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 .
This communication is Final Office Action in response to amendment and remarks filed on 7/10/2026. Claims 1-19 have been examined and are pending.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 7/10/2026 cancelled no claim. No claims were previously cancelled. No new claim is added. No claim has been amended. Therefore, claims 1-19 are pending and addressed below.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/10/2026 are Not sufficient to overcome the Alice 101 rejections, set forth in the previous office action. Therefore, Examiner maintains Alice 101 rejections on claims 1-19 under 35U.S.C.101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments that the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not abstract ideas, is a practical application, and are significant more, and as such is statutory. Applicant further argues technical improvement has been made. Applicant further argues an analogy with Example 42, and Alice 101 decision.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and the claims are abstract and NOT significant more than the abstract idea based on the following analysis. The rejections are maintained because the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
The claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out in the previous Office Action. The claim includes no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and thus do not add something of substance to the underlying abstract idea; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
In particular, what Applicant refers to “reading of lot information by an optical scanner, calculating feed volume/cumulative feed contribution by a processor of the device and/or the server coupled thereto), which are human activities and/or interactions between users/people/devices and therefore, certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer.
Further, other than reciting “by a scanner”, “by a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, and is simply organized information through human activity or merely mental tasks, and is part of, or a related, judicial exception and does not meaningfully limit the application of the identified judicial exception, and as such does not constitute significantly more.
Additionally, the scanner, the processor, and the server are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic scanner/sensor/computer components recited as performing generic sensing/computer functions, such as the instant recited steps, receiving/inputting data, calculating data, generating data, sending/displaying data, that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive/send/transmit information over communication network/internet does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 8).
Additionally, what Applicant refers to “tracking donor-infant associations in environments….”, Applicant’s claim set does not recite any configuration/specific how the system controls/automates the tracking impact the way changing the resource planning, feed type, feed volume threshold, responding to changes in planned activity/feed contributions. Other than merely obtaining data/parameters, calculating feed contribution based on the collected parameters, and sending a notification, which can be done by organized human activities. In other words, the instant claim is simply drafted in such a result-oriented way since the instant steps are merely managing information. It failed to recite a particular way of claiming a way of achieving it, or embodying a concrete a solution to a problem having “the specificity required transforming a claim from claiming a result to claiming a way of achieving it” (see Interval Licensing v. AOL). As such, do not constitute significantly more.
Secondly, in response to Applicant's argument that the current claims/claimed invention is like the claims/claimed invention present in Example 42. Applicant further argues that the decision in Example 42 hold sway because the claimed invention has specific improvement.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the instant claimed invention and Example 42 are similar – the fact patterns between the two are different, and therefore the two inventions are not analogous. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the claimed invention that improves computer functionality or overcomes a technical problem.
Applicant’s analogy to Example 42 Claim 1 is conclusory and unpersuasive.
In claim 1 of Example 42, the additional elements recite a specific manner of providing a graphical user interface (GUI) by a content server, which is hardware or a combination of both hardware and software. A user, such as a health care provider or patient, is given remote access through the GUI to view or update information about a patient’s medical condition using the user’s own local device (e.g., a personal computer or wireless handheld device). When a user wants to update the records, the user can input the update in any format used by the user’s local device. Whenever the patient information is updated, it will first be converted into the standardized format and then stored in the collection of medical records on one or more of the network-based storage devices. After the updated information about the patient’s condition has been stored in the collection, the content server, which is connected to the network-based storage devices, immediately generates a message containing the updated information about the patient’s condition. This message is transmitted in a standardized format over the computer network to all physicians and health-care providers that have access to the patient’s information (e.g., to a medical specialist to review the updated information about the patient’s medical condition) so that all users can quickly be notified of any changes without having to manually look up or consolidate all of the providers’ updates.
Thus, Example 42, claim 1 provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Specifically, the Specification has technical evidence/technical support that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functionality of the computing device itself, or that it improves another technology or technical field.
Thus, the claim integrates the mental process into a practical application and therefore is eligible.
Unlike Example 42, claim 1, the claimed invention does not recite any similar eligible features as in claim 1, Example 42. The claimed invention is merely reciting the requirement of “obtaining managing milk allocation parameters in order to calculate the feed contribution”. As shown in previous office action, these are abstract ideas of human activities or mental tasks or by paper/pencil. Other than reciting “by a scanner”, “by a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, and is simply organized information through human activity or merely mental tasks, and is part of, or a related, judicial exception and does not meaningfully limit the application of the identified judicial exception, and as such does not constitute significantly more.
Therefore, the Examiner notes neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor improvement to the functioning of the computer itself will be achieved using the instant application.
The instant steps are directed to improve the data collecting/managing milk allocation parameters, sending notification, rather than functioning of a computer, nor improving the computer-related technology. Thus, the argument regarding an improvement to a computer technology or computer functioning analogous to Example 42 is not persuasive.
Thus, the combination of steps has neither have improvement made to computer functionality nor the instant claims effect an improvement in functioning of another technology. The claim does not integrate into a practical application and therefore is Not eligible.
Viewing the claim, the additional elements individually and in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claimed invention does not provide 'significantly more' than the abstract idea and is non-statutory subject matter. Therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded by Applicant's arguments on their merit. The previously presented 101 rejections are maintained in this Office action.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, regardless of a system/apparatus, a method, or a product claim.
The claimed invention (Claims 1-19) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, “an idea “of itself”, which have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in new 101 memos of the subject matter eligibility in here (https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility) including 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
Independent claim 8 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to multiple abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and “Mental process”, and Mathematical correlation/relationship
Claim 8, Steps of,
reading,
a listing parameter of a set of donors for that lot; and
a lot contribution parameter of each donor of the set of donors to that lot;
receiving,
receiving feed information for a feed administered to a subject, the feed being generated using the unit of milk product, the feed information including:
an indication of type of feed administered to the subject;
a volume of the feed administered to the subject; and
the lot information read
calculating,
calculating,
when the cumulative feed contribution exceeds a predetermined threshold, transmitting a notification to one or more user devices associated with users of the device, the notification including an indication of the cumulative feed contribution.
fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps recite “receiving data/information from a scanner of a device, calculating the volume of the feed and the contribution, transmitting/sending notification/message/alert”, which are human activities and/or interactions between users/people/devices and therefore, certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer.
In addition, claim 8, steps mentioned above also falls within the abstract “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since these limitation covers performance of the limitations in the mind, or by paper and pencil. For example, a human being can observe/receive information, can observe/do calculations, can observe/send/output/information.
Further, steps of (“receiving”, “transmitting”) are considered as “insignificant extra-solution activity” to the judicial exception since they are merely receiving/collecting/providing/sending data.
In addition, claim 8 is substantially drawn to mathematical concepts. As to the providing and developing limitations, they are used similarly to computations using math to do so.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "(a) Mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (a) Mathematical concepts).
Independent claim 8, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional element (“a scanner of a device, user device, a processor”) that are not significant more than the abstract ideas. Other than reciting “via a scanner”, “via a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, and is simply organized information through human activity or merely mental tasks, and is part of, or a related, judicial exception and does not meaningfully limit the application of the identified judicial exception, and as such does not constitute significantly more.
There is no specificity regarding any technology, just broadly, execute the programming instructions to receive data, calculate data, transmit/send data. The steps are mainly receiving/inputting data, generating data, sending data. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor improvement to the functioning of the computer itself and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 8, (step 2B):
The additional elements “a scanner of a device”, “a user device”, “a processor”, are recited at a high level of generality, and add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. This component is merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic scanner/sensor/computer components recited as performing generic sensing/computer functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive/send/transmit information over communication network/internet does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 8).
Dependent claims 9-13, merely added further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 8, without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 9-13 are also non-statutory subject matters.
Independent claim 1, 14: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent system/apparatus claim 1, and product claim 14, are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claim(s) 8.
Further, the components (i.e., a scanner, a server, a database, a system, a computer-readable storage medium) described in independent claims 1, 14, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. Similarly, as it relates to the computer system claims, the limitations appear to be performed by a generic sensor/computing system/device. These components are merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic sensing/computer functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic encoder/decoder/computer components to receive/access/identify/search/transmit/send/display information over communication network/internet does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 8).
According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward
information); 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” (evidence required by Berkeimer memo). Further, according to Berkheimer memo 04/19/2018, section III.A.1, “A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)”.
Applicant’s Specification, [0012] indicates a general-purpose computer perform the instant steps and demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the information processing device (a processor/a memory/a computer) in any computing implementation. Thus, evidence has been provided to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to Berkheimer memo. Therefore, for the above-mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above steps do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-7, and 15-19, merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1, and 14 respectively, without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 15-19 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Viewed as a whole, the claims (1-19) 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.
Thus, the claims do NOT recite limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, the claimed invention does not provide 'significantly more' than the abstract idea and is non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art Rejection
Amended Independent claims 1, 8, 14, recite a combination of limitations that has Not been found as define over prior art of record (the combination of
Laurenzi et al. (US Patent 8,172,129), Bhatnagar (US 2017/0354771), Lair (US 2010/0318377), and
Alvarez et al. (WO 2016/044802 A1), Auchinleck (WO 2007/045078 A1), and
NPL1---Berti E, Puglia M, Perugi S, Gagliardi L, Bosi C, Ingargiola A, Magi L, Martelli E, Pratesi S, Sigali E, Tomasini B, Rusconi F. Feeding Practices in Very Preterm and Very Low Birth Weight Infants in an Area Where a Network of Human Milk Banks Is in Place. Front Pediatr. 2018 Dec 6;6:387. doi: 10.3389/fped.2018.00387. PMID: 30574473; PMCID: PMC6291747.
NPL2---Xu Y, Yu Z, Li Q, Zhou J, Yin X, Ma Y, Yin Y, Jiang S, Zhu R, Wu Y, Han L, Gao Y, Xue M, Qiao Y, Zhu L, Tu W, Wu M, Wan J, Wang W, Deng X, Li S, Wang S, Chen X, Zhou Q, Wang J, Cheng R, Wang J, Han S. Dose-dependent effect of human milk on Bronchopulmonary dysplasia in very low birth weight infants. BMC Pediatr. 2020 Nov 16;20(1):522. doi: 10.1186/s12887-020-02394-1. PMID: 33190629; PMCID: PMC7666971.
All the above fail to teach all the required claimed features as in amended independent claim 1, 8, 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are deemed to be allowed considering the specification, amendments filed on 12/17/2024. As to the prior art rejections, upon further search and consideration, it is found that claims 1-19 are allowable subject to outstanding 101 rejections.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with, and pending remedy to outstanding issues cited above. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Auchinleck (US 2009/0157428, teaches matching mothers' milk to the correct baby in hospitals or other institutions where mothers' milk is expressed in advance and stored for feeding to the baby at a later time),
Bauer (US 2016/00222886, teaches monitoring, organizing, recording, and dealing with collection/dispensing of breast milk),
Medo et al. (US 2019/0090501, teaches collecting and fortification of donor milk with subsequent processing of donated human milk),
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN M LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5489. Fax is 571-270-6489. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30am--5pm
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, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached on 571-270-6702. 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.
/SUN M LI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights