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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the user interface" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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. The claims recite a method and system for providing meal plan options to a user. Under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lIl), concepts relating to mental processes are drawn to abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the provision of generic computer components does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the factors set forth in MPEP 2106. Such factors include:
• Improvements to another technology or technical field;
• Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself;
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine;
• Transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state of being;
• Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or
• Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Further guidance is provided by Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014). Alice held that a method of mitigating settlement risk was drawn to an abstract idea. Alice further held that the performance of the method performed on a computer did not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea, and thus the claimed invention was drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea:
These cases demonstrate that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not enough for patent eligibility. Mayo, supra, at_(slip op., at 3). Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’” Bilski, supra, at 610-611. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to “implement]” an abstract idea “on ... a computer,” Mayo, supra, at_(slip op., at 16), that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our §101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, see 717 F.3d, at 1286 (Lourie, J., concurring), wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of “additional feature]” that provides any “practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Mayo, 566 U.S., at_(slip op., at 8-9).
Id at pp 1983-1984. Alice further held that apparatus claims drawn to a computer system were subject to the same analysis as the method claims, and were also not patentable subject matter:
Petitioner's claims to a computer system and a computer-readable medium fail for substantially the same reasons. Petitioner conceded below that its media claims rise or fall with its method claims. En Banc Response Brief for Defendant-Appellant in No. 11 -1301 (CA Fed.) p. 50, n. 3. As to its system claims, petitioner emphasizes that those claims recite “specific hardware” configured to perform “specific computerized functions.” Brief for Petitioner 53. But what petitioner characterizes as specific hardware— a “data processing system” with a “communications controller” and “data storage unit,” for example, see App. 954, 958, 1257—is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer will include a “communications controller” and “data storage unit” capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method bclaims. See 717 F.3d, at 1290 (Lourie, J., concurring). As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers.” Id., at 1291 (quoting Bilski, 561 U.S., at 610-611).
Id. at pp 1984-1985. Turning to the claimed invention, a method and system for receiving and analyzing information, and displaying the results of the analysis, is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(ll)(D) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351 -52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Each of the recited steps – presenting an initial meal plan option and an initial health food score, generating an associated second meal plan option with a second health food score, and presenting the second meal plan option to the user – is a mental process pertaining to receiving and analyzing information. The method is performed by a generic computing device which under Alice is not sufficient to impart patentability to the system or method.
Consideration of the factors listed above pertaining to what is significantly more than the judicial exception, as viewed in light of the holding in Alice, weighs against patentability. While the method includes the use of a computer, the method does not involve an improvement in the function of a computer or other technology. Rather, generic computer components are used in their usual and customary way to perform the method. Mere automation of mental processes to improve efficiency is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017), as cited in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015), as cited in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed method does not require the use of a particular machine, as a generic computer system is not a “particular machine” under Alice, nor does it result in the transformation of a physical article. No physical article apart from the generic computer components of claims 19 and 20 are recited as part of the claimed invention. Rather, the result of the claimed method is a presentation of a meal plan option, which itself is an abstract concept.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 also fail to recite limitations which would overcome the rejection. These claims are generally directed to the types of information being received and analyzed as part of the method. Again, generic computer components are being used in their routine and conventional way. Because the claimed invention does not involve significantly more than the abstract concept of analyzing information, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ward. Ward discloses at Figure 2 and paragraphs [0072-78] a method comprising the steps of generating an initial meal plan option (201), generating a health food score for the initial meal plan option (202), generating a second meal plan option at least in part on the initial meal plan (203), generating a health food score for the second meal plan option (202) which is greater than the health food score associated with the first meal plan (204-206), and presenting the second meal plan option to a display of a user device (207, see also the user display as disclosed at paragraph [0084]).
With respect to claim 4, Ward discloses the provision of a user interface with a touch enabled display (smartphone) for receiving information from the user at paragraph [0027]. Ward further discloses a touch enabled display at paragraph [0133]. With respect to claim 8, Ward discloses that its meal plan options are based at least in part on a user’s microbiome data (see paragraphs [0031] and [0126]) and diet preferences (paragraphs [0066-67]). With respect to claim 9, Ward discloses at paragraph [0064] a step of allowing a user to approve a second meal plan option.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward. With respect to claim 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that certain user health data disclosed in paragraph [0021] and [0031], e.g. genetic/DNA information and microbiome information, would commonly be received via a sensor in a user device. With respect to claim 7, the recited steps of generating and presenting a third meal plan option are suggested by Ward, which discloses at step 206 that multiple iterations of generating the second meal plans are performed. Applicant is advised that generation of a third meal plan option is also considered to amount to an obvious duplication of elements yielding no new or unexpected results under MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward in view of Hadjigeorgiou. Ward discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the step of generating meal plans based on available food items in a food storage area as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Hadjigeorgiou at paragraphs [0021-23], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing meal plans which can be more easily executed by the user.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward in view of Quinn. Ward discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the step of allowing a user to swap suitable food items in a recipe such that a score of the meal plan option is increased as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Quinn at paragraphs [0098] and [0144], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of allowing the user to more conveniently personalize the meal plan options according to diet preferences.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward in view of Olsen. Ward discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the step of displaying the second health food score and change data to the user. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Olsen at paragraph [0099], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing the user with additional information concerning the meal plan options.
Claims 10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward in view of Prisk, and further in view of Pauley. Ward discloses a method comprising determining a period of time, determining and presenting one or more targets for the period of time, and receiving and tracking consumption data over a period of time (see e.g. paragraphs [0031-33] and [0047]). Ward does not disclose the recited steps of generating progress data and sending the user a notification associated with the progress data. However, these features are known in the art, as taught for example by Pauley at paragraph [0185] and associated Table 2, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of allowing a user to more easily be informed of their progress toward one or more targets.
With respect to claim 12, the suggested meal plans as disclosed at paragraph [0064] recommended actions associated with the one or more targets. Applicant is also advised that the contents of information displayed to a user constitute non-functional descriptive material under MPEP 2111.05(III), where the material has no new or nonobvious functional relationship with the underlying computer system and the system acts merely as support for informational content displayed to a user. With respect to claim 13, Ward discloses at paragraphs [0021-26] that the targets are based at least in part on various factors including prior health data of the user, a biology of the user, questionnaire data, and prior consumption data. With respect to claim 14, Ward discloses the provision of a user interface for receiving information from the user at paragraph [0027]. With respect to claim 15, Pauley discloses at Table 2 the provision of notifications when one or more thresholds are met or exceeded. With respect to claims 16-17 and 20, providing notifications under the recited conditions is suggested by the various notifications taught by Pauley at Table 2. With respect to claim 18, Ward discloses the receipt of user data including microbiome data and health data (see paragraphs [0031-33]). With respect to claim 19, Ward discloses a system comprising one or more processors and computer readable media including instructions configured to execute the associated method steps at paragraphs [0081-84] and [0088].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward in view of Prisk and Pauley, and further in view of Lee. Ward as viewed in combination with Prisk and Pauley discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the step of receiving a user selection as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Lee at col. 12, lines 29-36, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of facilitating determination of a target from a discrete set of options.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT FERNSTROM whose telephone number is (571)272-4422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/KURT FERNSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 January 8, 2026