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 4/3/2024.
Claims 1-20 currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 4/3/2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed applications (non-provisional application 16/729,326, filed 12/28/2019, non-provisional application 17/514,303, filed 10/29/2021) 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.
Basis for Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Rejection, Nonstatutory Double Patenting – No Secondary Reference
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,222,719, and over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,984,215. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the conflicting claims (i.e. “display the tolerability score”, etc. versus “output an article of interest tolerability label”, versus “display the tolerability score, etc.) are minor and not distinguishing the overall appearance of one over the other.
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, [0003]) that accurate selection and utilization of products can be challenging. So a need exists to organize these human interactions by/through informing product decisions using the steps of “receive a conditional complaint, select articles of interest, classify articles of interest, display tolerability score,” etc. Applicant’s system/method is therefore a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “informing product decisions,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0002]), 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 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, system/method for performing the steps of “receive a conditional complaint, select articles of interest, classify articles of interest, display tolerability score,” etc., that is “informing product decisions,” 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 1-20 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. remote device, computing devices, graphical user interfaces, displays, storage devices, display adaptors, input devices, processors, peripheral interfaces, input/output systems, network interfaces, networks (Applicant’s Specification [0016], [0115]-[0120]), etc.) to perform steps of “receive a conditional complaint, select articles of interest, classify articles of interest, display tolerability score,” 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) 1-20 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. remote device, computing devices, graphical user interfaces, displays, storage devices, display adaptors, input devices, processors, peripheral interfaces, input/output systems, network interfaces, networks, 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. remote device, computing devices, graphical user interfaces, displays, storage devices, display adaptors, input devices, processors, peripheral interfaces, input/output systems, network interfaces, networks, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0016], [0115]-[0120], Applicant’s specification describes generic computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “remote device, computing devices, graphical user interfaces, displays, storage devices, display adaptors, input devices, processors, peripheral interfaces, input/output systems, network interfaces, networks,” etc. to perform the functions of “receive a conditional complaint, select articles of interest, classify articles of interest, display tolerability score,” etc. The recited “remote device, computing devices, graphical user interfaces, displays, storage devices, display adaptors, input devices, processors, peripheral interfaces, input/output systems, network interfaces, networks,” 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 1-20 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 12-20 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 2-10 and 12-20 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 2-10 and 12-20 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 claim(s) 1 and 11.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadad (US 2019/0295440), in view of Tatourian et al. 775 (US 2017/03100775).
CLAIM 1
As per claim 1, Hadad discloses:
a system (Hadad, [0033] system) for informing product decisions, the system comprising a computing device, the computing device designed and configured to:
receive a conditional complaint relating to a user (Hadad, (Hadad, Figure 1, Figure 6, Figure 13, Figure 20, Figure 21, Figure 23, Figure 24A, Figure 24B, Figure 25A, Figure 25B, Figure 25C, Figure 27, Figure 30, Figure 34A, Figure 34C, Figure 54, [0020], [0063], [0077], [0084], [0091], [0092], [0094], [0095], [0096], [0098], [0105], [0125], [0135], [0137], [0138], [0139], [0153]-[1600], [0161], [0263]);
to correct the conditional complaint (Hadad, Figure 1, Figure 6, Figure 13, Figure 20, Figure 21, Figure 23, Figure 24A, Figure 24B, Figure 25A, Figure 25B, Figure 25C, Figure 27, Figure 30, Figure 34A, Figure 34C, Figure 54, [0020], [0063], [0077], [0084], [0091], [0092], [0094], [0095], [0096], [0098], [0105], [0125], [0135], [0137], [0138], [0139], [0153]-[1600], [0161], [0263]);
to generate a tolerability score (Hadad, Figure 1, Figure 6, Figure 13, Figure 20, Figure 21, Figure 23, Figure 24A, Figure 24B, Figure 25A, Figure 25B, Figure 25C, Figure 27, Figure 30, Figure 34A, Figure 34C, Figure 54, [0020], [0063], [0077], [0084], [0091], [0092], [0094], [0095], [0096], [0098], [0105], [0125], [0135], [0137], [0138], [0139], [0153]-[1600], [0161], [0263]); and
display the tolerability score for each of the one or more articles of interest (Hadad, Figure 1, Figure 6, Figure 13, Figure 20, Figure 21, Figure 23, Figure 24A, Figure 24B, Figure 25A, Figure 25B, Figure 25C, Figure 27, Figure 30, Figure 34A, Figure 34C, Figure 54, [0020], [0063], [0077], [0084], [0091], [0092], [0094], [0095], [0096], [0098], [0105], [0125], [0135], [0137], [0138], [0139], [0153]-[1600], [0161], [0263]).
However, Tatourian et al. 775 teach:
select one or more articles of interest intended (Tatourian et al. 775, [0031])
classify the one or more articles of interest (Tatourian et al. 775, [0049]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include “select one or more articles of interest intended, “classify the one or more articles of interest,” etc. as taught by Tatourian et al. 775 within the system as taught by the Hadad with the motivation of providing recommendations in response to user queries and based on environmental data (Tatourian et al. 775, [0002], [0049]).
CLAIM 2
As per claim 2, Hadad and Tatourian et al. 775
teach the system of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein selecting the one or more articles of interest intended to correct the conditional compliant comprises:
receiving a plurality of certified articles of interest from a database (Tatourian et al. 775, [0016], [0026], [0028], [0031], [0049], [0059], [0088]); and
selecting one or more certified articles of interest from the plurality of certified articles of interest (Tatourian et al. 775, [0016], [0026], [0028], [0031], [0049], [0059], [0088]).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Tatourian et al. 775 with the system as taught by Hadad is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 3
As per claim 3, Hadad and Tatourian et al. 775
teach the system of claim 2 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein receiving the plurality of certified articles of interest from a database comprises:
receiving a plurality of articles of interest from the database (Tatourian et al. 775, [0016], [0026], [0028], [0031], [0049], [0059], [0088]); and
generating the plurality of certified articles of interest by comparing the plurality of articles of interest to one or more compliance standards (Tatourian et al. 775, [0016], [0026], [0028], [0031], [0049], [0059], [0088]).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Tatourian et al. 775 with the system as taught by Hadad is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 4
As per claim 4, Hadad and Tatourian et al. 775
teach the system of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein displaying the tolerability score for each of the one or more articles of interest comprises:
selecting an end user from one or more end users for the tolerability score; and initiating a communication between the user and the end user as a function of the selection (Hadad, Figure 1, Figure 6, Figure 13, Figure 20, Figure 21, Figure 23, Figure 24A, Figure 24B, Figure 25A, Figure 25B, Figure 25C, Figure 27, Figure 30, Figure 34A, Figure 34C, Figure 54, [0020], [0063], [0077], [0084], [0091], [0092], [0094], [0095], [0096], [0098], [0105], [0125], [0135], [0137], [0138], [0139], [0153]-[1600], [0161], [0263]).
CLAIM 5
As per claim 5, Hadad and Tatourian et al. 775
teach the system of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein displaying the tolerability score for the one or more articles of interest further comprises displaying an interest rating for each one of the one or more articles of interest (Hadad, Figure 1, Figure 6, Figure 13, Figure 20, Figure 21, Figure 23, Figure 24A, Figure 24B, Figure 25A, Figure 25B, Figure 25C, Figure 27, Figure 30, Figure 34A, Figure 34C, Figure 54, [0020], [0063], [0077], [0084], [0091], [0092], [0094], [0095], [0096], [0098], [0105], [0125], [0135], [0137], [0138], [0139], [0153]-[1600], [0161], [0263]).
CLAIM 6
As per claim 6, Hadad and Tatourian et al. 775
teach the system of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein selecting the one or more articles of interest intended to correct the conditional complaint comprises:
receiving one or more previous articles of interest associated with the user (Tatourian et al. 775, [0016], [0026], [0028], [0031], [0049], [0059], [0088]); and
selecting the one or more articles of interest as a function of the one or more previous articles of interest (Tatourian et al. 775, [0016], [0026], [0028], [0031], [0049], [0059], [0088]).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Tatourian et al. 775 with the system as taught by Hadad is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 7
As per claim 7, Hadad and Tatourian et al. 775
teach the system of claim 6 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein selecting the one or more articles of interest as a function of the one or more previous articles of interest comprises:
modifying at least a portion of metadata associated with at least one article of interest of the one or more articles of interest as a function of the one or more previous articles of interest (Tatourian et al. 775, [0016], [0026], [0028], [0031], [0040] metadata, [0049], [0059], [0088]).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Tatourian et al. 775 with the system as taught by Hadad is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 8
As per claim 8, Hadad and Tatourian et al. 775
teach the system of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein displaying the tolerability score for the one or more articles of interest further comprises displaying use data associated with the one or more articles of interest (Hadad, Figure 1, Figure 6, Figure 13, Figure 20, Figure 21, Figure 23, Figure 24A, Figure 24B, Figure 25A, Figure 25B, Figure 25C, Figure 27, Figure 30, Figure 34A, Figure 34C, Figure 54, [0020], [0063], [0077], [0084], [0091], [0092], [0094], [0095], [0096], [0098], [0105], [0125], [0135], [0137], [0138], [0139], [0153]-[1600], [0161], [0263]).
CLAIM 9
As per claim 9, Hadad and Tatourian et al. 775
teach the system of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein selecting the one or more articles of interest comprises:
receiving a plurality of articles of interest (Tatourian et al. 775, [0016], [0026], [0028], [0031], [0049], [0059], [0088]);
comparing each article of interest of the plurality of articles of interest (Tatourian et al. 775, [0016], [0026], [0028], [0031], [0049], [0059], [0088]) to one or more cost parameters (Hadad, [0020] ); and
selecting the one or more articles of interest as a function of the comparison (Tatourian et al. 775, [0016], [0026], [0028], [0031], [0049], [0059], [0088]).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Tatourian et al. 775 with the system as taught by Hadad is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 10
As per claim 10, Hadad and Tatourian et al. 775
teach the system of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein selecting the one or more articles of interest comprises:
receiving a plurality of articles of interest (Tatourian et al. 775, [0016], [0026], [0028], [0031], [0049], [0059], [0088]);
comparing the plurality of articles of interest to one or more user input parameters (Tatourian et al. 775, [0016], [0026], [0028], [0031], [0049], [0059], [0088]); and
selecting the one or more articles of interest as a function of the comparison (Tatourian et al. 775, [0016], [0026], [0028], [0031], [0049], [0059], [0088]).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Tatourian et al. 775 with the system as taught by Hadad is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIMS 11-20
As per claims 11-20, claims 11-20 are directed to a method. Claims 11-20 recite the same or similar limitations as those addressed above for claims 1-10. Claims 11-20 are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 1-10.
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:
Classen (US 2011/0238585) disclose systems, methods and a computerized data management device for creating and using data relating to a medical or non-medical product or device to enhance the safety of the product or device.
Grimmer et al. (US 2018/0240542) disclose systems and methods for recommending foods to a user based on health data, includes a database, a memory and a processor. The database stores user health data for each user within a plurality of users, including vitals, genotypic and phenotypic data, user food preference data and foods data that includes macronutrient and micronutrient data for foods that may be recommended to a user.
Allen et al. 2016 (Reference U) disclose that a heterogeneous model has a broader applicability domain, being able to correctly classify chemically dissimilar compounds that a solely chemistry-based model cannot, and provides more interpretable results than comparable homogenous models.
He et al. 2019 (Reference V) disclose present a computational toxicology approach that will assist with screening the hepatotoxic ingredients in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCMs), which will further lay the foundation for exploring the hepatotoxic mechanisms of TCMs.
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