CTNF 19/015,825 CTNF 94269 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This action is in reply to the claims filed on 01/10/2025. Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined. Information Disclosure Statement Information Disclosure Statement received 01/10/2025 has been reviewed and considered. Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 recite the limitation "the dish" in lines 11, 10, and 12, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For examination, these limitations will be treated as if they recite “ a dish”. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies noted in claims 1, 7, and 13. Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an updating component ... for updating list data; a settling component for settling a price; a judging component ... for judging a dish; an introducing component for introducing a dish recited in claims 1-6; an identifying component for identifying; and an acquiring component for acquiring recited in claim 3. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility (SME) analysis described in MPEP 2106.03, the instant claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention identified by 35 U.S.C. 101. In the instant case, claims 1-6 are directed to a system, claims 7-12 are directed to a method, and claims 13-18 are directed to a manufacture. Claims 1, 7, and 13 are parallel in nature, therefore, the analysis will use claim 1 as the representative claim. In Step 2A Prong One, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Claim 7, as exemplary, recites abstract concepts including: at each time when a merchandise item is designated through an operation by a customer, updating list data representing a list of transacted merchandise items to contain the merchandise item as a transacted merchandise item; settling a price of the transacted merchandise item contained in the list represented by the list data in response to a designation of a settlement; at each time when the list data is updated by the updating component, judging the dish using a transacted merchandise item contained in a list represented by the updated list data; and introducing a dish judged by the judging component to the customer. These identified limitations recite the abstract idea of “recommending dishes to a customer”, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors . Accordingly, claims 1, 7, and 13 recite an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04. In Step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Instant claims 1 and 7 do not recite any additional elements. Instant claim 13 recites additional elements including: a non-transitory computer storage medium comprising a program . The non-transitory computer storage medium is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing generic computer functions of storing information) such that it amounts to no more than “apply it” or mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. Claims 1, 7, and 13 are thus directed to an abstract idea. Under Step 2B of the SME analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element is merely being used to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer component (a non-transitory computer storage medium). For the same reason, the elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea with a generic computer does not add significantly more in Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in ordered combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus claims 1, 7, and 13 are not patent eligible. Dependent claim(s) 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims. These claims merely further define the abstract idea without reciting any further additional elements. Thus dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 are also ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. (US 12,614,624 B1) in view of Cummins et al. (US 2016/0140526 A1) . Claim 1 – Mueller discloses a transaction processing system (Col 4, ll. 1-10 “system 20”), comprising: an updating component, at each time when a merchandise item is designated through an operation by a customer, for updating list data representing a list of transacted merchandise items to contain the merchandise item as a transacted merchandise item (Col 5, ll. 50-55 “the product purchase history 22 is updated when products are purchased”) ; ... a judging component, at each time when the list data is updated by the updating component, for judging the dish using a transacted merchandise item contained in a list represented by the updated list data (Col 5, ll. 50-60 “As the shopper profile data 21 is updated, the machine learning algorithm 45 is trained. In other words, the machine learning algorithm 45 accepts data on an on-going basis and is updated on an on-going basis.”) ; and an introducing component for introducing a dish judged by the judging component to the customer (Col 5, ll. 55-65 “ The machine learning algorithm 45 may output the determined recipe 23 a ” and “the ingredient substitution server 40 communicates the determined recipe 23 a to the shopper device 30 for display thereon.”) . Mueller does not explicitly disclose limitations associated with a settling component. However, Cummins – which is also directed to recommending recipes using a user’s purchase history – teaches: a settling component for settling a price of the transacted merchandise item contained in the list represented by the list data in response to a designation of a settlement (Cummins ¶ [0104] “ For example, the smart appliance system 140 may learn of such items substantially at the time of purchase, such as when the payment is being processed by the merchant 110 , or subsequently”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the settling of price as taught by Cummins in the system of Mueller so that no special or additional actions on the part of the user are required (Cummins ¶ [0104]). Claim 3 – The combination of Mueller in view of Cummins teaches the transaction processing system according to claim 1. Mueller further discloses, further comprising: an identifying component for identifying a customer (Col 4, ll. 59-61 “The ingredient substitution server 40 determines profile nutrition tags ... based upon shopper profile data”; Col 5, ll. 5-6 “shopper credentials provided by the given shopper”) ; and an acquiring component for acquiring information on transacted merchandise items in previous transactions relating to the customer identified by the identifying component (Col 5, ll.5-10 “The ingredient substitution server 40 may obtain shopper profile data 21 and thus the product purchase history 22 may be across retailers.”) , wherein the introducing component introduces the information acquired by the acquiring component with the dish judged by the judging component to the customer (Col 5, ll. 55-65 “ The machine learning algorithm 45 may output the determined recipe 23 a ” and “the ingredient substitution server 40 communicates the determined recipe 23 a to the shopper device 30 for display thereon.”) . Claim 4 – The combination of Mueller in view of Cummins teaches the transaction processing system according to claim 1. Mueller does not disclose limitations associated with climate, however Cummins further teaches: wherein the judging component judges the dish using the transacted merchandise item contained in the list represented by the updated list data in consideration of a climate (Cummins ¶ [0041] “preferably evaluating comprises correlating the changes to the consumables inventory and/or the orders for consumables to one or more of a user's calendar, a user's diary, weather reports, or weather forecasts for the time period”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the consideration of climate as taught by Cummins in the judging of Mueller in order to provide the user with more targeted alerts and reminders (Cummins ¶ [0043]). Claim 5 – The combination of Mueller in view of Cummins teaches the transaction processing system according to claim 1. Mueller further discloses, w herein the judging component judges a dish using another merchandise item than the transacted merchandise item in addition to the dish using the transacted merchandise item contained in the list represented by the updated list data (Col 5, ll. 55-65 “The machine learning algorithm 45 may output the determined recipe 23 a , for example, as a predicted recipe that the given shopper is likely to purchase based upon historical purchases and profile data (e.g., and accounting for adjustments and changes in purchase patterns and profile changes)”) . Claim 6 – The combination of Mueller in view of Cummins teaches the transaction processing system according to claim 1. Mueller discloses, identifying the customer via “shopper credentials”, but does not explicitly disclose a user code and a password. However, Cummins further teaches: wherein the identifying component identifies the customer via a user code and a password (Cummins ¶ [0092] “Such an identifier may, for example, take the form of ... a phone number, ID card”; ¶ [0145] “password”; ¶ [0152]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the user code and password as taught by Cummins in the credentials of Mueller in order to enable the merchant to associate the consumables including in the purchase transaction with the user (Cummins ¶ [0092]). Claims 7 and 9-12 , which are directed to a method, recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for method claims 1 and 3-6. Claim(s) 7 and 9-12 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 1 and 3-6, respectively. Claims 13 and 15-18 , which are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for method claims 1 and 3-6. Claim(s) 13 and 15-18 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 1 and 3-6, respectively . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller in view of Cummins, and further in view of Shimoirisa (US 2020/0226659 A1) . Claim 2 – The combination of Mueller in view of Cummins teaches the transaction processing system according to claim 1. The combination of Mueller in view of Cummins does not teach the following limitations associated with a designation by the customer. However, Shimoirisa – which is also directed to recommending dishes/recipes – teaches, further comprising a determining component for determining whether an introduction by the introducing component is performed by a designation by the customer, wherein the judging component judges a dish if the determining component determines that an introduction is performed (Shimoirisa ¶ [0053]; ¶ [0054] “In the case where the recommended dish displayed on the proposal screen SC 1 of the touch panel 14 is not a desired dish and the user desires to receive a proposal of another recommended dish, the user requests that by a predetermined operation such as touching the button BU 1 (see FIG. 8)”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the determination as taught by Shimoirisa in the system of Mueller in view of Cummins because there is demand for a mechanism that is capable of proposing a dish and providing a user with information regarding the purchase of the missing foods required for cooking the dish (Shimoirisa ¶ [0003]). Claim 8 , which is directed to a method, recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for method claim 2. Claim(s) 8 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2. Claim 14 , which is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for method claim 2. Claim(s) 14 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Farr et al. (US 2021/0264347 A1) describes the settling component, as recited in claim 1, in at least paragraphs [0040]-[0041]. Knobel (US 2016/0335589 A1) is directed to a personal food inventory system that allows for storage of food items in a personal inventory associated with a user account, as well as tracking of food items consumed by the user account. Kremen et al. (US 2017/0316488 A1) is directed to techniques for food management, including recipe identification using a list of purchased grocery items. Nguyen et al. (US 2021/0256440 A1) is directed to generating food management calendar events. R. Guidotti and S. Viotto (NPL Reference U) designs a next basket predictor based on representative recipes able to exploit the interest of customers towards certain ingredients when making the recommendation. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNEDY A GIBSON-WYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 PM. 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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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. /K.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3688 /Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/015,825 Page 2 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/015,825 Page 3 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/015,825 Page 4 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/015,825 Page 5 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/015,825 Page 6 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/015,825 Page 7 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/015,825 Page 8 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/015,825 Page 9 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/015,825 Page 10 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/015,825 Page 11 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/015,825 Page 12 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/015,825 Page 13 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/015,825 Page 14 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/015,825 Page 15 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/015,825 Page 16 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 19/015,825 Page 17 Art Unit: 3688
Prosecution Insights