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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action having a notification date of August 7, 2025 (“non-final Office Action”). Following the non-final Office Action, Applicant filed an amendment on February 6, 2026 (the “Amendment”), amending claims 1-3 and 11-13 and canceling claims 10 and 20.
The present Final Office Action addresses pending claims 1-9 and 11-19 in the Amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Priority
For the reasons set forth in the non-final Office Action, the effective priority date of the present application is January 11, 2024, the actual filing date of the present application.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §112
These rejections are withdrawn in view of the Amendment.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Double Patenting Claim Rejections
These rejections are withdrawn in view of the Amendment.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §101
On pages 5-7 of the Amendment, Applicant takes the position that the "stacked" nature of the ML models recited in the present claims integrates the abstract idea into a "practical application" by improving accuracy (presumably, of the generated nutrient profiles and nutrient expert classifications). However, the generically recited ML models amount to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are not patent eligible. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), pp. 10, 14. An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment. Id.
Requirements that the machine learning model be “iteratively trained” or dynamically adjusted do not represent a technological improvement because iterative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), p. 12. “[T]he way machine learning works is the inputs are defined, the model is trained, and then the algorithm is actually updated and improved over time based on the input.” Id.
Using existing machine learning technology to perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved does not confer patent-eligibility. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), p. 15.
On pages 7-8 of the Amendment, Applicant takes the position that the limitations directed to receiving expert training data, iteratively training the expert ML model, and classifying the subject to a nutrient expert using the trained expert ML model based on the updated nutrient profile are non-conventional steps that provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea. While the Examiner has not asserted that such limitations amount to conventional/routine activity, the Examiner asserts that such limitations either define part of the abstract idea(a) or are additional limitations that do not provide significantly more pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(f), (g), and/or (h) for the reasons discussed herein.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by the Amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 11, line 18, it appears that "nutrient consumption program" should be changed to --nourishment consumption program--.
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 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more:
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-9 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine) and claims 11-19 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claims 1-9 and 11-19 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories. 35 USC §101.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 and July 2024 updates issued by the USPTO as incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A system for timing impact of nourishment consumption, the system comprising:
a computing device, the computing device configured to:
receive training data comprising physiological data, correlated to current nutrient levels of a subject;
train a nutrient machine-learning model using the training data;
generate a nutrient profile of the subject utilizing the nutrient machine-learning model;
determine, using the nutrient profile, a nourishment consumption program;
provide, to the subject, the nourishment consumption program;
receive a set of nutrition consumption data of the subject as a function of the nourishment consumption program;
generate an updated nutrient profile as a function of the set of nutrition consumption data and the defined time intervals; and
generate one or more audiovisual notifications based on the nutrient consumption program, wherein the one or more audiovisual notifications comprises a notification of encouragement;
provide, to the subject, an updated consumption pattern of the nourishment consumption program as a function of the set of nutrition consumption data and the updated nutrient profile at each defined time interval;
determine that at least a goal of the updated consumption pattern is not being met by the subject based on the updated nutrient profile of the subject; and
classify the subject to a nutrient expert using an expert machine learning model which comprises:
receiving expert training data comprising a plurality of nutrient profile data and physiological data inputs correlated to a plurality of nutritional expert profile data as outputs; and
training, iteratively, the expert machine-learning model using the expert training data;
classify the subject to the nutrient expert as a function of at least the updated nutrient profile utilizing the trained expert machine-learning model.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: (a) “certain
methods of organizing human activity” because they relate to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Specifically, the limitations directed to generating a nutrient profile of a subject, determining and providing a nourishment consumption program to the subject based on the profile, generating an updated profile based on nutrient consumption data and defined time intervals, generating encouragement notifications based on the nourishment consumption program, providing the subject an updated consumption pattern of the program based on the consumption data and the updated profile at each time interval, determining that at least a goal of the updated consumption pattern (e.g. particular weight loss, particular nutrition levels, etc.) is not being met by the subject based on the updated nutrient profile of the subject, and classifying the subject to a particular nutrient expert as a function of their updated nutrient profile relates to following rules or instructions. Limitations directed to developing a nourishment consumption program based on consumption data and an updated nutrient profile are, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are similar to assigning hair designs to balance head shape, In re Brown, 645 Fed. Appx. 1014, 1015-16 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Furthermore, the foregoing underlined limitations constitute (b) “mental processes” because they are observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person (e.g., dietician and/or other medical professional ) could practically in their mind with pen and paper analyze physiological data (e.g., blood chemistry results such as metabolism rate, genetic data, blood pressure, etc.) and current nutrient levels of a subject (e.g., vitamin B12, copper, vitamin C, etc.), develop a "nutrient profile" of the subject based on the physiological data and current nutrient levels (e.g., numerical values relating current to recommended nutrient levels), determine a “nourishment consumption program” using the nutrient profile (e.g., determining a consumption pattern (e.g., time of day) for the subject to consume alimentary elements to move the nutrient levels to the recommended nutrient levels), update the nutrient profile based on nutrients consumed by the subject according to the nourishment consumption program (e.g., updating the "current nutrient levels" in the profile based on the nutrient levels in the consumed foods over time), generate (by writing down) one or more "encouragement notifications" based on the program (e.g., "You only need to eat one more serving of eggs by 9pm to increase your B12 levels to the recommended level. Keep it up!!"), develop/provide an updated consumption pattern of the program based on the consumption data and the updated profile at each time interval (e.g., different timing to consume particular foods to increase likelihood of reaching recommended nutrient levels), determine that at least a goal of the updated consumption pattern (e.g. particular weight loss, particular nutrition levels, etc.) is not being met by the subject based on the updated nutrient profile of the subject, and classify the subject to a particular nutrient expert as a function of their updated nutrient profile. These recitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQe2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims “directed to collection of information, comprehending the meaning of that collected information, and indication of the results, all on a generic computer network operating in its normal, expected manner,” fail step one of the Alice framework. In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Claims directed to “collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data’’ are abstract. Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. General Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Claims directed to organizing, storing, and transmitting information determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Cyberfone Sys., L.L.C. v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App’x 988, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, 12-16, and 18-19 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below:
-Claims 2 and 12 recite how the physiological data includes food intolerances of a subject which just further defines the abstract ideas discussed above.
-Claims 3 and 13 call for determining relationships between consumption of particular alimentary elements and the concentration of nutrients in the physiological data and outputting the nutrient profile comprising a nutritional deficiency which relates to "certain methods of organizing human activity" and "mental processes" similar to as discussed previously.
-Claims 4 and 14 recite how the nourishment consumption program includes at least an alimentary element and a consumption pattern for consuming the at least an alimentary element, where the consumption pattern includes a time of day determined as a function of the nutrient profile and the current nutrient levels of the subject which relates to "certain methods of organizing human activity" and "mental processes" similar to as discussed previously.
-Claims 5 and 15 call for linking the nourishment consumption program to a calendar of the subject and setting timed reminders for the subject to consume at least one alimentary element as a function of a current location of the subject which relates to "certain methods of organizing human activity" and "mental processes" similar to as discussed previously.
-Claims 6 and 16 recite how the notification is a hydration notification which just further defines the abstract ideas discussed above.
-Claims 8 and 18 recite how the notification includes medical benefits associated with the nutrient consumption program which just further defines the abstract ideas discussed above.
-Claims 9 and 19 recite how notification includes an achievement badge which just further defines the abstract ideas discussed above.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), 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 such as 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.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A system for timing impact of nourishment consumption, the system comprising (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
a computing device, the computing device configured to (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
receive training data comprising physiological data, correlated to current nutrient levels of a subject (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
train a nutrient machine-learning model using the training data (merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
generate a nutrient profile of the subject utilizing the nutrient machine-learning model (merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
determine, using the nutrient profile, a nourishment consumption program;
provide, to the subject, the nourishment consumption program;
receive a set of nutrition consumption data of the subject as a function of the nourishment consumption program (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
generate an updated nutrient profile as a function of the set of nutrition consumption data and the defined time intervals; and
generate one or more audiovisual (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) notifications based on the nutrient consumption program, wherein the one or more audiovisual (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) notifications comprises a notification of encouragement;
provide, to the subject, an updated consumption pattern of the nourishment consumption program as a function of the set of nutrition consumption data and the updated nutrient profile at each defined time interval;
determine that at least a goal of the updated consumption pattern is not being met by the subject based on the updated nutrient profile of the subject; and
classify the subject to a nutrient expert using an expert machine learning model (merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which comprises:
receiving expert training data comprising a plurality of nutrient profile data and physiological data inputs correlated to a plurality of nutritional expert profile data as outputs (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); and
training, iteratively, the expert machine-learning model using the expert training data (merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
classify the subject to the nutrient expert as a function of at least the updated nutrient profile utilizing the trained expert machine-learning model (merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the system including computing device and the notification being an audiovisual notification, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of receiving training data and nutrition consumption data and receiving expert training data including a plurality of nutrient profile data and physiological data inputs correlated to a plurality of nutritional expert profile data as outputs, the Examiner submits that these additional limitations merely add insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the additional limitations of training and using the ML model to generate the nutrient profile and iteratively training and using the "expert" ML model to classify the subject to the nutrient expert, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are not patent eligible. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), pp. 10, 14. Requirements that the machine learning model be “iteratively trained” or dynamically adjusted do not represent a technological improvement because iterative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), p. 12. “[T]he way machine learning works is the inputs are defined, the model is trained, and then the algorithm is actually updated and improved over time based on the input.” Id.
An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment. Id. Claims that do not delineate steps through which the machine learning technology achieves an alleged improvement do not render the claims patent eligible. Id., p. 13. Allowing a claim that functionally describes a mere concept without disclosing how to implement that concept risks defeating the very purpose of the patent system. Id. Using existing machine learning technology to perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved does not confer patent-eligibility. Id., p. 15.
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim 11 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim 11 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
-Claims 3 and 13 call for using the ML model to perform various steps which just amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). These claims also call for receiving a nutritional input which merely add insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
-Claims 5 and 15 call for providing an audiovisual notification of the consumption program to a user device which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). These claims also recite how the calendar and time reminders are on a user device of the subject which also amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claims 7 and 17 call for transmitting a hydration notification to a smart water bottle which merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity (transmitting data) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
When the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the system including computing device and the notification being an audiovisual notification, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of receiving training data and nutrition consumption data and receiving expert training data including a plurality of nutrient profile data and physiological data inputs correlated to a plurality of nutritional expert profile data as outputs, the Examiner submits that these additional limitations merely add insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding the additional limitations of training and using the ML model to generate the nutrient profile and iteratively training and using the "expert" ML model to classify the subject to the nutrient expert, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are not patent eligible. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), pp. 10, 14. Requirements that the machine learning model be “iteratively trained” or dynamically adjusted do not represent a technological improvement because iterative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), p. 12. “[T]he way machine learning works is the inputs are defined, the model is trained, and then the algorithm is actually updated and improved over time based on the input.” Id.
An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment. Id. Claims that do not delineate steps through which the machine learning technology achieves an alleged improvement do not render the claims patent eligible. Id., p. 13. Allowing a claim that functionally describes a mere concept without disclosing how to implement that concept risks defeating the very purpose of the patent system. Id. Using existing machine learning technology to perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved does not confer patent-eligibility. Id., p. 15.
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
-Claims 3 and 13 call for using the ML model to perform various steps which just amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). These claims also call for receiving a nutritional input which merely add insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
-Claims 5 and 15 call for providing an audiovisual notification of the consumption program to a user device which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). These claims also recite how the calendar and time reminders are on a user device of the subject which also amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claims 7 and 17 call for transmitting a hydration notification to a smart water bottle which merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity (transmitting data) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, claims 1-9 and 11-19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0240542 to Grimmer et al. (“Grimmer”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0267128 to Decombel et al. ("Decombel"), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0201199 to Neumann ("Neumann"), and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0357941 to Wilkinson (“Wilkinson”):
Regarding claim 1, Grimmer discloses a system for timing impact of nourishment consumption ([0010] and Figure 1 disclose/illustrate a system for generating personalized food (nourishment) recommendations on a daily or other frequent basis over time), the system comprising:
a computing device ([0011] notes how the system includes a database, processor, and memory, which would necessarily be implemented in a computing device), the computing device configured to:
receive training data comprising physiological data, correlated to current nutrient levels of a subject ([0010]-[0011], [0085], [0092]-[0094], and [0251]-[0252] discuss how a decision tree engine/classifier receives various types of subject data such as phenotype/genotype/vitals/bloodwork/etc. (physiological data) and classifies the individual into a diet type (“nutrient profile”) indicative of various nutrient ranges ([0085]); furthermore, [0256]-[0257] notes how the classifiers are developed using training sets based on for instance existing clinical study results, etc.; accordingly, as the inputs and outputs of the diet type classifier for a particular user are respectively physiological/nutrient consumption data and diet types/nutrient levels, then the training data correlates physiological data to current nutrient levels because that is how machine learning models are trained (i.e., training data includes inputs and outputs that correspond to the desired inputs and outputs after training);
train a nutrient machine-learning model using the training data (per [0256]-[0257], the ML model is trained);
generate a nutrient profile of the subject utilizing the nutrient machine-learning model ([0010]-[0011], [0085], [0092]-[0094], and [0251]-[0252] discuss how a decision tree engine/classifier receives various types of subject data such as phenotype/genotype/vitals/bloodwork/etc. (physiological data) and classifies the individual into a diet type (“nutrient profile”) indicative of various nutrient ranges ([0085]);
determine, using the nutrient profile, a nourishment consumption program ([0010] discusses how the diet type/nutrient profile can specify a personalized diet and what foods should be eaten by the person while [0094] notes how the diet types (nutrient profiles) are the bases for meal recommendations (“nourishment consumption program”));
provide, to the subject, the nourishment consumption program (the recommendation/program is transmitted to the user per [0095]);
receive a set of nutrition consumption data of the subject as a function of the nourishment consumption program ([0220] discusses how the system provides feedback (“set of nutrition consumption data”) that the user has taken recommended supplements, where the "recommended" supplements are part of the "nourishment consumption program" as noted above);
generate an updated nutrient profile as a function of the set of nutrition consumption data and the defined time intervals ([0258] discloses classifying the user into a more suitable diet type (generating an "updated nutrient profile") based on a metabolic adaptability of the user determined one or more times following implementation of a particular diet corresponding to a particular diet type (as a function of the "nutrition consumption data" and "defined time intervals")); and
generate one or more … notifications based on the nutrient consumption program ([0210], [0248] discuss displaying suggested/recommended meals to the user (generating notifications based on the nutrient/nourishment consumption program)), …
provide, to the subject, an updated consumption pattern of the nourishment consumption program as a function of the set of nutrition consumption data and the updated nutrient profile at each defined time interval ([0220] discusses how the system considers that the user is taking supplements (considers the “set of nutrition consumption data”) when making future food recommendations; also, as already noted above, the food recommendations are a “consumption pattern” as [0010] and [0251] discuss how the system can generate various recommended foods to help a user on a daily, weekly, monthly, or other frequent basis achieve a desired state of wellbeing or one or more health goals through healthy and personalized consumption based on their diet type (nutrient profile) while [0084], [0102], and [0127] discuss how the user can be provided with breakfast, lunch, and/or dinner recommendations; still further, [0258] discloses classifying the user into a more suitable diet type (generating an "updated nutrient profile") based on a metabolic adaptability of the user determined one or more times following implementation of a particular diet corresponding to a particular diet type (as a function of the "nutrition consumption data" and "defined time intervals"); accordingly, after taking into account the supplements (set of nutrition consumption data) and the user's newly classified diet type (updated nutrient profile), an “updated consumption pattern” (e.g., in relation to above noted daily, weekly, monthly, breakfast, lunch, dinner, etc., "defined time intervals") is determined (and provided to the user per [0209]); also see [0187]);
…
…
…
While Grimmer discloses determining goals of the subject ([0067], [0086]) and the updated nutrient profile ([0258]), Grimmer might be silent regarding determine that at least a goal of the updated consumption pattern is not being met by the subject based on the updated nutrient profile of the subject.
Nevertheless, Decombel teaches ([0139]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art to analyze new user data once a user has begun implementing a diet program (updated consumption profile) to determine if the user is achieving their diet/wellness goals (goal of the updated consumption pattern) to advantageously facilitate the user's understanding of their progress relative to their goals to allow for appropriate modifications to be made to achieve the goals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine that at least a goal of the updated consumption pattern is not being met by the subject based on the updated nutrient profile of the subject in the system of Grimmer as taught by Decombel to advantageously facilitate the user's understanding of their progress relative to their goals to allow for appropriate modifications to be made to achieve the goals. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Furthermore, Grimmer appears to be silent regarding
classify the subject to a nutrient expert using an expert machine learning model which comprises:
receiving expert training data comprising a plurality of nutrient profile data and physiological data inputs correlated to a plurality of nutritional expert profile data as outputs; and
training, iteratively, the expert machine-learning model using the expert training data;
classify the subject to the nutrient expert as a function of at least the updated nutrient profile utilizing the trained expert machine-learning model.
Nevertheless, Neumann teaches ([0107]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art to obtain element training data 120 ("expert training data") including a plurality of user features 108 that includes biological state data such as vitamin D levels, potassium levels, etc. ("nutrient profile data") and red blood cell count, cholesterol levels, glucose levels, etc. ("physiological data")([0018]-[0026]) and correlated advisor elements which can be in relation to a nutritionist/dietician ("nutritional expert profile")([0028], [0083], [0101]; generate (train) an ML model (an "expert ML model") using the element training data 120 which can be updated (and where the process can be iterative/recursive per [0017]), and input user features ("updated nutrient profile") into the trained ML model to output advisor elements and locate an informed advisory (classify the subject to the nutrient expert) which would advantageously identify one or more experts that can assist the subject in reaching their goals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive expert training data comprising a plurality of nutrient profile data and physiological data inputs correlated to a plurality of nutritional expert profile data as outputs; train, iteratively, the expert machine-learning model using the expert training data; and classify the subject to the nutrient expert as a function of at least the updated nutrient profile utilizing the trained expert machine-learning model to advantageously identify one or more experts that can assist the subject in reaching their goals, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, and because there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Finally, Grimmer appears to be silent regarding the notification being an audiovisual notification including a notification of encouragement.
Nevertheless, Wilkinson teaches ([0048]-[0050]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art to provide a notification of a developed/recommended meal plan to a user in the form of videos demonstrating, audio instructions, slide shows of the meal at various stages, textual instructions, and the like (audiovisual notification) which advantageously facilitates understanding of the generated meal plan and encourage the user to prepare the meal ([0059]) as compared to only a textual description of the meal plan thereby increasing the likelihood of compliance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the notification of Grimmer to have been an audiovisual notification including a notification of encouragement as taught by Wilkinson to advantageously facilitate understanding of the generated meal plan and encourage the user to prepare the meal as compared to only a textual description of the meal plan thereby increasing the likelihood of compliance and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson combination discloses the system of claim 1, further including wherein the physiological data comprises food intolerances of a subject ([0225], [0228], and [0263] of Grimmer discusses assessing various impaired food tolerances of the individual)
Regarding claim 3, the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson combination discloses the system of claim 1, further including wherein the nutrient machine-learning model is configured to:
receive a nutritional input ([0092]-[0094], [0132]-[0133], [0187] of Grimmer discuss how the diet type classifier/ML model receives nutritional information regarding foods/nutrients consumed by the individual);
determine relationships between consumption of particular alimentary elements and concentration of nutrients in the physiological data (as the diet type classifier/ML model outputs a diet type/nutrient profile indicative of various nutrient levels in the individual based on received physiological data which includes data regarding consumption of various alimentary elements (e.g., challenge beverages/food, etc.) per [0092]-[0094], [0132]-[0133], [0187] of Grimmer, then the diet type classifier/ML model is determining relationships between consumption of particular alimentary elements and the concentration of nutrients in physiological data); and
output the nutrient profile comprising a nutritional deficiency ([0092]-[0094], [0132]-[0133], [0187] of Grimmer discuss how the diet type classifier/ML model outputs a diet type/nutrient profile, while [0095]-[0099] discuss how the diet type classifier/ML model can output various nutrient/vitamin ranges that should be consumed by the user related to the user’s nutritional needs which means that the user has a “nutritional deficiency” as to such nutrients/vitamins).
Claims 11-13 are rejected in view of the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson combination as respectively discussed above in relation to claims 1-3.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0240542 to Grimmer et al. (“Grimmer”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0267128 to Decombel et al. ("Decombel"), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0201199 to Neumann ("Neumann"), and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0357941 to Wilkinson (“Wilkinson”), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0287384 to Boyes (“Boyes”):
Regarding claim 4, the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson combination discloses the system of claim 1, further including wherein the nourishment consumption program includes:
at least an alimentary element (the foods specified in [0010] of Grimmer are nourishment or sustenance: “alimentary elements”); and
a consumption pattern for consuming the at least an alimentary element ([0010] and [0251] of Grimmer discuss how the system can generate recommended foods to help a user on a daily, weekly, monthly, or other frequent basis achieve a desired state of wellbeing or one or more health goals through healthy and personalized consumption while [0084], [0102], and [0127] of Grimmer discuss how the user can be provided with breakfast, lunch, and/or dinner recommendations, all of which is a “consumption pattern” for consuming the alimentary element(s)), wherein:
the consumption pattern includes a time of day ([0084], [0102], and [0127] of Grimmer discuss how the user can be provided with breakfast, lunch, and/or dinner recommendations which are times of day); and
...
However, the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson combination appears to be silent regarding wherein the time of day is determined as a function of the nutrient profile and the current nutrient levels of the subject.
Nevertheless, Boyes teaches ([0132]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art to suggest a recommended nutritional intake for three meals at suggested times during the day based on characteristics of the user, where [0091] discusses how the characteristics include inter alia a user’s physiological lab values indicative of nutrient levels, and where Figure 3 and [0079] illustrate/discuss how the characteristics are part of the user’s profile; accordingly, the suggested times for the meals are as a function of the user’s profile and their current nutrient levels which would advantageously more closely tailor the meal recommendation to specific times more likely to improve the patient’s nutritional health.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the time of day as a function of the nutrient profile and current nutrient level of the subject in the system of the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson combination as taught by Boyes to more closely tailor the meal recommendation to specific times more likely to improve the patient’s nutritional health and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 14 is rejected in view of the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson/Boyes combination as discussed above in relation to claim 4.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0240542 to Grimmer et al. (“Grimmer”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0267128 to Decombel et al. ("Decombel"), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0201199 to Neumann ("Neumann"), and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0357941 to Wilkinson (“Wilkinson”), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0020472 to Choura (“Choura”):
Regarding claim 5, the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson combination discloses the system of claim 1, further including
providing a representation of the nourishment consumption program to a user device of the subject in the form of an audiovisual notification ([0210], [0248] of Grimmer discusses displaying suggested/recommended meals to the user (generating notifications based on the nutrient/nourishment consumption program) which is an audiovisual notification per the above combination with Wilkinson; as discussed previously, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the notification of Grimmer to have been an audiovisual notification including a notification of encouragement as taught by Wilkinson to advantageously facilitate understanding of the generated meal plan and encourage the user to prepare the meal as compared to only a textual description of the meal plan thereby increasing the likelihood of compliance and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007));
…
…
However, the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson combination appears to be silent regarding
linking the nourishment consumption program to a calendar application of the user device of the subject; and
setting timed reminders on the user device of the subject to consume at least one alimentary element as a function of a current location of the subject.
Choura teaches that it was known in the healthcare informatics art to generate recommended nutrients/dietary products (“nourishment consumption program”) for a user ([0054]), present the nourishment consumption program in a calendar section 326 of a health application 116 of a user device 104 (Figures 1 and 3A and [0082])(“linking the nourishment consumption program to a calendar application of the user device of the subject”), and display reminder notifications on the user device 104 to consume nutrients at particular days/times as a function of a location of the subject (Figures 3A and 8 and [0067] and [0100])(“ setting timed reminders on the user device of the subject to consume at least one alimentary element as a function of a current location of the subject”) to advantageously assist individuals in taking dietary products according to a proper schedule and in appropriate quantities ([0003]) thereby improving wellbeing outcomes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have linked the nourishment consumption program to a calendar application of the user device of the subject and set timed reminders on the user device of the subject to consume at least one alimentary element as a function of a current location of the subject in the system of the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson combination as taught by Choura to advantageously assist individuals in taking dietary products according to a proper schedule and in appropriate quantities thereby improving wellbeing outcomes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 15 is rejected in view of the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson/Choura combination as discussed above in relation to claim 5.
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0240542 to Grimmer et al. (“Grimmer”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0267128 to Decombel et al. ("Decombel"), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0201199 to Neumann ("Neumann"), and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0357941 to Wilkinson (“Wilkinson”), and further in view of Int'l Pub. No. 2025/090837 to McKenney et al. ("McKenney"):
Regarding claim 6, the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson combination discloses the system of claim 1, further including wherein the at least an audiovisual notification comprises a … notification ([0210], [0248] of Grimmer discuss displaying suggested/recommended meals (notification) to the user while Wilkinson teaches ([0048]-[0050], [0059]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art to provide a notification of a developed/recommended meal plan to a user in the form of videos demonstrating, audio instructions, slide shows of the meal at various stages, textual instructions, and the like (audiovisual notification) which advantageously facilitates understanding of the generated meal plan and encourage the user to prepare the meal as compared to only a textual description of the meal plan; again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the notification of Grimmer to have been an audiovisual notification including a notification of encouragement as taught by Wilkinson to advantageously facilitate understanding of the generated meal plan and encourage the user to prepare the meal as compared to only a textual description of the meal plan thereby increasing the likelihood of compliance and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
However, the Grimmer/Wilkinson combination appears to be silent regarding the notification specifically being a hydration notification.
Nevertheless, McKenney teaches ([0369]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art for a monitoring system to send a reminder to drink water to a smart water bottle based on the user's hydration status which would advantageously encourage the user to avoid dehydration and attendant health issues associated therewith.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the notification of the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson combination to specifically be a hydration notification as taught by McKenney to advantageously encourage a user to avoid dehydration and attendant health issues associated therewith. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 7, the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson combination discloses the system of claim 1, further including wherein the computing device is configured to transmit a hydration notification to a smart water bottle (McKenney teaches ([0369]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art for a monitoring system to send a reminder to drink water to a smart water bottle based on the user's hydration status which would advantageously encourage the user to avoid dehydration and attendant health issues associated therewith; similar to as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the computing device of the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson combination to be configured to transmit a hydration notification to a smart water bottle as taught by McKenney to advantageously encourage a user to avoid dehydration and attendant health issues associated therewith. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected in view of the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson/McKenney combination as respectively discussed above in relation to claims 6 and 7.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0240542 to Grimmer et al. (“Grimmer”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0267128 to Decombel et al. ("Decombel"), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0201199 to Neumann ("Neumann"), and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0357941 to Wilkinson (“Wilkinson”), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0183599 to Castellanos ("Castellanos"):
Regarding claim 8, the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson combination discloses the system of claim 1, but appears to be silent regarding the audiovisual notification comprising medical benefits associated with the nutrient consumption program.
Nevertheless, Castellanos teaches (Figure 8 and [0167]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art to generate and display an audiovisual program regarding information that separates healthy and unhealthy foods and cardiovascular system effects in association with suggesting diet and habits (nutrient consumption program). This arrangement advantageously increases the likelihood of a user following healthier nutritional habits by conveying to the user what can happen to the body in the absence of following such healthy habits.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the audiovisual notification of the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson combination to include medical benefits associated with the nutrient consumption program similar to as taught by Castellanos to advantageously increase the likelihood of a user following healthier nutritional habits by conveying to the user what can happen to the body in the absence of following such healthy habits. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 18 is rejected in view of the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson/Castellanos combination as discussed above in relation to claim 8.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0240542 to Grimmer et al. (“Grimmer”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0267128 to Decombel et al. ("Decombel"), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0201199 to Neumann ("Neumann"), and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0357941 to Wilkinson (“Wilkinson”), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210104173 to Pauley et al. ("Pauley"):
Regarding claim 9, the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson combination discloses the system of claim 1, but appears to be silent regarding the audiovisual notification comprising an achievement badge.
Nevertheless, Pauley teaches ([0301]-[0302] and Figure 26A) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art to present achievement badges to a user in conjunction with meeting health plate goals, eating healthier, etc., which would advantageously motivate a user to continue such healthy habits.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the audiovisual notification of the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson combination to have included an achievement badge as taught by Pauley to advantageously motivate a user to continue such healthy habits and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 19 is rejected in view of the Grimmer/Decombel/Grimmer/Wilkinson/Pauley combination as discussed above in relation to claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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, Jason Dunham, can be reached on 571-272-8109. 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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686