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 .
Status of Application
This action is in reply to the correspondence received through May 4, 2026.
Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 23, and 25 are amended.
Claims 3, 19-22, and 26-28 are canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 4-18, and 23-25 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements submitted March 20, 2025 and December 9, 2025 and their contents have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim must refer to claims previously set forth. See MPEP § 608.01(n). However, claim 25 refers to several claims that have been cancelled such as claim 19. Accordingly, the claim 25 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 18, 23, and 24 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.
Claim 18: There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in their respective claims. Claim 18 recites the weekly score, the daily score, and the preference score, but none of these elements has been previously introduced in the claims. Accordingly, the claim terms above lack sufficient antecedent basis for and one of ordinary skill.
For examination purposes, these elements will be interpreted as a weekly score, a daily score, and a preference score, respectively.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected for incorporating the deficiencies of the rejected claims on which they respectively depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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, 2, 4-18, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1, 2, 4-18, 23, and 24 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as required by the Alice test as discussed below.
Step 1
Claims 1, 2, 4-18, 23, and 24 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A
Claims 1, 2, 4-18, 23, and 24 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas. Claim 1 recites obtaining diet information of a user; forming a first subset of meal plans from a predetermined meal plan set according to the diet information; generating a second subset of meal plans from the first subset of meal plans via an evolution algorithm; calculating a score for each meal plan in the second subset of meal plans; and ranking meal plans in the second subset of meal plans, wherein the score for each meal plan is calculated based on the diet information and one or more elements comprised in each meal plan. Claims 2, 4-18, 23, and 24 further specify features of the identified abstract ideas or characteristics of the data used thereby.
These limitations describe abstract ideas that correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts as mathematical concepts—such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations—because the claimed calculating and comparing scores or rating are mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.
These limitations describe abstract ideas that correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts as mental processes—such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)—because the claimed features identified above are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion).
These limitations describe abstract ideas that correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts as certain methods of organizing human activity—such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)—because the claim features identified above manage personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including teaching and following rules or instructions.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1, 2, 4-18, 23, and 24 recite abstract ideas.
Prong two of the Step 2A requires identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. “Integration into a practical application” requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Further, “integration into a practical application” uses the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit to evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, such as considerations discussed in M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(a)-(h).
The claims recite the following additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites that its method is performed by an electronic device. Claim 2 recites receiving inputs and displaying top ranked meal plans.
The identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons.
First, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. The additional computer elements identified above—the electronic device—are recited at a high level of generality. Inclusion of these elements amounts to mere instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f). The use of conventional computer elements to receive inputs and display information (e.g., top ranked meal plans) is the insignificant, extra-solution activity of mere data gathering or outputting in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g). To the extent that the claims transform data, the mere manipulation of data is not a transformation. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(c). Inclusion of a computing system in the claims amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Second, evaluating the claim limitations 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. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide an implementation of the identified abstract ideas on a computer system in the general field of use of meal planning. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(h).
Thus, claims 1, 2, 4-18, 23, and 24 recite mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity without including additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 4-18, 23, and 24 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 2, 4-18, 23, and 24 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination. Additional features of these analyses are discussed below.
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, these additional computer elements also provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive inputs and display information (e.g., top ranked meal plans) is the well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., the Internet, and does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the identified abstract ideas. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to mere instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Thus, claims 1, 2, 4-18, 23, and 24, taken individually and as an ordered combination of elements, are not directed to eligible subject matter since they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-18, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)-(2) as being anticipated by Murdoch et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0074884 A1) (hereinafter “Murdoch”).
Claim 1: Murdoch, as shown, discloses the following limitations:
obtaining diet information of a user (see at least ¶ [0031]: a system running a meal plan nutrition optimization algorithm takes into account the preferences, dietary restrictions, health objectives, and financial budget set by the individual users and generates a single meal, series of meals, or 1-n day meal plan for the user. The optimization algorithm selects foods from local grocery store or food distributor inventories, considering a user’s preferred food brands and private labels, and builds meals around them based on the totality of the user's preferences and the nutritional content of the selected food. The system provides users with a 1-n meal/day shopping or grocery. by taking those foods and listing the quantity of each food needed to build the list for the period defined by the user; see also at least ¶ [0043]: the system selects foods based on their availability near the location of the user, then builds individual meals that meet the user’s dietary constraints and food preferences; see also at least ¶¶ [0032], [0075], and [0078]);
forming a first subset of meal plans from a predetermined meal plan set according to the diet information (see at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]. Each meal plan derived is a member of a set or subset);
generating a second subset of meal plans from the first subset of meal plans via an evolution algorithm (see at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]. Each meal plan derived is a member of a set or subset);
calculating a score for each meal plan in the second subset of meal plans (see at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]);
ranking meal plans in the second subset of meal plans (see at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]),
wherein the score for each meal plan is calculated based on the diet information and one or more elements comprised in each meal plan (see at least ¶ [0031]: a system running a meal plan nutrition optimization algorithm takes into account the preferences, dietary restrictions, health objectives, and financial budget set by the individual users and generates a single meal, series of meals, or 1-n day meal plan for the user. The optimization algorithm selects foods from local grocery store or food distributor inventories, considering a user’s preferred food brands and private labels, and builds meals around them based on the totality of the user's preferences and the nutritional content of the selected food. The system provides users with a 1-n meal/day shopping or grocery. by taking those foods and listing the quantity of each food needed to build the list for the period defined by the user; see also at least ¶ [0043]: the system selects foods based on their availability near the location of the user, then builds individual meals that meet the user’s dietary constraints and food preferences; see also at least ¶ [0032]).
Claim 2: Murdoch discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Further, Murdoch, as shown, discloses the following limitations:
displaying a number of top ranked meal plans and/or receiving an input from a user to select a meal plan from the displayed meal plans; or suggesting a meal plan with a highest score from the second subset of meal plans and/or receiving an input from a user to change a first meal plan within the top ranked meal plans, and suggesting a second meal plan based on the first meal plan; or, receiving an input from the user to change at least one element in the first meal plan, and replacing the at least one element in the first meal plan with at least one different element to form a second meal plan (see at least ¶ [0075]: with individual meals identified for a meal day plan 134, the menu generation algorithm 116 communicates the meal day plans to the constructor 136 which modifies the kcal target evaluator 122 to generate a food menu for at least one day 104 to be displayed through the user interface 102; see also at least ¶ [0078]).
Claim 4: Murdoch discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Further, Murdoch, as shown, discloses the following limitations:
wherein the suggesting of the second meal plan is further based on at least a similarity between the first and the second meal plan, and the diet information, or the forming of the second meal plan is further based on at least a similarity between the at least one element to be replaced and the at least one different element, and the diet information (see at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]).
Claim 5: Murdoch discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Further, Murdoch, as shown, discloses the following limitations:
determining at least one intake target for each food category, each macronutrient, and/or each micronutrient, according to the diet information, wherein each food category, each macronutrient and each micronutrient are predetermined (see at least ¶ [0033]: a user may set certain caloric and/or macronutrient and/or micronutrient targets for specific food items, meals and/or specific days and the system may then make adjustments to the individual meals to fit within the specified target within the meal or the day. The system may also obtain new targets for the day and then implement meals based on those targets. Additionally, the system may make adjustments to the meals based on a desired nutrient total/ratio that may cross reference the targets with the user's caloric target. The categorization of a meal (e.g., traditional meal (e.g., breakfast, lunch, and dinner) or a snack) may determine which targets (nutrient or kcal) are tracked and utilized in the adjustment of a daily target. For instance, the macro nutrient targets may not be utilized as a deciding factor to select a food item for a snack and may also not be utilized to influence the daily totals of the nutrient targets. However, the kcals in the snack may tracked and utilized to adjust portion sizes of the meals for that particular day; see also at least ¶¶ [0050]-[0065]).
Claim 6: Murdoch discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Further, Murdoch, as shown, discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more elements in each meal plan comprises at least one of a breakfast menu, one or more staples for lunch, one or more staples for dinner, an extra meal menu, one or more dishes for lunch, and one or more dishes for dinner (see at least ¶ [0026]: once the user information has been collected, the menu generation process begins. The generated menu runs for 1-n meal cycles and may include standard meals (e.g., breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks (e.g., morning snack, afternoon snack, and evening snack)) that are ordered in the menu according to their chronological schedule. In some configurations, the meals may be ordered differently or based on user preference; see also at least ¶ [0033]).
Claim 7: Murdoch discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Further, Murdoch, as shown, discloses the following limitations:
wherein the diet information comprises at least one of allergens, restricted ingredients, gene/DNA information, a number of meals for a day, height, weight, gender, active level, location information, diet preference, diet history data, user pattern data, family history information, and stage of the user, for example the stage being pre-pregnancy, pregnancy, puerperium, or lactation (see at least ¶ [0021]: the user preferences include food dislikes, food likes, food allergies or restrictions, meal preferences, nutrient targets, weight or other personal health objectives, financial budget, preferred grocers or food distributors, preferred brands or private labels, and kcal target from the at least one user profile; see also at least ¶ [0033]: a user may set certain caloric and/or macronutrient and/or micronutrient targets for specific food items, meals and/or specific days and the system may then make adjustments to the individual meals to fit within the specified target within the meal or the day. The system may also obtain new targets for the day and then implement meals based on those targets. Additionally, the system may make adjustments to the meals based on a desired nutrient total/ratio that may cross reference the targets with the user's caloric target. The categorization of a meal (e.g., traditional meal (e.g., breakfast, lunch, and dinner) or a snack) may determine which targets (nutrient or kcal) are tracked and utilized in the adjustment of a daily target. For instance, the macro nutrient targets may not be utilized as a deciding factor to select a food item for a snack and may also not be utilized to influence the daily totals of the nutrient targets. However, the kcals in the snack may tracked and utilized to adjust portion sizes of the meals for that particular day; see also at least ¶¶ [0050]-[0065]).
Claim 9: Murdoch discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Further, Murdoch, as shown, discloses the following limitations:
wherein the forming of the first subset of meal plans comprises removing zero, one or more meal plans from the predetermined meal plan set which comprise the allergens and/or the restricted ingredients and/or removing meal plans from the predetermined meal plan set which have ingredients other than existing meal preparing ingredients (see at least ¶ [0031]: a system running a meal plan nutrition optimization algorithm takes into account the preferences, dietary restrictions, health objectives, and financial budget set by the individual users and generates a single meal, series of meals, or 1-n day meal plan for the user. The optimization algorithm selects foods from local grocery store or food distributor inventories, considering a user’s preferred food brands and private labels, and builds meals around them based on the totality of the user's preferences and the nutritional content of the selected food. The system provides users with a 1-n meal/day shopping or grocery. by taking those foods and listing the quantity of each food needed to build the list for the period defined by the user; see also at least ¶ [0043]: the system selects foods based on their availability near the location of the user, then builds individual meals that meet the user’s dietary constraints and food preferences).
Claim 10: Murdoch discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Further, Murdoch, as shown, discloses the following limitations:
wherein the evolution algorithm comprises,
a. forming an evolution meal plan set by selecting a number N of first initial meal plans (see at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]);
b. calculating a score for each first initial meal plan, the score being Xi for the i-th first initial meal plan (see at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]);
c. exchanging one or more elements between two or more first initial meal plans to form second initial meal plans (see at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]);
d. calculating a score for each second initial meal plans, the score being Yi for the i-th second initial meal plan (see at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]);
e. updating the evolution meal plan set by, if Yi>=Xi, replacing the i-th first initial meal plan by the i-th second initial meal plan in the evolution meal plan set (see at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]);
f. performing steps b to e for a predetermined iterations and/or until a part of or all meal plans in the evolution meal plan set having scores equal to or higher than a first predetermined threshold (see at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]);
g. outputting the evolution meal plan set as the second subset of meal plans (see at least ¶ [0075]: with individual meals identified for a meal day plan 134, the menu generation algorithm 116 communicates the meal day plans to the constructor 136 which modifies the kcal target evaluator 122 to generate a food menu for at least one day 104 to be displayed through the user interface 102; see also at least ¶¶ [0023]-[0024], [0029]-[0030], [0068]-[0069], and [0078]).
Claim 11: Murdoch discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Further, Murdoch, as shown, discloses the following limitations:
wherein if the score Xi for one, some or all first initial meal plan equals to or is higher than the first predetermined threshold, the N first initial meal plans are outputted as the second subset of meal plans, and steps c to g are not performed (see at least ¶ [0067]: this process iterates through the food component collection until either a successful meal has been generated or the 1-n iteration count may be breached; see also at least ¶ [0068]: if the meal may be now inside a value range it may be considered generated successfully; see also at least ¶¶ [0023]-[0024], [0029]-[0030], [0068]-[0069], and [0078]).
Claim 12: Murdoch discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Further, Murdoch, as shown, discloses the following limitations:
wherein if the score Yi for one, some or all second initial meal plan equals to or is higher than the first predetermined threshold, the N second initial meal plans are outputted as the second subset of meal plans, and steps f and g are not performed (see at least ¶ [0067]: this process iterates through the food component collection until either a successful meal has been generated or the 1-n iteration count may be breached; see also at least ¶ [0068]: if the meal may be now inside a value range it may be considered generated successfully; see also at least ¶¶ [0023]-[0024], [0029]-[0030], [0068]-[0069], and [0078]).
Claim 13: Murdoch discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Further, Murdoch, as shown, discloses the following limitations:
wherein steps e to g are only performed if the score Yi for one, some or all second initial meal plan is lower than the first predetermined threshold (see at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]).
Claim 14: Murdoch discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Further, Murdoch, as shown, discloses the following limitations:
wherein the forming of the first subset of meal plans and the generating of the second subset of meal plans are performed iteratively until a part or all of meal plans in the second subset of meal plans have scores higher than or equal to a second predetermined threshold (see at least ¶ [0067]: this process iterates through the food component collection until either a successful meal has been generated or the 1-n iteration count may be breached; see also at least ¶ [0068]: if the meal may be now inside a value range it may be considered generated successfully; see also at least ¶¶ [0023]-[0024], [0029]-[0030], [0068]-[0069], and [0078]).
Claim 15: Murdoch discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Further, Murdoch, as shown, discloses the following limitations:
wherein, if the forming of the first subset of meal plans and the generating of the second subset of meal plans are performed more than predetermined iterations, the selecting of the meal plan from the second subset of meal plans is performed even if none in the second subset of meal plans has a score higher than or equal to the second predetermined threshold (see at least ¶ [0067]: this process iterates through the food component collection until either a successful meal has been generated or the 1-n iteration count may be breached; see also at least ¶ [0068]: if the meal may be now inside a value range it may be considered generated successfully; see also at least ¶¶ [0023]-[0024], [0029]-[0030], [0068]-[0069], and [0078]).
Claim 16: Murdoch discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Further, Murdoch, as shown, discloses the following limitations:
wherein, a score of a meal plan is calculated based on at least two score parts, and/or a score part being an ingredient score, a weekly score, a daily score, a gene score or a preference score (see at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0033], and [0068]-[0069]).
Claim 17: Murdoch discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Further, Murdoch, as shown, discloses the following limitations:
wherein the ingredient score is calculated based on at least one of a total food category score, a total macronutrient score, and a total micronutrient score, and/or wherein the total food category score is a sum of individual food category scores, and an individual food category score is calculated according to mass of a food category comprised in the meal plan and intake target of the food category, for example, the food category being at least one of grain, cereal, diary, fruit, vegetable, soy products, nuts, sweets, water, meat, fish and alternatives, wherein the total macronutrient score is a sum of individual macronutrient scores, and an individual macronutrient score is obtained according to mass of a macronutrient comprised in the meal plan and intake target of the macronutrient, and/or wherein the total micronutrient score is a sum of individual micronutrient scores, and an individual micronutrient score is obtained according to mass of a micronutrient comprised in the meal plan and intake target of the micronutrient (see at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]).
Claim 18: Murdoch discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Further, Murdoch, as shown, discloses the following limitations:
wherein the weekly score is based on weekly rules concerning meal plans in a week (see at least ¶ [0032]: a user may set nutrient targets and preferences as well as set food items they want to include or exclude from their weekly menu of meals. The system then populates individual food items based on component categories to build meals that fit the user's target preferences within a narrow margin; see also at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]),
wherein the daily score is based on daily rules concerning a one-day meal plan wherein the gene score is based on gene rules concerning diet requirements according to gene of the user (see at least ¶ [0033]: the categorization of a meal (e.g., traditional meal (e.g., breakfast, lunch, and dinner) or a snack) may determine which targets (nutrient or kcal) are tracked and utilized in the adjustment of a daily target. For instance, the macro nutrient targets may not be utilized as a deciding factor to select a food item for a snack and may also not be utilized to influence the daily totals of the nutrient targets.; see also at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]),
wherein the preference score is based on preference rules concerning diet preferences of the user (see at least ¶ [0033]: A user may set certain caloric and/or macronutrient and/or micronutrient targets for specific food items, meals and/or specific days and the system may then make adjustments to the individual meals to fit within the specified target within the meal or the day. The system may also obtain new targets for the day and then implement meals based on those targets. Additionally, the system may make adjustments to the meals based on a desired nutrient total/ratio that may cross reference the targets with the user's caloric target. The categorization of a meal (e.g., traditional meal (e.g., breakfast, lunch, and dinner) or a snack) may determine which targets (nutrient or kcal) are tracked and utilized in the adjustment of a daily target. For instance, the macro nutrient targets may not be utilized as a deciding factor to select a food item for a snack and may also not be utilized to influence the daily totals of the nutrient targets. However, the kcals in the snack may tracked and utilized to adjust portion sizes of the meals for that particular day; see also at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]), and
wherein when calculating the score of the meal plan, each score part is assigned with a weight value (see at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]. Each of the daily, weekly, and preference contribute—i.e., have a weight value—to the determination of the meal plan).
Claim 23: Murdoch discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Further, Murdoch, as shown, discloses the following limitations:
wherein the weight values for the score parts are determined by:
determining priorities for the score parts (see at least ¶ [0030]: the food sub category collection that the food item is part of is ordered based on the lowest value of needed macronutrients; see also at least ¶ [0032]: a system running a meal plan nutrition optimization algorithm takes into account the preferences, dietary restrictions, health objectives, and financial budget set by the individual users—i.e., priorities—and generates a single meal, series of meals, or 1-n day meal plan for the user; see also at least ¶ [0033]: a user may set certain caloric and/or macronutrient and/or micronutrient targets for specific food items, meals and/or specific days and the system may then make adjustments to the individual meals to fit within the specified target within the meal or the day. The system may also obtain new targets for the day and then implement meals based on those targets. Additionally, the system may make adjustments to the meals based on a desired nutrient total/ratio that may cross reference the targets with the user's caloric target. The categorization of a meal (e.g., traditional meal (e.g., breakfast, lunch, and dinner) or a snack) may determine which targets (nutrient or kcal) are tracked and utilized in the adjustment of a daily target. For instance, the macro nutrient targets may not be utilized as a deciding factor to select a food item for a snack and may also not be utilized to influence the daily totals of the nutrient targets. However, the kcals in the snack may tracked and utilized to adjust portion sizes of the meals for that particular day);
assigning initial weight values to the score parts, a score part with a higher priority being assigned with an initial higher weight value (see at least ¶¶ [0030]-[0033] and the analysis above. Requirements that must be considered by the user have a weight of 100%; those not required have a weight of 0%; see also at least ¶¶ [0023]-[0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]);
selecting a test subset of meal plans from the predetermined meal plan set, e.g., a part of all meal plans in the predetermined meal plan set (see at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]);
calculating scores for score parts based on initial weight values assigned to the score parts (see at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]);
if one or more of the calculated scores satisfy at least one certain condition, determining that the initial weight values are final weight values, otherwise, iteratively calculating the scores based on at least one of assigning different initial weight values to the score parts and selecting the test subset (see at least ¶ [0023]: the meal target evaluator iteratively operates, through operation of an iterator, to calculate nutrient gaps and nutrient target ratios, gap ratio score, scores and other mathematical relationships among the food items that comprise the individual meals adjust portion size of the food items within individual meals with the non-user specified food item in response to detecting the meal total score being outside of a meal target range based on the gap ratio score, substitute the non-user specified food item with different non-user specified food item in the individual meal with the closest meal total outside the meal target range, and substitute replace the food item with having the lowest nutrient value in the individual meal with the different non-user specified food item with the closest meal total outside the meal target range; see also at least ¶¶ [0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0068]-[0069]; see also at least ¶ [0068]: if the adjustment of the portion size does not result in the successful generation of a meal the next step may be the process may be food substitution. This food substitution logic looks at the needed ratios and then sorts the available foods by them. The process increases the size of the circle around the food ratios until a match may be found. At this point a meal score may be taken, the food may be substituted in, the portion size adjusted and the meal may be again scored. If the substitution process results in a lower score the substitution may be considered a success and may be added as part of the meal. If the meal may be now inside a value range it may be considered generated successfully. If not the original food may be swapped back in and the process starts on the next food in the food component collection).
Claim 24: Murdoch discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Further, Murdoch, as shown, discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one certain condition comprises at least one of a percentage, of calculated scores that are higher than a certain score threshold, is higher than a certain percentage threshold, and calculated scores calculated based on the initial weight values are with a predetermined error range of predetermined reference scores (see at least ¶¶ [0050]-[0065]: in some configurations, the meal generation process may be a 1-n loop. The process may start with a collection of food components that comprise the meal. These food components may all have their portion sizes set to a typical portion amount. The first step of the process may be to determine a number of different mathematical ways of viewing the food components in relation to each other as well as in relation to the caloric target that may be being pursued. The following values may be calculated:
Carbohydrate gap=Abs(meal.CarbohydrateTarget)−meal. CarbohydrateActuals)
Fat gap=Abs(meal.FatTarget)−meal.FatActuals)
Protein gap=Abs(meal.ProteinTarget)−meal.ProteinActuals)
Ratio of the protein value to the value the meal target
Ratio of the fat value to the value of the meal target
Ration of the carbohydrate value to the value of the meal target
Carbohydrate gap percent
Fat gap percent
Protein gap percent
The ratio of carbohydrates to fat and protein
The ratio of fat to carbohydrates and protein
The ratio of protein to carbohydrates and fat
The carbohydrate variance=Abs(carbohydrateRatio−mealCarbohydarateRatio)
The fat variance=Abs(fatRatio−mealFatRatio)
The protein variance=Abs(proteinRatio−proteinRatio);
see also at least ¶¶ [0023]-[0024], [0029]-[0030], and [0067]-[0069]).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Murdoch et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0074884 A1) (hereinafter “Murdoch”) in view of Shane et al. (“The 677C→ T variant of MTHFR is the major genetic modifier of biomarkers of folate status in a young, healthy Irish population.” The American journal of clinical nutrition 108.6 (2018): 1334-1341) (hereinafter “Shane”).
Claim 8: Murdoch discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above.
Murdoch does not explicitly disclose, but Shane, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
wherein the gene/DNA information of rs1801133 comprises types of GG, AG and AA, and folate needs for different types are GG>AG>AA (see at least p. 1334: “The 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) 677C→T (rs1801133) variant was the major genetic modifier of all 3 folate-related biomarkers in this Irish population and reached genome-wide significance for red blood cell folate (P = 1.37 × 10−17), serum folate (P = 2.82 × 10−11), and plasma total homocysteine (P = 1.26 × 10−19) concentrations.” See also at least p. 1335: “For example, subjects homozygous for the 677T allele variant (rs1801133) of the 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene have reduced serum and red blood cell folate concentrations whereas plasma homocysteine concentrations are increased in these individuals, at least in those with poorer folate or riboflavin status (4, 6, 10). Previous genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have reported significant associations between several genetic variants, including the MTHFR 677C→T variant, and plasma homocysteine concentrations (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)” See also at least p. 1339: “Changes are seen in subjects heterozygous for the MTHFR 677C→T variant, but the extent of these changes is less than half that observed in 677T homozygotes (10).”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the techniques for determining increased folate needs taught by Shane with the meal planning systems disclosed by Murdoch, because Shane teaches at p. 1334 that “The MTHFR 677C→T variant is the predominant genetic modifier of folate status biomarkers in this healthy Irish population.” See M.P.E.P. § 2143(I)(G).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the techniques for determining increased folate needs taught by Shane with the meal planning systems disclosed by Murdoch, because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements (the techniques for determining increased folate needs taught by Shane and the meal planning systems disclosed by Murdoch), in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See M.P.E.P. § 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The following references have been cited to further show the state of the art with respect to techniques for providing nutritional guidance.
Fava et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0058766 A1) (assays and methods for selecting a treatment regimen for a subject with depression).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Tokarczyk, whose telephone number is 571-272-9594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday between 6:00 AM and 4:00 PM Eastern.
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, Mamon Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-1813. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B TOKARCZYK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights