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 .
Applicant filed a communication dated 12/19/2024 in which claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 recite the limitation "the hematological program". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is interpreting "the hematological program" as "the program for addressing hematological disorders" as recited in claim 1 and 11. Appropriate correction required.
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 of addressing hematological disorders without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 describes a system for generating a program for addressing hematological disorders using machine-learning, the system comprising: a computing device, wherein the computing device is configured to: acquire at least a hematological datum relating to a subject; retrieve a hematological profile related to the subject as a function of the at least a hematological datum; classify the hematological profile to a hematological disorder bundle; determine, using the hematological disorder bundle and the hematological profile, at least a nutritional level, wherein determining the at least a nutritional level includes: identifying a hematological relationship, wherein the hematological relationship relates an effect of a plurality of nutritional levels on the hematological disorder bundle; and determining the at least a nutritional level as a function of the hematological relationship; identify, using the at least a nutritional level, at least a nutrition element and a behavior pattern; and generate a consumption program based on the at least a nutrition element and a behavior pattern. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) describe the abstract idea of addressing hematological disorders, which correspond to a certain methods of organizing human activity. The additional limitations of a computing device does not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of a computing device results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional element of a computing device is recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention by applying the exception using a generic computer element (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitation of additional element does not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional element of a computing device is recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional element when considered separately and as an ordered combination does not amount to add significantly more as the element provides nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be presented for other independent claim 11 and hence the claim 11 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in the independent claims 1 and 11, thus correspond to a certain method of organizing human activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
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 Rose, US Patent Application No. 2021/0050086 in view of Grimmer, US Patent Application No. 2018/0240542.
Regarding claim 1, Rose discloses a system for generating a program for addressing hematological disorders using machine-learning, the system comprising:
a computing device, wherein the computing device is configured to ([0007], [0097]):
acquire at least a hematological datum relating to a subject ([0109], blood work obtained from a user could identify deficiencies in key nutrients; [0454]);
retrieve a hematological profile related to the subject as a function of the at least a hematological datum (defining a trait profile for the user from the trait scores, said trait profile characterizing the users likely biological, behavioral or physiological response to a workout plan/fitness programmed, [0049]);
classify the hematological profile to a hematological disorder bundle;
determine, using the hematological disorder bundle and the hematological profile, at least a nutritional level, wherein determining the at least a nutritional level includes:
identifying a hematological relationship, wherein the hematological relationship relates an effect of a plurality of nutritional levels on the hematological disorder bundle ([0072]); and
determining the at least a nutritional level as a function of the hematological relationship;
identify, using the at least a nutritional level, at least a nutrition element and a behavior pattern; and
generate a consumption program based on the at least a nutrition element and a behavior pattern.
Rose does not specifically disclose
classify the hematological profile to a hematological disorder bundle;
determine, using the hematological disorder bundle and the hematological profile, at least a nutritional level,
determining the at least a nutritional level as a function of the hematological relationship;
identify, using the at least a nutritional level, at least a nutrition element and a behavior pattern; and
generate a consumption program based on the at least a nutrition element and a behavior pattern.
However, Grimmer discloses
classify the hematological profile to a hematological disorder bundle ([0256]);
determine, using the hematological disorder bundle and the hematological profile, at least a nutritional level ([0256]),
determining the at least a nutritional level as a function of the hematological relationship ([0069], parsing and filtering functionality);
identify, using the at least a nutritional level, at least a nutrition element and a behavior pattern ([0092]); and
generate a consumption program based on the at least a nutrition element and a behavior pattern ([0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Rose to include the above-noted disclosure of Grimmer. The motivation for combining these references would have been to classify each user in one of several possible diet types.
Regarding claim 2, Rose discloses wherein retrieving the hematological profile further comprises: training a hematological machine-learning model with training data that includes a plurality of data entries correlating hematological data to a plurality of hematological parameters ([0033], [0111]); and generating the hematological profile as a function of the hematological profile machine-learning model and the at least a hematological datum ([0084]).
Regarding claim 3, Rose discloses wherein classifying the hematological profile to the hematological disorder bundle further comprises: training a hematological classifier using training data which includes a plurality of data entries of hematological profile data from a subset of categorized subjects; and classifying the hematological profile to the hematological disorder bundle using the hematological classifier ([0081], [0084], [0108]).
Regarding claim 4, Grimmer discloses wherein classifying includes classifying the hematological profile to a nutrition-linked hematological disorder bundle ([0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Rose to include the above-noted disclosure of Grimmer. The motivation for combining these references would have been to classify each user in one of several possible diet types.
Regarding claim 5, Grimmer discloses wherein classifying includes classifying the hematological profile to a nutrition-linked disorder prevention bundle ([0064], [0167], [0249]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Rose to include the above-noted disclosure of Grimmer. The motivation for combining these references would have been to classify each user in one of several possible diet types.
Regarding claim 6, Rose discloses wherein determining the hematological relationship further comprises: generating a hematologic model using training data, wherein training data includes a plurality of data entries correlating nutritional levels to effects on hematological data; and determining the hematological relationship as a function of the hematologic model and the hematological profile ([0074]-[0075]).
Regarding claim 7, Rose discloses wherein identifying the at least a nutrition element further comprises: generating a nutrition model using training data including a plurality of data entries of nutrition levels correlating to nutrition elements ([0056], [0166]); and determining the at least a nutrition element as a function of the nutrition model and the at least a nutritional level ([0056]).
Regarding claim 8, Rose discloses wherein identifying at least a nutrition element further comprises retrieving a plurality of nutrition elements from a data repository as a function of the at least a nutritional level ([0155]).
Regarding claim 9, Grimmer discloses wherein generating the hematological program further comprises generating a linear programming function ([0260]) with the plurality of nutrition elements wherein the linear programming function outputs at least an ordering of the plurality of nutrition elements according to the nutritional level ([0182]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Rose to include the above-noted disclosure of Grimmer. The motivation for combining these references would have been to classify each user in one of several possible diet types.
Regarding claim 10, Rose discloses wherein the hematological program includes a hematological score ([0051]).
Claims 11-20 are substantially similar to clams 1-10 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights