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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15, as recited in an after-final response filed on August 22, 2025 and entered by an RCE filed on September 22, 2025, were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action filed on October 7, 2025 (the “October 7, 2025 Non-Final Office Action”). On January 6, 2026, Applicant submitted amendments to claims 1-12 and 14 (the “January 6, 2026 Amendment”). As such, claims 1-15, as recited in the January 6, 2026 Amendment, are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Response to Applicant’s Remarks Concerning Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, pp. 12-15, II. Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) Section, filed January 6, 2026, with respect to rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Despite Applicant’s arguments, none of the models recited in the claims are described in Applicant’s specification. Specifically, Applicant’s specification and drawings are silent as to the physical change computational model, the comparison computational model, and all of the other models described in the claims. Therefore, the § 112(a) rejections of claims 1-15 for lack of written description are maintained in this office action. Please see the rejections under the Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) Section below, for further clarification and complete analysis.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks Concerning Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, pp. 15-16, III. Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Section, filed January 6, 2026, with respect to rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to clarify that the physical change computational model is “a technically distinct model”, because it is comparing measured values of body-fat percentage or muscle mass of a user before and after exercise by the same user. See Applicant’s Remarks, at p. 16. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s description of the physical change computational model is not distinct in the claims or the specification, because it does not describe the choice of algorithm (e.g., linear regression, decision tree, neural network, etc.) and it does not address a specific technical problem. Further, the physical change computational model is not distinct, because it’s performance/effectiveness is not described in the claims or specification. The Examiner also notes other factors of model distinctiveness, such as training data, architecture and hyperparameters, prediction speed, memory usage, and complexity are not mentioned at all in the specification. Therefore, the physical change computational model is deemed to be the equivalent of applying the abstract idea with a computer and generally linking the abstract idea to the field of machine learning models/algorithms. For these reasons, this argument is not persuasive.
Next, Applicant argues that the features directed to the electronic processor; “acquiring information relating to current exercise performed by the user”; and “performing, with one or more deep learning models, objection detection on the image data”, cannot be performed in the human mind and therefore, the claims cannot be interpreted to fall within the Mental Processes grouping. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While these features are not deemed to be part of the abstract idea (i.e., they are interpreted as additional elements), Applicant has not presented any arguments as to why they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As identified in previous office actions, the abstract idea recited in the claims is directed to a method for determining a type and amount of nutrient to give to a user, comprising: receiving data related to a health objective of a user; generating nutrient information based on exercise data, the health objective of the user, and a compounding amount of the nutrient; acquire information relating to a current exercise performed by the user; determining a type and amount of a nutrient; supplying a dietary supplement containing the determined type and amount of nutrient; and calculating an amount of change in a user’s physical information before and after the user engages in an exercise and takes a dietary supplement. These steps are explicitly recited in independent claims 1 and 8. Adding the additional elements of the electronic processor; “acquiring information relating to current exercise performed by the user”; and “performing, with one or more deep learning models, objection detection on the image data”, is deemed to be the equivalent of applying the abstract idea with a computer and generally linking the abstract idea to the field of deep learning models/algorithms, because these elements are claimed at a high level of generality. For these reasons, this argument is not persuasive.
Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1-15 under § 101 are maintained in this office action. Please see the amended rejections under the Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101 Section below, for further clarification and complete analysis.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
- For clarity and consistency of the claims, claim 1 should be amended to add the word "electronic" to all recitations of the processor. Specifically, the Examiner suggests that Applicant amend the following limitations accordingly in claim 1 - "control a camera to capture and transmit to the electronic processor, image data related to a fitness device or an exercise environment" (in lines 14-15 of claim 1) and "wherein the calculation is performed using the physical change computational model stored in the memory and executed by the electronic processor, the physical change computational model compares measured values of body-fat percentage or muscle mass before and after the exercise while taking external factors into consideration and calculates an effect of the exercise and an intake of the dietary supplement on the body-fat percentage and the muscle mass" (in lines 34-39 of claim 1). Appropriate correction is required.
- Further, the limitation in claim 1 directed to “responsive to receiving the image data related to the fitness device or the exercise environment and the received objective relating to health, perform, with one or more deep learning models, objection detection on the image data to acquire information relating to current exercise performed by the user […]” contains a misspelled word. Specifically, the word “objection” in claim 1 should be “object” instead (i.e., “perform, with one or more deep learning models, object detection on the image data”). Examiner suggests that Applicant amend the word “objection” in claim 1 to read as “object” (i.e., “perform, with one or more deep learning models, object detection on the image data”, or make some other appropriate correction of course. Examiner suggests that Applicant make a similar correction in claim 8, which currently also recites “objection detection”. For examination purposes, the word “objection” in claims 1 and 8 will be interpreted and read the same as “object”. Claims 2-7 and 9-15 are also objected to for similar reasons as described in the analysis of the objections to claims 1 and 8 (due to their individual dependencies on claims 1 and 8). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. See MPEP § 2161.01. Specifically, for software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2161.01, 2163.02, and 2181 (IV). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function, because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP § 2161.01 (citing Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Claim 1 recites (1) "a memory storing a physical change computational model"; and "(2) calculate, based on physical information of the user, an amount of change in the physical information of the user before and after the user engages in the exercise and takes in the dietary supplement, wherein the calculation is performed using the physical change computational model stored in the memory and executed by the processor, the physical change computational model compares measured values of body-fat percentage or muscle mass before and after the exercise while taking external factors into consideration and calculates an effect of the exercise and an intake of the dietary supplement on the body-fat percentage and muscle mass". However, the specification lacks sufficient support in the disclosure describing these limitations in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. Specifically, Applicant's specification does not mention a physical change computational model, or the use of such a model for performing the steps recited above. As such, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-7 and 15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement for similar reasons described in the analysis of § 112(a) rejection to claim 1 described above (due to their individual chains of dependency on claim 1). Appropriate correction is required.
Separately, c.
Separately, c.
Separately, c.
Separately, c.
Separately, c.
Claim .
Claims 8-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement for similar reasons described in the analysis of § 112(a) rejection to claim 8 described above (due to their individual chains of dependency on claim 8). Appropriate correction is required.
Separately, c.
Separately, c.
Separately, c.
Separately, c.
Separately, c.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP § 2106 (hereinafter referred to as the “2019 Revised PEG”).
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised PEG
Following Step 1 of the 2019 Revised PEG, claims 1-7 and 15 are directed to a dietary supplement compounding assistance system, which is within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine or apparatus). See MPEP § 2106.03. Claims 8-14 are directed to a dietary supplement compounding assistance method, which is also within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a process). See Id.
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG - Prong One
Following Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. See MPEP §2106.04. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: (1) Mathematical Concepts; (2) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and (3) Mental Processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative independent claims 1 and 8 include limitations that recite an abstract idea. Note that independent claim 1 is a system, while claim 8 covers the matching method claim. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites (and claim 8 substantially recites the following limitations):
A dietary supplement compounding assistance system, comprising:
an electronic processor;
a memory storing a physical change computational model, the memory communicatively coupled to the electronic processor; and
an interface;
wherein the electronic processor is configured to:
receive data indicating an objective relating to health of a user that is input via the interface,
generate nutrient information in a correlation structure, wherein the nutrient information is correlated with information relating to exercise, the objective relating to health, and a compounding amount of the nutrient,
control the memory to store the correlation structure,
control a camera to capture and transmit to the processor, image data related to a fitness device or an exercise environment,
responsive to receiving the image data related to the fitness device or the exercise environment and the received objective relating to health, perform, with one or more deep learning models, objection detection on the image data to acquire information relating to current exercise performed by the user, search the memory for the nutrient information using the correlation structure, and retrieve a correlated nutrient information having a correlation with the information relating to the current exercise performed by the user and the received objective relating to health,
responsive to receiving the correlated nutrient information, determine a type of nutrient and a compounding amount of the nutrient from the correlated nutrient information,
control the interface to present the correlated nutrient information;
generate a control signal indicating a dietary supplement from a plurality of dietary supplements, the dietary supplement containing the determined compounding amount of the nutrient,
control a supplement supply device to supply the dietary supplement to the user by transmitting the control signal to the supplement supply device,
calculate, based on physical information of the user, an amount of change in the physical information of the user before and after the user engages in the exercises and takes the dietary supplement, wherein the calculation is performed using the physical change computational model stored in the memory and executed by the processor, the physical change computational model compares measured values of body-fat percentage or muscle mass before and after the exercise while taking external factors into consideration and calculates an effect of the exercise and an intake of the dietary supplement on the body-fat percentage and the muscle mass, and
control the interface to display information relating to the supply of the dietary supplement and an amount of change in the physical information of the user.
However, the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See 2019 Revised PEG. The Mental Processes category covers concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) (i.e., a method for determining a type and amount of nutrient to give to a user, comprising: receiving data related to a health objective of a user; generating nutrient information based on exercise data, the health objective of the user, and a compounding amount of the nutrient; acquire information relating to a current exercise performed by the user; determining a type and amount of a nutrient; supplying a dietary supplement containing the determined type and amount of nutrient; and calculating an amount of change in a user’s physical information before and after the user engages in an exercise and takes a dietary supplement). That is, other than reciting some computer components and functions (the foregoing limitations in claims 1 and 8 which are not underlined), the context of claims 1 and 8 encompass concepts that are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) (i.e., a method for determining a type and amount of nutrient to give to a user, comprising: receiving data related to a health objective of a user; generating nutrient information based on exercise data, the health objective of the user, and a compounding amount of the nutrient; acquire information relating to a current exercise performed by the user; determining a type and amount of a nutrient; supply a dietary supplement containing the determined type and amount of nutrient; and calculate an amount of change in a user’s physical information before and after the user engages in an exercise and takes a dietary supplement).
The aforementioned claim limitations described in claims 1 and 8 are analogous to claim limitations directed toward concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper, because they merely recite limitations which encompasses a person mentally and/or manually observing, evaluating, making judgments, opinions related to: (1) receiving data related to a health objective of a user (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally and/or manually collect certain data related to a health objective of a user); (2) generating nutrient information based on exercise data, the health objective of the user, and a compounding amount of the nutrient (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could manually write down nutrient information for the user based on exercise data and the health objective); (3) acquiring information related to an exercise performed by the user (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally and/or manually collect certain data); (4) determining a type and amount of nutrient to give to the user (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally determining a type and amount of nutrient to give to the user); (5) determining a dietary supplement containing the determined type and amount of nutrient to be given to the user (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally and/or manually lookup a dietary supplement that contains the determined type and amount of nutrient for the user); and (6) calculating the amount of change in a user’s physical information before and after the user engages in an exercise and takes a dietary supplement (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion person could mentally and/or manually calculate the amount of change that a user’s physical information will have, e.g., calculating a change in the user’s weight, before and after the user engages in the exercise and takes a dietary supplement). Therefore, the aforementioned underlined claim limitations may reasonably be interpreted as mental/manual observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions made by a person, such as a data security professional. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See 2019 Revised PEG. Accordingly, claims 1 and 8 recite an abstract idea.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below. Examiner notes that dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 provide limitations that are deemed to be additional elements which require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A.
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG - Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claims are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” See MPEP § 2106.05 (f), (g), and (h).
In the present case, for independent claims 1 and 8, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A dietary supplement compounding assistance system (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), comprising:
an electronic processor (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
a memory storing a physical change computational model (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of storing and retrieving information in memory, as evidenced by the Versata Dev. Group, Inv. v. SAP Am., Inc. case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), the memory communicatively coupled to the processor (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
an interface (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
wherein the electronic processor is configured to (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
receive data indicating an objective relating to health of a user that is input via the interface (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)),
generate nutrient information in a correlation structure, wherein the nutrient information is correlated with information relating to exercise, the objective relating to health, and a compounding amount of the nutrient,
control the memory to store the correlation structure (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of storing and retrieving information in memory, as evidenced by the Versata Dev. Group, Inv. v. SAP Am., Inc. case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)),
control a camera (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) to capture and transmit to the processor, image data related to a fitness device or an exercise environment (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)),
responsive to receiving the image data related to the fitness device or the exercise environment and the received objective relating to health, perform with one or more deep learning models, objection detection on the image (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f); and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) to acquire information relating to current exercise performed by the user, search the memory for the nutrient information using the correlation structure, and retrieve a correlated nutrient information having a correlation with the information relating to the current exercise performed by the user and the received objective relating to health,
responsive to receiving the correlated nutrient information, determine a type of nutrient and a compounding amount of the nutrient from the correlated nutrient information,
control the interface to present the correlated nutrient information (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
generate a control signal (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) indicating a dietary supplement from a plurality of dietary supplements, the dietary supplement containing the determined compounding amount of the nutrient,
control a supplement supply device to supply the dietary supplement to the user by transmitting the control signal to the supplement supply device (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f); the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)),
calculate, based on physical information of the user, an amount of change in the physical information of the user before and after the user engages in the exercises and takes the dietary supplement, wherein the calculation is performed using the physical change computational model stored in the memory and executed by the processor, the physical change computational model (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f); and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), compares measured values of body-fat percentage or muscle mass before and after the exercise while taking external factors into consideration and calculates an effect of the exercise and an intake of the dietary supplement on the body-fat percentage and the muscle mass, and
control the interface to display information relating to the supply of the dietary supplement and an amount of change in the physical information of the user (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
However, the recitation of these generic computer components and functions in claims 1 and 8 are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., using generic computer devices and software to perform the abstract idea of: receiving data related to a health objective of a user; generating nutrient information based on exercise data, the health objective of the user, and a compounding amount of the nutrient; acquire information relating to a current exercise performed by the user; determining a type and amount of a nutrient; supplying a dietary supplement containing the determined type and amount of nutrient; and calculating an amount of change in a user’s physical information before and after the user engages in an exercise and takes a dietary supplement), such that it amounts to no more than: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or is the equivalent of) with the judicial exception; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; (2) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and (3) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)-(h). For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
- The following is an example of court decisions that demonstrate merely applying instructions by reciting the computer structure as a tool to implement the claimed limitations (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
- A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, e.g., see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l – similarly, the current invention implements the commonplace medical business method of: (1) receiving data related to a health objective of a user; (2) generating nutrient information based on exercise data, the health objective of the user, and a compounding amount of the nutrient; (3) acquiring information relating to a current exercise performed by the user; (4) determining a type and amount of a nutrient; indicating a dietary supplement containing the determined type and amount of nutrient; and (5) calculating an amount of change in a user’s physical information before and after the user engages in an exercise and takes a dietary supplement, on a general purpose computer (i.e., the Examiner submits that the dietary supplement compounding assistance system is merely a generic company implementing software).
- Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) – similarly, the current invention requires software components and the system (i.e., the various models and control signals) to perform the abstract idea.
- The following is an example of an insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(g)):
- Example of Mere Data Gathering/Mere Data Outputting:
- Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, e.g., see CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc. – similarly, the ultimate steps directed to (1) “presenting the correlated nutrient information”; (2) “transmitting the control signal to the supplement supply device”; and (3) “displaying information relating to the supply of the dietary supplement and an amount of change in the physical information of the user”, described in claims 1 and 8, are necessary data gathering/outputting steps (i.e., presenting, transmitting, and displaying the data is necessary in order to convey such data to a user).
- The following is an example of limitations that courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(h)):
- Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, e.g., see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., - similarly, the steps directed to: “perform with one or more deep learning models, objection detection on the image” and “wherein the calculation is performed using the physical change computational model stored in the memory and executed by the processor”, described in claims 1 and 8, merely specifies that the aforementioned abstract idea is executed in a computer environment with deep learning models and a machine learning model, because they merely limit the claims to the field of deep learning/machine learning models technologies.
Thus, the additional elements in independent claims 1 and 8 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner notes that dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 recite the following additional elements (in bold font below with limitations deemed to be part of the above identified abstract idea identified in underlined font):
the electronic processor is further configured to (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) calculate based on lifestyle habit information of the user, biological information or external environment information acquired by a sensor (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and a combination of these pieces of information, an amount of change in the physical information of the user before and after the user engages in the exercise and takes in the dietary supplement, and wherein the calculation is performed using the physical change computational model stored in the memory and executed by the electronic processor to analyze the effect of the exercise and the intake of the dietary supplement (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claim 2 and substantially similarly in claim 9);
the memory also stores a comparison computational model and stores the information relating to the current exercise performed by the user, the objective relating to health, information relating to the supply of the dietary supplement, the amount of change in the physical information, and physical characteristics of the user in association with identification information of the user (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of storing and retrieving information in memory, as evidenced by the Versata Dev. Group, Inv. v. SAP Am., Inc. case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), the electronic processor is further configured to: apply the comparison computational model to (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) generate a comparison result of the information relating to the current exercise performed by the user and amount of change in the physical information among a plurality of users whose physical characteristics have a value within a certain range from a value of the physical characteristics of the user, and who have received the supply of the dietary supplement; generate, based on the comparison result, exercise assistance information for the exercise to be performed by the user in accordance with the objective relating to health of the user, and control the interface to display the exercise assistance information to the user (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (as described in claim 3 and substantially similarly in claim 10);
wherein the memory also stores an assessment computational model (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of storing and retrieving information in memory, as evidenced by the Versata Dev. Group, Inv. v. SAP Am., Inc. case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), the electronic processor is further configured to: apply the comparison computational model to (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) compare an amount of change in the physical information of the user having received the supply of the dietary supplement form the supplement supply device with an amount of change in the physical information of a user not having received the supply of the dietary supplement; and calculate, using the assessment computational model (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), based on a result of the comparison, a degree of contribution of the supply of the dietary supplement relative to the amount of change in the physical information of the user having received the supply of the dietary supplement, the computation assessment model being configured to (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) assess the degree of contribution; and control the interface to display a result of the assessment (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (as described in claim 4 and substantially similarly in claim 11);
wherein the memory also stores a time-based computation model (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of storing and retrieving information in memory, as evidenced by the Versata Dev. Group, Inv. v. SAP Am., Inc. case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), the electronic processor is further configured to: apply the time-based computational model to (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) infer time during which the user engaged in the current exercise based on information on a time point at which the electronic processor acquired the information relating to the current exercise, and control the interface to present the inferred time during which the user had engaged in the current exercise (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (as described in claim 5 and substantially similarly in claim 12);
wherein the electronic processor is further configured to: (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) receive, via the interface (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), a review data relating to the supply of the dietary supplement from the user having received the supply of the dietary supplement, and store the received review data in the memory (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of storing and retrieving information in memory, as evidenced by the Versata Dev. Group, Inv. v. SAP Am., Inc. case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (as described in claim 6 and substantially similarly in claim 13);
wherein the memory also stores a computational feedback analysis (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of storing and retrieving information in memory, as evidenced by the Versata Dev. Group, Inv. v. SAP Am., Inc. case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), the electronic processor is further configured to (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) perform a feedback analysis on the received review data, and search the memory for the nutrient information based on the feedback analysis that is performed (as described in claim 7 and substantially similarly in claim 14); and
further comprising: the camera (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and the supplement supply device (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claim 15).
As such, the additional elements in dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, unlike the claims that have been held as a whole to be directed to an improvement or otherwise directed to something more than the abstract idea, claims 1-15: (1) are not directed to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field similar to the Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. case (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (2) do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)); (3) do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (4) do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); nor do they (5) apply or use 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 whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(e) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). For these reasons, claims 1-15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B of the 2019 Revised PEG
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 Revised PEG, claims 1-15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of claims 1-15 amount to no more than: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or is the equivalent of) with the judicial exception; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; (2) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and (3) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)-(h). Further the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than limitations consistent with what the courts recognize, or those having ordinary skill in the art would recognize, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components. See MPEP § 2106.05 (d).
Specifically, the Examiner submits that the additional elements of claims 1-15, as recited, the dietary supplement compounding assistance system; electronic processor; memory; interface; camera; supplement supply device; sensor; physical change computational model; comparison computational model; assessment computational model; time-based computational model; computational feedback analysis model; and the steps of: “storing a physical change computational model”; “input via the interface”; controlling the memory to store the correlation structure”; “control a camera to capture and transmit to the processor, image data related to a fitness device or an exercise environment”; “perform, with one or more deep learning models, objection detection on the image data”; “control the interface to present the correlated nutrient information”; “generate a control signal”; “control a supplement supply device to supply the dietary supplement to the user by transmitting the control signal to the supplement supply device”; “wherein the calculation is performed using the physical change computational model stored in the memory and executed by the processor”; “control the interface to display information relating to the supply of the dietary supplement and an amount of change in the physical information of the user”; “wherein the calculation is performed using the physical change computational model stored in the memory and executed by the processor to analyze the effect of the exercise and the intake of the dietary supplement”; “the memory also stores a comparison computational model and stores the information relating to the current exercise performed by the user, the objective relating to health, information relating to the supply of the dietary supplement, the amount of change in the physical information, and physical characteristics of the user in association with identification information of the user”; “the electronic processor is further configured to: apply the comparison computational model”; “control the interface to display the exercise assistance information to the user”; “wherein the memory also stores an assessment computational model”; “the electronic processor is further configured to: apply the comparison computational model”; “control the interface to display a result of the assessment”; “the memory also stores a time-based computation model”; “the electronic processor is further configured to: apply the time-based computational model”; “control the interface to present the inferred time during which the user had engaged in the current exercise”; “store the received review data in the memory”; and “the memory also stores a computational feedback analysis”, are generic computer components and functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
- In regard to dietary supplement compounding assistance system; electronic processor; memory; interface; camera; supplement supply device; sensor; physical change computational model; comparison computational model; assessment computational model; time-based computational model; computational feedback analysis model; and the steps of: perform, with one or more deep learning models, objection detection on the image data”; “generate a control signal”; “control a supplement supply device to supply the dietary supplement to the user by transmitting the control signal to the supplement supply device”; “wherein the calculation is performed using the physical change computational model stored in the memory and executed by the processor”; “wherein the calculation is performed using the physical change computational model stored in the memory and executed by the processor to analyze an effect of the exercise and an intake of the dietary supplement”; “the electronic processor is further configured to: apply the comparison computational model”; “the electronic processor is further configured to: apply the comparison computational model”; “the electronic processor is further configured to: apply the time-based computational model”, these additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, because:
- Applicant’s disclosure supports this assertion – for example, Applicant discloses that the dietary supplement compounding assistance system is a computer that executes logic relating to processing and supplying dietary supplements. See Applicant’s specification, filed on September 5, 2024, paragraph [0091]. Further, Applicant discloses that the a general-purpose computer such as a work station or a personal computer can be used [to implement the dietary supplement compounding assistance system]. See Applicant’s specification, filed on September 5, 2024, paragraph [0033]. These paragraphs demonstrate that the aforementioned computer devices, comprise a plurality of general purpose computing devices and software, because they are claimed at high-level of generality/in a generic manner. Therefore, Applicant’s disclosure provides evidence that the above identified additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional devices previously known to the pertinent industry.
- The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools for performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and analysis of these limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two above).
- The Examiner submits that these limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the limitations directed to: “perform with one or more deep learning models, objection detection on the image” and “wherein the calculation is performed using the physical change computational model stored in the memory and executed by the processor”, amount to limiting the abstract idea to the fields of deep learning/machine learning models technologies (see MPEP § 2106.05(h) and analysis of these limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two above).
Therefore, these limitations are also deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional under Step 2B for similar reasons since they are claimed in a generic manner.
- Regarding the steps and features of: “storing a physical change computational model”; “input via the interface”; “controlling the memory to store the correlation structure”; “control a camera to capture and transmit to the processor, image data related to a fitness device or an exercise environment”; “control the interface to present the correlated nutrient information”; “control a supplement supply device to supply the dietary supplement to the user by transmitting the control signal to the supplement supply device”; “control the interface to display information relating to the supply of the dietary supplement and an amount of change in the physical information of the user”; “the memory also stores a comparison computational model and stores the information relating to the current exercise performed by the user, the objective relating to health, information relating to the supply of the dietary supplement, the amount of change in the physical information, and physical characteristics of the user in association with identification information of the user”; “control the interface to display the exercise assistance information to the user”; “wherein the memory also stores an assessment computational model”; “control the interface to display a result of the assessment”; “the memory also stores a time-based computation model”; “control the interface to present the inferred time during which the user had engaged in the current exercise”; “store the received review data in the memory”; and “the memory also stores a computational feedback analysis” - The following represents examples that courts have identified to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(d)):
- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly the limitations directed to: “input via the interface”; “control a camera to capture and transmit to the processor, image data related to a fitness device or an exercise environment”; “control the interface to present the correlated nutrient information”; “control a supplement supply device to supply the dietary supplement to the user by transmitting the control signal to the supplement supply device”; “control the interface to display information relating to the supply of the dietary supplement and an amount of change in the physical information of the user”; “control the interface to display the exercise assistance information to the user”; “control the interface to display a result of the assessment”; and “control the interface to present the inferred time during which the user had engaged in the current exercise”, are similarly deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the medical field, because they also represent mere collection and transmission of data over a network (i.e., inputting data via the interface; capturing and transmitting image data related to a fitness device or an exercise environment; transmitting the control signal to the supplement supply device; and presenting (e.g., displaying) various data on the interface, is the equivalent of transmitting data (i.e., various signals) over a network).
- Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly the limitations directed to: “storing a physical change computational model”; “controlling the memory to store the correlation structure”; “the memory also stores a comparison computational model and stores the information relating to the current exercise performed by the user, the objective relating to health, information relating to the supply of the dietary supplement, the amount of change in the physical information, and physical characteristics of the user in association with identification information of the user”; “wherein the memory also stores an assessment computational model”; “the memory also stores a time-based computation model”; “store the received review data in the memory”; and “the memory also stores a computational feedback analysis”, are similarly deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the medical field, because they also represent mere storage of information (e.g., the various models) in memory.
Therefore, the additional described in claims 1-15 are deemed to be additional elements which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of claims 1-15 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Furthermore, 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 functionality of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-15 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Akogyeram II whose telephone number is (571) 272-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, between 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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.
Official replies to this Office action may now be submitted electronically by registered
users of the EFS-Web system. Information on EFS-Web tools is available on the Internet at:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/processlfi!elefslguidance/index.isp. An EFS-Web Quick-Start
Guide is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portallefslquick-start.pdf.
Alternatively, official replies to this Office Action may still be submitted by any one of fax, mail, or hand delivery.
Faxed replies should be directed to the central fax at (571) 273-8300.
Mailed replies should be addressed to:
United States Patent and Trademark Office:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-1450
/N.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686