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 Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 6/23/26 and the supplemental response filed 6/25/26. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2, 3, 11, and 15-18 are cancelled. Claims 1, 4-10, 12-14, and 19 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on 5/26/26 and 6/25/26 have been entered.
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, 4-10, 12-14, and 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, 4-10, 12-14, and 19 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claims 1, 4-10, 12-14, and 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, wherein the assessing of the nutrition need of the subject comprises calculating a nutrient gap of the subject, wherein the nutrient gap is calculated as (a daily nutrient intake recommendation - an average nutrient intake in a cluster of subjects) / the daily nutrient intake recommendation, and nutrient intakes within the cluster are more similar to each other than to those in other clusters;
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;
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; and
administering the combination of the existing food products to the subject to meet the nutrition need of the subject by providing nutrients selected from the group consisting of carbohydrates, total protein, dietary fiber, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, zinc, vitamin C, and combinations thereof.
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; 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; and administering the combination of the existing food products to the subject to meet the nutrition need of the subject by providing nutrients selected from the group consisting of carbohydrates, total protein, dietary fiber, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, zinc, vitamin C, and combinations thereof 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.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “mathematical concepts“ because calculating a nutrient gap of the subject, wherein the nutrient gap is calculated as (a daily nutrient intake recommendation - an average nutrient intake in a cluster of subjects) / the daily nutrient intake recommendation, and nutrient intakes within the cluster are more similar to each other than to those in other clusters amount to a mathematical formula or equation, 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 claim 1, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts with no additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 4-10, 12-14, and 19 are ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 1 and include all the limitations of Claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim(s) 4-10, 12-14, and 19 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 4-10, 12-14, and 19 describe further limitations regarding using a questionnaire; types of food products/package; estimating an environmental impact factor per serving size(s) delivered, and types of factors. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claim 1, without adding significantly more. The computer machine in claim 14 is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the 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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The newly added recitation of "administering the combination of the existing food products to the subject to meet the nutrition need of the subject by providing nutrients… " within claim 1 appears to constitute new matter. Applicant has not provided support for an active step of a subject eating the food products. The portions pointed to by Applicant merely state that food products “may provide nutrients” or “can provide nutrients” which is not equivalent to “administering.”
In particular, Applicant does not point to, nor was the Examiner able to find support for this newly added language within the specification as originally filed. As such, Applicant is respectfully requested to clarify the above issues and to specifically point out support for the newly added limitations in the originally filed specification and claims.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Regarding independent claim 1, the closest prior art of record, Riley et al. (US 2021/0134434 A1), Wragg et al. (US 2024/0041252 A1), and Katz et al. (US 2021/0280295 A1), do not teach or fairly suggest: wherein the nutrient gap is calculated as (a daily nutrient intake recommendation - an average nutrient intake in a cluster of subjects) / the daily nutrient intake recommendation, and nutrient intakes within the cluster are more similar to each other than to those in other clusters. As such, claims 1, 4-10, 12-14, and 19 are free of prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/26 and 6/25/26 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 responses filed 5/26/26 and 6/25/26.
(1) Applicant requests that any 101 rejection be reconsidered and withdrawn.
(2) Applicant argues that claim 1 was amended as supported in the specification.
(A) As per the first argument, see 101 rejection above. Furthermore, note MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) which states: “In order to qualify as a "treatment" or "prophylaxis" limitation, the claim limitation in question must affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. An example of such a limitation is a step of "administering amazonic acid to a patient" or a step of "administering a course of plasmapheresis to a patient." If the limitation does not actually provide a treatment or prophylaxis, e.g., it is merely an intended use of the claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the "treatment or prophylaxis" consideration. The treatment or prophylaxis limitation must be "particular," i.e., specifically identified so that it does not encompass all applications of the judicial exception(s). Examples of "treatment" and prophylaxis" limitations encompass limitations that treat or prevent a disease or medical condition, including, e.g., acupuncture, administration of medication, dialysis, organ transplants, phototherapy, physiotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery, and the like. For example, an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases is considered to be a particular prophylaxis limitation that practically applies the abstract idea. See, e.g., Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066–68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500-01 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” As such, Applicant's newly added limitation of "administering...food products..." in light of Applicant’s specification (see new matter rejection) and the MPEP does not recite a particular treatment and a disease/medical condition and therefore does not quality as a "treatment" or "prophylaxis" limitation.
Regarding Enfish, the claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. In Enfish, the claims at issue focused on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data.
(B) As per the second argument, Applicant has not provided support for an active step of a subject consuming/ingesting the food products. The portions pointed to by Applicant merely state that food products “may provide nutrients” or “can provide nutrients” which is not equivalent to the dictionary definition of “administering” (note the definition provided by Applicant on page 3 of the arguments filed 6/25/26.).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights