DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. 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
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.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 1, the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites: a method implemented by a computer processor executing instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the method comprising: transmitting instructions for presenting a user interface on a client device, the user interface displaying one or more categories of preferences for a user for generating a personalized meal plan for the user of the client device; receiving, via the user interface presented on the client device, a set of user preferences for the personalized meal plan; generating a prompt for execution by a machine-learned model trained as a large language model on a large corpus of training data to perform natural language processing tasks, the prompt comprising at least a request to generate the personalized meal plan for the user and the set of user preferences; providing the prompt to the machine-learning model for execution; receiving, as output from the machine-learning model, the personalized meal plan for the user comprising a list of one or more meals for the user and a list of ingredients for making each meal; selecting one or more meals from the personalized meal plan for an upcoming time period; identifying one or more items in an item catalog corresponding to the ingredients for the one or more meals selected from the personalized meal plan; and generating an order including the items identified in the item catalog for the user to order from one or more retailer locations.
The above limitations set forth a procedure for organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions including marketing activity and business relations. This is because the claim recites the steps performed in order to generate a personalized meal plan and an order (Specification ¶0003). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements, including a computer processor, a user interface, and a client device.
These additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) 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.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. MPEP 2106.05.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-11 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1. Thus, each of claims 2-11 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, claims 2-11 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 2-11 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 2-11 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and specified at a high level of generality.
Claims 12-20 are parallel, i.e. recite similar concepts and elements, to claims 1-11, analyzed above, and the same rationale is applied.
In view of the above, claims 1-20 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leifer et al., US PG Pub 2019/0228856 A1 (hereafter “Leifer”), in view of Wheaton, US PG Pub 2013/0138656 A1 (hereafter “Wheaton”).
Regarding claim 1, Leifer teaches a method implemented by a computer processor executing instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the method comprising:
transmitting instructions for presenting a user interface on a client device, the user interface displaying one or more categories of preferences for a user for generating a personalized meal plan for the user of the client device (¶¶0014 and 0020-0021);
receiving, via the user interface presented on the client device, a set of user preferences for the personalized meal plan (¶¶0019-0023);
generating a prompt for execution by a machine-learned model trained as a large language model on a large corpus of training data to perform natural language processing tasks, the prompt comprising at least a request to generate the personalized meal plan for the user and the set of user preferences (¶¶0019-0021, 0023-0024, 0027-0028 and 0033);
providing the prompt to the machine-learning model for execution (¶¶0014 and 0020-0021);
receiving, as output from the machine-learning model, the personalized meal plan for the user comprising a list of one or more meals for the user and a list of ingredients for making each meal (¶¶0027 and 0030-0031);
selecting one or more meals from the personalized meal plan for an upcoming time period (¶¶0032, 0035, and 0038);
identifying one or more items corresponding to the ingredients for the one or more meals selected from the personalized meal plan (¶¶0025-0027 and 0030); and
generating an order including the items identified for the user to order from one or more retailer locations (¶¶0010, 0030-0032, 0036, and 0043).
Leifer teaches identifying ingredients and food items from merchants but does not explicitly teach an item catalog. Wheaton teaches a method for expiration date weighted food inventory and meal planner including the known technique for an item catalog (¶¶0014-0020). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Leifer, to include an item catalog as taught by Wheaton, in order to “avoid food spoilage and to ensure an on hand supply of desired ingredients for particular recipes,” as suggested by Wheaton (¶0006).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Wheaton, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Leifer in view of Wheaton teaches the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the instructions for presenting the user interface comprises: transmitting instructions for generating one or more tiles to present the categories of preferences for the personalized meal plan, wherein each tile comprises one category of preferences and options associated with the category (Leifer ¶¶0024-0028 and 0037-0038).
Regarding claim 3, Leifer in view of Wheaton teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining historical order data for the user indicating one or more historical orders requested by the user, wherein each historical order includes one or more items obtained from one or more retailer locations, wherein generating the prompt comprises including the historical order data in the prompt (Leifer ¶¶0027-0030 and 0035).
Regarding claim 4, Leifer in view of Wheaton teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining inventory data from one or more retailer locations indicating inventory of items available at the retailer locations, wherein generating the prompt comprises including the inventory data in the prompt (Wheaton ¶¶0018-0032). The combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Leifer in view of Wheaton teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a recipe for each meal based on a list of ingredients for the meal (Leifer ¶¶0022-0031); and transmitting instructions for presenting the recipes for the list of meals in the personalized meal plan for presentation to the user (Leifer ¶¶0036-0040).
Regarding claim 6, Leifer in view of Wheaton teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting instructions for presenting the list of one or more meals of the personalized meal plan on the client device to the user via the user interface (Leifer ¶¶0036-0040); and receiving, via the user interface presented on the client device, user input selecting one or more meals from the personalized meal plan, wherein selecting the one or more meals from the personalized meal for the upcoming time period is based on the user input (Leifer ¶¶0024-0028 and 0032-0038).
Regarding claim 7, Leifer in view of Wheaton teaches the method of claim 6, wherein transmitting the instructions for presenting the list of one or more meals of the personalized meal plan on the client device to the user via the user interface includes instructions to display one or more options for inputting one or more modifications to the personalized meal plan, the method further comprising: receiving, via the user interface, user input comprising one or more modifications to the personalized meal plan (Leifer ¶¶0030-0031 and 0039); and modifying the personalized meal plan based on the user input (Leifer ¶0031).
Regarding claim 8, Leifer in view of Wheaton teaches the method of claim 7, wherein modifying the personalized meal plan comprises: generating a subsequent prompt for execution by the machine-learning model, wherein the subsequent prompt comprises the personalized meal plan and the one or more modifications from the user input (Leifer ¶¶0019-0021, 0023-0024, 0027-0028 and 0033); providing the subsequent prompt to the machine-learning model for execution (Leifer ¶0044); and receiving, as subsequent output from the machine-learning model, a modified personalized meal plan (Leifer ¶¶0031-0033).
Regarding claim 9, Leifer in view of Wheaton teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting instructions for presenting an ordering interface including the order including the items identified in the item catalog (Wheaton ¶¶0014-0020) on the client device (Leifer ¶¶0032 and 0036); and receiving, via the ordering interface presented on the client device, user input submitting the order for fulfillment (Leifer ¶0043). The combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Leifer in view of Wheaton teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising: receiving, via the ordering interface presented on the client device, user input to modify the order (Leifer ¶¶0031-0031); and modifying the order based on the user input to modify the order (Leifer ¶¶0031 and 0039).
Regarding claim 11, Leifer in view of Wheaton teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving user feedback on the personalized meal plan (Leifer ¶¶0021 and 0036); and training the machine-learning model based on the user feedback (Leifer ¶¶0022-0023 and 0044).
Regarding claims 12-20, all of the limitations in claims 12-20 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claims 1-11, analyzed above, and are rejected on the same bases.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Byron et al., US PG Pub 2018/0341979 A1, teaches cognitive advertising triggered by weather data.
Unnikrishnan et al., US PG Pub 2024/0330754 A1, teaches using machine learning to efficiently promote eco-friendly products.
Non-patent literature Salloum, George, and Joe Tekli teaches automated and personalized meal plan generation and relevance scoring using a multi-factor adaptation of the transportation problem.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688