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 .
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 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
It is appropriate for the Examiner to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as recited in the following Steps: 1, 2A, and 2B, see MPEP 2106(III.).
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 1:
First, the Examiner is to establish whether the claim falls within any statutory category including a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, see MPEP 2106.03(II.) and MPEP 2106.03(I).
Claims 11-20 are related to a system, and claims 1-10 are also related to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, these claims are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong One:
Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test demonstrates whether a clam is directed to a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(I.). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, where Prong One establishes the judicial exception. Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, 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, see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(1.) and 2106.04(a)(2).
Representative independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea as underlined in the following limitations. Specifically, independent claim 11 recites:
A system of manufacturing a beverage formulation comprising:
a processor in communication with at least one non-transitory computer readable medium storing software instructions, wherein the processor is configured, upon execution of the software instructions, to:
determine a desired taste profile for the beverage formulation;
determine amino acid data comprising:
at least one amino acid fixed property of each amino acid of a plurality of amino acids;
at least one amino acid variable characteristic of each amino acid of the plurality of amino acids;
determine an expected taste profile of each candidate amino acid-based combination based at least in part on a taste characteristic imparted on each candidate amino acid-based combination by each amino acid in each candidate amino acid-based combination, the taste characteristic being based on the amino acid data of each amino acid; and
feed the expected taste profile of each candidate amino acid-based combination and the desired taste profile into a trained machine learning to obtain an optimized amino acid-based formulation to facilitate the manufacturing the manufacturing of the beverage formulation using the optimized amino acid-based formulation.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute a “mental process”, as the following abstract limitations are related to evaluations that can be practically performed in the human mind:
“determine” a desired taste profile for a beverage formulation, which recites an abstract limitation of analysis of taste,
“determine” amnio acid data comprising a fixed property of each amino acid and a variable characteristic of each amino acid, which recites an abstract limitation of analysis of each amino acid,
“determine” an expected taste profile for each candidate amino acid-based combination based on taste characteristic as claimed, where the profile is based on the amino acid data, which recites abstract limitations of analysis of the taste and amino acids,
“obtain” an optimized amino acid-based formulation, which recites an abstract limitation of analysis of the previous abstract steps of the taste profiles of each amino acid-based combinations and the desired taste profile.
Accordingly, the claim recites the steps for obtaining an optimized amino acid-based formulation that can practically be performed in the human mind.
The abstract idea recited in claim 1 is similar to that of claim 11.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., processor) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
Claims 2 and 12 recite abstract limitations of “validating” the optimized amino acid-based formulations to obtain validation data as described, further describing the abstract idea. Claims 4 and 14 recite further detail of the determined amino acid data, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claims 5, 6 and 15, 16 recite further abstract detail of the determined amino acid data, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claims 7, 8, 9 and 17, 18, 19 recite further abstract limitations describing the optimization data being used that comprises total cost associated with the amino acids, further describing the abstract idea. Claims 10 and 20 recite further abstract limitations of a taste profile effect metric for each amino acid, and it comprises a sub score of an individual effect of the taste profile of the beverage having the optimized amino acid based formulation, further describing the abstract idea.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates 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 exceptions into a “practical application,” see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(2.) and 2106.04(d)(I.).
In the present case as shown in claim 11, 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”):
A system of manufacturing a beverage formulation comprising:
a processor in communication with at least one non-transitory computer readable medium storing software instructions, wherein the processor is configured, upon execution of the software instructions, to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
determine a desired taste profile for the beverage formulation;
determine amino acid data comprising:
at least one amino acid fixed property of each amino acid of a plurality of amino acids;
at least one amino acid variable characteristic of each amino acid of the plurality of amino acids;
determine an expected taste profile of each candidate amino acid-based combination based at least in part on a taste characteristic imparted on each candidate amino acid-based combination by each amino acid in each candidate amino acid-based combination, the taste characteristic being based on the amino acid data of each amino acid; and
feed the expected taste profile of each candidate amino acid-based combination and the desired taste profile into a trained machine learning to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) obtain an optimized amino acid-based formulation to facilitate the manufacturing the manufacturing of the beverage formulation using the optimized amino acid-based formulation (merely post solution activity as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Symantec).
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.
Regarding the additional limitation of the overall computing system comprising a processor in communication with at least one non-transitory computer readable medium storing software instructions, wherein the processor is configured, upon execution of the software instructions, to perform steps, and feeding the expected taste profile of each candidate amino acid-based combination and the desired taste profile into a trained machine learning, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0045-0046] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the overall generic computing system comprising generic memory and processor. [0101] recites the use of the generic machine learning model that intakes data generically. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Regarding the additional limitation of facilitate the manufacturing the manufacturing of the beverage formulation using the optimized amino acid-based formulation, this is merely post-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of insignificant application to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least on abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). [0104] of Applicant’s specification recites the manufacturing. As claimed, the action of facilitating the manufacturing based on the previously generated amino acid-based formulation recites impractical application because this activity is incidental to the abstract idea and is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim.
Claim 1 recites similar additional elements.
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 obtain an optimized amino acid-based formulation, 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 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claims 2 and 12 recites further additional elements of training the hydration optimization engine based on validation data, however these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components. Claims 3 and 13 recites further additional elements of insignificant post solution activity, where administering the previously generated abstract formulation recites impractical application because this activity is incidental to the abstract idea and is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, where merely reciting a “particular disease” is not particular enough, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2).
Thus, taken alone and in ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the independent claims 1 and 11 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, see MPEP 2106.05(II.). Further, it may need to be established, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, that the additional elements recite well understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding the additional limitation of the overall computing system comprising a processor in communication with at least one non-transitory computer readable medium storing software instructions, wherein the processor is configured, upon execution of the software instructions, to perform steps, and feeding the expected taste profile of each candidate amino acid-based combination and the desired taste profile into a trained machine learning, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0045-0046] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the overall generic computing system comprising generic memory and processor. [0101] recites the use of the generic machine learning model that intakes data generically. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding the additional limitation of facilitate the manufacturing the manufacturing of the beverage formulation using the optimized amino acid-based formulation, this is merely post-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of insignificant application to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least on abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)”). [0104] of Applicant’s specification recites the manufacturing. As claimed, the action of facilitating the manufacturing based on the previously generated amino acid-based formulation recites impractical application because this activity is incidental to the abstract idea and is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The recitation of sending the previously generated formulation to manufacturing via a network connection as described in [0104] recites well understood, routine, and conventional activity.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and therefore claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The following references have been considered as relevant, however do not teach the claimed invention individually nor in combination:
US-20190304000-A1 to Simpson teaches of a system to determine optimized food and drink choices based on a specific user’s biochemistry.
US-20170156386-A1 to Baetge et al. teaches of producing a nutritional combination for a user based on a required nutrient intake for the subject.
US-20140072679-A1 to Balassanian teaches of preparing a beverage for a user based on input data such as ingredients data and health goals of the user.
WO-2012051591-A2 to Bhagat teaches of a system to optimize nutritional contents based on effects within certain ranges of values for the health of the user.
NPL “The beverage hydration index: influence of electrolytes, carbohydrate and protein” to Millard-Stafford et al. teaches of an analysis of user’s intake of certain beverages to be used to calculate a beverage hydration index that depends on ingredients including a concentration of certain amino acids and sugars.
These references do not teach aspects of the current invention, including but not limited to: “determining a desired taste profile for the beverage formulation; determining amino acid data comprising: at least one amino acid fixed property of each amino acid of a plurality of amino acids; at least one amino acid variable characteristic of each amino acid of the plurality of amino acids; determining an expected taste profile of each candidate amino acid-based combination based at least in part on a taste characteristic imparted on each candidate amino acid-based combination by each amino acid in each candidate amino acid-based combination, the taste characteristic being based on the amino acid data of each amino acid”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS whose telephone number is (571)272-6719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM 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 (571) 272-8109. 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.
/CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3686