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 .
Priority
The instant application is a U.S. national stage application of PCT/JP2023/014007. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to Japanese patent document 2022-125521, filed 08/05/2022.
Preliminary Amendment
In the preliminary amendment filed 02/05/2025, the following has occurred: claims 1-13 have been amended. Now, claims 1-13 remain pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “dish information storage unit that stores,” “meal information storage unit that stores,” “nutritional balance determination unit that uses…information to extract,” “communication control unit that transmits,” “the nutritional balance determination unit grasps…and find…and prevent…thereby extracting,” in claim 1, “utilization information acquisition unit that acquires,” “meal information updating unit that updates,” in claim 2, “regional information storage unit that stores,” “location information acquisition unit that acquires,” “the communication control unit…communicates,” in claim 3, “the communication control unit receives…and transmits,” in claim 4, “the communication control unit receives…and transmits,” in claim 5, “the communication control unit transmits,” in claim 6, “the communication control unit transmits,” in claim 7, “regional information storage unit that stores,” “location information acquisition unit that acquires,” “the nutritional balance determination unit can extract,” “the communication control unit…transmits,” in claim 8, “dish information storage unit that stores,” “meal information storage unit that stores,” “nutritional balance determination unit that uses…information to extract,” “communication control unit that transmits,” “the nutritional balance determination unit obtains,” the nutritional balance determination unit sets…and uses…to extract,” in claim 11, ““dish information storage unit that stores,” “meal information storage unit that stores,” “nutritional balance determination unit that uses…information to extract,” “communication control unit that transmits,” “the nutritional balance determination unit grasps…and finds…and prevent…thereby extracting,” in claim 12, “the communication control unit…automatically orders…and sends the automatically ordered order,” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-10 and 12-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim limitation, recited in claims 1 and 12 “the nutritional balance determination unit grasps…and find…and prevent excessive intake of certain nutrients” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraphs 0056 and 0059 describe the nutritional balance determination unit 40, understood to be a computer processor or it’s equivalent, can “prevent excessive intake of certain nutrients.” However, there is not algorithm or formula or further explanation of how this unit performs an operation to “prevent excessive intake of certain nutrients.” Therefore, the originally filed written description fails to adequately describe the corresponding structure to carry out this recited function.
Claims 2-10 and 13 are rejected based on their dependencies on claim 1.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitation “the user’s nutritional intake status.” While the claims include various recitations of “nutritional information,” there is no previous recitation of a “user’s nutritional intake status.” Therefore, these recitations lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claims.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 recite the limitation “the user’s information terminal.” There is no previous recitation in each of these claims to a “user’s information termina.” Therefore, these recitations lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claims.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitation “the nutrients the user is lacking.” There is no previous recitation in each of these claims of “nutrients the user is lacking.” Therefore, these recitations lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the addresses of the food service establishments.” There is no previous recitation of “addresses” of the food service establishments. Therefore, this recitation lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the scheduled consumption date and time of the recommended dishes.” There is no previous recitation of a “scheduled consumption date and time.” Therefore, this recitation lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 12 further recites the limitation “the user’s body information.” There is no previous recitation of a “user’s body information.” Therefore, this recitation lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim limitation, recited in claims 1 and 12, “the nutritional balance determination unit grasps…and find…and prevent excessive intake of certain nutrients” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraphs 0056 and 0059 describe the nutritional balance determination unit 40, understood to be a computer processor or it’s equivalent, can “prevent excessive intake of certain nutrients.” However, there is not algorithm or formula or further explanation of how this unit performs an operation to “prevent excessive intake of certain nutrients.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-10 and 13 are further rejected based on their dependencies on claim 1.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong One
Claims 1 recites stores dishes provided by food service establishments associated with dish nutritional information, which is information about the nutrition of the dishes; stores user meal information, which includes information about the nutrition of dishes that a predetermined user has consumed in the past or plans to consume in the future, associated with the date and time or period of consumption; uses the user meal information and the dish nutritional information to extract recommended dishes suitable for the user from the dishes stored from a nutritional standpoint; transmits information about the recommended dishes and the recommended food service establishments providing these dishes; wherein the user meal information includes information about the cumulative nutritional intake from multiple meals consumed by the user, and grasps the user's nutritional intake status from the user meal information and finds dishes that can supplement the nutrients the user is lacking and prevent excessive intake of certain nutrients from the dishes stored, thereby extracting the recommended dishes.
Claim 11 recites stores dishes provided by food service establishments associated with dish nutritional information, which is information about the nutrition of the dishes; stores user meal information, which includes information about the nutrition of dishes that a predetermined user has consumed in the past or plans to consume in the future, associated with the date and time or period of consumption; uses the user meal information and the dish nutritional information to extract recommended dishes suitable for the user from the dishes from a nutritional standpoint; transmits information about the recommended dishes and the recommended food service establishments providing these dishes; wherein the user meal information includes information about the cumulative nutritional intake from multiple meals consumed by the user, and obtains the scheduled consumption date and time of the recommended dishes, and sets a reference date and time different from the scheduled consumption date and time and uses the nutritional information of dishes consumed within a predetermined period to the reference date and time to extract the recommended dishes.
Claim 12 recites stores dishes provided by food service establishments associated with dish nutritional information, which is information about the nutrition of the dishes; stores user meal information, which includes information about the nutrition of dishes that a predetermined user has consumed in the past or plans to consume in the future, associated with the date and time or period of consumption; uses at least one of the user meal information and the user's body information and the dish nutritional information to extract recommended dishes suitable for the user from the dishes from a nutritional standpoint; transmits information about the recommended dishes and the recommended food service establishments providing these dishes, wherein the user meal information includes information about the cumulative nutritional intake from multiple meals consumed by the user, and grasps the user's nutritional intake status from the user meal information and/or the user's body information, and finds dishes that can supplement the nutrients the user is lacking and prevent excessive intake of certain nutrients from the dishes, thereby extracting the recommended dishes.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass managing interactions between people, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, the claims encompass obtaining information about restaurants, including nutrition information, obtaining information about user nutrition consumption, using this information to recommend dishes to the user by communicating that information with the user. In the case of claim 11, this may relate to a user’s schedule and in claim 12 supplementing and preventing certain nutrients. Such manual steps related to recommending food services and dishes encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 2-10 and 13 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea. For example, claims 2, 6-7, and 9-10 further expand on the information and recommendations regarding the dishes. Claims 3 and 8 further relies on location information recommend dishes and food services, similarly encompassing Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as explained above. Claims 4-5 and 13 further recite ordering and paying for dishes from food services. In addition to the above explanations, these claims further encompass fundamental economic practices, which is also a subcategory of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. As explained above, these manual steps encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas along with adding elements similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea, and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, along with insignificant, extra-solution data gathering activity.
Claims 1-13, directly or indirectly, recite the following additional elements at a high level of generality and merely utilized as tools to implement the abstract idea:
Claims 1 and 11-12:
A dish information storage unit.
A meal information storage unit.
A nutritional balance determination unit.
Claim 2:
A utilization information acquisition unit.
A meal information updating unit.
The meal information storage unit.
The dish information storage unit.
Claims 3 and 8:
A regional information storage unit.
A location information acquisition unit.
The nutritional balance determination unit.
The variously recited “units” invoke interpretation under 112(f). In light of the specification, these “units” encompass generic computer components. The written description discloses that the recited computer components encompass generic components including “the server device 12 has a communication control unit 50, storage units (dish information storage unit 22,meal information storage unit 32), and an arithmetic unit, among others, and functions as a general computer with these units” (see paragraph 0032). As set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1-13, directly or indirectly, recite the following additional elements at a high level of generality, involving no more that extra-solution data gathering and transmitting activity:
Claims 1 and 11-12:
A communication control unit that transmits information… to the user's information terminal.
Claim 3:
The communication control unit…communicates the geographical information.
Claim 4:
The communication control unit receives order information…from the user’s information terminal and transmits the order information.
Claim 5:
The communication control unit receives payment information…and transmits the payment information.
Claims 6 and 7:
The communication control unit transmits information…to the user’s information terminal.
Claim 8:
The communication control unit…transmits the geographical information.
Claim 13:
The communication control unit…sends…information.
These additional elements are recited at a high degree of generality and are merely involved in insignificant extra solution data gathering and transmitting of data over a generic computer network. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant, extra-solution activity, such as insignificant acquisition and data transmission, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”).
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity (e.g. transmitting and receiving data over a computer network) has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Storing and retrieving information in memory has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of a general-purpose computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
Additionally, the aforementioned additional elements, considered in combination, do not provide an improvement to a technical field or provide a technical improvement to a technical problem. These additional elements merely carry out the abstract idea through data collection, data processing, data communication, and data storage. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Mimassi, US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0198586.
As per claim 1, Mimassi teaches An information provision system for food service establishments comprising: A dish information storage unit that stores dishes provided by food service establishments associated with dish nutritional information, which is information about the nutrition of the dishes (see paragraphs 0052 and 0054; restaurant portal and databases store information about dishes provided by the restaurants including nutrient information, such as calorie counts nad ingredients); A meal information storage unit that stores user meal information, which includes information about the nutrition of dishes that a predetermined user has consumed in the past or plans to consume in the future, associated with the date and time or period of consumption (see paragraphs 0052 and 0054 patron portal and databases store information about patron food of the patron, including types of food previously eaten from transaction history of the patron); A nutritional balance determination unit that uses the user meal information and the dish nutritional information to extract recommended dishes suitable for the user from the dishes stored in the dish information storage unit from a nutritional standpoint (see paragraph 0055; culinary fulfilment engine extracts the above referenced data to recommend food options available at identified restaurants); and A communication control unit that transmits information about the recommended dishes and the recommended food service establishments providing these dishes to the user's information terminal (see paragraph 0055; identified restaurants and corresponding food options are presented to the patron on their mobile device); wherein the user meal information includes information about the cumulative nutritional intake from multiple meals consumed by the user (see paragraph 0091; patron food types, food attributes, diet restrictions, heath goals is stored in a historical database for future use), and the nutritional balance determination unit grasps the user's nutritional intake status from the user meal information and finds dishes that can supplement the nutrients the user is lacking and prevent excessive intake of certain nutrients from the dishes stored in the dish information storage unit, thereby extracting the recommended dishes (see paragraph 0091; patron historical data is analyzed in performing the recommendations of specific food items and recommended restaurants; Additionally, as can be seen from Figures 12-13, the above data along with patron health data is used to provide food and restaurant recommendations, optimized to support patron nutrient intake and provide recipe and restaurant recommendations).
As per claim 2, Mimassi teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Mimassi further teaches a utilization information acquisition unit that acquires utilization information, which indicates that the dishes stored in the dish information storage unit have been consumed by the user in the past or are scheduled to be consumed by the user in the future (see paragraph 0091; patron food types, food attributes, diet restrictions, heath goals is stored in a historical database for future use); and a meal information updating unit that updates the user meal information stored in the meal information storage unit based on the utilization information and the dish nutrition information from the dish information storage unit (see paragraph 0064; patron’s culinary transactions are updated based on patron’s experience and other data from recommended restaurants and food; paragraph 0097 further describes updating patron profile based on generated recipes).
As per claim 3, Mimassi teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Mimassi further teaches a regional information storage unit that stores geographical information, including the addresses of the food service establishments and information about their surrounding geography (see paragraphs 0054 and 0091; restaurant information includes information about name and location; restaurant details includes address); and a location information acquisition unit that acquires the location information of the user's information terminal (see paragraph 0055; patron location from the location of the mobile device, such as GPS); wherein the communication control unit, when at least one of the food service establishments within a specified range from the information terminal is identified as the recommended food service establishments (see paragraph 0055; recommendations are made based on being along the route of the patron), communicates the geographical information of the recommended food service establishments within the specified range to the user's information terminal, distinguishing it from the geographical information of food service establishments within the specified range that are not identified as recommended food service establishments (see paragraph 0102; output of the food and restaurant recommendation, including name and location of restaurant, sent to patron mobile device).
As per claim 4, Mimassi teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Mimassi further teaches the communication control unit receives order information indicating the user's intention to order the recommended dishes from the user's information terminal and transmits the order information to the recommended food service establishments providing the recommended dishes (see paragraph 0056; culinary fulfillment server contacts the restaurant through restaurant portal to enter patron’s order into the restaurant’s computer).
As per claim 6, Mimassi teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Mimassi further teaches the communication control unit transmits information about the recommended dishes and the recommended food service establishments along with information about the reasons for recommending the recommended dishes from a nutritional standpoint to the user's information terminal (see paragraph 0102; sends to patron’s mobile device, recommended restaurant name and location, target food item recommendation prepared according to patron’s preferences).
As per claim 7, Mimassi teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Mimassi further teaches the communication control unit transmits information about the recommended dishes and the recommended food service establishments along with information about an index indicating the degree to which the recommended dishes are suitable for the user from a nutritional standpoint to the user's information terminal (see paragraph 0102; sends to patron’s mobile device, recommended restaurant name and location, target food item recommendation prepared according to patron’s preferences; paragraph 0070; bidirectional data communication between the devise provides a variety of data accessible to the patron, including a ranking of particular food relative to other foods. Additionally, any differences in communicated data only represents non-functional descriptive material, which does not distinguish the claim from the prior art).
As per claim 8, Mimassi teaches the system of claim 7 as described above. Mimassi further teaches A regional information storage unit that stores geographical information about the address and surrounding geography of food service establishments (see paragraphs 0054 and 0091; restaurant information includes information about name and location; restaurant details includes address); and a location information acquisition unit that acquires location information of the user's information terminal (see paragraph 0055; patron location from the location of the mobile device, such as GPS), wherein the nutritional balance determination unit can extract multiple recommended dishes and recommended food service establishments, and the communication control unit, if multiple recommended food service establishments are extracted within a predetermined range from the user's information terminal, transmits the geographical information of the recommended food service establishments with the highest index among them, distinguishing it from the geographical information of other recommended food service establishments (see paragraph 0102; output of the food and restaurant recommendation, including name and location of restaurant, sent to patron mobile device; paragraph 0070; bidirectional data communication between the devise provides a variety of data accessible to the patron, including a ranking of particular food relative to other foods).
As per claim 10, Mimassi teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Mimassi further teaches the user meal information includes information about the calories of dishes that the user has consumed in the past or plans to consume in the future (see paragraph 070; patron may provide calorie information).
As per claim 11, Mimassi teaches an information provision system for food service establishments comprising: A dish information storage unit that stores dishes provided by food service establishments associated with dish nutritional information, which is information about the nutrition of the dishes (see paragraphs 0052 and 0054; restaurant portal and databases store information about dishes provided by the restaurants including nutrient information, such as calorie counts nad ingredients); A meal information storage unit that stores user meal information, which includes information about the nutrition of dishes that a predetermined user has consumed in the past or plans to consume in the future, associated with the date and time or period of consumption (see paragraphs 0052 and 0054 patron portal and databases store information about patron food of the patron, including types of food previously eaten from transaction history of the patron); A nutritional balance determination unit that uses the user meal information and the dish nutritional information to extract recommended dishes suitable for the user from the dishes stored in the dish information storage unit from a nutritional standpoint (see paragraph 0055; culinary fulfilment engine extracts the above referenced data to recommend food options available at identified restaurants); and a communication control unit that transmits information about the recommended dishes and the recommended food service establishments providing these dishes to the user's information terminal (see paragraph 0055; identified restaurants and corresponding food options are presented to the patron on their mobile device), wherein the user meal information includes information about the cumulative nutritional intake from multiple meals consumed by the user (see paragraph 0091; patron food types, food attributes, diet restrictions, heath goals is stored in a historical database for future use), and the nutritional balance determination unit obtains the scheduled consumption date and time of the recommended dishes, and the nutritional balance determination unit sets a reference date and time different from the scheduled consumption date and time and uses the nutritional information of dishes consumed within a predetermined period to the reference date and time to extract the recommended dishes (see paragraph 0057; fulfilment engine provides information to schedule the recommended restaurant food preparation and may adjust the schedule preparation time based on a predetermined period related to busy periods of the restaurant to extract the recommended dishes).
As per claim 12, Mimassi teaches An information provision system for food service establishments comprising: A dish information storage unit that stores dishes provided by food service establishments associated with dish nutritional information, which is information about the nutrition of the dishes (see paragraphs 0052 and 0054; restaurant portal and databases store information about dishes provided by the restaurants including nutrient information, such as calorie counts nad ingredients); A meal information storage unit that stores user meal information, which includes information about the nutrition of dishes that a predetermined user has consumed in the past or plans to consume in the future, associated with the date and time or period of consumption (see paragraphs 0052 and 0054 patron portal and databases store information about patron food of the patron, including types of food previously eaten from transaction history of the patron); A nutritional balance determination unit that uses at least one of the user meal information and the user’s body information and the dish nutritional information to extract recommended dishes suitable for the user from the dishes stored in the dish information storage unit from a nutritional standpoint (see paragraph 0055; culinary fulfilment engine extracts the above referenced data to recommend food options available at identified restaurants); and A communication control unit that transmits information about the recommended dishes and the recommended food service establishments providing these dishes to the user's information terminal (see paragraph 0055; identified restaurants and corresponding food options are presented to the patron on their mobile device); wherein the user meal information includes information about the cumulative nutritional intake from multiple meals consumed by the user (see paragraph 0091; patron food types, food attributes, diet restrictions, heath goals is stored in a historical database for future use), and the nutritional balance determination unit grasps the user's nutritional intake status from the user meal information and/or the user’s body information, and finds dishes that can supplement the nutrients the user is lacking and prevent excessive intake of certain nutrients from the dishes stored in the dish information storage unit, thereby extracting the recommended dishes (see paragraph 0091; patron historical data is analyzed in performing the recommendations of specific food items and recommended restaurants; Additionally, as can be seen from Figures 12-13, the above data along with patron health data is used to provide food and restaurant recommendations, optimized to support patron nutrient intake and provide recipe and restaurant recommendations).
As per claim 13, Mimassi teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Mimassi further teaches the communication control unit based on the user's preset settings, automatically orders the recommended dishes extracted by the nutritional balance determination unit and sends the automatically ordered order information to the recommended food service establishments providing the recommended dishes (see paragraph 0056; culinary fulfillment server contacts the restaurant through restaurant portal to enter patron’s order into the restaurant’s computer).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimassi, US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0198586 in view of Brown, US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0003647.
As per claim 5, Mimassi teaches the system of claim 4 as described above. Mimassi does not explicitly teach the communication control unit receives payment information indicating the user's intention to settle the order along with the order information and transmits the payment information to a predetermined payment institution. Brown teaches communication control unit receives payment information indicating the user's intention to settle the order along with the order information and transmits the payment information to a predetermined payment institution (see paragraphs 0097 and 0100; providing a user with meal suggestions from suggested food vendors and receiving an order and making an electronic payment for the order). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to process payments for the order placed in Mimassi with the motivation of further facilitating obtaining food that is suggested to a user as is the case in Mimassi (see paragraph 0009 of Brown).
As per claim 9, Mimassi teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Mimassi further teaches the user meal information includes information about alcohol that the user has consumed in the past or plans to consume in the future. Brown teaches ser meal information includes information about alcohol that the user has consumed in the past or plans to consume in the future (see paragraph 0064; client constraints on alcohol consumption reflects a plan to consume in the future). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include alcohol consumption information in the recommendation system of Mimassi with the motivation of helping the user to control dietary habits that they wish to change (see paragraph 0007 of Brown).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pauley, US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0104173, discloses providing a variety of user recommendations related to food intake.
Kondo, International Publication No. WO 2015/001595 A1, Discloses providing meal recommendations to a user to maintain nutritional balance.
Kong, Korean Publication No. KR 20200073439 A, discloses providing customized food orders for a user based on nutritional information for the user.
Gorre, US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0314804, discloses providing a food item plan to a user based on user nutritional and health information.
Goenka et al., Method and System for Providing Food Recommendations Based on Grocery and Restaurant Purchases, discloses a user mobile phone app for providing food recommendations based on previous food purchases.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. Luke Gilligan whose telephone number is (571)272-6770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. 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.
C. Luke Gilligan
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3683
/CHRISTOPHER L GILLIGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights