DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is the final action on the merits in response to the amendments and arguments filed on December 11, 2025. Claims 1, 5-6, and 9 were amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on December 18, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent Number 10,943,312 and Patent Number 11,915,331 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-8 and 16-20 are directed to a process. Claims 9-15 are directed to an article of manufacture. As such, each claim is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
The examiner has identified independent Claim 9 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 1 and 16.
Independent Claim 9 recites the following abstract ideas: “health tracking provide a selectable list of restaurants to a user based at least in part on a proximity of the user to said restaurants; in response to a user's selection of one of the restaurants on the list, generate menu data, the menu data comprising a plurality of menu items, each menu item comprising a text string representative of a consumable item to which the menu item relates and partial nutritional data for said consumable item; identify at least one consumable record match for at least one of the menu items, wherein each consumable record match includes at least nutritional data and a text string for said one of the menu items, and wherein each consumable record match includes supplemental nutritional data that is disparate from the partial nutritional data; receive a selection of said one of the menu items; and transmit the at least one consumable record match identified for the selected menu item to the user
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions (i.e., health tracking: provide a selectable list of restaurants to a user based at least in part on a proximity of the user to said restaurants; in response to a user's selection of one of the restaurants on the list, generate menu data, the menu data comprising a plurality of menu items, each menu item comprising a text string representative of a consumable item to which the menu item relates and partial nutritional data for said consumable item; identify at least one consumable record match for at least one of the menu items, wherein each consumable record match includes at least nutritional data and a text string for said one of the menu items, and wherein each consumable record match includes supplemental nutritional data that is disparate from the partial nutritional data; receive a selection of said one of the menu items; and transmit the at least one consumable record match identified for the selected menu item to the user), but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., a non-transitory computer readable medium for operating a system, the computer readable medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon executed by a processor, a health tracking device, a database, and display on the health tracking device). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, 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 claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) 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 (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable medium for operating a system, the computer readable medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon executed by a processor, a health tracking device, a database, and display on the health tracking device. The computer hardware is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic computers providing, receiving, generating, and displaying information, and generic database storing information) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since they do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of using computer hardware (a non-transitory computer readable medium for operating a system, the computer readable medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon executed by a processor, a health tracking device, a database, and display on the health tracking device) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites “geo-location data,” dependent claims 7 and 20 recite a “GPS-enabled device,” and dependent claim 20 recites “GPS data.” The additional elements are generic GPS devices and GPS data used to implement the abstract idea, and they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor are they sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Dependent claims 2-5, 8, 10-15, and 17-19 do not include any additional elements beyond those identified above. They further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor are they sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are directed to an abstract idea, and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art, Butler et al., teaches a method of providing nutritional data to a user of a health tracking system, storing consumable record data for consumable records at a remote server, wherein the consumable record data includes nutritional data and a text string for a consumable item to which each consumable record relates, wherein at least one of the consumable records relate to a particular menu item. It also teaches a health tracking device that includes a consumable log for the user comprising nutritional data entered by the user over a period of time.
Nusbaum et al. teaches enabling the user to select a restaurant via health tracking device, and generating first menu data based on the selected restaurant, the first menu data comprising first menu items each having associated nutritional data associated therewith.
Bhattacharjee et al. teaches enabling the user to enter, via a health tracking device, a filtering metric by which the first menu data is filtered, generating second menu data based on the filtered first menu data, the second menu data including partial nutritional data associated with the particular menu item, and receiving a selection of the particular menu item via the health tracking device.
However, Butler, along with the other references, does not teach identifying from a database at least one of the consumable records as a consumable record match for the particular menu item, wherein each of the matches includes supplemental nutritional data associated with the particular menu item that is disparate from the partial nutritional data, and displaying consumable record match for the particular menu item on the health tracking device.
The closest NPL, Beijbom et al. “Menu-Match: Restaurant-Specific Food Logging from Images,” teaches receiving an image of a restaurant-specific meal from a user, identifying the food items, and estimating calories from the food image by utilizing a database of nutritional information for known food items, i.e., a menu. However, it does not teach filtering menu data, the filtered menu data including partial nutritional data associated with the menu item, or identifying a consumable record match for the menu item, wherein the match includes supplemental nutritional data associated with the menu item that is disparate from the partial nutritional data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 35 USC 112(b) Rejections of Claims 1-8: Claim 1 has been amended.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and they resolve the identified issue. As such, the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 35 USC 101 Rejection of Claims 1-20:
Step 2A, prong one:
A. The Office is over-inclusive in its analysis of which portions of the claim recite abstract ideas.
It must be remembered that the term "certain" qualifies the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as a reminder of several important points (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II). Most notably, this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II).
In the Office Action, the Office states "If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas." (Office Action at pg. 6). Here, the Office misstates the standard for analysis under step 2A, prong one. Particularly, under step 2A, prong one, the goal is to identify limitations that recite an abstract idea - not identify limitations that merely relate to an abstract idea.
As best understood, the Office understands the claims to recite limitations that can be understood as 'managing personal behavior' - e.g., managing the caloric or nutritional intake of a person. However, even if, for example, the limitations "health tracking" and "nutritional data" are understood to recite 'managing personal behavior,' the claims recite many additional features that clearly do not recite 'managing personal behavior.'
i. Providing a selectable list of restaurants to a user is not a certain method of organizing human activity.
It should be appreciated that the claims do not merely relate to health tracking and logging calorie consumption and nutritional content. Instead, the claims are directed to processes that make it easier and more efficient to interact with and query a database of consumable records. To these ends, claim 9 recites "provide a selectable list of restaurants to a user based at least in part on a proximity of a health tracking device associated with the user to said restaurants."
Even if this process may relate to health tracking, it does not recite health tracking. Instead, this process recites providing a list of restaurants that are in the proximity of the user. It should be appreciated that providing a list of restaurants is not management of the personal behavior of the user. The limitation does not recite, for example, instructing or recommending that the user visits a particular restaurant. Instead, the limitation enables the user to more easily and efficiently select a restaurant that he or she is already visiting (is in the proximity of).
Contrary to the Office's analysis, for at least the reasons discussed above, the limitation "provide a selectable list of restaurants to a user based at least in part on a proximity of a health tracking device associated with the user to said restaurants" does not recite any abstract ideas within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" subject matter groupings of abstract ideas. Thus, this limitation should be understood as a non-abstract limitation for the purpose of analysis under 35 U.S.C. §101.
ii. Generating menu data in response the user selecting a restaurant is not a certain method of organizing human activity.
Claim 9 further recites "in response to a user's selection of one of the restaurants on the list, generate menu data, the menu data comprising a plurality of menu items." Even if this process may relate to health tracking, it does not recite health tracking. Instead, this process recites generating menu data in response to the user selecting a restaurant. It should be appreciated that generating menu data is not management of the personal behavior of the user. The limitation does not recite, for example, instructing or recommending that the user consumes a particular menu item. Instead, the limitation enables the user to more easily and efficiently select a menu item that he or she has already consumed (or is otherwise interested in).
Contrary to the Office's analysis, for at least the reasons discussed above, the limitation "in response to a user's selection of one of the restaurants on the list, generate menu data, the menu data comprising a plurality of menu items" does not recite any abstract ideas within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" subject matter groupings of abstract ideas. Thus, this limitation should be understood as a non-abstract limitation for the purpose of analysis under 35 U.S.C. §101.
iii. Identifying consumable records that match a menu item is not a certain method of organizing human activity.
Claim 9 further recites "identify from a database at least one consumable record match for at least one of the menu items." Even if this process may relate to health tracking, it does not recite health tracking. Instead, this process identifies consumable records that match a menu item. In other words, the process relates to querying the database to find consumable records that correspond to a menu item. Querying or searching a database to identify matching consumable records clearly is not management of the personal behavior of the user. Instead, the limitation enables the user to more easily and efficiently search the database for consumable records that match a particular menu item.
Contrary to the Office's analysis, for at least the reasons discussed above, the limitation "identify from a database at least one consumable record match for at least one of the menu items" does not recite any abstract ideas within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" subject matter groupings of abstract ideas. Thus, this limitation should be understood as a non-abstract limitation for the purpose of analysis under 35 U.S.C. §101.
iv. Transmitting the at least one consumable record match is not a certain method of organizing human activity.
Claim 9 further recites "transmit the at least one consumable record match identified for the selected menu item to the health tracking device for display to the user on the health tracking device." It should be appreciated that this process only recites transmitting data. Even if the transmitted data relates to health tracking, the transmission of the data is not management of the personal behavior of the user and, thus, does not recite such an abstract idea.
Contrary to the Office's analysis, for at least the reasons discussed above, the limitation "transmit the at least one consumable record match identified for the selected menu item to the health tracking device for display to the user on the health tracking device" does not recite any abstract ideas within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" subject matter groupings of abstract ideas. Thus, this limitation should be understood as a non-abstract limitation for the purpose of analysis under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Step 2A, prong two:
The claimed invention solves a problem in the technical field of querying large computer databases. Particularly, as described in the specification, the process of manually entering food and beverage consumption data into a system along with calorie and nutritional data is often time consuming and cumbersome (Specification at par. 0005). Moreover, it is often difficult for users to accurately determine the calorie and nutritional content of the foods they eat, so the calorie consumption and nutritional data entered into the health tracking system is often inaccurate (par. 0005). To address these challenges, a database is provided having consumable records that are populated with accurate calorie and nutritional data. However, such databases include vast amounts of consumable records and searching such large databases to find the correct record corresponding to a particular consumable item is cumbersome in and of itself. Thus, it is clear that there is an existing technological problem in the technical field of querying large computer databases.
The claimed invention provides a solution to this technological problem in the technical field of querying large computer databases. Particularly, as further discussed in the specification, the claimed invention advantageously simplifies the process for interacting with and querying a consumable records database. Firstly, the user is presented with a listing 408 of restaurants that are in the user's proximity (Specification at par. 0079-0080 and FIG. 4; also reflected in the non-abstract claim limitation "provide a selectable list of restaurants [...]"). Next, the user is presented with a menu listing 506 corresponding to the selected restaurant (par. 0082 and FIG. 5; also reflected in the non-abstract claim limitation "[...] generate menu data [...]"). The system searches the database for consumable records that match one or more of the menu items 510 in the menu listing 506 (par. 0083 and FIG. 5; also reflected in the non-abstract claim limitation "identify from a database at least one consumable record match [...]").
These processes advantageously enable the user to interact with the consumable records database without needing to manually search the database for a particular restaurant or a particular menu item (e.g., by typing a search query that specifies both the restaurant and the menu item). Instead, the most relevant records are automatically presented using a simplified and efficient process of selecting a nearby restaurant and a menu item offered by the selected restaurant.
Even if some aspects of the claims are considered to recite an abstract idea, the claims also recite non-abstract limitations that clearly integrate such abstract ideas in to a practical application of enabling a user to easily and efficiently interact with and query the consumable records database. In other words, the claims are directed to a process for more effectively querying a database, and not directed merely to health tracking or management of personal behavior.
Based on the above, it is clear that the claimed invention solves a technological problem in the technical field of querying large computer databases [See Enfish v. Microsoft (2016) and McRo v. Bandai Namco (2016) in which the courts looked to the specification to determine that the technical improvements realized by the invention provide an improvement to technology]. By solving this technological problem, the claimed invention provides an improvement in the technical field of querying large computer databases. Accordingly, the limitations of the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Even if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the independent claims clearly recite additional limitations which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Particularly, courts have found limitations to qualify as "significantly more" or an "inventive concept" when recited in a claim that includes improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (MPEP at §2106.05 A). As discussed in greater detail above, the claimed invention provides a clear improvement to a technology or to a technical field because the claimed invention solves a technological problem. Accordingly, the limitations of the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A, prong one:
i. Providing a selectable list of restaurants to a user.
The step of providing a list of restaurants to a user based on a proximity of the user to the restaurants is part of the abstract idea, which falls within the CMO grouping. More specifically, it falls within managing personal behavior and interactions between people, as a person can provide a list of restaurants to another person based on the other person’s proximity to the restaurants. The health tracking device in the step is recited at a high level of generality, used as a mere tool to implement the abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “the claims are directed to processes that make it easier and more efficient to interact with and query a database of consumable records,” the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), a claim that recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it,” and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further, the specification does not provide any details of how the claimed invention provides any improvement to the functioning of databases or computers or any other technology.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “the limitation enables the user to more easily and efficiently select a restaurant that he or she is already visiting (is in the proximity of),” this is a recitation of an improvement to the abstract idea itself, and not an improvement in technology.
ii. Generating menu data in response the user selecting a restaurant.
The step of generating menu data comprising a plurality of menu items in response to a user’s selection of one of the restaurants on the list is part of the abstract idea, which falls within the CMO grouping. More specifically, it falls within managing personal behavior and interactions between people, as the person who provided a list of restaurants to the other person can also then receive a selection of a restaurant from the other person, then providing the other person with menu data comprising a plurality of menu items.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “the limitation enables the user to more easily and efficiently select a menu item that he or she has already consumed (or is otherwise interested in),” this is a recitation of an improvement to the abstract idea itself, and not an improvement in technology.
iii. Identifying consumable records that match a menu item.
The step of identifying at least one consumable record match for at least one of the menu items is part of the abstract idea, which falls within the CMO grouping. More specifically, it falls within managing personal behavior and interactions between people, as the person who provided the menu data can also then identify at least one consumable record match for at least one of the menu items. The database in the step is recited at a high level of generality, used as a mere tool to implement the abstract idea, as a generic database for storing information.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “the limitation enables the user to more easily and efficiently search the database for consumable records that match a particular menu item,” the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), a claim that recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it,” and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further, the specification does not provide any details of how the claimed invention provides any improvement to the functioning of databases or computers or any other technology.
iv. Transmitting the at least one consumable record match.
The step of transmitting the at least one consumable record match identified for the selected menu item to the user is part of the abstract idea, which falls within the CMO grouping. More specifically, it falls within managing personal behavior and interactions between people, as the person who identified at least one consumable record match for at least one of the menu items can also then provide the at least one consumable record match to the other person. The health tracking device in the step is recited at a high level of generality, used as a mere tool to implement the abstract idea, as a generic computer with an interface for displaying information.
Step 2A, prong two:
Regarding paragraph [0005] of the specification describing that the process of manually entering food and beverage consumption data into a system along with calorie and nutritional data is often time consuming and cumbersome, mere automation of manual processes through the use of a computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. Further, providing a database having consumable records that are populated with accurate calorie and nutritional data is a recitation of an improvement to the abstract idea itself, and not a technical improvement to databases or any other technology.
The user being presented with a listing of restaurants that are in the user’s proximity, and with a menu listing corresponding to a selected restaurant, is essentially a filtering of data based on the user’s location and selection. This does not provide a technical improvement to database technology, nor does it provide any improvement to the functioning of a computer. Rather, it is a recitation of an improvement to the abstract idea itself.
The system searching the database for consumable records that match menu items in the menu listing, rather than a user manually searching the database, is mere automation of a manual process, and is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality.
The recited additional elements, including the database and the health tracking device, are recited as a generic database and generic computer, used as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claimed invention does not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the database or the computer itself or any other technology or technical field. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
For at least the reasons above, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art, is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KARMA EL-CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3404. The examiner can normally be reached T-Sa 10am-6pm ET.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)270-1833. 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.
/KARMA A EL-CHANTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629