DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/4/2025.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-11, under Step 1, the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under Step 2A claims 1-11 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites: A menu providing apparatus comprising: a menu data collection unit configured to collect menu data over a network and to store the menu data in a menu database; a menu generation unit configured to generate a menu by learning the menu data; a menu recommendation unit configured to transmit a recommended menu to a user terminal based on the generated menu and to receive, from the user terminal, information about a selected menu and the number of meals; a menu modification unit configured to receive, from the user terminal, a modification command for the recommended menu, to modify the recommended menu depending on the modification command, and to transmit the modified menu to the user terminal; and a food ingredient ordering unit configured to derive a type of a food ingredient according to the selected menu, to calculate a required quantity for each type of a food ingredient according to the number of meals, and to transmit the calculated result to a food ingredient supplier terminal.
The above limitations set forth a procedure for organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions including marketing activity and business relations. This is because the claim recites the steps performed in order to recommend a menu (Specification ¶0008). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements, including units, a network, a user terminal, and a menu database.
These additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited 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 computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application 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 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) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). 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 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. MPEP 2106.05.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-11 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1. Thus, each of claims 2-11 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, claims 2-11 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 2-11 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 2-11 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and specified at a high level of generality.
In view of the above, claims 1-11 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goldberg et al., US PG Pub 2016/0232624 A1 (hereafter “Goldberg”).
Regarding claim 1, Goldberg discloses a menu providing apparatus comprising:
a menu data collection unit configured to collect menu data over a network and to store the menu data in a menu database (¶¶0013, 0056, 0070-0073, and 0139);
a menu generation unit configured to generate a menu by learning the menu data (¶¶0077-0081, 0088, and 0135-0149);
a menu recommendation unit configured to transmit a recommended menu to a user terminal based on the generated menu and to receive, from the user terminal, information about a selected menu and the number of meals (¶¶0149-0161);
a menu modification unit configured to receive, from the user terminal, a modification command for the recommended menu, to modify the recommended menu depending on the modification command, and to transmit the modified menu to the user terminal (¶¶0081, 0103, 0116, 0139, and 0167); and
a food ingredient ordering unit configured to derive a type of a food ingredient according to the selected menu, to calculate a required quantity for each type of a food ingredient according to the number of meals, and to transmit the calculated result to a food ingredient supplier terminal (¶¶0024, 0034, 0060, 0081, 0114, 0145, and 0167).
Regarding claim 2, Goldberg discloses the menu providing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the menu recommendation unit composes the recommended menu based on a menu configuration condition input through the user terminal, and wherein the menu configuration condition includes at least one of a calorie of food that constitutes a menu, nutrient, taste, sweetness, a degree of spiciness, a combination of foods, a seasonal food ingredient, the number of side dishes, price of a food ingredient, event food, food in subdivisions of seasons, seasonal food, a meal target, redundancy of individual food that constitutes a menu, the number of meals per serving, preference, the number of menus at a food service center, an amount of leftover food, meal price, a color combination of foods, allergy information about a food ingredient, region information, and a menu evaluation result of another user (¶¶0145-0150).
Regarding claim 3, Goldberg discloses the menu providing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the menu recommendation unit sends a recommended menu to the user terminal based on a statistical result of a menu configuration thus accumulated (¶¶0073, 0116, and 0167-0168).
Regarding claim 4, Goldberg discloses the menu providing apparatus of claim 2, wherein the menu recommendation unit composes the recommended menu based on food ingredient inventory information possessed by a food ingredient supplier from the food ingredient supplier terminal, food ingredient information thus mainly supplied, food ingredient supply and demand status information, and the menu configuration condition (¶¶0049, 0078-0080, and 0147-0152).
Regarding claim 5, Goldberg discloses the menu providing apparatus of claim 4, wherein the food ingredient supply and demand status information is determined based on food ingredient supply and demand fluctuation information including production of food ingredients, predicted production of food ingredients, export/import volume of food ingredients, and a change in demand for food ingredients (¶¶0097-0107).
Regarding claim 6, Goldberg discloses the menu providing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a menu recording unit configured to record a menu composed by a user, wherein the menu generation unit learns a menu configuration pattern of the user based on the menu composed by the user, and generates a menu based on a result obtained by learning the menu data and a learning result of the menu configuration pattern (¶¶0147-0161).
Regarding claim 7, Goldberg discloses the menu providing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the communication unit receives feedback on the recommended menu from the user terminal, wherein the menu data collection unit updates the menu database based on the feedback, and wherein the menu generation unit generates a menu based on the updated menu database and the feedback and updates a model that generates a menu based on the feedback (¶¶0104, 0113, 0139-0141, and 0167-0168).
Regarding claim 8, Goldberg discloses the menu providing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the food ingredient ordering unit receives a quote for a food ingredient purchase for a quantity required for each type of the food ingredient from the food ingredient supplier terminal, provides the quote to the user terminal, and transmits an order for the food ingredient purchase to the food ingredient supplier terminal when receiving an approval for the quote for the food ingredient purchase from the user terminal (¶¶0123-0128, 0154, and 0167).
Regarding claim 9, Goldberg discloses the menu providing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the menu recommendation unit groups the user terminal by region based on a location of the food ingredient supplier and recommends the same menu to a user terminal belonging to the same group, and wherein the food ingredient ordering unit derives a type of a food ingredient corresponding to the same menu and the number of meals according to the same menu, calculates a required quantity for the respective derived type of a food ingredient, and sends the calculated result to a food ingredient supplier terminal assigned to the same group (¶¶0024, 0034, 0060, 0081, 0114, 0145, and 0167).
Regarding claim 10, Goldberg discloses the menu providing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the menu recommendation unit generates an image of the selected menu based on information about the selected menu received from the user terminal, and transmits the generated image of the menu to the user terminal (¶¶0064, 0075, and 0097).
Regarding claim 11, Goldberg discloses the menu providing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the food ingredient ordering unit predicts the number of meals for the selected menu, calculates a required quantity of a food ingredient based on the predicted number of meals, and sends the calculated result to the food ingredient supplier terminal (¶¶0024, 0034, 0060, 0081, 0114, 0145, and 0167).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shadrokh et al., US PG Pub 2020/0159750 A1, teaches a system for measuring food weight.
Connor, US PG Pub 2020/0152312 A1, teaches systems for nutritional monitoring and management.
Non-patent literature Song, Xiang, et al. teaches personalized menu optimization with preference updater.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688