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 .
The following is a non-final, first office action on the merits, in response to application filed 12/17/2024. Claims 1-19 have been examined and are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for a provisional application filed on 6/29/2022, and made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application filed in Luxembourg (LU) on 8/24/2022, and the instant application is a cont. of PCT/US2023/069272, filed 6/28/2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/17/2024 cancelled no claim. No claim was previously cancelled. No new claims are added. Claim 3-7, 10-14, 16-19 has been amended. Claims 1-19 are considered and pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2024 follows 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 1-19 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 calculation, 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 an 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, are merely add 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 matter.
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] indicate 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, are 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 limitation(s) 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, as a whole, does not provide 'significantly more' than the abstract idea, and is non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art Rejection
Amended Independent claims 1, 8, 14, as a whole 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 of 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 in light of 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 of 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
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. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30am--5pm. Fax is 571-270-6489.
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 571-272-6702. 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