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 statement (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
It is appropriate for the Examiner to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as recited in the following Steps: 1, 2A, and 2B, see MPEP 2106(III.).
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 1:
First, the Examiner is to establish whether the claim falls within any statutory category including a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, see MPEP 2106.03(II.) and MPEP 2106.03(I).
Claims 1-10 are related to a system, and claims 11-20 are also related to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, these claims are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong One:
Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test demonstrates whether a clam is directed to a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(I.). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, where Prong One establishes the judicial exception. Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes, see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(1.) and 2106.04(a)(2).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea as underlined in the following limitations. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A system for generating a cognitive disorder nourishment program, the system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory communicatively connected to the processor, wherein the memory contains instructions configuring the processor to:
obtain at least a cognitive indicator element comprising at least a biomarker and at least a user preference;
determine an edible as a function of the at least a cognitive indicator element; and
generate a nourishment program as a function of the edible.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute a “mental process”, as the following abstract limitations are related to evaluations and judgments that can be practically performed in the human mind:
“determine” an edible as a function of the at least a cognitive indicator element, which is an abstract limitation of an evaluation of the cognitive indicator element to make a determination of edible,
“generate” a nourishment program as a function of the edible, which is an abstract limitation of a judgment of a nourishment program after consideration of the edible.
Accordingly, the claim recites the steps for generating a cognitive disorder nourishment program that can practically be performed in the human mind.
The abstract idea recited in claim 11 similar to that of claim 1.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., processor) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
Claims 2 and 12 recite further abstract limitation of “determining” the edible by determining the edible as a function of a digestive analysis, further describing the abstract idea. Claims 3 and 13 recite further abstract limitations describing the determination of the edible as “identifying” a nourishment demand and further describing the generating of the nourishment program as a function of the identified demand, further describing the abstract idea. Claims 6 and 16 recite further abstract limitations describing the generation of the nourishment program as comprising “identifying” at least a dietary source, further describing the abstract idea. Claims 7 and 17 recite further abstract limitations describing the generation of the nourishment program by “identifying” a threshold amount of consumption for a user and further generating the program as a function of the threshold amount of consumption, further describing the abstract idea. Claims 10 and 20 recite further abstract limitations of “updating” the nourishment program as a function of user feedback, further describing the abstract idea.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates the exception 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 exceptions into a “practical application,” see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(2.) and 2106.04(d)(I.).
In the present case, 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 system for generating a cognitive disorder nourishment program, the system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory communicatively connected to the processor, wherein the memory contains instructions configuring the processor to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
obtain at least a cognitive indicator element comprising at least a biomarker and at least a user preference (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.);
determine an edible as a function of the at least a cognitive indicator element; and
generate a nourishment program as a function of the edible.
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.
Regarding the additional limitations of the overall computing system comprising a processor and memory, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0009] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the overall generic computing system with the use of generic processors and memory. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Regarding the additional limitation of obtaining at least a cognitive indicator element comprising at least a biomarker and at least a user preference, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). [0011, 0044] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the action of obtaining or gathering the biomarker and user preferences. These are used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea 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, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to generate a cognitive disorder nourishment program, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or 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 a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claims 4 and 14 recites limitations further describing the obtained cognitive indicator element, however this still recites insignificant pre-solution activity. Claims 5 and 15 recites further limitations of the obtained biomarker and further the obtained behavior as being intercorrelated, however this still recites insignificant pre-solution activity. Claims 8 and 18 recite further detail of the obtained user behavior, however this still recites insignificant pre-solution activity. Claims 9 and 19 recite further limitations of how the cognitive indicator elements are obtained, however this still recites insignificant pre-solution activity. Claims 10 and 20 recite further additional elements of “receiving” a user feed back as a function of implementing the nourishment program, however this recites insignificant pre-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone and in ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(II.). Further, it may need to be established, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, that the additional elements recite well understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding the additional limitations of the overall computing system comprising a processor and memory, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0009] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the overall generic computing system with the use of generic processors and memory. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding the additional limitation of obtaining at least a cognitive indicator element comprising at least a biomarker and at least a user preference, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”). [0011, 0044] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the action of obtaining or gathering the biomarker and user preferences. These are used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The retrieval these indicator elements as recited in [0011] of the Applicant’s Specification can be interpreted as a retrieval of information from memory, and thus recites well understood, routine, and conventional activities.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and therefore claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180308389 A1 to Moser et al. (“Moser”):
Regarding claim 1:
Moser teaches a system for generating a cognitive disorder nourishment program, the system comprising: ([0007]- overall system for improving cognitive help by generating a nutritional plan for a user using components such as the cognitive health advisor component as described in [0034].)
a processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the processor, wherein the memory contains instructions configuring the processor to: ([0049]- processing device of system including processor and memory)
obtain at least a cognitive indicator element comprising at least a biomarker and at least a user preference; ([0033]- the system uses a cognitive health advisor component to adjust nutrition plans for the user and user’s preference is considered when developing the nutrition plan. [0040]- use of aggregated data from a mobile fitness device including glucose level (interpreted as the biomarker and where these obtained data points are interpreted as the cognitive indicator element).)
determine an edible as a function of the at least a cognitive indicator element; and ([0036]- cognitive health advisor component uses the obtained data and settings to generate a profile for the user which includes information such as food preferences (interpreted as the edible).)
generate a nourishment program as a function of the edible. ([0038]- cognitive health advisor component generates a personalized nutrition plan for the user based on information from the profile (interpreted as generate a nourishment program as a function of the edible).)
Claim 11 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2:
Moser teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Moser further teaches obtaining at least a cognitive indicator element further comprises performing a digestive analysis as a function of the at least a cognitive indicator element; and ([0032]- caloric intake considered (interpreted as digestive analysis))
determining the edible comprises determining the edible as a function of the digestive analysis. ([0038]- cognitive health advisor component generates a personalized nutrition plan for the user based on information from the profile (interpreted as generate a nourishment program as a function of the digestive analysis).)
Claim 12 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 2.
Regarding claim 3:
Moser teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Moser further teaches determining the edible comprises identifying at least a nourishment demand; and ([0036]- consideration of macronutrients (interpreted as nourishment demand).)
generating the nourishment program comprises generating the nourishment program as a function of the identified at least a nourishment demand. ([0038]- cognitive health advisor component generates a personalized nutrition plan for the user based on information from the profile (interpreted as generate a nourishment program as a function of the demand).)
Claim 13 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 3.
Regarding claim 4:
Moser teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Moser further teaches wherein the at least a cognitive indicator element further comprises at least a user behavior. ([0036]- consideration of data such as activity levels (interpreted as user behavior).)
Claim 14 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 4.
Regarding claim 5:
Moser teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Moser further teaches the biomarker comprises at least an indication of a current medical condition; and ([0040]- consideration of biomarker such as glucose level (high glucose can indicate diabetes, for example).)
the at least a user behavior comprises an intercorrelated set of a plurality of user behaviors. ([0040]- consideration of fitness (interpreted as behavior).)
Claim 15 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 5.
Regarding claim 6:
Moser teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Moser further teaches wherein generating the nourishment program comprises identifying at least a dietary source. ([0036]- available food ingredients are considered)
Claim 16 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 6.
Regarding claim 7:
Moser teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Moser further teaches wherein generating the nourishment program comprises: identifying a threshold amount of consumption pertaining to a user; and generating the nourishment program as a function of the threshold amount of consumption. ([0034]- dietary restrictions are considered (interpreted as threshold amount of consumption).)
Claim 17 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 7.
Regarding claim 8:
Moser teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Moser further teaches wherein the at least a user behavior comprises at least a user lifestyle. ([0034]- consideration of alcohol consumption (interpreted as user lifestyle).)
Claim 18 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 8.
Regarding claim 9:
Moser teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Moser further teaches wherein obtaining the at least a cognitive indicator element comprises: identifying a cognitive assessment; and obtaining the at least a cognitive indicator element as a function of the cognitive assessment. ([0036]- cognitive health advisor component can analyze data using a questionnaire for the user (interpreted as the cognitive assessment).)
Claim 19 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 9.
Regarding claim 10:
Moser teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Moser further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a user feedback as a function of implementing the nourishment program; and update the nourishment program as a function of the user feedback. ([0033]- use of user feedback. [0034]- user can update the plan via user settings.)
Claim 20 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 10.
The following references have been considered as relevant, however have not been used in the above rejections:
WO-2024226343-A1 to Rosenberg et al. teaches of generating a dietary treatment plan by analyzing patient characteristics.
NPL “Automated and personalized meal plan generation and relevance scoring using a multi-factor adaptation of the transportation problem” to Salloum et al. teaches of an automated meal plan generator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS whose telephone number is (571)272-6719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM EST.
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 B Dunham can be reached at (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.
/CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3686