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 Claims
This office action for the 19/045876 application is in response to the communications filed February 05, 2025.
Claims 1-20 were initially submitted February 05, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and considered below.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: The claim recites subject matter within a statutory category as a process.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which Prong 1 determines whether a claim recites a judicial exception. Prong 2 determines if the additional limitations of the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. If the additional elements of the claim fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim contains subject matter that recites an abstract idea, with the steps of a method for issuing dietary advice to a user, the method comprising: acquiring time information indicating at least one of a first date or a first time when the user underwent a medical examination, medical diagnosis or medical procedure at a medical institution; acquiring a first image including meals taken at a second date and time; calculating an elapsed time based on the time information and the second date and time; accessing care food information including care food images organized by both (i) a type of medical examination, medical diagnosis, or medical treatment and (ii) the elapsed time; determining the care food information based on (i) the medical examination, medical diagnosis or medical procedure at the medical institution and (ii) the elapsed time calculated; determining a suitability of a dish or at least one food ingredient in the first image according to the at least one of the care food information; and responsive to determining the suitability, generating a second image by superimposing information indicating the suitability on the first image. These steps, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation recite:
certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices including: hedging; insurance; mitigating risk; etc., commercial or legal interactions including: agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; etc., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including: social activities; teaching; following rules or instructions; etc.) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The identified abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon identified above, in the context of this claim, encompasses a certain method of organizing human activity, namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This is because each of the limitations of the abstract idea recite a list of rules or instructions that a human person can follow in the course of their personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers at least the recited methods of organizing human activity above, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“a database containing” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Accordingly, this claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“a database containing” which corresponds to storing and retrieving information in memory.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 2,
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 2 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“further comprising: controlling a display device to display the second image subsequent to generating the second image.” introduces additional elements that is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more:
Step 2A Prong 2: In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“further comprising: controlling a display device to display the second image subsequent to generating the second image.” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Step 2B: As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“further comprising: controlling a display device to display the second image subsequent to generating the second image.” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 3,
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 3 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the suitability is determined for an individual dish in the first image.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 4,
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 4 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the suitability is determined for each of the at least one ingredient in the first image, and/or for an individual dish in the first image.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 5,
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 5 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“further comprising displaying information of the suitability superimposed on the first image according to the position of each of the at least one ingredient and/or the position of the individual dish as the dietary advice regarding the user's diet.” introduces additional elements that is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more:
Step 2A Prong 2: In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“further comprising displaying information of the suitability superimposed on the first image according to the position of each of the at least one ingredient and/or the position of the individual dish as the dietary advice regarding the user's diet.” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Step 2B: As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“further comprising displaying information of the suitability superimposed on the first image according to the position of each of the at least one ingredient and/or the position of the individual dish as the dietary advice regarding the user's diet.” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 6,
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 6 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“further comprising determining a recovery time constant according to a standard number of days required for recovery based on the required medical examination, medical diagnosis, or medical treatment information; and comparing the elapsed time calculated and the standard number of days required for recovery based on the required medical examination, wherein the suitability is determined responsive to comparing the elapsed time calculated and the standard number of days.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 7,
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 7 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the suitability is determined responsive to comparing the elapsed time calculated and a threshold, and wherein the threshold is a standard number of days required for recovery based on the required medical examination, medical diagnosis, or medical treatment information.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 8,
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 8 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“further comprising: determining a recovery time constant according to the standard number of days; determining whether the recovery time constant is longer than the standard number of days; and responsive to a determination that the recovery time constant is longer than the standard number of days, adding a number of days to the threshold.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 9,
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 9 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“further comprising: obtaining an endoscopic image of the user; determining whether there is a polyp in the endoscopic image; and responsive to determining that there is a polyp in the endoscopic image, (i) changing the dietary advice based on a size and/or a position of the polyp, and (ii) changing a period for determining a suitability of the dish or the at least one food ingredient in the first image when giving the dietary advice.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 10,
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 10 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“further comprising: obtaining an endoscopic image of the user; determining whether there is a wound image from a procedure in the endoscopic image; responsive to determining that there is the wound image from the procedure in the endoscopic image, (i) determining a period until recovery, and (ii) changing, using a period until recovery, a suitability of the dish or the at least one food ingredient in the first image when for giving the dietary advice.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 11,
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
“A control device for issuing dietary advice to a user comprising: one or more processor configured to:” introduces additional elements that is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more:
Step 2A Prong 2: In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f), such as:
“A control device for issuing dietary advice to a user comprising: one or more processor configured to:” which corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Paragraph [0040] of the as-filed specification describes that the steps of the abstract idea are implemented on hardware that amounts to little more than a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, 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.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 12,
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 2. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
As per claim 13,
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 3. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
As per claim 14,
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 4. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
As per claim 15,
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 5. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
As per claim 16,
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 6. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
As per claim 17,
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 7. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
As per claim 18,
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 8. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
As per claim 19,
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 9. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
As per claim 20,
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 10. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-20 contain subject matter free of prior art.
The Examiner has conducted a thorough search of the prior art and could not find a single reference, or combination of references with adequate rationale to combine, to teach the limitation of “accessing a database containing care food information including care food images organized by both (i) a type of medical examination, medical diagnosis, or medical treatment and (ii) the elapsed time” in claim 1. Claim 11 recites a similar limitation. The closest prior art that the Examiner was able to find was:
Avery et al. (US 2021/0241881; herein referred to as Avery): which teaches a system and method for issuing dietary advice to a user caring for a patient that has been admitted to a hospital for medical nutrition assistance. The system and method can track when the patient has been admitted and craft a meal plan for the patient according to how long the patient has been in the facility’s care. The system and method can access a database or electronic medical record that organizes food care information according to the medical reasons why the patient was admitted to the hospital. However, Avery is deficient in teaching that this database includes food care images specifically organized by medical reasons.
Menichetti et al. (US 2018/0286516; herein referred to as Menichetti): which teaches a meal management platform that organizes its food care information in images. Specifically, the disclosed Foodome platform accesses food databases associated with the USDA linked from images of food in the Foodome application. However, Menichetti does not clear that the food databases 1) actually contain the images that the Foodome platform presents and 2) organizes these images based on i) a type of medical examination, medical diagnosis, or medical treatment and (ii) the elapsed time.
Doble et al. (US 2019/030337; herein referred to as Doble): which teaches a system and method for providing food-related information. Specifically, the system includes a database that includes a list of food options for a consumer that is organized including images of the food contained within that database. However, these images do not appear to be organized by i) a type of medical examination, medical diagnosis, or medical treatment and (ii) the elapsed time.
Hujsak (US 2018/0240359): which teaches a food diet planning platform that presents food option images to a user for selection based on their physiological needs and restrictions. However, Hujsak does not clear that the food databases 1) actually contain the images that the Foodome platform presents and 2) organizes these images based on i) a type of medical examination, medical diagnosis, or medical treatment and (ii) the elapsed time.
Diao et al. (US 2019/0200797; herein referred to as Diao): which teaches a machine learning model that is trained on image suitability to identify which meals are proper for a patient. However, Diao does not clear that the food databases 1) actually contain the images that the Foodome platform presents and 2) organizes these images based on i) a type of medical examination, medical diagnosis, or medical treatment and (ii) the elapsed time.
It can be seen that none of the references alone or in combination teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 or 11. It might have been possible to combine these references to arrive at the claimed invention, but there is little to no motivation to modify Avery with Menichetti or Doble without engaging in impermissible hindsight reasoning. Accordingly, claims 1-20 contain subject matter that is free of prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A NEWTON whose telephone number is (313)446-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM (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, PETER H. CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/CHAD A NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights