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 .
Status of claim(s)
Claims 1-3, 5-11 have been examined. Claim 4 has been canceled. Claims 1-3 have been amended. Claims 5-11 have been added.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 recite(s) a a system for determining a health benefit (machine). Claim 16 recite(s) a system, which is within a statutory category (machine). Claim 19 recite(s) a method, which is within a statutory category (process).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A (MPEP2106.04-.07), 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.
The limitation of Independent claims 1,19 recites at least one abstract idea. Specifically, claim 1 recites the steps of
A system for determining a health benefit to a user of a food item by estimating a nutritive score of the food item, the system comprising:
memory that stores computer-executable instructions; and
a processor in communication with the memory, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
process an indication of user data, wherein the user data comprises a food item including at least one recipe having one or more ingredients and a query of a nutritive database, wherein the query is associated with at least one ingredient of the recipe;
generate, based at least in part on the query, nutritive data associated with the at least one ingredient, wherein the nutritive data comprises one or more of preparation data, sourcing data, delivery data, and a nutritive composition for the at least one ingredient;
initialize a nutritive model;
estimate, based at least in part on the nutritive data associated with the least one ingredient and the nutritive model, a nutritive score;
compare the estimated nutritive score to a threshold;
based on the compared nutritive score, generate one or more instructions to cause display of the nutritive score on a user device; and
transmit the generated one or more instructions to the user device
Claim 19 recites
A method of generating and displaying a nutritive score to a user, the method comprising:
processing an indication of user data, wherein the user data comprises a food item including at least one recipe having one or more ingredients and a query, wherein the query is associated with at least one ingredient;
generating, based at least in part on the query, nutrition data associated with the at least one ingredient, wherein the nutrition data comprises preparation data, sourcing data, delivery data, and a list of nutrients for the at least one ingredient;
initializing a nutritive model;
estimating, based at least in part on the nutrition data associated with the least one ingredient and the nutritive model, a nutritive score;
comparing the estimated nutritive score to a threshold;
based on the compared nutritive score, generating one or more instructions to cause an indication of the nutritive score on a user device;
transmitting the generated one or more instructions to the user device; and displaying the nutritive score on the user device.
The limitations “processing an indication of user data, wherein the user data comprises a food item including at least one recipe having one or more ingredients and a query, wherein the query is associated with at least one ingredient; generating, based at least in part on the query, nutrition data associated with the at least one ingredient, wherein the nutrition data comprises preparation data, sourcing data, delivery data, and a list of nutrients for the at least one ingredient; initializing a nutritive model”, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Accordingly, the claim is directed toward at least one abstract idea.
The limitations “estimating, based at least in part on the nutrition data associated with the least one ingredient and the nutritive model, a nutritive score; comparing the estimated nutritive score to a threshold; based on the compared nutritive score, generating one or more instructions to cause an indication of the nutritive score on a user device” , given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts because estimating a nutritive score, comparing nutritive score to a threshold can be performed by human mind of the professional. Accordingly, the claim is directed toward at least one abstract idea.
And thus, these limitations, given broadest reasonable interpretation, constitute cover a certain method of organizing human activity, along with mathematical calculation and relationships that constitute mathematical concepts.
Dependent Claims 2-3, 5-9 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea. For example, claim 2 includes the user data to include a diet need data. Claim 3-6 provides instruction to add the ingredients to an acquisition list and food item on the menu. Dependent claims 7-15, 17-18, 20 include diet need data, the estimation of fact summary of nutrition data. These claims are directed to a certain method of organizing human activity for the same reason as described in the independent claims.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claim 16 and claim 19 is identical as the abstract idea for claim 1, because the only difference between claim 1 and claims 16, 19 is that claim 1 recites a system, whereas claims 16 recites a system, and whereas claim 19 recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A (See MPEP2106.04-07), it must be determined whether the claim, as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in MPEP2106.04-07, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate 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 exception into a “practical application.”
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”):
Claim 1 recites
A system for determining a health benefit to a user of a food item by estimating a nutritive score of the food item, the system comprising:
memory that stores computer-executable instructions; and
a processor in communication with the memory, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
process an indication of user data, wherein the user data comprises a food item including at least one recipe having one or more ingredients and a query of a nutritive database, wherein the query is associated with at least one ingredient of the recipe;
generate, based at least in part on the query, nutritive data associated with the at least one ingredient, wherein the nutritive data comprises one or more of preparation data, sourcing data, delivery data, and a nutritive composition for the at least one ingredient;
initialize a nutritive model;
estimate, based at least in part on the nutritive data associated with the least one ingredient and the nutritive model, a nutritive score;
compare the estimated nutritive score to a threshold;
based on the compared nutritive score, generate one or more instructions to cause display of the nutritive score on a user device; and
transmit the generated one or more instructions to the user device
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.
For the additional bolded limitations of ” a processor in communication with the memory, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: process an indication of user data, wherein the user data comprises a food item including at least one recipe having one or more ingredients and a query of a nutritive database, wherein the query is associated with at least one ingredient of the recipe; generate, based at least in part on the query, nutritive data associated with the at least one ingredient, wherein the nutritive data comprises one or more of preparation data, sourcing data, delivery data, and a nutritive composition for the at least one ingredient; initialize a nutritive model”, this is a pre-solution activity. The examiner submits that this additional limitation does not provide any additional element, but only merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner of pre- solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea
For the additional limitation of ”estimate, based at least in part on the nutritive data associated with the least one ingredient and the nutritive model, a nutritive score;
compare the estimated nutritive score to a threshold; based on the compared nutritive score, generate one or more instructions to cause display of the nutritive score on a user device; and transmit the generated one or more instructions to the user device”, this is a post-solution activity. The examiner submits that this additional limitation does not provide any additional element, but only merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner of post- solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea ((merely data gathering steps as noted, see MPEP 2106.05(g)))
In particular, the recitation of one or more processors and one or more memories, the user device as in claims 1, 16 and 19 is not positively claimed in the claim as it defines the service but is claimed insufficient to a structure or apparatus that it represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, 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 implement and revise a wellbeing plan, a productivity, 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 § 2106.05).
For these reasons, representative independent claims 1, 16, 19 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. (The Examiner notes the mere recitation of a processor, memory, user device in claims 1 and 16, 19 does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping or organizing human activity. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.)
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, independent claims 1, 16, 19 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.
For claims 1, 16, 19 limit the use of one or more processors, a terminal device, etc.... The specification merely describes the use of these computing components (Spec. 0024). The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using these computer devices as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018).), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Further the use of generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patient-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”).
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 USC 101. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35USC101 as being held patent ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery et al. (US20210241881A1 hereinafter Avery) in view of Doble et al. (US20190303374A1 hereinafter Doble).
With respect to claim 1, Avery teaches a system for determining a health benefit to a user of a food item by estimating a nutritive score of the food item, the system comprising:
memory that stores computer-executable instructions; and a processor in communication with the memory, wherein the computer-executable instructions (‘881; Para 0078), when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
process an indication of user data, wherein the user data comprises a food item including at least one recipe having one or more ingredients and a query of a nutritive database, wherein the query is associated with at least one ingredient of the recipe (‘881; Para 0023: by disclosure, Avery describes a food item nutrition database comprising information identifying, for each of a plurality of food items, a detailed list of ingredients, a plant where the food item was manufactured, and a production line where the food item was manufactured to identify the possibility of preparation and potential cross-contamination of the food item with an unlisted ingredient; wherein the at least one hardware processor that is further programmed to: submit a query to the food item nutrition database for food item nutrition information of a first food item; receive, from the food item nutrition database, nutrition information of the first food item; and determine that first food item satisfies one or more dietary restrictions, texture restrictions, liquid restrictions, allergen restrictions, and cross-contamination restrictions associated with the first patient based on the nutrition information of the first food item.);
generate, based at least in part on the query, nutritive data associated with the at least one ingredient, wherein the nutritive data comprises one or more of preparation data, sourcing data, delivery data, and a nutritive composition for the at least one ingredient (‘881; Para 0023; Para 0063: public data sources 140 can include various public databases 142, such as one or more recipe databases, one or more nutrition databases );
initialize a nutritive model (‘881; Para 0020: instructions to assign the first patient to a first diet type; causing a model to identify a plurality of food item options );
Doble teaches
estimate, based at least in part on the nutritive data associated with the least one ingredient and the nutritive model, a nutritive score (‘374; Para 0214: a method that provides food scoring which is indicative of (e.g., weighs) one or more properties of the foods, including but not limited to, the quality of the ingredients, their attributes, processing methods, and the nutrition levels of the food item/product. For example, a whole food with solid attributes which is minimally processed that maintains nutrition levels will score high, while food products with unknown attributes, poor quality ingredients, and harsh processing methods that lower the nutrition level will score low.);
compare the estimated nutritive score to a threshold (‘374; Para 0215: the score of a food product can range from 100 (e.g., the highest possible score value) to one or zero (e.g., the lowest possible score value). For example, beginning from an initial score of 100, the food product's score can be reduced (e.g., by deducting points from the score) for various properties of the food product, including but not limited to the choices of ingredient(s), unspecified attributes, the processing methods employed and the product's nutrition levels);
based on the compared nutritive score, generate one or more instructions to cause display of the nutritive score on a user device; and transmit the generated one or more instructions to the user device (‘374; Para 0240: a software application is running on the user computing device 150, the software application configured to receive the food-related information transmitted from the computer system 100 to the user computing device 150 and to present the received food-related information to the user.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention was made to modify the method of automated dietary management as taught by Avery to include the grading and scoring food of Doble in order to provide the nutrition score to the patient.
With respect to claim 2, the combined art teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the user data further comprises a diet need data, and wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to:
Avery discloses estimate, based at least in part on the nutritive data associated with the at least one ingredient, the diet need data, and the nutritive model, the nutritive score (‘881; Para 0067);
Doble further discloses based on the diet need data, determine a threshold (‘374; Para 0214);
compare the estimated nutritive score to a threshold (‘374; Para 0215);
generate one or more instructions based on the nutritive score, or the diet need data (‘881; Para 0068); and
transmit the generated one or more instructions to cause an indication of the nutritive score on a user device (‘374; Para 0240)
With respect to claim 3, the combined art teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to:
based on the compared nutritive score, generate an instruction to add one or more ingredients to an acquisition list (‘881; Para 0023: identifying, for each of a plurality of food items, a detailed list of ingredients,); and
transmit the generated instruction to add one or more ingredients to the acquisition list, to cause an external system to purchase at least one of the one or more ingredients (‘881; Para 0112: process 900 can recommend (e.g., via models 130) that a facility that has been purchasing gluten-free grains or starches adjust its purchases due to a change in census that led to fewer patients that require gluten-free ingredients).
With respect to claim 4, the combined art teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to:
based on the compared nutritive score, generate an instruction to revise a menu; and transmit the generated instruction to cause an external system to revise a menu (‘881; Para 0087: system for revised and/or updated provider orders for each patient).
With respect to claim 5, the combined art teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to:
based on the compared nutritive score, generate an instruction to add one or more food items to a menu; and transmit the generated instruction, to cause an external system to add one or more food items to a menu (‘881; Para 0170: a registered dietitian can substitute one set of recipes for another, add or delete recipes from a particular meal, manually adjust the ingredients used in a particular recipe, manually search for a recipe to add to the menu (e.g., as an addition and/or a substitute). ).
With respect to claim 6, the combined art teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to:
based on the compared nutritive score, generate a nudge via a user device, indicating that the food item meets or does not meet at least one dietary need; and
transmit the generated nudge, to cause a user device to indicate that a determined food item meets or does not meet a dietary need (‘374; Paras 0282-0284).
With respect to claim 7, the combined art teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to:
process an indication of a second food item, wherein the second food item includes at least one recipe having one or more ingredients (‘881; Para 0006);
generate, based at least in part on the query, a second nutrition data associated with the at least one ingredient of the second food item, wherein the nutrition data comprises preparation data, sourcing data, delivery data, and a list of nutrients for the at least one ingredient of the second food item (‘881; Paras 0023, 0063);
estimate, based at least in part of the nutrition data associated with the at least one ingredient of the second food item, a second nutritive score (‘374; Para 0214);
compare the nutritive score and the second nutritive score (‘374; Para 0215); and
based on the compared nutritive score and the second nutritive score, transmit one or more instructions to cause an indication of the compared nutritive scores on a user device (‘374; Para 0240).
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected as the same reason with claim 7.
With respect to claim 8, the combined art teaches the system of Claim 7, wherein the user data further comprises a dietary need data, and wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to: estimate, based at least in part on the second nutrition data and the diet need data, a second nutritive score; based on the diet need data, determine a threshold; compare the estimated second nutritive score to a threshold (‘881; Paras 0023, 0063);
generate one or more instructions based on the second nutritive score, or the diet need data; and transmit the generated one or more instructions to further cause an indication of the second nutritive score on a user device (‘374; Para 0240).
Claim 18 is rejected as the same reason with claim 8.
With respect to claim 9, the combined art teaches the system of Claim 8, wherein the diet need data further comprises an instruction to generate the nutritive score according to a user or a general population (881; Para 0155).
With respect to claim 10, the combined art teaches the system of Claim 8, wherein the diet need data comprises a threshold wherein the threshold is based at least in part on a nutritional analysis for diabetes prevention, allergy limitations, muscle/body building, reduced sodium intake, calorie targets, portion control, increasing iron-rich foods, optimize vitamin D intake, enhance immune system function, increase energy levels, lower blood pressure, or reduce risk of obesity (‘881; Para 0055; Para 0143).
With respect to claim 11, the combined art teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the list of nutrients comprises calories, carbohydrates, sugars, dietary fiber, protein, saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, potassium, calcium, iron, or Vitamins (‘881; Para 0163: the nutrition information can include any suitable information such as calories, protein, carbohydrates, fat, sugar, added sugar, fiber, sodium, /or various vitamins and/or minerals, and/or any other suitable nutrition information.).
With respect to claim 12, the combined art teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to: estimate a fact summary based at least in part on the nutrition data associated with the at least one ingredient, wherein the fact summary comprises a name of a recipe, a description of the preparation, delivery, and sourcing of the at least one ingredient, and a list of nutrients associated with the at least one ingredient (‘881; Para 0199: menu system 120 can prepare to retrieve information about which items are likely to be used to prepare each recipe. In some embodiments, menu system 120 can extract the ingredients from each recipe in preparation for identifying specific items that can serve as the ingredient).
With respect to claim 13, the combined art teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to:
estimate, based at least in part on the nutrition data associated with the at least one ingredient, a nutricise, wherein the nutricise comprises a learning activity that can help users understand healthy eating habits that incorporates physical fitness into the activity (‘881; Para 0056).
With respect to claim 14, the combined art teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to estimate an economic impact based on the nutrition data (‘881; Para 0056; Para 0134).
With respect to claim 15, the combined art teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to receive a picture of a food from a user device, and wherein the processor is configured to determine a type and a quantity of the food, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the nutritive score based at least in part on the type and the quantity of the food (‘881; Para 0076).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEP VAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00AM and 5:00PM 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 5712728109. 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.
/HIEP V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686