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 .
A preliminary amendment has been received on 05/25/2025. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
This application makes reference to or appears to claim subject matter disclosed in Application No. PCT/CN2022/120500, filed 09/22/2022. If applicant desires to claim the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), the instant application must contain, or be amended to contain, a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS) in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.
If the instant application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. If the application is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c). A benefit claim filed after the required time period may be accepted if it is accompanied by a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (see 37 CFR 1.78(c)) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (see 37 CFR 1.78(e)). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and by 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted), (2) the applicable petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2), and (3) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2) are not required. Applicant is still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 by filing an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the reference (or, if the application was filed before September 16, 2012, by filing either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76). See MPEP § 211.02.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites “The method of claim 10, wherein the gene/DNA information of rs1801133 comprises types of GG, AG and AA, and folate needs for different types are GG>AG>AA.”. Examiner considers that there is a typographical error and the claim should recite “The method of claim 9, wherein the gene/DNA information of rs1801133 comprises types of GG, AG and AA, and folate needs for different types are GG>AG>AA.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 12, the claim fails to recite that “the storage medium storing computer instructions” is non-transitory. As such, the claim may be reasonably interpreted as being drawn to a signal, which is non-statutory subject matter.
The rejection may be overcomed by amending independent claim 12 to recite "A non- transitory storage medium...".
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 11, 13-20 are drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claim 12 is drawn to a storage medium storing computer instructions (see the rejection above).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1, 11 and 12 recite:
“determining a first element in the first meal plan to be replaced and a first nutritional vector of the first element,
obtaining a candidate set of elements,
obtaining candidate nutritional vectors for some or all the candidate elements in the candidate set,
determining each similarity score based on each obtained candidate nutritional vector and the first nutritional vector,
obtaining a second meal plan based on a second element which has a highest similarly score,
wherein the first element in the first meal plan is replaced by the second element to form the second meal plan”.
These limitations correspond to an abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity”. This is a method of managing interactions between people, such as user following rules and instructions. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor and generic network devices does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites “…the first meal plan and/or the first element is determined according to a user input, or the first meal plan and/or the first element is determined according to at least one predetermined condition”, which also corresponds to a method of managing interactions between people, such as user following rules and instructions. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity”.
Claims 6 and 17 recite “…the similarity score between two elements is calculated based on the below equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
42
254
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, A and B are the nutritional vectors of the two elements respectively, A is <A1, A2, ...An>, B is <B1, B2, ... B~>, and S is the similarity score.”.
These claim limitations correspond to mathematical calculations, therefore these limitations fall within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 2-10 and 13-20 are ultimately dependent from claims 1, 11 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 11. Therefore, claims 2-10 and 13-20 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2-10 and 13-20 describe a further limitation regarding the basis for determining meal plans. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claims 1, 11, without adding significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims recite the additional elements of “an electronic device”-claim 1, “displaying a number of meal plans and/or receiving an input from a user to select the first meal plan from the displayed meal plans”-claim 2, “the first meal plan and/or the first element is determined according to a user input”-claims 4/15, “an apparatus comprising at least one processor,…the at least one processor is configured to perform the steps of determining…, obtaining…, determining…”-claim 11, “a storage medium storing computer instructions, where the instructions are configured to control at least one processor to perform the steps of determining…, obtaining…, determining…”-claim 12, “…the processor is further configured to perform the step of displaying a number of meal plans and/or receiving an input from a user to select the first meal plan from the displayed meal plans”-claim 13, which are hardware and software elements, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular field or technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the obtaining and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bennett (US 2019/0221303 A1).
Claim 1 recites a method, performed by an electronic device, for suggesting meal plans, comprising,
determining a first element in the first meal plan to be replaced and a first nutritional vector of the first element (Bennett discloses “…generating, based on the responses, a recommended meal plan by modifying a candidate nutrient template selected from the plurality of nutrient templates, wherein the modifying is based on a subset of the previously consumed meals,…” in [0023], “a nutrient template includes multiple target nutritional profiles , each of which may be a variant or a modification of a first target nutritional profile… . The nutrient template corresponding to the first target nutritional profile may further include variants of that first profile that are specifically tailored for people with different demographics…” in [0048]),
obtaining a candidate set of elements (Bennett discloses “…generating, based on the responses, a recommended meal plan by modifying a candidate nutrient template selected from the plurality of nutrient templates, wherein the modifying is based on a subset of the previously consumed meals,…” in [0023]),
obtaining candidate nutritional vectors for some or all the candidate elements in the candidate set (Bennett discloses “…generating, based on the responses, a recommended meal plan by modifying a candidate nutrient template selected from the plurality of nutrient templates, wherein the modifying is based on a subset of the previously consumed meals,…” in [0023]),
determining each similarity score based on each obtained candidate nutritional vector and the first nutritional vector (Bennett discloses “…the computerized system 100 can be used to modulate a person's diet to improve an efficacy of a medical treatment for the person, according to an illustrative implementation. Additionally, or alternatively, the system 100 may be used to provide an aggregate indicator of a person's overall health, using the person's biomarker levels. The aggregate indicator may a single indicator (e.g., a number or a grade) that provides an indication of an alignment between the person's biomarker levels and a target biomarker profile…” in [0042]),
obtaining a second meal plan based on a second element which has a highest similarly score (Bennett discloses “…the computerized system 100 can be used to modulate a person's diet to improve an efficacy of a medical treatment for the person, according to an illustrative implementation. Additionally, or alternatively, the system 100 may be used to provide an aggregate indicator of a person's overall health, using the person's biomarker levels. The aggregate indicator may a single indicator (e.g., a number or a grade) that provides an indication of an alignment between the person's biomarker levels and a target biomarker profile…” in [0042]),
wherein the first element in the first meal plan is replaced by the second element to form the second meal plan (Bennett; [0069]).
Claim 2 recites the method of claim 1, further comprises, displaying a number of meal plans and/or receiving an input from a user to select the first meal plan from the displayed meal plans (Bennett; [0015]).
Claim 3 has been amended to recite the method of claim 1, wherein more than one first element in the first meal plan is replaced by more than one second element respectively (Bennett; [0049]).
Claim 4 has been amended to recite the method of claim 1, wherein the first meal plan and/or the first element is determined according to a user input, or the first meal plan and/or the first element is determined according to at least one predetermined condition (Bennett; [0049]).
Claim 5 recites the method in claim 4, wherein the predetermined condition includes at least one of that if a same meal plan and/or element has been suggested in the last predetermined number of days, the same meal plan and/or element is determined as the first meal plan and/or element; if a meal plan and/or element includes ingredient that is not available, then they are determined as the first meal plan and/or element; and if a further user input is received which conflicts with a meal plan and/or element, then they are determined as the first meal plan and/or element, wherein the further user input includes updated diet information (Bennett; [0023]).
Claim 7 has been amended to recite the method of claim 1, wherein a nutritional vector of an element includes four values representing total energy, total protein, total fat, and total carbohydrate in that element, by weight or volume (Bennett; [0049]).
Claim 8 has been amended to recite the method of claim 1, wherein an element in a meal plan is 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 (Bennett; [0040]).
Claim 9 has been amended to recite the method of claim 1, 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 (Bennett; [0051], [0064]).
Claim 10 recites the method of claim 10, wherein the gene/DNA information of rs1801133 comprises types of GG, AG and AA, and folate needs for different types are GG>AG>AA. (Claim 9 recites the gene/DNA information is one of the information, therefore, the DNA information is an optional information type and the reference does not have to teach this option.)
Claim 11 has been amended to recite an apparatus comprising at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform the steps of:
determining a first element in the first meal plan to be replaced and a first nutritional vector of the first element (Bennett; [0023], [0048]),
obtaining a candidate set of elements (Bennett; [0023]),
obtaining candidate nutritional vectors for some or all the candidate elements in the candidate set (Bennett; [0023]),
determining each similarity score based on each obtained candidate nutritional vector and the first nutritional vector (Bennett; [0042]),
obtaining a second meal plan based on a second element which has a highest similarly score (Bennett; [0042]),
wherein the first element in the first meal plan is replaced by the second element to form the second meal plan (Bennett; [0069]).
Claim 12 has been amended to recite a storage medium storing computer instructions, where the instructions are configured to control at least one processor to perform the steps of:
determining a first element in the first meal plan to be replaced and a first nutritional vector of the first element (Bennett; [0023], [0048]),
obtaining a candidate set of elements (Bennett; [0023]),
obtaining candidate nutritional vectors for some or all the candidate elements in the candidate set (Bennett; [0023]),
determining each similarity score based on each obtained candidate nutritional vector and the first nutritional vector (Bennett; [0042]),
obtaining a second meal plan based on a second element which has a highest similarly score (Bennett; [0042]),
wherein the first element in the first meal plan is replaced by the second element to form the second meal plan (Bennett; [0069]).
Newly added 13 recites the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to perform the step of displaying a number of meal plans and/or receiving an input from a user to select the first meal plan from the displayed meal plans (Bennett; [0015]).
Newly added 14 recites the apparatus of claim 11, wherein more than one first element in the first meal plan is replaced by more than one second element respectively (Bennett; [0049]).
Newly added 15 recites the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the first meal plan and/or the first element is determined according to a user input, or the first meal plan and/or the first element is determined according to at least one predetermined condition (Bennett; [0049]).
Newly added 16 recites the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the predetermined condition includes at least one of that if a same meal plan and/or element has been suggested in the last predetermined number of days, the same meal plan and/or element is determined as the first meal plan and/or element; if a meal plan and/or element includes ingredient that is not available, then they are determined as the first meal plan, and/or element; and if a further user input is received which conflicts with a meal plan and/or element, then they are determined as the first meal plan and/or element, wherein the further user input includes updated diet information (Bennett; [0023]).
Newly added 18 recites the apparatus of claim 11, wherein a nutritional vector of an element includes four values representing total energy, total protein, total fat, and total carbohydrate in that element, by weight or volume (Bennett; [0049]).
Newly added 19 recites the apparatus of claim 11, wherein an element in a meal plan is 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 (Bennett; [0040]).
Newly added 20 recites the apparatus of claim 11, 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 (Bennett; [0051], [0064]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (US 2019/0221303 A1) in view of Zeng (CN 111209453 A).
Claim 6 has been amended to recite the method of claim 1, wherein the similarity score between two elements is calculated based on the below equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
66
397
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, A and B are the nutritional vectors of the two elements respectively, A is <A1, A2, ...An>, B is <B1, B2, ... B~>, and S is the similarity score.
Newly added 17 recites the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the similarity score between two elements is calculated based on the below equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
66
397
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, A and B are the nutritional vectors of the two elements respectively, A is <A1, A2, ...An>, B is <B1, B2, ... B~>, and S is the similarity score.
Bennett fails to expressly teach the limitations of claims 6 and 17. However, this feature is well known in the art, as evidenced by Zeng.
In particular, Zeng discloses “Step 613, recommending the menu according to the score of each dish in the menu recommendation list.
In this embodiment, the recipe recommendation method not only considers basic information (e.g., weather, geographical location, etc.) required for recommendation, but also considers screening information (e.g., whether birthday, religious belief, whether balanced diet nutrition is required, etc.) meeting the user's requirements, thereby not only meeting the general user requirements, but also meeting the individual requirements of the user, in addition, considering the existing food material information, the recommendation is carried out according to the existing food material information, the requirements of users can be better met, in addition, in order to avoid the recommendation of the same reason, the scores of historical recommended dishes are adjusted downwards, more diversified recipes can be recommended for the user, and in order to avoid similar dishes being recommended at the same time, before recommendation, the dishes with lower scores in the two dishes with high similarity are screened out through the calculation of the similarity, so that the recommended menu can better meet the requirements of users. In the embodiment, various factors are integrated to recommend the menu for the user, and the recommendation accuracy is greatly improved.” on page 12, lines 10-22.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the aforementioned limitation as disclosed by Zeng with the motivation of to satisfy the user individual need (Zeng; page 12, line 15).
Additionally, regarding claims 6 and 17, Zeng does not disclose calculating similarity score at any particular absolute rate. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have used the method of Zeng with any particular absolute consumption rate, since it has been held that merely discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In reBoesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILEK B COBANOGLU whose telephone number is (571)272-8295. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Obeid Mamon 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.
/DILEK B COBANOGLU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687