DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20 as originally filed are currently pending and are considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 9, 2024 and June 12, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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(s): obtain, from an optical device, detection data indicative of an item;
and - control, based on the detection data, a victual ordering system; wherein the electronic device comprises a recommendation engine, and wherein the controlling of the victual ordering system comprises to generate, based on the detection data and using the recommendation engine, menu data indicative of a victual menu.
The steps of the method, as drafted, provide a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people by describing a system and method for recommending menu items to an individual based on received item data and include a recommendation engine and menu data indicative of a victual menu (as claimed), for example, the recommendation is based on received information pertaining to a user and displayed on a menu.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite an additional element. As such, there is nothing recited that can be considered a practical
application or significantly more than the judicial exception.
The electronic device is recited at a high level of generality as a generic computer performing the generic functions of controlling a victual ordering system and recommendation engine. Both of which are interpreted as software and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The optical device is considered an additional element and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The obtaining step is interpreted to include image capturing, then this is recited at a high‐level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic function of retrieving data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Similarly, a camera would not be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a camera amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is patent ineligible.
A similar analysis has been applied to claim 15 which recites essentially the same abstract idea as in claim 1.
The dependent claims also are patent ineligible. For example, claims 2 and 16 include the step of defining the detection data which further describes the managing of personal behavior. Claims 3-14 and 17-20 further describe the abstract idea with limitations directed to describing the item, identifying a type of recommendation engine, controlling the victual ordering system, identifying menu data, tracking parameter, receiving user inputs, receiving multiple other user inputs, updating a menu, defining the electronic device as a server, describing the inclusion of an optical device within the electronic device.
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 (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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alkan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0073601 in view of Katsu Japanese Patent JP 2020107096..
As per Claim 1, Alkan et al., discloses an electronic device
- memory circuitry
- processor circuitry
- interface circuitry
wherein the electronic device
- obtain, from an optical device, detection data indicative of an item (pg.7, ¶ [0072] discusses the meal recommendation service 502 may be in communication with one or more IoT devices, such as cameras 560A, 560B…the meal recommendation service 502 may gather and collect collaborative data from each of the one or more IoT devices such as communication messages, audio, images or videos from cameras 560A, 560B); and
- control, based on the detection data, a victual ordering system (pg.6, ¶ [0068] discusses the GUI 422 may display a recommended meal, meal courses, food sources, or a combination thereof to a user via an interactive graphical user interface);
wherein the electronic device comprises a recommendation engine (Figure 4, Meal Recommendation System 430).
Alkan is directed toward recommending meals for a group of members to maximize consumption satisfaction of each member of a group using one or more Internet of Things (IoT) devices in an IoT network.
However, Alkan fails to disclose wherein the controlling of the victual ordering system comprises to generate, based on the detection data and using the recommendation engine, menu data indicative of a victual menu.
Katsu teaches wherein the controlling of the victual ordering system comprises to generate, based on the detection data and using the recommendation engine, menu data indicative of a victual menu (pg.3, 4th paragraph discusses the proposed menu determination unit 113, the recommended intake of nutrients and the like of the constituent users, and the content of nutrients and the like, which is the amount of energy and/or nutrients included in each of the plurality of menus… the proposed menu determining unit 113 determines a menu having a content of nutrients or the like that satisfies the recommended intake of nutrients or the like of the constituent user as a proposed menu).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized information detected from dining customers to recommend food items displayed on a menu as in the improvement discussed in Katsu in the system executing the method of Alkan. As in Katsu, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art display recommended items onto a menu to the monitoring and detection data of diners with the predicted result of displaying recommended items on a menu as needed in Alkan.
As per Claim 2, Alkan discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the detection data comprises one or more of: a subject parameter, a group of subjects parameter, an object parameter, a face parameter, a victual parameter, a victual tracking parameter, and a radio sensing parameter (pg.7, ¶ [0073] discusses the satisfaction level component 510 may use the collaboration of data (e.g., historical and real-time data) gathered from one or more collaborative members in a group of members).
As per Claim 3, Alkan discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, 510 may determine, from the collaborative data, that a customer's face turns a reddish color).
As per Claim 4, Alkan discloses the electronic device according to claim 1,510 may determine, from the collaborative data, that a customer 504 has a positive level or high level of customer satisfaction of a previously ordered or consumed meal(s) as compared to other previously determined levels of customer satisfaction relating to the member profile).
Examiner is construing using the positive satisfaction of a previously ordered or consumed meal as content based filtering because items similar to what a user liked before, by analyzing item features (like genre, director, keywords) and user preferences to build a profile, making it great for personalized niche suggestions but requiring good item metadata).
As per Claim 5, Alkan discloses the electronic device according to claim 1. However, Alkan fails to disclose wherein the electronic device is configured to control the victual ordering system based on the menu data (pg.4, 1st paragraph discusses the proposed menu may be determined based at least on the nutrient intake, and the nutrient content of each of the plurality of menus).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized menu data to provide a proposed menu as in the improvement discussed in Katsu in the system executing the method of Alkan. As in Katsu, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art display recommended items onto a menu to the monitoring and detection data of diners with the predicted result of displaying recommended items on a menu as needed in Alkan.
As per Claim 6, Alkan discloses the electronic device according to claim 1,
Katsu teaches wherein the menu data comprises data indicative of a sharing menu for a group of subjects (pg.3, 7th paragraph discusses Since the proposed menu is determined based on the content of the nutrients, etc., it is possible to propose the menu to a group such as a family composed of a plurality of users…pg.4, 1st paragraph discusses Since such a configuration calculates the recommended nutrient intake of the proposed target unit and uses it for the determination of the proposed menu, for example, the same rule is applied when the proposed target unit is an individual or a group).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized menu data to provide a proposed menu for a group of individuals as in the improvement discussed in Katsu in the system executing the method of Alkan. As in Katsu, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art display recommended items onto a menu to the monitoring and detection data of diners with the predicted result of displaying recommended items on a menu as needed in Alkan.
As per Claim 7, Alkan discloses the electronic device according to claim 2,
The cited portion of Alkan teaches a system and method capable of monitoring a customer eating a meal, thereby providing a victual tracking parameter.
However, Alkan fails to explicitly state menu data.
Katsu teaches menu data. (pg.2, 4th paragraph discusses a menu information DB 153 that stores menu information related to the menu proposed in the menu proposal service).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized menu information regarding menu items as in the improvement discussed in Katsu in the system executing the method of Alkan. As in Katsu, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to retrieve menu item information with the predicted result of displaying recommended items on a menu as needed in Alkan.
As per Claim 8, Alkan discloses the electronic device according to claim 1,input comprises one or more of: a victual preference parameter, an allergy parameter, a taste parameter, a price parameter, a duration parameter, and an activity parameter (pg.6, ¶ [0064] discusses the member profile component 410 may include data relating to a satisfaction level for a variety of meals, food types, food sources, or a combination thereof each of which may include a plurality of factors. The plurality of factors may include a plurality of eating preferences, eating preference locations, nutritional constraints, one or more health constraints, one or more meal types, one or more available meals, favorite food choices, dislikes, cooking skills of each member, preparation time, time constraints of each member ( e.g., calendars and appointments), recipe database, or a combination thereof).
As per Claim 9, Alkan discloses the electronic device according to claim 8, wherein the menu data is based on the first user input (pg.8, ¶ [0081] discusses the collaboration component 540 may also be used to receive one or more communications, messages, reviews, or input/output data from each member of the group of members).
However, Alkan fails to explicitly state menu data.
Katsu teaches menu data. (pg.2, 4th paragraph discusses a menu information DB 153 that stores menu information related to the menu proposed in the menu proposal service).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized menu information regarding menu items as in the improvement discussed in Katsu in the system executing the method of Alkan. As in Katsu, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to retrieve menu item information with the predicted result of displaying recommended items on a menu as needed in Alkan.
As per Claim 10, Alkan discloses the electronic device according to claim 1,member messages, voting results, or likes/dislikes to a graphical user interface (GUI) of each member's computing device or mobile device).
However, Alkan is silent regarding output the menu data to one or more subjects.
Katsu discloses output the menu data to one or more subjects (pg.9, 1st paragraph discusses a suggested menu display (family) screen 80B displayed on the user terminal 30 in response to reception of menu information or the like transmitted from the system 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have displayed the menu to family members on a user terminal as in the improvement discussed in Katsu in the system executing the method of Alkan. As in Katsu, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to retrieve menu item information with the predicted result of displaying recommended items on a menu as needed in Alkan.
As per Claim 11, Alkan discloses the electronic device according to claim 10, wherein the electronic device is configured to obtain a second user input indicative of one or more of: an acceptance of the victual menu, a refusal of the victual menu, and a modification of the victual menu (pg.8, ¶ [0085] discusses the recommendation component 530 may communicate a recommendation of group member messages, voting results, or likes/dislikes to a graphical user interface (GUI) of each member's computing device or mobile device).
As per Claim 13, Alkan discloses the electronic device according to claim 1,
As per Claim 14, Alkan discloses the electronic device according to claim 1,506A-C (which may have a camera device embedded or associated with a computing device such as, for example, a personal computer, laptop, smart phone, tablet, watch, and the like).
As per Claim 15, Alkan discloses a method, performed by an electronic device, the method comprising:-
obtaining, from an optical device, detection data indicative of an item(pg.7, ¶ [0072] discusses the meal recommendation service 502 may be in communication with one or more IoT devices, such as cameras 560A, 560B…the meal recommendation service 502 may gather and collect collaborative data from each of the one or more IoT devices such as communication messages, audio, images or videos from cameras 560A, 560B); and
- controlling based on the detection data, a victual ordering system (pg.6, ¶ [0068] discusses the GUI 422 may display a recommended meal, meal courses, food sources, or a combination thereof to a user via an interactive graphical user interface);
wherein the electronic device comprises a recommendation engine (Figure 4, Meal Recommendation System 430).
Alkan is directed toward recommending meals for a group of members to maximize consumption satisfaction of each member of a group using one or more Internet of Things (IoT) devices in an IoT network.
However, Alkan fails to disclose wherein the controlling of the victual ordering system comprises to generating, based on the detection data and using the recommendation engine, menu data indicative of a victual menu.
Katsu teaches wherein the controlling of the victual ordering system comprises to generating, based on the detection data and using the recommendation engine, menu data indicative of a victual menu (pg.3, 4th paragraph discusses the proposed menu determination unit 113, the recommended intake of nutrients and the like of the constituent users, and the content of nutrients and the like, which is the amount of energy and/or nutrients included in each of the plurality of menus… the proposed menu determining unit 113 determines a menu having a content of nutrients or the like that satisfies the recommended intake of nutrients or the like of the constituent user as a proposed menu).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized information detected from dining customers to recommend food items displayed on a menu as in the improvement discussed in Katsu in the system executing the method of Alkan. As in Katsu, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art display recommended items onto a menu to the monitoring and detection data of diners with the predicted result of displaying recommended items on a menu as needed in Alkan.
As per Claim 16, Alkan discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein the detection data comprises one or more of: a subject parameter, a group of subjects parameter, an object parameter, a face parameter, a victual parameter, a victual tracking parameter, and a radio sensing parameter (pg.7, ¶ [0073] discusses the satisfaction level component 510 may use the collaboration of data (e.g., historical and real-time data) gathered from one or more collaborative members in a group of members).
As per Claim 17, Alkan discloses the method according to claim 15,510 may determine, from the collaborative data, that a customer's face turns a reddish color).
As per Claim 18, Alkan discloses the method according to claim 15,510 may determine, from the collaborative data, that a customer 504 has a positive level or high level of customer satisfaction of a previously ordered or consumed meal(s) as compared to other previously determined levels of customer satisfaction relating to the member profile).
Examiner is construing using the positive satisfaction of a previously ordered or consumed meal as content based filtering because items similar to what a user liked before, by analyzing item features (like genre, director, keywords) and user preferences to build a profile, making it great for personalized niche suggestions but requiring good item metadata).
As per Claim 19, Alkan discloses the method according to claim 15.
However, Alkan fails to explicitly state wherein the method comprises controlling (
Katsu teaches wherein the method comprises controlling (st paragraph discusses the proposed menu may be determined based at least on the nutrient intake, and the nutrient content of each of the plurality of menus).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized menu data to provide a proposed menu as in the improvement discussed in Katsu in the system executing the method of Alkan. As in Katsu, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art display recommended items onto a menu to the monitoring and detection data of diners with the predicted result of displaying recommended items on a menu as needed in Alkan.
As per Claim 20, Alkan discloses the method according to claim 15. However, Alkan fails to disclose wherein the menu data comprises data indicative of a sharing menu for a group of subjects.
Katsu teaches wherein the menu data comprises data indicative of a sharing menu for a group of subjects (pg.3, 7th paragraph discusses Since the proposed menu is determined based on the content of the nutrients, etc., it is possible to propose the menu to a group such as a family composed of a plurality of users…pg.4, 1st paragraph discusses Since such a configuration calculates the recommended nutrient intake of the proposed target unit and uses it for the determination of the proposed menu, for example, the same rule is applied when the proposed target unit is an individual or a group).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized menu data to provide a proposed menu for a group of individuals as in the improvement discussed in Katsu in the system executing the method of Alkan. As in Katsu, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art display recommended items onto a menu to the monitoring and detection data of diners with the predicted result of displaying recommended items on a menu as needed in Alkan.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alkan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0073601 in view of Katsu Japanese Patent JP 2020107096 further in view of Dillion et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0229498.
As per Claim 12, Alkan and Katsu discloses the electronic device according to claim 11.
As stated above, Alkan is directed toward recommending meals for a group of members to maximize consumption satisfaction of each member of a group using one or more Internet of Things (IoT) devices in an IoT network.
Katsu teaches a menu suggestion system that is communicably connected to a user terminal and provides a menu suggestion service for suggesting a menu composed of one or a plurality of dishes to a user who operates the user terminal… then enables menu suggestion to a group such as a family composed of a plurality of users.
However, the Alkan-Katsu combination fails to wherein the electronic device is configured to determine whether the menu data is to be updated and/or modified based on the second user input.
Dillon teaches wherein the electronic device is configured to determine whether the menu data is to be updated and/or modified based on the second user input (pg.18, ¶ [0152] discusses the request may be a specific request submitted by a user, such as a member of the group. Or it may be an automated command to provide a group recommendation whenever a member of the group performs a certain action, such as accesses the application. The request may include one or more criteria, such as a desired class of items, desired traits, a context, or other information that the system may consider to be a required criterion for a recommended item when making a group recommendation 1325 for one of the items in the database).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of group ordering before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Alkan-Katsu combination to include the ability to allow updates to a menu based on a member input as taught by Dillon et al.to provide a method and system for recommending items, such as beverages, that members of a group are likely to find appealing. Abstract
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakajima et al., Japanese Patent Publication JP2024000595, discusses a recommendation apparatus, a recommendation method, and a program capable of appropriately presenting recommendation information to participants in a dining occasion. Abstract
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHFORD S HAYLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5106. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM with Flex.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/ASHFORD S HAYLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627