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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 12/29/25. Claims 1, 4, 5, 12, and 14-16 have been amended. Claims 17-19 are newly added. Claim 11 is canceled. Claims 1-10 and 12-19 are pending.
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 1-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-10, 12-14, and 17-19 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claim 15 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine), and claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1-10 and 12-19 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, 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. 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.
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. A method of preventing and/or reducing a risk of a nutrient inadequacy, achieving a nutrient adequacy, meeting a nutrition need, and/or minimizing a nutrient gap in a subject in need thereof in an environmentally sustainable manner, the method comprising: assessing the nutrition need of the subject; providing combinations of existing food products that meet the nutrition need of the subject; estimating a potential environmental impact value for each of the combinations of the existing food products, wherein the estimating of the potential environmental impact value comprises performing a screening life cycle assessment of a factor selected from the group consisting of packaging material manufacture, filling at factory, distribution, retail, transport within life cycle stages, end of life management of used packaging, and combinations thereof; selecting a combination of the existing food products with a lowest potential environmental impact value; placing an order of the combination of the existing food products with the lowest potential environmental impact; and providing a pre-packed article in reply to the order, the pre-packed article comprising the combination of the existing food products with the lowest potential environmental impact value.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity” because assessing the nutrition need of the subject; providing combinations of existing food products that meet the nutrition need of the subject; estimating a potential environmental impact value for each of the combinations of the existing food products, wherein the estimating of the potential environmental impact value comprises performing a screening life cycle assessment of a factor selected from the group consisting of packaging material manufacture, filling at factory, distribution, retail, transport within life cycle stages, end of life management of used packaging, and combinations thereof; selecting a combination of the existing food products with a lowest potential environmental impact value; placing an order of the combination of the existing food products with the lowest potential environmental impact; and providing a pre-packed article in reply to the order, the pre-packed article comprising the combination of the existing food products with the lowest potential environmental impact value amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), at the currently claimed high level of generality.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. 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 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.”
The limitations of claims 1, 15, and 16, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a computer system comprising at least one processor and a data storage device, a non-transitory computer readable medium, and a computer to perform the limitations, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the computer system comprising at least one processor and data storage device, non-transitory computer readable medium, and computer are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of accessing data, providing data, analyzing data, and selecting data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 2-10, 12-14 and 17-19 are ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 1 and include all the limitations of Claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim(s) 2-10, 12-14 and 17-19 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2-10, 12-14 and 17-19 describe further limitations regarding calculating a nutrient gap; using a questionnaire; types of food products/package; estimating an environmental impact factor per serving size(s) delivered, wherein the nutrient intake is estimated based on an average nutrient intake in a cluster, and types of factors. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claim 1, without adding significantly more. Furthermore, claim 3 recites a formula and therefore describes the abstract idea of “mathematical concepts.”
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, independent claims 1, 15, and 16 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 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 directed to cause a computer/processor to place an order, all of which the Examiner submits merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea or are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality), the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The dependent claims 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.
Therefore, claims 1-10 and 12-19 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 (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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10, 12, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley et al. (US 2021/0134434 A1) in view of Wragg et al. (US 2024/0041252 A1), and further in view of Katz et al. (US 2021/0280295 A1).
(A) Referring to claim 1, Riley discloses A method of preventing and/or reducing a risk of a nutrient inadequacy, achieving a nutrient adequacy, meeting a nutrition need, and/or minimizing a nutrient gap in a subject in need thereof in an environmentally sustainable manner, the method comprising (para. 5 & 13 of Riley):
assessing the nutrition need of the subject (para. 13 of Riley; Applying personalized food selection nudges based on user goals and needs at defined and variable intervals during the user's food shopping and food consumption intervals to enhance behavior change in food selection, purchasing behavior and consumption of healthier food items; (3) User selects food category (fruits and vegetables) or manual item search (apples) to display options or display past purchases in lists or periodic batches (last month); (4) Last user food item purchased pulled up from database to display and scored; (5) Last user food item attributes compared to food attributes database to match most relevant list of options that meet user needs or preferences; (6) Last food item search rank curates display of food items based on relevancy to user needs and food attributes; (7) Match food purchased to food attribute database to identify nutrition gaps and provide user: (i) food recommendations to close the nutrient gap);
providing combinations of existing food products that meet the nutrition need of the subject (para. 13 of Riley; Match food purchased to food attribute database to identify nutrition gaps and provide user: (i) food recommendations to close the nutrient gap, (ii) alert to medication interactions, (iii) alert to allergies, (iii) provide personalized nudges to promote purchase of heathier options, and/or (iv) provide educational information to increase awareness; (8) Match prior food item cart purchase (last cart purchase by item) and sort up one level (adjusted rank moves from B to A food, C to B etc.) and foods sorted by user attribute/criteria relevancy; (9) live or pre-recorded coaching based on a user's food searches, previous purchases, habits and/or patterns determined from use of the system and method, searches, previous purchases, and/or biometric data; (10) Food items displayed offer option for “Switch” function to allow user to see options (Display apple and show apple sauce, died apples, apple juice); (11) Food items displayed and offer option for “remix” function to allow user to get the same nutrient mix or range from different foods (remix from Apples to Avocados); (12) Food items displayed and offer option of recipes and add ingredients to cart; (13) utilization of primary food attributes comprising one or more of: (i) sodium, added sugar, calories, vitamins, protein, carbohydrates, total fat, (regulated food label requirements); and (ii) additional food attributes like nitrates, type of fatty acids, and micronutrients essential for optimal health (types of fatty acids, Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA), zinc, selenium, types of B vitamins, vitamins K & E, sulfur, chloride, magnesium, among others));
placing an order of the combination of the existing food products and providing a pre-packed article in reply to the order, the pre-packed article comprising the combination of the existing food products (para. 3, 29, 44, and 76 of Riley; Method or system 10 may be a stand-alone application for use on a user computing device (such as a computer or smart phone) or may be integrated with an online shopping platform of one or more grocers or other food suppliers, or an ordering platform for one or more restaurants, accessible through a user computing device. Systems 10 and 310 may also be used in connection with prepackaged food delivery services and restaurants, in the same or similar manner as described herein for grocery items, to provide a user with information regarding various food items, menu items, alternative foods items, and to provide incentives for making healthy food choices.)
Riley does not expressly disclose estimating a potential environmental impact value for each of the combinations of the existing food products, wherein the estimating of the potential environmental impact value comprises performing a screening life cycle assessment of a factor selected from the group consisting of packaging material manufacture, filling at factory, distribution, retail, transport within life cycle stages, end of life management of used packaging, and combinations thereof; selecting a combination of the existing food products with a lowest potential environmental impact value; placing an order of the combination of the existing food products with the lowest potential environmental impact; and the packed article comprising the combination of the existing food products with the lowest potential environmental impact value.
Wragg discloses estimating a potential environmental impact value for each of the combinations of the existing food products (para. 181 & 189 of Wragg; a computer-implemented system that is configured to track one or more environmental impact and/or social impact parameters of one or more ingredients or meals, and to display values corresponding to those impact parameters); selecting a combination of the existing food products with a lowest potential environmental impact value (para. 189, 191-193, & 617-623 of Wragg; A robotic meal assembly system including: [0618] (i) a robotic meal assembly device configured to assemble or prepare a meal using multiple ingredients selected or used by the robotic meal assembly device; and [0619] (ii) a computer-implemented system that is configured to track one or more environmental impact and/or social impact parameters of one or more ingredients or meals, and to display values corresponding to those impact parameters; and is further configured to enable a consumer to select meals and/or ingredients in order to change these impact parameters.); placing an order of the combination of the existing food products with the lowest potential environmental impact (para. 191 & 616-619 of Wragg; In the Karakuri system, users choose their meal from a menu or meal ordering system. As part of the ordering process, users personalise their chosen meal using a GUI. The system produces a customized “pick list” for the items to be included in the user's order. The system will directly interface with existing meal ordering software and replace the conventional pick list and operative process by using artificial intelligence and robotics to automatically pick and assemble or prepare the user's chosen, personalised meal. A robotic meal assembly system including: (ii) a computer-implemented system that is configured to track one or more environmental impact and/or social impact parameters of one or more ingredients or meals, and to display values corresponding to those impact parameters; and is further configured to enable a consumer to select meals and/or ingredients in order to change these impact parameters.); and the packed article comprising the combination of the existing food products with the lowest potential environmental impact value (para. 13-15 of Wragg; the robotic meal assembly device is then configured to assemble or otherwise prepare that customised or personalised version of that meal.).
Katz discloses wherein the estimating of the potential environmental impact value comprises performing a screening life cycle assessment of a factor selected from the group consisting of packaging material manufacture, filling at factory, distribution, retail, transport within life cycle stages, end of life management of used packaging, and combinations thereof (para. 8 & 74 of Katz; Product-based evaluation is also call life cycle assessment (LCA) and is an approach that evaluates all stages of a product's life. During the evaluation, environmental impacts from each stage are considered from raw material products, processing, distribution, use and disposal. The methodology considers not only the flow of materials, but the outputs and environmental impacts of these. Life cycle analysis processes follow the main steps of goal definition and scoping to define the process and boundaries; inventory analysis to identify material and energy flows and environmental releases; impact assessment to assess the environmental effects of inventory analysis, and interpretation to draw conclusions from the assessment. Conclusions can include decisions on different materials or processes. A life cycle assessment may be performed of representative traits of a particular diet type. As discussed above a life cycle assessment (LCA) can demonstrate how the food, and/or the refining of such food affects the environment, from planting and harvesting of the food, transportation, and refining of the food and until the food becomes waste or is recycled or composted.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Wragg and Katz within Riley’s method and system for improving a user's food selections. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide complete meal personalisation, with high levels of consistency, greatly increasing customer satisfaction and reducing food waste (abstract of Wragg) and to evaluate all stages of a product's life and avoid shifting environmental problems from one place to another when considering decisions (para. 8 of Katz).
(B) Referring to claim 2, Riley discloses wherein the assessing of the nutrition need of the subject comprises calculating a nutrient gap of the subject (para. 13 of Riley).
(C) Referring to claim 4, Riley discloses wherein the assessing of the nutrition need of the subject comprises using a questionnaire including 1-10 questions (para. 5, 11, 13, and 30 of Riley).
(D) Referring to claim 5, Riley discloses wherein the questionnaire includes 5-6 questions (para. 5, 11, 13, and 30 of Riley).
(E) Referring to claim 6, Riley discloses wherein the existing food products each are selected from the group consisting of a powdered nutritional composition to be reconstituted 25in milk or water, a powdered nutritional composition stored in a single use capsule or pod to be reconstituted in milk or water, a nutritional formula, a cereal-based product, a drink, a bar, a nutritional supplement, a pre-mix for fortification purposes, a nutraceutical, a yogurt, a dairy-based product, a food sprinkler, a gummy, a meal replacer, a pill, a tablet, and combinations thereof (para. 45, 47, 62, & 73 of Riley).
(F) Referring to claim 7, Riley discloses wherein the existing food products each are in a form selected from the group consisting of a powder, a ready-to-drink (RTD) product, and combinations thereof (para. 13 & 62 of Riley).
(G) Referring to claim 8, Riley discloses wherein the existing food products each are in a package selected from the group consisting of can, sachet, bottle, and combinations thereof (para. 62 of Riley).
(H) Referring to claim 9, Riley discloses wherein the combinations of the existing food products each comprise a combination of proportions of product variants and/or numbers of product units (para. 33, 46, 59, & 66 of Riley).
(H) Referring to claim 10, Riley discloses wherein the combinations of the existing food products each provide nutrients comprising at least one of carbohydrates, proteins, fibers, vitamins, fats, prebiotics, probiotics, vitamins, and minerals (para. 13 & 46 of Riley).
(I) Referring to claim 12, Riley and Wragg do not disclose wherein the factor does not include manufacture of the existing food products and consumption of the existing food products at home/on the go.
Katz discloses wherein the factor does not include manufacture of the existing food products and consumption of the existing food products at home/on the go (para. 8 & 74 of Katz).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Katz within Riley and Wragg. The motivation for doing so would have been to evaluate all stages of a product's life and avoid shifting environmental problems from one place to another when considering decisions (para. 8 of Katz).
(J) Referring to claim 14, Riley discloses wherein at least one of the following steps are implemented on a computer machine (para. 78 of Riley): the assessing of nutrition need of the subject (para. 13 of Riley); the providing of the combinations of existing food products that meet the nutrient need of the subject; the estimating of the potential environmental impact value for each of the combinations of the existing food products; the selecting of the combination of the existing food products with a lowest potential environmental impact value; or the placing of the order of the combination of the existing food products with the lowest potential environmental impact.
Insofar as the claim recites “at least one of,” it is immaterial whether or not the other elements are disclosed.
(K) Referring to claim 15, Riley discloses A computer system comprising: at least one processor; and a data storage device in communication with the at least one processor, wherein the data storage device comprises instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to (see para. 77-83 of Riley; a system for carrying out the preferred method of improving food selections according to the invention comprises: one or more computers or terminals or other computing devices):
assess a nutrition need of a subject (para. 13 of Riley; Applying personalized food selection nudges based on user goals and needs at defined and variable intervals during the user's food shopping and food consumption intervals to enhance behavior change in food selection, purchasing behavior and consumption of healthier food items; (3) User selects food category (fruits and vegetables) or manual item search (apples) to display options or display past purchases in lists or periodic batches (last month); (4) Last user food item purchased pulled up from database to display and scored; (5) Last user food item attributes compared to food attributes database to match most relevant list of options that meet user needs or preferences; (6) Last food item search rank curates display of food items based on relevancy to user needs and food attributes; (7) Match food purchased to food attribute database to identify nutrition gaps and provide user: (i) food recommendations to close the nutrient gap );
provide combinations of existing food products that meet the nutrition need of the subject (para. 13 of Riley; Match food purchased to food attribute database to identify nutrition gaps and provide user: (i) food recommendations to close the nutrient gap, (ii) alert to medication interactions, (iii) alert to allergies, (iii) provide personalized nudges to promote purchase of heathier options, and/or (iv) provide educational information to increase awareness; (8) Match prior food item cart purchase (last cart purchase by item) and sort up one level (adjusted rank moves from B to A food, C to B etc.) and foods sorted by user attribute/criteria relevancy; (9) live or pre-recorded coaching based on a user's food searches, previous purchases, habits and/or patterns determined from use of the system and method, searches, previous purchases, and/or biometric data; (10) Food items displayed offer option for “Switch” function to allow user to see options (Display apple and show apple sauce, died apples, apple juice); (11) Food items displayed and offer option for “remix” function to allow user to get the same nutrient mix or range from different foods (remix from Apples to Avocados); (12) Food items displayed and offer option of recipes and add ingredients to cart; (13) utilization of primary food attributes comprising one or more of: (i) sodium, added sugar, calories, vitamins, protein, carbohydrates, total fat, (regulated food label requirements); and (ii) additional food attributes like nitrates, type of fatty acids, and micronutrients essential for optimal health (types of fatty acids, Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA), zinc, selenium, types of B vitamins, vitamins K & E, sulfur, chloride, magnesium, among others)).
Riley does not expressly disclose estimate a potential environmental impact value for each of the combinations of the existing food products, wherein the at least one processor estimates the potential environmental impact value by at least performing a screening life cycle assessment of a factor selected from the group consisting of packaging material manufacture, filling at factory, distribution, retail, transport within life cycle stages, end of life management of used packaging, and combinations thereof; select a combination of the existing food products with a lowest potential environmental impact value; and place an order of the combination of the existing food products with the lowest potential environmental impact.
Wragg discloses estimate a potential environmental impact value for each of the combinations of the existing food products (para. 181 & 189 of Wragg; a computer-implemented system that is configured to track one or more environmental impact and/or social impact parameters of one or more ingredients or meals, and to display values corresponding to those impact parameters); select a combination of the existing food products with a lowest potential environmental impact value (para. 189, 191-193, & 617-623 of Wragg; A robotic meal assembly system including: [0618] (i) a robotic meal assembly device configured to assemble or prepare a meal using multiple ingredients selected or used by the robotic meal assembly device; and [0619] (ii) a computer-implemented system that is configured to track one or more environmental impact and/or social impact parameters of one or more ingredients or meals, and to display values corresponding to those impact parameters; and is further configured to enable a consumer to select meals and/or ingredients in order to change these impact parameters.); and place an order of the combination of the existing food products with the lowest potential environmental impact (para. 191 & 616-619 of Wragg; In the Karakuri system, users choose their meal from a menu or meal ordering system. As part of the ordering process, users personalise their chosen meal using a GUI. The system produces a customized “pick list” for the items to be included in the user's order. The system will directly interface with existing meal ordering software and replace the conventional pick list and operative process by using artificial intelligence and robotics to automatically pick and assemble or prepare the user's chosen, personalised meal. A robotic meal assembly system including: (ii) a computer-implemented system that is configured to track one or more environmental impact and/or social impact parameters of one or more ingredients or meals, and to display values corresponding to those impact parameters; and is further configured to enable a consumer to select meals and/or ingredients in order to change these impact parameters.).
Katz discloses wherein the at least one processor estimates the potential environmental impact value by at least performing a screening life cycle assessment of a factor selected from the group consisting of packaging material manufacture, filling at factory, distribution, retail, transport within life cycle stages, end of life management of used packaging, and combinations thereof (para. 143-145, 8 & 74 of Katz; Product-based evaluation is also call life cycle assessment (LCA) and is an approach that evaluates all stages of a product's life. During the evaluation, environmental impacts from each stage are considered from raw material products, processing, distribution, use and disposal. The methodology considers not only the flow of materials, but the outputs and environmental impacts of these. Life cycle analysis processes follow the main steps of goal definition and scoping to define the process and boundaries; inventory analysis to identify material and energy flows and environmental releases; impact assessment to assess the environmental effects of inventory analysis, and interpretation to draw conclusions from the assessment. Conclusions can include decisions on different materials or processes. A life cycle assessment may be performed of representative traits of a particular diet type. As discussed above a life cycle assessment (LCA) can demonstrate how the food, and/or the refining of such food affects the environment, from planting and harvesting of the food, transportation, and refining of the food and until the food becomes waste or is recycled or composted).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Wragg and Katz within Riley’s method and system for improving a user's food selections. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide complete meal personalisation, with high levels of consistency, greatly increasing customer satisfaction and reducing food waste (abstract of Wragg) and to evaluate all stages of a product's life and avoid shifting environmental problems from one place to another when considering decisions (para. 8 of Katz).
(L) Claim 16 differs from claim 15 by reciting “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to…“ (see para. 77-83 of Riley).
The remainder of claim 16 repeats substantially the same limitations as claim 15, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons given above.
(M) Referring to claim 17, Riley discloses wherein the assessing of the nutrition need of the subject comprises calculating a nutrient gap of the subject based on a nutrient intake of the subject (para. 13 of Riley).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley et al. (US 2021/0134434 A1) in view of Wragg et al. (US 2024/0041252 A1), in view of Katz et al. (US 2021/0280295 A1), and further in view of Hong et al. (KR-20200137097-A).
(A) Referring to claim 18, Riley, Wragg, and Katz do not disclose wherein the nutrient intake of the subject is estimated based on an average nutrient intake in a cluster, wherein nutrient intakes within the cluster are more similar to each other than to those in other clusters.
Hong discloses wherein the nutrient intake of the subject is estimated based on an average nutrient intake in a cluster, wherein nutrient intakes within the cluster are more similar to each other than to those in other clusters (see abstract, first paragraph of page 5, third paragraph of page 3, and second paragraph of page 6 of Hong).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Hong within Riley, Wragg, and Katz. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce preferred dietary groups and recommend a diet for health (abstract of Hong).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley et al. (US 2021/0134434 A1) in view of Wragg et al. (US 2024/0041252 A1), in view of Katz et al. (US 2021/0280295 A1), and further in view of Kaeser et al. (CN 104995108 A).
(A) Referring to claim 19, Riley, Wragg, and Katz do not disclose wherein the factor for the screening life cycle assessment includes at least one of packaging material manufacture and end of life management of used packaging.
Kaeser discloses wherein the factor for the screening life cycle assessment includes at least one of packaging material manufacture and end of life management of used packaging (see page 2 of Kaeser; can be made of foil material package or bag of flexible type. flexible package generally has better semi-rigid and rigid capsule, namely, using lesser amounts of material to package the product, which results in low manufacturing cost and in the displayed plurality of life cycle assessment of relatively low life cycle impact.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned feature of Kaeser within Riley, Wragg, and Katz. The motivation for doing so would have been to lower costs (page 2 of Kaeser).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley et al. (US 2021/0134434 A1) in view of Wragg et al. (US 2024/0041252 A1), in view of Katz et al. (US 2021/0280295 A1), and further in view of Venturini et al. (WO 2021/160846 A1).
(A) Referring to claim 13, Riley, Wragg, and Katz do not disclose wherein the estimating of the potential environmental impact value comprises estimating an environmental impact factor per serving size(s) delivered selected from the group consisting of climate change (CC) [kg C02-eq], 26freshwater consumption scarcity (FWCS) [m3-eq], abiotic resource depletion (ARD) [kg Sb- eq], land use impacts on biodiversity (LUIB) [PDF*m2*year], and impacts on ecosphere/ecosystems quality (IEEQ) [PDF*m2*year], and combinations thereof.
Venturini discloses wherein the estimating of the potential environmental impact value comprises estimating an environmental impact factor per serving size(s) delivered selected from the group consisting of climate change (CC) [kg C02-eq] (page 11, lines 15-17, page 2, lines 19-25, and page 3, lines 25-27 of Venturini).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned feature of Venturini within Riley, Wragg, and Katz. The motivation for doing so would have been to mitigate climate change (page 2, lines 19-25 of Venturini).
Insofar as the claim recites “selected from the group consisting of,” it is immaterial whether or not the other elements are disclosed.
Free of Prior Art
Dependent claim 3 is free of prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 12/29/25.
(1) Applicant argues that independent Claims 1, 15 and 16 and their dependent claims are patent eligible, and the patent eligible subject matter rejection should be reconsidered and withdrawn.
(2) Applicant argues that Katz does not disclose wherein the estimating of the potential environmental impact value comprises performing a screening life cycle assessment of a factor selected from the group consisting of packaging material manufacture, filling at factory, distribution, retail, transport within life cycle stages, the end of life management of used packaging, and combinations thereof.
(A) As per the first argument, see 101 rejection above. The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations in the 101 rejection above constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity” because assessing the nutrition need of the subject; providing combinations of existing food products that meet the nutrition need of the subject; estimating a potential environmental impact value for each of the combinations of the existing food products, wherein the estimating of the potential environmental impact value comprises performing a screening life cycle assessment of a factor selected from the group consisting of packaging material manufacture, filling at factory, distribution, retail, transport within life cycle stages, end of life management of used packaging, and combinations thereof; selecting a combination of the existing food products with a lowest potential environmental impact value; placing an order of the combination of the existing food products with the lowest potential environmental impact; and providing a pre-packed article in reply to the order, the pre-packed article comprising the combination of the existing food products with the lowest potential environmental impact value amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), at the currently claimed high level of generality. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the computer system comprising at least one processor and data storage device, non-transitory computer readable medium, and computer are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of accessing data, providing data, analyzing data, and selecting data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Applicant is reminded that limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
(B) As per the second argument, it is unclear how the language of the claim differs from the applied prior art. Katz discloses wherein the estimating of the potential environmental impact value comprises performing a screening life cycle assessment of a factor selected from the group consisting of packaging material manufacture, filling at factory, distribution, retail, transport within life cycle stages, end of life management of used packaging, and combinations thereof (see para. 8 & 74 of Katz which disclose: Product-based evaluation is also call life cycle assessment (LCA) and is an approach that evaluates all stages of a product's life. During the evaluation, environmental impacts from each stage are considered from raw material products, processing, distribution, use and disposal. The methodology considers not only the flow of materials, but the outputs and environmental impacts of these. Life cycle analysis processes follow the main steps of goal definition and scoping to define the process and boundaries; inventory analysis to identify material and energy flows and environmental releases; impact assessment to assess the environmental effects of inventory analysis, and interpretation to draw conclusions from the assessment. Conclusions can include decisions on different materials or processes. A life cycle assessment may be performed of representative traits of a particular diet type. As discussed above a life cycle assessment (LCA) can demonstrate how the food, and/or the refining of such food affects the environment, from planting and harvesting of the food, transportation, and refining of the food and until the food becomes waste or is recycled or composted.). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine came directly from the reference.
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 LENA NAJARIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am-6 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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571)270-1813. 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.
/LENA NAJARIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687