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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application (foreign priority application CN202210044916.1 filed January 14, 2022) and 371 application (PCT/CN2022/141382 filed December 23, 2022) under 35 U.S.C. 110(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on September 5, 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to amendments entered on June 14, 2024 for the patent application 18/720,601 filed on June 14, 2024. Claims 5, 6, 8-14 and 16-17 are amended. Claims 15 and 18 are cancelled. Claims 19-22 are new. Claims 1-14, 16-17 and 19-22 are pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the length. The abstract has 237 words and exceeds the 150 word limit of 37 C.F.R. § 1.72 (b). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
Regarding FIGS. 1-12, 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1), stated in part, normally requires black and white drawings. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. In the present case, FIGS. 1-12 have very faint text and lines. Therefore, the failure to use solid black text and lines renders FIGS. 1-12 from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1).
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 1-14, 16-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a method of determining caloric intake of a user” (i.e. a method), claim 16 is directed to “an electronic device” (i.e. a machine), and claim 17 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “determining caloric intake of a user,” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“acquiring preprandial picture information of food, and determining a preprandial caloric value of the food based on the preprandial picture information of the food;
presenting a preprandial picture of the food, wherein the preprandial picture of the food is annotated with the preprandial caloric value of the food;
acquiring postprandial picture information of the food, and determining a postprandial caloric value of the food based on the postprandial picture information of the food;
determining a caloric intake value of a user based on the preprandial caloric value and the postprandial caloric value of the food; and
presenting a postprandial picture of the food, wherein the postprandial picture of the food is annotated with one or more of the preprandial caloric value of the food, the postprandial caloric value of the food, or the caloric intake value of the user.”
Per claim 16:
“acquiring preprandial picture information of food, and determining a preprandial caloric value of the food based on the preprandial picture information of the food;
presenting a preprandial picture of the food, wherein the preprandial picture of the food is annotated with the preprandial caloric value of the food;
acquiring postprandial picture information of the food, and determining a postprandial caloric value of the food based on the postprandial picture information of the food;
determining a caloric intake value of a user based on the preprandial caloric value and the postprandial caloric value of the food; and
presenting a postprandial picture of the food, wherein the postprandial picture of the food is annotated with one or more of the preprandial caloric value of the food, the postprandial caloric value of the food, or the caloric intake value of the user.”
Per claim 17:
“acquiring preprandial picture information of food, and determining a preprandial caloric value of the food based on the preprandial picture information of the food;
presenting a preprandial picture of the food, wherein the preprandial picture of the food is annotated with the preprandial caloric value of the food;
acquiring postprandial picture information of the food, and determining a postprandial caloric value of the food based on the postprandial picture information of the food;
determining a caloric intake value of a user based on the preprandial caloric value and the postprandial caloric value of the food; and
presenting a postprandial picture of the food, wherein the postprandial picture of the food is annotated with one or more of the preprandial caloric value of the food, the postprandial caloric value of the food, or the caloric intake value of the user.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “one or more processors” and “a storage means,” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “determining caloric intake of a user,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “one or more processors” and “a storage means,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Moreover, the element of “one or more processors” and “a storage means,” are best described in para. [0122] as follows:
“[0122] The above modules may be implemented as software components executed on one or more general-purpose processors, or as hardware executing certain functions or combinations thereof, such as a programmable logic device and/or application specific integrated circuit. In some embodiments, these modules may be embodied in a form of a software product, which may be stored in non-volatile storage media comprising instructions that cause a computer device (e.g., a personal computer, server, network device, mobile terminal, etc.) to implement the method described in the embodiment of the present disclosure. In other embodiments, the above modules may also be implemented on a single device or may be distributed on a plurality of devices. Functions of these modules may be combined with each other, or further divided into a plurality of units.”
These elements are reasonably interpreted as part of a generic computer having generic computer components which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment. Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-14 and 19-22 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-14 and 19-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 16 or 17. Therefore, claims 1-14, 16-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14, 16-17 and 19-22 contain allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of record is U.S. PG Pub. 2019/0213416 to Cho, et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Cho”). However, Cho does not explicitly teach: “presenting a postprandial picture of the food, wherein the postprandial picture of the food is annotated with one or more of the preprandial caloric value of the food, the postprandial caloric value of the food, or the caloric intake value of the user,” per claims 1, 16 and 17. Therefore, claims 1-14, 16-17 and 19-22 are allowable subject matter, if no other statutory rejections remain. In the present case, claims 1-14, 16-17 and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights