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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were subject to rejection.
Claims 2-13 have been elected without traverse.
Claims 1 and 14-20 are non-elected, and are withdrawn.
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 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 20 13 are directed to a system, which is an apparatus. Therefore, claims 2-13 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Claim 2 recites the following limitations reciting the abstract idea of recommending cannabis products based on their biological effects and consumer inputs:
associating one or more compounds with a biological effect;
associating the biological effect as a preventive and/or treatment to one or more biological conditions;
(c) identifying a plurality of products for each product:
receiving compositional data corresponding to the product;
identifying a plurality of compounds corresponding to the product from the compositional data;
assigning one or more biological effects to the product based on the associating step a);
(d) receiving user input associated with a customer;
(e) providing a recommendation based on the one or more biological effects assigned to each product and the input.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for recommending cannabis products based on their biological effects and consumer inputs. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal interactions (e.g. advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to organizing product information and recommending them to a consumer based on consumer inputs, which is a sales and marketing activity.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that Claim 2 does recite additional elements, such as:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions;
Taken individually and as a whole, claim 2 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception as the additional elements merely serve to implement the abstract idea in a computing environment.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While there is recitation of a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions, these elements are recited with a very high level of generalization, such that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computing device. The additional elements are merely recited in passing as a preamble as executing the steps of the abstract idea. Specification paragraph [0079] discloses the computer readable storage media may include RAM, ROM, EPROM, flash memory, optical storage, or any other medium that can be used to store information. As such, it is evident that the additional elements are not any particular device or component, but any generic memory to provide a general link to a computing environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), claim 2 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to claim 2, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 2 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 2 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 2 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 2 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 3-13 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 2, such as by further defining the algorithm for recommending cannabis products based on their biological effects and consumer inputs. Thus, each of claims 3-13 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 3-13 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 3-13 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 2. Further additional elements are also acknowledged; however, the additional elements of claims 3-13 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 3-13 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 3-13 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 2. Thus, dependent claims 3-13 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-6, 8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Perelman (US 20210200753 A1).
Regarding Claim 2: Perelman disclose a system comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions; Perelman discloses memory including instructions for performing the strain finder functions (Perelman: [0036]; see also: [0038]).
associating one or more compounds with a biological effect; Perelman discloses storing the effects, medical benefits, and other characteristics with each strain (Perelman: [0106]; see also: [0054]; [0155-0156]).
associating the biological effect as a preventive and/or treatment to one or more biological conditions; Examiner notes that Applicant recites and/or in the claim. Perelman discloses storing the various medical benefits with each strain (Perelman: [0109]; see also: [0054]; [0145]).
(c) identifying a plurality of products for each product:
receiving compositional data corresponding to the product; Perelman discloses each product including a strain ID name (Perelman: [0080]; see also: [0040]; [0049]; [0051]; [0092]; [0112]).
identifying a plurality of compounds corresponding to the product from the compositional data; Perelman discloses a list of active ingredients (compounds) within each strain (Perelman: [0080]; see also: [0014]; [0051]; [0057]).
assigning one or more biological effects to the product based on the associating step a); Perelman discloses determining the effects of the strains based on the amount of the various ingredients (compounds) in the strain (Perelman: [0155-0156]; see also: [0057]; [0112]; [0137]).
(d) receiving user input associated with a customer; Perelman discloses the consumer sending a search request with selected parameters (Perelman: [0092]; see also: [0015]; [0025]; [0040]; [0065]; [0097]).
(e) providing a recommendation based on the one or more biological effects assigned to each product and the input. Perelman discloses generating a list of highest matching strain products by comparing their comparing the effects of the cannabis product with the user inputs (Perelman: [0098]; [0106]; see also: [0040]; [0050]; [0067-0069]; [0120]).
Regarding Claim 3: Perelman discloses the limitations of claim 2 above.
Perelman further discloses wherein the one or more compounds includes cannabinoids and terpenes. Perelman discloses the strain knowledge base including characteristics of the cannabinoid and terpene content (Perelman: [0113]; see also: [0155]).
Regarding Claim 4: Perelman discloses the limitations of claim 3 above.
Perelman further discloses wherein the one or more compounds includes compounds other than tetrahydrocannabinol. Perelman discloses active ingredients also including CBD and CBN, or other classes or instances of active compounds (Perelman: [0057]).
Regarding Claim 5: Perelman discloses the limitations of claim 3 above.
Perelman further discloses wherein the recommendation is made by ranking each of the products with a score for each cannabis product. Perelman discloses scoring strains and ordering the ranked list of strains by their score (Perelman: [0040]; see also: [0054]; [0138]).
Regarding Claim 6: Perelman discloses the limitations of claim 5 above.
Perelman further discloses wherein ranking includes scoring each of the products based on amounts of each of the plurality of compounds identified from the compositional data. Perelman discloses weighting the calculations for the strains based on the amount of the various compounds (Perelman: [0155-0156]).
Regarding Claim 8: Perelman discloses the limitations of claim 2 above.
Perelman further discloses wherein the input includes a consumer preference data. Perelman discloses the user selecting preferences for their strains (Perelman: [0135]; see also: [0025]).
Regarding Claim 12: Perelman discloses the limitations of claim 2 above.
Perelman further discloses wherein the biological conditions include pain. Perelman discloses the strains/ingredients being associated with effects, such as pain relief (Perelman: [0055]; see also: [0109]; [0145]).
Regarding Claim 13: Perelman discloses the limitations of claim 12 above.
Perelman further discloses wherein the biological conditions include anxiety. Perelman discloses associating strains/ingredients with anxiety (Perelman: [0055]).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Perelman (US 20210200753 A1) in view of Leber (US 20220335500 A1).
Regarding Claim 7: Perelman discloses the limitations of claim 6 above.
Perelman does not explicitly teach wherein the recommendation includes at least three products according to ranking and displays a score for each. Notably, however, Perelman does disclose scoring strains and ordering the ranked list of strains by their score (Perelman: [0040]).
To that accord, Leber does teach wherein the recommendation includes at least three products according to ranking and displays a score for each. Leber teaches the list of recommended products may include the top 5 products, and the recommendation interface including the score of each product (Leber: [0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Perelman disclosing the system for associating products with effects and providing the top ranked products to a user input with the recommendation including at least three products and the score for each product as taught by Leber. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the products that best match the selection criteria for the user (Leber: [0062]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Perelman (US 20210200753 A1) in view of Thibodeau (US 20220012782 A1).
Regarding Claim 9: Perelman discloses the limitations of claim 8 above.
Perelman does not explicitly teach wherein the consumer preference data includes a taste and/or smell. Notably, however, Perelman does disclose user preferences regarding strains (Perelman: [0135]).
To that accord, Thibodeau does teach wherein the consumer preference data includes a taste and/or smell. Thibodeau teaches a preference for a smell or tase of the products (Thibodeau: [0127]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Perelman disclosing the system for associating products with effects and providing the top ranked products to a user input with the preference data including a taste and/or smell as taught by Thibodeau. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to consider additional factors of the product for the user (Thibodeau: [0127]).
Regarding Claim 10: Perelman discloses the limitations of claim 8 above.
Perelman does not explicitly teach wherein the consumer preference data includes an included or excluded cannabinoid or terpene. Notably, however, Perelman does disclose choosing to include or exclude various characteristics, such as medical benefits (Perelman: [0146]).
To that accord, Thibodeau does teach wherein the consumer preference data includes an included or excluded cannabinoid or terpene. Examiner notes that Applicant recites or in the claim. Thibodeau teaches a user manually selecting specific cannabinoids and terpenes they prefer in their product, including amounts (Thibodeau: [0130-0133]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Perelman disclosing the system for associating products with effects and providing the top ranked products to a user input with the preference data including data of cannabinoids or terpenes to include or exclude as taught by Thibodeau. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to create a blend profile they want (Thibodeau: [0130]).
Regarding Claim 11: Perelman in view of Thibodeau discloses the limitations of claim 10 above.
Perelman does not explicitly disclose wherein the consumer preference data includes a threshold amount of the included or excluded cannabinoid or terpene. Notably, however, Perelman does disclose choosing to include or exclude various characteristics, such as medical benefits (Perelman: [0146]).
To that accord, Thibodeau does teach wherein the consumer preference data includes a threshold amount of the included or excluded cannabinoid or terpene. Examiner notes that Applicant recites or in the claim. Thibodeau teaches entering the preferred amounts to include in the product (Thibodeau: [0133]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Perelman disclosing the system for associating products with effects and providing the top ranked products to a user input with the preference data including a threshold amount of the cannabinoid or terpene as taught by Thibodeau. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to create a blend profile they want (Thibodeau: [0130]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PTO-892 Reference U discloses the need for requirements of labeling, advertisements, and regulations that are universal, and gaps in knowledge preventing universal authorization of medical cannabis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Kelly Campen can be reached at 571-272-6740. 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.
/TIMOTHY J KANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3688