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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on May 26, 2026 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on July 23, 2026 for the patent application 18/720,601 filed on June 14, 2024. Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19 and 21 are amended. Claims 15 and 18 are cancelled. Claims 1-14, 16, 17 and 19-22 are pending. The first office action of April 23, 2026 is fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
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,
wherein the preprandial caloric value and the postprandial caloric value of the food are respectively determined based on a preprandial weight and a postprandial weight of the food, the preprandial weight and the postprandial weight of the food are respectively determined based on preprandial size information and postprandial size information of the food, and the preprandial size information and the postprandial size information of the food are respectively obtained from the preprandial picture and the postprandial picture of the food using a depth of field calculation technique.”
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,
wherein the preprandial caloric value and the postprandial caloric value of the food are respectively determined based on a preprandial weight and a postprandial weight of the food, the preprandial weight and the postprandial weight of the food are respectively determined based on preprandial size information and postprandial size information of the food, and the preprandial size information and the postprandial size information of the food are respectively obtained from the preprandial picture and the postprandial picture of the food using a depth of field calculation technique.”
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,
wherein the preprandial caloric value and the postprandial caloric value of the food are respectively determined based on a preprandial weight and a postprandial weight of the food, the preprandial weight and the postprandial weight of the food are respectively determined based on preprandial size information and postprandial size information of the food, and the preprandial size information and the postprandial size information of the food are respectively obtained from the preprandial picture and the postprandial picture of the food using a depth of field calculation technique.”
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.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on July 23, 2026 related to claims 1-14, 16-17 and 19-22 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Objections to the Specification
The Applicant respectfully argues “The Specification stands objected to as having an Abstract allegedly over 150 words. Applicant respectfully asserts the Abstract as amended in the preliminary amendment filed June 14, 2024 is under 150 words. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the objection is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Objections to the Drawings
The Applicant respectfully argues “The Drawings stand objected to. Applicants submits fully redrawn replacement drawing sheets, in which all outlines, flowlines, interface borders and reference numerals in the drawings are rendered with dense black solid lines, and no new matter is added. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the objection is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Figures continue to have faint text, lines and boxes. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the objection to the drawings is not withdrawn.
Rejections Under - 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “Amended claim 1 solves this specific technical problem by using a depth of field calculation technique to obtain the preprandial size information and the postprandial size information of the food from the preprandial picture and the postprandial picture of the food, determine the preprandial weight and the postprandial weight of the food based on preprandial size information and postprandial size information of the food, determine the preprandial caloric value and the postprandial caloric value of the food based on the preprandial weight and the postprandial weight of the food, and further calculate the user's actual caloric intake based on the preprandial caloric value and the postprandial caloric value of the food.
Depth of field calculation is a specific computer vision technique involving complex mathematical operations such as depth estimation from two-dimensional imagery, pixel calibration, reference object comparison, and volumetric computation. These operations require a computer processor to execute algorithms that analyze image data, calculate spatial dimensions, and derive three-dimensional information from two-dimensional images. A human being cannot, by mental processes alone, observe a two-dimensional photograph of food and accurately compute size information of the food.
These steps in the amended claims are technical operations performed by a computer executing specific image processing algorithms, not mental steps that can be performed in the human mind with pen and paper.
The claimed invention enables fast and accurate computation of caloric intake with a streamlined, low-latency determination process. Furthermore, one or more of the preprandial food caloric value, postprandial food caloric value, and the user's caloric intake value are annotated on the captured post-meal food image, allowing users to intuitively visualize food calorie data and/or their personal consumed calories. As can be seen, amended claim 1 is directed to an improvement in computer-related technology.
Amended claim 1 is not a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea on a computer. It is far more than a mere calorie calculation routine. Rather, it is a specific technical mechanism that addresses technical challenges in optimizing internal computer resource utilization, specifically by reducing database input/output operations and boosting overall system processing efficiency. Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, this constitutes an integration of the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the amended claims recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea and are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is worth noting in MPEP §2106 under “II. Certain Methods Of organizing Human Activity,” certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. As applied in this case, a person interacting with a computer for “determining caloric intake of a user,” reasonably constitutes identifying the Applicant’s claims as an abstract idea in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Second, with respect to mental processes, actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required. Further, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and that “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite “a mental process.” In the present case, the claim limitations perform steps that are performed on a generic computer and/or computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept of “determining caloric intake of a user,” which has been done in the analog (i.e. by teachers, coaches and trainers) for decades if not centuries.
Third, the Applicant’s argument is misguided as to the proper analysis of a “Practical Application” as required under Step 2A, Prong 2. Specifically, the Applicant’s argument appears to describe claimed utility, which is not the test. Instead, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “one or more processors” and “a storage means,” are a conventional arrangement of computer elements on all forms of devices as provided in the Applicant’s written description of the specification as originally filed at para. [0122] which provides the following:
“[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.”
As such, the Applicant’s claimed “one or more processors” and “a storage means,” in view of para. [0122] are reasonably understood to be generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements found in a computer (i.e. a computer device (e.g., a personal computer, server, network device, mobile terminal, etc.)). 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, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-14, 16, 17 and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. §101 is not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00.
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 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 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.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights