DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s amendments filed 9/4/2025 have been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-20 are pending and rejected herein.
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.
1. Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1-20 are directed to identifying potential harmful ingredients in products for purchase, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-12 recite an ingredient search application device comprising a user device. method and at least one step. claims 13-19 recite an ingredient search application device comprising a user device. Claim 20 recites a method with at least one step. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (apparatus, process).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding representative independent claim 13, the claim sets forth a process in which potentially harmful ingredients within a product are identified, in the following limitations:
wherein the user scans the product…to determine the list of ingredients… scanning an ingredient list on a product label, or manually using a search field;
wherein the scanned information is mapped and uploaded with lists of harmful ingredients and ingredient data;
wherein this data is compared with a user profile and the ingredients are analyzed for health risks; and
further wherein an audible or text alert is generated to signal presence of harmful ingredients within the product
alert whenever a harmful ingredient is identified
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to identify potentially harmful ingredients in products for purchase. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and managing personal behaviors. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 13 does recite additional elements:
a software application; and
a user device for scanning barcodes or text on a product label and capturing ingredient information from the product label;
wherein the user device is a computer, a laptop, a tablet, a smartphone, an activity tracker, a wearable device, or a static terminal installed in a store location and comprises a barcode and text scanning component, a manual search input, and an alert component;
wherein the software application is either browser-based and may be accessed from desktops or terminals, or application-based and accessed via handheld user devices;
via the user device… by scanning a product’s barcode,
wherein scanned information is uploaded to a centralized or distributed database working with a single central repository or distributed repositories of product related information;
the alert component is configured to produce a vibratory alert
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity (uploading). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 67-75 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Activities such as uploading data (i.e., storing and retrieving information in memory, electronic recordkeeping, transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, and 20 set forth substantially similar subject matter as claim 13 and are ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2, 10, 19
Claims 2, 10, and 19 merely set forth embellishments to the abstract idea, and do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention. Accordingly, they are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1 and 14 above.
Regarding Claim 4, 6-8, 11, 15-19
While the claims do set forth additional limitations, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claim 14, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1 and 14 above.
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 (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 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.
2. Claims 1-5, 9-12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kastury et al. (US 20190197278 A1, hereinafter Kastury) in view of Badinelli (US 20040006494 A1).
Regarding Claim 1
Kastury discloses an ingredient search application device that identifies potentially harmful ingredients within a product, the ingredient search application device comprising:
a software application (Kastury: ¶12);
a user device comprising a barcode and text scanning component, a manual search input, and an alert component (Kastury: ¶44, 64)
wherein the software application is accessible on the user device (Kastury: ¶8, 12; fig. 3A-3Q)
wherein a user would scan a product via the user device to determine a list of ingredients (Kastury: ¶64)
further wherein the user would then search the list of ingredients to determine if there are any harmful ingredients among the list of ingredients (Kastury: ¶64)
wherein the alert component is configured to produce a visible alert whenever a harmful ingredient is identified (Kastury: ¶64)
Kastury does not explicitly disclose that the search is done “via Internet” and that the alert is an audible and visible alert. Badinelli teaches that it is known to include searching for food ingredient via the Internet (see at least ¶43) and providing and audible and visible alert when harmful or dangerous ingredients are detected (see at least ¶95) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Kastury with the features of Badinelli, since such a modification would have reduced the human error associated with correctly reading, deciphering and interpreting nutritional terminology (see at least ¶20 of Badinelli)
Regarding Claims 2, 3
Kastury further discloses:
wherein the product includes health products, food, drugs, shampoo, sunscreen, baby products, makeup, laundry products, or cleaning products (Kastury: abstract)
wherein the user device is a computer, a laptop, a tablet, a smartphone, an activity tracker, a wearable device, or a static terminal installed in a store location (Kastury: ¶8)
Regarding Claim 4
While Kastury discloses maintaining a network connection via a LAN, Kastury does not explicitly disclose, but Badinelli teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the user device maintains a connection to the Internet via a user's Internet Service Provider (ISP) or by using a connection available at a store location (Badinelli: ¶43)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Kastury with the Internet usage of Badinelli, since such a modification would have reduced the human error associated with correctly reading, deciphering and interpreting nutritional terminology (see at least ¶20 of Badinelli)
Regarding Claim 5
Kastury discloses:
wherein the software application is either browser-based and may be accessed from desktops or terminals, or application-based and accessed via handheld user devices (Kastury: ¶8, 12; fig. 3A-3Q)
Regarding Claims 9-12
Kastury discloses:
wherein the user scans the product via the user device to determine the list of ingredients by scanning a product’s barcode, scanning an ingredient list on a product label, or manually using a search field (Kastury: ¶64)
wherein the user can create a user profile containing specific ingredients they wish to stay away from, allergies, or health issues. (Kastury: ¶64)
wherein once created, the user profile is temporarily stored in a process space of the software application, allowing the scanned ingredient lists to be checked against the user profile, as needed. (Kastury: ¶64)
wherein an audible or visible alert is sent to the user whenever a harmful ingredient is identified. (Kastury: ¶64)
Regarding Claim 20
Kastury discloses a method of scanning products to identify potentially harmful ingredients, the method comprising the following steps:
providing an ingredient search application device comprising a software application that would be used on a user’s smartphone, tablet, or computer, a barcode and text scanning component, a manual search input, and an alert component; (Kastury: ¶44, 64)
scanning a product’s barcode or ingredient list; (Kastury: ¶44, 64)
identifying potentially harmful ingredients in the products via the software application (Kastury: ¶44, 64)
receiving a visual alert via the ingredient search application device whenever a harmful ingredient is identified by the software application. (Kastury: ¶64)
While Kastury discloses access a user profile via an ingredient search software application via smart phone and providing an alert whenever a harmful ingredient is identified, Kastury does not explicitly disclose, but Hughes teaches in a similar environment:
logging-in to the ingredient search application via a smartphone, tablet, or computer; (Badinelli: at least ¶101)
that the alert is an audible and visible alert (Badinelli: at least ¶95)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Kastury with the features of Badinelli, since such a modification would have reduced the human error associated with correctly reading, deciphering and interpreting nutritional terminology (see at least ¶20 of Badinelli)
3. Claims 13-15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kastury et al. (US 20190197278 A1, hereinafter Kastury) in view of Bonner et al. (US 20200050813 A1, hereinafter Bonner).
Regarding Claim 13
Kastury discloses an ingredient search application device that identifies potentially harmful ingredients within a product, the ingredient search application device comprising:
a software application (Kastury: ¶12);
a user device for scanning barcodes or text on a product label and capturing ingredient information from the product label (Kastury: ¶64)
wherein the user device is a computer, a laptop, a tablet, a smartphone, an activity tracker, a wearable device, or a static terminal installed in a store location and comprises a barcode and text scanning component, a manual search input, and an alert component (Kastury: ¶8, 44)
wherein the software application is either browser-based and may be accessed from desktops or terminals, or application-based and accessed via handheld user devices; (Kastury: ¶8, 12; fig. 3A-3Q)
wherein the user scans the product via the user device to determine the list of ingredients by scanning a product’s barcode, scanning an ingredient list on a product label, or manually using a search field; (Kastury: ¶64)
wherein scanned information is uploaded to a centralized or distributed database working with a single central repository or distributed repositories of product related information; (Kastury: abstract, ¶6, 7)
wherein the scanned information is mapped and uploaded with lists of harmful ingredients and ingredient data; (Kastury: ¶64)
wherein this data is compared with a user profile and the ingredients are analyzed for health risks; and (Kastury: ¶64)
the alert component is configured to produce an alert whenever a harmful ingredient is identified (Kastury: ¶64)
Kastury does not explicitly disclose that the alert is a vibratory alert. Bonner teaches that it is known to include providing a vibratory alert in response to scanning a label of a product (see at least abstract) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Kastury with the features of Bonner, since such a modification would have provided a two-fold solution to address problems associated with a user needing to visually compare prices displayed on the hand-held with the price on the tag and confirm information for correctly auditing inventory and price checks at a retail location (Bonner: ¶25).
Regarding Claims 14, 19
Kastury further discloses:
wherein the product includes health products, food, drugs, shampoo, sunscreen, baby products, makeup, laundry products, or cleaning products. (Kastury: abstract)
a plurality of indicia (Kastury: fig. 3A-3Q)
Regarding Claim 15
While Kastury discloses maintaining a network connection via a LAN, Kastury does not explicitly disclose, but Bonner teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the user device maintains a connection to the Internet via a user's Internet Service Provider (ISP) or by using a connection available at a store location (Bonner: ¶41)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Kastury with the features of Bonner, since such a modification would have provided a two-fold solution to address problems associated with a user needing to visually compare prices displayed on the hand-held with the price on the tag and confirm information for correctly auditing inventory and price checks at a retail location (Bonner: ¶25).
4. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kastury in view of Badinelli as applied to above, and further in view of Hughes (US 20170364984 A1).
Regarding Claims 6
While Kastury discloses a database of ingredient information and background data on the ingredients connectable to the user device, Kastury does not explicitly disclose:
a web server and a Cloud database
Badinelli teaches that it is known to include a web server (Badinelli: ¶41) serving a remote database that may be stored across multiple devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Kastury with the features of Badinelli, since such a modification would have reduced the human error associated with correctly reading, deciphering and interpreting nutritional terminology (see at least ¶20 of Badinelli).
Hughes teaches that it is known to include a cloud database of food ingredients (see at least ¶8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Kastury with the Cloud database of Hughes, since such a modification would have provided a solution that enhances the experience the end user has with the ingredient, brand, and company; that is environmentally friendly (reduces the need to provide printed documentation); and that is on trend, leveraging the way people are utilizing their mobile devices. (Hughes: ¶7)
Regarding Claims 7
Kastury in view of Badinelli does not disclose, but Hughes teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the ingredient information and data management software is maintained on a secure cloud server, wherein the secure cloud server is used for protection and security of the ingredient information and information data, and wherein data is stored and managed with a data management software program to manage collected ingredient data (Hughes: ¶48, 58)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Kastury with the Cloud database funcitonality of Hughes, since such a modification would have provided a solution that enhances the experience the end user has with the ingredient, brand, and company; that is environmentally friendly (reduces the need to provide printed documentation); and that is on trend, leveraging the way people are utilizing their mobile devices. (Hughes: ¶7)
Regarding Claim 8
While Kastury discloses access a user profile via the software application, Kastury does not explicitly disclose, but Hughes teaches in a similar environment:
wherein users log into the software application via a user interface on the user device (Hughes: ¶58)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Kastury with the login function of Hughes, since such a modification would have provided a solution that enhances the experience the end user has with the ingredient, brand, and company; that is environmentally friendly (reduces the need to provide printed documentation); and that is on trend, leveraging the way people are utilizing their mobile devices. (Hughes: ¶7)
5. Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kastury in view of Bonner, as applied to above, and further in view of Hughes (US 20170364984 A1).
Regarding Claim 16
While Kastury discloses a database of ingredient information and background data on the ingredients connectable to the user device, Kastury does not explicitly disclose:
a web server and a Cloud database
Bonner teaches that it is known to include a web server (Bonner: ¶41) serving a remote database that may be stored across multiple devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Kastury with the features of Bonner, since such a modification would have provided a two-fold solution to address problems associated with a user needing to visually compare prices displayed on the hand-held with the price on the tag and confirm information for correctly auditing inventory and price checks at a retail location (Bonner: ¶25).
Hughes teaches that it is known to include a cloud database of food ingredients (see at least ¶8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Kastury with the Cloud database of Hughes, since such a modification would have provided a solution that enhances the experience the end user has with the ingredient, brand, and company; that is environmentally friendly (reduces the need to provide printed documentation); and that is on trend, leveraging the way people are utilizing their mobile devices. (Hughes: ¶7)
Regarding Claim 17
Kastury in view of Bonner does not disclose, but Hughes teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the ingredient information and data management software is maintained on a secure cloud server, wherein the secure cloud server is used for protection and security of the ingredient information and information data, and wherein data is stored and managed with a data management software program to manage collected ingredient data (Hughes: ¶48, 58)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Kastury with the Cloud database funcitonality of Hughes, since such a modification would have provided a solution that enhances the experience the end user has with the ingredient, brand, and company; that is environmentally friendly (reduces the need to provide printed documentation); and that is on trend, leveraging the way people are utilizing their mobile devices. (Hughes: ¶7)
Regarding Claim 18
While Kastury discloses access a user profile via the software application, Kastury does not explicitly disclose, but Hughes teaches in a similar environment:
wherein users log into the software application via a user interface on the user device (Hughes: ¶58)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the present amendment to require a user device comprising a barcode and text scanning component, a manual search input, and an alert component, “are meaningful limitations beyond merely organizing human activity. These components are physical components that do much more than merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment and insignificant extra- solution activity (uploading). As such, the technology used to implement the invention is now specific and integral to the claim.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While these amendments do append additional technological limitations to the claim, the Examiner asserts that, given the generality of their recitation, and the lack of specific description of their underlying structure or operation, that the amendments merely serve to further recite a generic technological environment to which the abstract idea is applied. As noted in the rejection above, paragraphs 67-75 of the specification support the assertion that the technology used to implement to abstract idea is not a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688