DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to a response filed 11 November 2025, on an application filed 28 August 2023.
Claims 5, 6, 9, 15, 16 and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10-14, 17, 18 and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-4, 7, 8, 10-14, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10-14, 17, 18 and 20 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-4, 7, 8 and 10 are drawn to a method, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 11-14, 17 and 18 are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture). Claim 20 is drawn to a system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 20 recites: A system comprising:
a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
accessing an initial meal plan associated with a target user, wherein the initial meal plan comprises an initial plurality of recipes that comply with a set of nutritional constraints associated with the target user, wherein each recipe in the initial plurality of recipes is associated with a set of items, and wherein the set of nutritional constraints comprises constraints on which recipes can be included in a meal plan for the target user;
receiving item availability data for the sets of items associated with the initial plurality of recipes;
identifying a triggering event for replacing the initial meal plan associated with the target user, wherein identifying the triggering event comprises: determining that an item associated with a recipe of the plurality of recipes is unavailable based on the item availability data;
in response to identifying the triggering event, transmitting instructions to a client device associated with the target user to display a user interface indicating that the item is unavailable;
receiving, from the client device, a request from the target user for a replacement meal plan;
responsive to receiving the request, generating a set of candidate replacement meal plans based on the set of nutritional constraints of the target user and the item availability;
generating a replacement score for each of the set of candidate replacement meal plans by applying a meal plan scoring model to each of the candidate replacement meal plans, wherein the meal plan scoring model is a machine-learning model trained to compute a replacement score for a meal plan based on a plurality of recipes associated with the meal plan and user data describing characteristics of a user, wherein a replacement score for a candidate replacement meal plan represents a likelihood that the user will select the candidate replacement meal plan; and
transmitting a subset of the candidate replacement meal plans to a client device associated with the target user based on the generated replacement scores for the set of candidate replacement meal plans, wherein transmitting the subset of the candidate replacement meal plans causes the client device to display the subset of the candidate replacement meal plans
receiving, from the client device, a selection by the user of one of the subset of the candidate replacement meal plans; and
responsive to receiving the selection, transmitting instructions to the client device to display a user interface with the selected replacement meal plan, wherein the user interface with the selected replacement meal plan illustrates differences between the selected replacement meal plan and the initial meal plan.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract ideas of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions – in this case, accessing an initial meal plan based on user constraints, triggering a replacement, scoring potential replacement meal plans to determine a final replacement meal plan) or using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. the dispensing device and the one or more processors), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea(s) are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claims 1 and 11 are identical as the abstract idea for claims 1, because the only difference between claims 1, 11 and 20 is that claim 1 recites a method, whereas claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer-readable media and claim 20 recites a system.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 include other limitations, for example claims 2-6 and 12-16 comprise further details regarding the nutritional constraints and item replacement, and claims 7-10 and 17-19 comprise further details on scoring, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, any limitations in dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 11 and 20.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of training the machine learning model and the structural components of the computer, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraph 13 of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language limiting the data to meal data and preferences, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data gathering and display, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and/or insignificant application (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, 17, 18 and 20 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the recitation of particular data types of claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, 17, 18 and 20), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, 17, 18 and 20, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 11 and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the dispensing device and the one or more processors), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity comprises limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraph 13 of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the structural components of the computer) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receive and process data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); and
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, 17, 18 and 20 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1, 11 and 20, and/or the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the recitation of particular data types of claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, 17, 18 and 20), and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10-14, 17, 18 and 20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10-14, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Murdoch et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2020/0098466 A1), hereinafter Murdoch, further in view of Pawar (U.S. PG-Pub 2022/0114640 A1), hereinafter Pawar.
As per claims 1, 11 and 20, Murdoch discloses a method, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operation and a system (Murdoch, see Figs. 9 and 10.) comprising:
a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (Murdoch, see Figs. 9 and 10.) comprising:
accessing an initial meal plan associated with a target user, wherein the initial meal plan comprises an initial plurality of recipes that comply with a set of nutritional constraints associated with the target user, wherein each recipe in the initial plurality of recipes is associated with a set of items, and wherein the set of nutritional constraints comprises constraints on which recipes can be included in a meal plan for the target user (Murdoch discloses generation of an initial meal plan composed of a set of food items that is generated based on nutritional constraints of a user, see Murdoch, Fig. 9 #916 and Fig. 10 #1002-1010. See also paragraph 83.);
receiving item availability data for the sets of items associated with the initial plurality of recipes (System identifies unavailable items requested with user order, see ;
responsive to receiving the request, generating a set of candidate replacement meal plans based on the set of nutritional constraints of the target user and the item availability data (Murdoch generates a replacement meal plan via implementation of non-user specified/preferred food items when the meal total score is outside of a meal target range, see Fig. 10 #1012-1016 and paragraphs 81, 82, 91 and 206.);
generating a replacement score for each of the set of candidate replacement meal plans by applying a meal plan scoring model to each of the candidate replacement meal plans, wherein the meal plan scoring model is a machine-learning model trained to compute a replacement score for a meal plan based on a plurality of recipes associated with the meal plan and user data describing characteristics of a user, wherein a replacement score for a candidate replacement meal plan represents the appropriateness of a meal plan in view of dietary, nutritional and preferential constraints (Replacement meals are scored iteratively to see if the present an improvement to the initial meal score, see paragraphs 87-88 and 126-127. Murdoch also discloses a machine learning algorithm, see paragraphs 58 and 178, and training thereof, see paragraphs 58-59.); and
transmitting a subset of the candidate replacement meal plans to a client device associated with the target user based on the generated replacement scores for the set of candidate replacement meal plans, wherein transmitting the subset of the candidate replacement meal plans causes the client device to display the subset of the candidate replacement meal plans (Murdoch, Figs. 9 #902-904 and 1- #1022.);
receiving, from the client device, a selection by the user of one of the subset of the candidate replacement meal plans (Murdoch, Fig. 12 and paragraph 208.); and
responsive to receiving the selection, transmitting instructions to the client device to display a user interface with the selected replacement meal plan … (Murdoch, Fig. 12 and paragraph 208.).
Murdoch fails to explicitly disclose:
identifying a triggering event for replacing the initial meal plan associated with the target user, wherein identifying the triggering event comprises: determining that an item associated with a recipe of the plurality of recipes is unavailable based on the item availability data;
in response to identifying the triggering event, transmitting instructions to a client device associated with the target user to display a user interface indicating that the item is unavailable;
receiving, from the client device, a request from the target user for a replacement meal plan;
a likelihood that the user will select the candidate replacement meal plan; and
wherein the user interface with the selected replacement meal plan illustrates differences between the selected replacement meal plan and the initial meal plan.
Pawar teaches that it was old and well known in the art of digital communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
identifying a triggering event for replacing the initial meal plan associated with the target user, wherein identifying the triggering event comprises: determining that an item associated with a recipe of the plurality of recipes is unavailable based on the item availability data (Pawar discloses the triggering event of identifying unavailable items, see paragraphs 32-35, 46, 56 and 64.);
in response to identifying the triggering event, transmitting instructions to a client device associated with the target user to display a user interface indicating that the item is unavailable (Pawar, see paragraphs 32-35, 46, 56 and 64.);
receiving, from the client device, a request from the target user for a replacement meal plan (Pawar, see paragraphs 32-35, 46, 56 and 64.);
provide a score that represents a likelihood that the user will select the candidate replacement meal plan (Pawar, paragraph 62.); and
wherein the user interface with the selected replacement meal plan illustrates differences between the selected replacement meal plan and the initial meal plan (System shows unavailable item and replacement item, see Pawar paragraph 64.)
to provide a more reliable and efficient replacement suggestion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of digital communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Murdoch directed to replacing items with identifying trigger events and unavailable items, receiving replacement requests, providing a score that represents a likelihood that the user will select the candidate replacement meal plan and displaying differences, as taught by Pawar, in order to arrive at a method for replacing items that provides a more reliable and efficient replacement suggestion.
Both Murdoch and Pawar are directed to the electronic processing of user preferential data. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
As per claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, 17 and 18, Murdoch/Pawar discloses claims 1 and 11, discussed above. Murdoch also discloses:
2,12. wherein the nutritional constraints comprise constraints to nutritional metrics of the initial plurality of recipes (Murdoch, paragraphs 89, 101, 129, 130, 171 and 210.);
3,13. wherein the nutritional constraints comprise constraints to a total value of the nutritional metrics of the initial plurality of recipes (Murdoch, paragraphs 89, 101, 129, 130, 171 and 210.);
4,14. wherein the nutritional constraints comprise constraints to a value of a nutritional metric of each recipe of the initial plurality of recipes (Murdoch, paragraphs 89, 101, 129, 130, 171 and 210.);
7,17. wherein generating a replacement score for a candidate replacement meal plan comprises: inputting the initial meal plan and the candidate replacement meal plan to the meal plan scoring model to generate the replacement score (Replacement meals are scored iteratively to see if the present an improvement to the initial meal score, see paragraphs 87-88 and 126-127.);
8,18. wherein the meal plan scoring model is trained based on a set of training examples, wherein each training example comprises user data for a user, a meal plan presented to the user, and a label indicating whether the user selected the meal plan (Murdoch discloses a database comprised of all user interactions, see paragraphs 66, 73, 134 and 178-179. Murdoch also discloses a machine learning algorithm, see paragraphs 58 and 178, and training thereof, see paragraphs 58-59.);
10. wherein at least one of the set of candidate replacement meal plans comprises a recipe of the initial plurality of recipes (If the substitute meal plan makes the meal plan score worse, the original food item is included instead of the substituted food item, see paragraphs 87-88.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11 November 2025 concerning the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 103(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues on pages 12-13 that the claims comprise statutory material because:
The claimed invention provides a specific improvement to computer-based meal planning systems through an enhanced user interface workflow that transforms how users interact with replacement meal plan options. … This ordered sequence of coordinated UI states improves the functioning of the computer system itself by structuring user interaction and system processing to minimize unnecessary generation and transmission of data, reduce cognitive load for the user, and ensure contextual continuity from problem detection to solution adoption. Rather than passively displaying static choices, the invention leverages the user interface as a dynamic control system that guides the user through a decision path that is technically integrated with backend availability checking, constraint-based generation, and machine-learning likelihood scoring. This represents a meaningful application of any abstract idea to solve a concrete problem in the technical field of interactive online meal plan management, going beyond generally linking the concept to a technological environment.
The Office respectfully disagrees, please see statutory rejection above, where the claims are shown to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer. See also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). The technological environment of Applicant’s claim is a general-purpose computer (see Specification paragarph 13). Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any physical improvement to the functioning of the computer that results from the implementation of Applicant’s claim. Applicant’s claims above have no nexus to the claim language; e.g. there is no indication from reading that claims that Applicant’s claimed improvements would actually incur. There is no indication that the computer is made to run faster, more efficiently, or utilize less power. In fact, the computer may be caused to operate slower and less efficiently through the implementation of Applicant’s claimed invention; we do not know. Because there is no improvement to the function of the computer, a practical application is not present.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 1013, Applicant argues on pages 11-12 that the prior art rejection fails to disclose the claims as amended.
The Office respectfully disagrees. Please see the new citations of Pawar that disclose the contested limitations.
The remainder of Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, specifically with reference to the new citation of the previously cited reference, Pawar, as detailed above, or because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In conclusion, all of the limitations which Applicant disputes as missing in the applied references, including the features newly added by amendment, have been fully addressed by the Office as either being fully disclosed or obvious in view of the collective teachings of Murdoch and Pawar, based on the logic and sound scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, as detailed in the remarks and explanations given in the preceding sections of the present Office Action and in the prior Office Action (5 September 2025), and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
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.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
5 February 2025