mexican dinner, the systems 10 can use a common theme and select the individual dishes to be prepared by separate households based on maximizing the use of each household's current food inventory. Alternatively, if people are planning on cooking the entire meal at a single location, then the systems 10 can coordinate to advise guests which ingredients they should bring with them” (Nguyen: Col. 6: 25-34) and thus generally teaches the concept of combining ingredients from different guests to create a shared meal.
US 20160335589 A1 to Knobel teaches storing a personal food inventory, and updating the personal food inventory based on receiving purchase data identifying purchased food items (Knobel: ¶ 0051-0059), wherein the system subsequently receives a request for a dish recommendation, retrieves the stored food item identifiers to determine and rank candidate dishes and provide the ranked candidate dishes to a user interface (Knobel: Fig. 4, ¶ 0074-0081). Further, the system can calculate freshness of the food items to determine food items below a threshold freshness in order to notify the user that the food items are approaching their expiration date (Knobel: Fig. 7, ¶ 0095-0099).
US 20220208345 A1 to Mohimani teaches a recipe suggestion/acceptance and meal delivery system for delivering individual meal portions to users according to a selected recipe with specific ingredient selected by each user (Mohimani: ¶ 0009-0011, ¶ 0014, ¶ 0020).
US 20190102731 A1 to Byron et al. (Byron) also teaches drone delivery of meals ordered through an online marketplace (Byron: ¶ 0014, ¶ 0024-0030).
At best, the relevant prior art discussed above teaches generating recipe suggestions that are based upon detection of ingredients/products within a user’s refrigerator that should be used before spoilage/expiration and separately suggests the concept of users making a meal at one persons house using ingredients brought by other users. The prior art fails to teach, as a whole, identifying and gathering ingredients/products according to expiration/freshness levels from a plurality of refrigerators of different users for use in a combined recipe, and then preparing a meal based on the recipe and delivering portions of the prepared meal to each of the users.
Independent claims 10 and 16 recite substantially similar limitations and are novel and nonobvious for the same reasons as claim 1. Claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 depend from independent claims 1, 10, and 16 respectively and are also novel and nonobvious for the same reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
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 Zimmerman can be reached at (571)272-4602. 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights