DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
35 U.S.C.101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
● Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1 and 11 as the representative claims, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
[collect] user data comprising expanded biological data;
[draft] a query as a function of the user data;
identify a plurality of available edibles for one or more users as a function of the query;
receive nourishment information relating to the plurality of available edibles;
generate, for each available edible of the plurality of available edibles, a score as a function of expanded biological data, wherein generating the score comprises:
use a scoring model [that correlates] edible data, a performance profile and a score;
adjust one or mroe weights [of the parameters] of the scoring model to iteratively update its output;
generate the score as a function of the expanded biological data using the scoring model;
[present] the score.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). The current claims correspond to managing personal behavior.
For instance, based on data—such as biological data—gathered regarding the user(s), a corresponding score is calculated with respect to each identified edible of a plurality of available edibles (e.g., a score is calculated using an algorithm that correlates nourishment data of edibles with a performance profile(s), etc.); and thereby, the calculated score(s) is presented to the user(s). Accordingly, such presentation of information (e.g., score related to one or more edibles) to the user helps the user to make proper decision regarding edibles.
Note that the observation above is consistent with the description presented in the original specification. In particular, per the specification, data gathered regarding a user(s) and available edibles is analyzed using an algorithm(s); and thereby, the user is presented with pertinent information (e.g., a score that relate to one or more edibles) in order to help the user make proper decisions; “[a]n edible score is displayed within display interface, to aid a user in making informed food selections” ([0008], emphasis added), “display interface 108 containing a chart of various edibles and corresponding edible scores may be utilized by a user to make an informed decision as to how each edible will impact a user's body” ([0051], emphasis added), etc.
The fact above confirms that the abstract idea, which the current claims are reciting, corresponds to managing personal behavior, under the group certain methods of organizing human activities.
Similarly, given the limitations that recite the process of: identifying a plurality of available edibles for one or more users as a function of a query; generating, for each available edible, a score as a function of biological data, etc., the claims also correspond to a mental process; such as, a process that can be performed in the human mind and/or using a pen and paper.
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-Two:
The claims recite additional element(s), wherein s computer system that comprises computer components, including a sensor and a display, etc., is utilized to facilitate the recited functions/steps regarding: collecting information from one or more sources (e.g., detecting, using a sensor, user data comprising expanded biological extraction data; identifying a plurality of available edibles for one or more users as a function of a query, which is generated as a function of the detected user data; receive nourishment information relating to the plurality of available edibles); analyzing the collected information using one or more algorithms (e.g., training a scoring machine-learning model using edible training data applied to an input layer of nodes comprising a performance profile input, one or more intermediate layers, and an output layer of nodes comprising a score; adjusting one or more connections and one or more weights between nodes in adjacent layers of the scoring machine-learning model to iteratively update the output layer of nodes by updating the training data applied); generating one or more pertinent results based on the analysis above (e.g., generating, for each available edible of the plurality of available edibles, a score as a function of expanded biological extraction data using the trained scoring machine-learning model); presenting one or mroe of the results (e.g., displaying the score within a display interface), etc.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Accordingly, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Accordingly, when each of the claims is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. Accordingly, none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
It is also noted, per the original disclosure, that the claimed system (and method) is directed to a conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements. For instance, the specification describes a system that comprises one or more commercially available conventional computing devices (e.g., a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a mobile device, etc.) that communicates with one or more conventional sensors, including a sensor that a part of a mobile or a wearable device; wherein the computing device(s) communicates with one or more online servers using the conventional communication network (e.g., the Internet); and thereby, the system presents a user(s) with relevant information (e.g., a score related to one or more edibles, etc.), based on the analysis of data gathered regarding the user and one or more available edibles (e.g., see [0009], [0012] to [0022], etc.).
Although the specification describes the use of various types of conventional sensors (e.g., see [0015]), the specification does not have any description regarding any new/advanced sensor—or any arrangement of sensors and/or devices—that is considered to be an advance over the conventional computer/network technology. Moreover, each of the one or mroe sensors is utilized merely for data gathering purpose; and this is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Similarly, the original specification describes the process of training one or mroe machine-learning modes in order to analyze the collected information ([0022], [0024], [0035] to [0046]); however, the specification does not describe the implementation of any new and/or advanced machine-learning technology. Instead, the specification is confirming that the disclosed—and therefore the claimed—system/method is relying on well-known and conventional machine-leaning models—such as, linear regression models, artificial neural networks, conventional neural network, support vector machines, etc. (e.g., see above the sections cited from the specification).
The findings above demonstrate that the claimed—and the disclosed—system (and method), when considered as a whole, is directed to the conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements.
In addition, the utilization of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate the presentation pertinent information to a user, including: (a) collecting data related to the user and/or food items, (b) analyzing the collected data using one or more conventional machine-learning models, (c) generating—based on the analysis—one or more relevant results (e.g., textual and/or graphic information), etc., is already directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g., see US 2017/0249445; US 2011/0243392, etc.).
The observations above confirm that each of the current claims fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-10 and 12-20). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element(s) utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the findings above demonstrate that none of the claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C.112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C.112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
● Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(a) Claim 5 recites the limitations, “the at least a user behavior indicator”, and “the at least a timestamp of consumption” (emphasis added).
However, it is unclear whether the term, “a user behavior indicator”, is referring to the “user behavior indicator” already recited per claim 4 or an additional indicator.
Similarly, it is unclear whether the term, “a timestamp of consumption”, recited in line 3 of the claim, is referring to the same “timestamp of consumption” recited per line 2 of the claim.
Thus, claim 5 is ambiguous at least for the reason above (e.g., consider the following amendments, --the
Note that given its dependency on claim 5, claim 6 is also subjected to the same deficiency discussed above.
(b) Claim 7 recites, “generate at least an index of correlation . . . a report as a function of the at least an index of correlation” (emphasis added).
However, it is unclear whether the term, “an index of correlation”, recited in line 6 of the claim, is referring to the same “index of correlation” recited per line 4 of the claim.
Thus, claim 7 is ambiguous at least for the reason above (e.g., consider the following amendment, --the
(c) Claim 15 recites the limitations, “the at least a user behavior indicator”, and “the at least a timestamp of consumption” (emphasis added).
However, it is unclear whether the term, “a user behavior indicator”, is referring to the “user behavior indicator” already recited per claim 14 or an additional indicator.
Similarly, it is unclear whether the term, “a timestamp of consumption”, recited in line 3 of the claim, is referring to the same “timestamp of consumption” recited per line 2 of the claim.
Thus, claim 15 is ambiguous at least for the reason above (e.g., consider the following amendments, --the
Note that given its dependency on claim 15, claim 16 is also subjected to the same deficiency discussed above.
(e) Claim 17 recites, “generating . . . at least an index of correlation . . . a report as a function of the at least an index of correlation” (emphasis added).
However, it is unclear whether the term, “an index of correlation”, recited in line 8 of the claim, is referring to the same “index of correlation” recited per line 6 of the claim.
Thus, claim 17 is ambiguous at least for the reason above (e.g., consider the following amendments, --the
Prior Art
4. Although each of the current claims is utilizing the existing computer/network technology, when each of the current claims is considered as a whole, the prior art does not teach or suggest the current claims due to the new abstract idea recited per each of the current claims.
Note also that the current application is a continuation in part (CIP) of its parent application; namely, Appl. # 18/377,135. Accordingly, the office-action (i.e., the one dated 03/13/2025), which corresponds to the above parent application, also demonstrates the state of the prior art regarding the current claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715