DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the filed on 12/12/2023.
Claims 1-10 have been amended.
Claims 11-13 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-10 currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 12/12/2023 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed applications (European application EP21179456.5, filed 6/15/2021) under 35 U.S.C. 110(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), or under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
And/Or
Claims 1-9 are objected to reciting “A and/or B” limitations. The preferred verbiage should be “at least one of A and B.” (See Ex Parte Gross PTAB Appeal 2011-004811). Appropriate correction is suggested.
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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0007]) that a person following an ADF diet typically will not be aware of possible nutrient inadequacies stemming from their diet or the amounts of those inadequacies. So a need exists to organize these human interactions by/through mitigating inadequate nutrient intakes of intermittent fasting (IF) diets using the steps of “identifying nutrition needs, comparing nutrition needs, performing analyses,” etc. Applicant’s method is therefore a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 10 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “mitigating inadequate nutrient intakes of intermittent fasting (IF) diets,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0001]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-10 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, method for performing the steps of “identifying nutrition needs, comparing nutrition needs, performing analyses,” etc., that is “mitigating inadequate nutrient intakes of intermittent fasting (IF) diets,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1-10 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. AI-based system (Applicant’s Specification [0100]), etc.) to perform steps of “identifying nutrition needs, comparing nutrition needs, performing analyses,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim(s) 1-10 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements (i.e. AI-based system, etc.) are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept (Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. AI-based system, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0100], Applicant’s specification describes generic computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “AI-based system,” etc. to perform the functions of “identifying nutrition needs, comparing nutrition needs, performing analyses,” etc. The recited “AI-based system,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. 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. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, or improves any other technology, or improves a technical field, or provides a technical improvement to a technical problem. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1-10 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 2-5 and 7-9 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 2-5 and 7-9 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-9 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claims 1 and 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mainari et al. (WO 2018/234083), in view of Leung et al. (US 2021/0162028).
CLAIM 1
As per claim 1, Mainari et al. disclose:
a computer implemented method (Mainari et al., Fig. 1, [0090], [0066]) or Al based system to identify and/or quantify individual nutritional inadequacies in an individual following or planning to follow an Alternate Day Fasting (ADF) regimen, comprising the steps of:
i) Identifying the individual's nutritional needs and/or dietary rules (Mainari et al., [0157], [0145]),
ii) Comparing the individual's nutritional needs and/or dietary rules with the nutrients provided by a diet (Mainari et al., Figs. 8, 9, [0124]), and
iii) Performing analyses to identify and quantify potential nutritional inadequacies (Mainari et al., Fig. 9).
Mainari et al. fail to expressly disclose:
an ADF diet.
However, Leung et al. teaches:
an ADF diet (Leung et al., [0004] alternate-day fasting).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include “an ADF diet,” etc. as taught by Leung et al. within the method as taught by the Mainari et al. with the motivation of providing many health benefits (Leung et al., [0003]).
CLAIM 2
As per claim 2, Mainari et al. and Leung et al.
teach the method of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the Alternate Day Fasting regimen is selected from the group consisting of strict ADF, Modified ADF and 5:2 protocol (Leung et al., [0004]).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Leung et al. with the method as taught by Mainari et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 3
As per claim 3, Mainari et al. and Leung et al.
teach the method of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the individual's nutritional needs are based on at least one characteristic selected from the group consisting of age, gender, height, weight, physical activity, lifestyle and/or medical condition (Mainari et al., [0157]).
CLAIM 4
As per claim 4, Mainari et al. and Leung et al.
teach the method of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the dietary rules are based on individual's specific dietary restrictions (Mainari et al., [0145]).
CLAIM 5
As per claim 5, Mainari et al. and Leung et al.
teach the method of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the ADF diet of step ii) is a simulated ADF diet (Leung et al., [0004]).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Leung et al. with the method as taught by Mainari et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIMS 6-9
As per claims 6-9, claims 6-9 are directed to a method. Claims 6-9 recite the same or similar limitations as those addressed above for claims 1-5. Claims 6-9 are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 1-5.
CLAIM 10
As per claim 10, claim 10 is directed to a method. Claim 10 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above for claims 1-5. Claim 10 is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 1-5.
Prior Art
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO-892 and include:
Gisel (US 2009/0192365) disclose methods for accurately analyzing dietary nutritional deficiencies and/or imbalances in subjects, including those presumed healthy are described. The methods formulate and dispense a personalized regimen(s) of dietary nutritional supplements and/or physical programs to complement the subjects' individual needs for sustainable health.
Bennett et al. (US 2015/0194071) disclose systems and methods that provide personalized approaches for analyzing nutrient intake levels and for generating recommendations that are responsive to a user's current nutritional intake and the user's nutrition-related goals.
Assor et al. 2015 (Reference U) disclose the Celiac Disease and Diabetes - Dietary Intervention and Evaluation Trial (CD-DIET) Study that is a multicenter randomized controlled trial aimed at evaluating the safety and efficacy of a Gluten-Free Diet (GFD) in patients with asymptomatic celiac disease and type-1 diabetes (T1D) on key diabetes and patient-centered outcomes.
Rynders et al. 2019 (Reference V) summarize the current evidence for Intermittent Energy Restriction (IER) regimens as treatments for overweight and obesity. Specifically, we review randomized trials of ≥8 weeks in duration performed in adults with overweight or obesity (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2) in which an IER paradigm (intermittent fasting (IMF) or time-restricted feeding (TRF)) was compared to continuous energy restriction (CER), with the primary outcome being weight loss. Overall, the available evidence suggests that IER paradigms produce equivalent weight loss when compared to CER, with 9 out of 11 studies reviewed showing no differences between groups in weight or body fat loss.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a-5:00p.
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, ROBERT W. MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights