Appl. No. 17/467,517
`
`Attorney Docket No. P64308
`
`Statement of Substance of Interview
`
`REMARKS
`
`Applicant notes with appreciation the courtesies extended to applicant’s representative
`
`Selene Haedi in the interview on 3/6/2024. Applicant’s representative expresses appreciation to
`
`the examinerfor the discussion and insights regarding the §101 issue.
`
`Claim status
`
`Claims 1-34 are pending in the present application.
`
`Claims 1 has been amended. Support for the amendments can be foundin specification
`
`paragraphs[0071]-[0080], [0085]-[0095], [0104]-[0117], [0119]-[0129], [0148]-[0152], [0198],
`
`and [0250]-[0398].
`
`The herein-contained amendments are not an acquiescence in the propriety of the
`
`outstanding rejections. Instead, the claims are amended to moreclearly and specifically set forth
`
`features of the present application in a sincere effort to advance prosecution. In this regard,it is
`
`submitted that the amendments contain no prohibited new matter.
`
`Applicant addresses the pending rejections below and respectfully requests
`
`reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections in the next Official communication. Such action
`
`is respectfully requested and submitted to be appropriate for at least the reasons provided below.
`
`Response to examiner’s arguments
`
`The arguments presented by the examiner regarding the §101 arguments have been
`
`reviewed. Applicant respectfully traverses these arguments in light of the amended claim
`
`features and claims and remarksgiven below regarding the §101 rejections.
`
`{P64308 06110903. DOCX}
`17
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 17/467,517
`
`Attorney Docket No. P64308
`
`The examineralso cites Nasserbakht et al. regarding step 2B as allegedly teaching the
`
`claim features because Nasserbakhtet al. teaches “time-based and event-based storage”,
`
`sequential aspect, and distributed memory. The examinerstates that Nasserbakhtet al. allegedly
`
`supports the examiner’s argument of well-understood, routine, and conventionalactivities
`
`(WURC). Applicant respectfully disagrees.
`
`Applicantfirstly notes that Nasserbakhtet al. does not teach the secure management of
`
`biological information comprising dietary information as recited in the claim features. Although
`
`Nasserbakhtet al. mentions biological, this is with regards to biological checks and identification
`
`related to accessing the user device, e.g.
`
`to monitor cases “where the authorized user is under
`
`duress and is forced to provide the biological identification against his consent” (Nasserbakhtet
`
`al. col. 32, lines 52-67). As such, this is a distinction from the present claim features, wherein the
`
`user biological information comprising dietary information are the private data that is being
`
`securely managed via the sequential fragmentation, encryption, and storage of the encrypted
`
`fragments across distributed storage devices, with decryption of just a fragment with the
`
`requested biological information from the stored encrypted fragments. That is, contrary to the
`
`examiner’s arguments, Nasserbakht et al. teaches a wholly different process with an entirely
`
`different application than the present claimsfeatures.
`
`Regarding the sequential data storage issue, the citation given by the examiner of
`
`Nasserbakhtet al. at col. 18, lines 42-52 merely states that “[a]s new pieces of information are
`
`received or generated, they are written sequentially in memory”, it does not describe the type of
`
`new information being received or generated and doesnot describe any fragmenting, encrypting
`
`of the fragments, storing of the encrypted fragments across distributed storage devices, and
`
`decrypting ofjust a fragment with the requested biological information from the stored encrypted
`
`{P64308 06110903. DOCX}
`18
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 17/467,517
`
`Attorney Docket No. P64308
`
`fragments as recited in the claim features. Additionally, the sequential in memory stated in
`
`Nasserbakhtet al. at that citation differs from the sequential process being recited in the claim
`
`features, notably that the biological information is sequentially fragmented based on timeseries
`
`association between time whenthe biological information is measured and the identification
`
`information of the user. Nasserbakhtet al. does not teach this claim feature and instead, describes
`
`that the sequential aspect is based on time as determined by the user (Nasserbakhtetal. col. 18,
`
`lines 42-44). Furthermore, the citation does not describe the storing of the encrypted fragments
`
`across distributed storage devices as recited in applicant’s claim features. Rather, the citation at
`
`Nasserbakhtet al. simply states that the new info is written sequentially in memory,i.e., one
`
`memory rather than being distributed across storage devices as recited in applicant’s claim
`
`features. Thus, the sequential aspect with the related memory storage in Nasserbakht etal. is
`
`markedly different than the sequential process and storing of the encrypted fragments across
`
`distributed storage devices, among other claim features as recited in applicant’s claim features.
`
`Therefore, Nasserbakhtet al. does not teach applicant’s claim features and does not support the
`
`examiner’s arguments.
`
`Additionally, applicant notes that the distributed memory cited by the examinerat
`
`Nasserbakhtet al. col. 5, lines 30-34 states that: “The mobile device has user-customizable
`
`functionality according to a user’s needs and/or desires. The mobile device may be in the form
`
`of a multi-function mobile electronic system with distributed memory and processing elements.”
`
`Thatis, the citation is describing a distributed memory associated with only the user mobile
`
`device. In contrast, applicant’s claim features are describing distributed storage devices
`
`associated with a first server that securely managesthe biological information, which is wholly
`
`different and separate from the informational terminal of the user (e.g., user mobile device).
`
`{P64308 06110903. DOCX}
`19
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 17/467,517
`
`Attorney Docket No. P64308
`
`Thus, the distribute memory in Nasserbakhtet al. does not teach the distributed storage devices
`
`associated with a first server as recited in applicant’s claim features.
`
`Applicant reiterates the above arguments for the various other citations and regarding the
`
`“time-based and event-based storage”citation as cited by the examiner at Nasserbakhtet al. col.
`
`5, line 66 to col. 6, line 20. The citation merely describes a “time-based information system
`
`(TIBIS)” for use “in a mobile device”. Thatis, the system is essentially only within the mobile
`
`device. In contrast, applicant’s claim features recite a cyber-physical infrastructure with a health
`
`management system comprising a first server, an informational terminal, and a secondserver,
`
`wherein the various operations occur within different elements suchasthe first server, the
`
`informational terminal, and the second server. In contrast, Nasserbakhtet al. is describing just a
`
`singular aspect, namely a mobile device of the user. This is markedly different from applicant’s
`
`claim features. Therefore, Nasserbakhtet al. does not teach applicant’s claim features and does
`
`not support the examiner’s arguments.
`
`Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Nasserbakhtet al. does not teach applicant’s
`
`claim features and does not support the examiner’s arguments of WURC. Applicant’s claim
`
`features describe particular and specific steps, as explained above, that are not WURC. Instead,
`
`applicant’s claim features are indicative of being significantly more than the judicial exception.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
`
`The examiner rejected claims 1-34 under §101 for allegedly being directed to a judicial
`
`exception without significantly more.
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses these groundsofrejection at least in view of the claim
`
`amendments and remarks.
`
`{P64308 06110903.DOCX}
`20
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 17/467,517
`
`Attorney Docket No. P64308
`
`Independent claim 1 has been amendedto include further clarifying details regarding a
`
`cyber-physical infrastructure with the health management system comprising an informational
`
`terminal, a first server, and a server; technical operational steps enabling secure managementof
`
`private user data information comprising fragmenting, encrypting, and decrypting of the private
`
`user data information, such as biological information and dietary information, along with user
`
`identification information and user access authorization; and generation of a dynamic menu
`
`arrangement based the dietary information of the user that is decrypted.
`
`Furthermore, the claim features provide additional details related to the secure
`
`managementofthe private user data wherein the private user data remains fragmented,
`
`encrypted, and stored across distributed storage devices, wherein just the fragment with the
`
`private user data being requested would be accessed for decryption andutilized in generating the
`
`dynamic menu arrangement. For instance, the claim features also describe further details
`
`regarding the secure managementofthe biological information by sequential fragmentation of
`
`the biological information based on time series association, encryption of the fragments, storing
`
`of the encrypted fragments across distributed storage devices, and decryption of a fragment with
`
`requested biological information from the stored encrypted fragments.
`
`Assuch, applicant submits that the amendedclaim features and the previous claim
`
`features enable an integration into a practical application and additionally, the various claims
`
`features when read as a whole represents significantly more than the judicial exception.
`
`While applicant makes no acquiescence as to the propriety of the examiner's rejections,
`
`applicant has amendedthe independentclaims to provide furtherclarification regarding a
`
`technological improvement in a goodfaith effort to provide further clarification to the claims as
`
`will be further described below.
`
`{P64308 06110903. DOCX}
`21
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 17/467,517
`
`Attorney Docket No. P64308
`
`Presently, restaurant menus presented to users are static menus, wherein a standard menu
`
`is presented to all users. In contrast, the menu generated by the claim features is a dynamic menu
`
`that is tailored specifically to each user based on a personal metric, specifically a dietary
`
`information of the user. That is, the claim features in the independent claims have been amended
`
`to recite further clarifying details on the generation of the dynamic menuin a cyber-physical
`
`system that integrates cyberspace (e.g., private user data information such as biological
`
`information and dietary information of a user, menu information data, etc.) and real physical
`
`space (e.g., restaurants), see e.g. specification [0092]-[0096].
`
`The generation of the dynamic menuis a multi-step process as recited in the claim
`
`features as part of the health managementsystem in the cyber-physical system. As an example,
`
`an initial step of the process involves secure managementofthe private user data information by
`
`the first server, wherein the private user data information comprises biological information and
`
`dietary information of the user and corresponds to identification information of the user, thus
`
`associating the private user data information with the user’s identification information. The user
`
`private data information is securely managed by fragmenting the private data information into
`
`fragments, encrypting the fragments, and storing the encrypted fragments until a request is made
`
`with a user identifier and user authorization permitting access to the encrypted fragments.
`
`Notably, upon such a request, only encrypted fragments related to the request would be
`
`accessible for decryption and utilization. That is, the secure managementof the private user data
`
`information by the first server prevents accessto all of the user’s private data information,i.e.,
`
`all the encrypted fragments comprising the user’s private data information. Consequently, the
`
`secure managementenables accessto just the encrypted fragment with the private data user
`
`information being requested, e.g., a particular biological information such as the latest biological
`
`{P64308 06110903. DOCX}
`22
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 17/467,517
`
`Attorney Docket No. P64308
`
`information and the dietary information of the user. See e.g., specification [0376]-[0377]. Thus,
`
`ensuring high level of security for the private user data information and preventing leakage of the
`
`private user data information (see e.g., specification [0105]).
`
`Continuing with the process for generating the dynamic menu, the encrypted fragment
`
`with biological information and dietary information are decrypted andutilized in generating
`
`dynamic menu arrangement comprising personalized options of one or morefirst foods
`
`corresponding to the dietary information. The dynamic menu arrangement being generated
`
`corresponding to the biological information and dietary information of the user that is decrypted
`
`based on menuinformation as acquired based on a restaurant identifier and the biological
`
`information and the dietary information. See e.g., specification [0370]-[0371].
`
`Assuch, the claim features recite a technological improvementbecause the claim features
`
`describe improvementsrelated to secure managementof private user data by fragmenting and
`
`encrypting the private user data information thatis stored until a request 1s made with a user
`
`identifier and user authorization permitting access to the encrypted fragments, wherein only the
`
`encrypted fragments related to the request would be accessible for decryption andutilization.
`
`That is, the claim features provide a technological improvement by ensuring a high level of
`
`security for the private user data information and preventing leakage of the private user data
`
`information via the secure managementof private user data information (see e.g., specification
`
`[0105]) such that the claim features are integrated into a practical application understep 2, prong
`
`2 in the streamline analysis, leading to pathway B and the independentclaim havingeligible
`
`subject matter under §101 (see MPEP 2106.04).
`
`The claim features also recite additional technological improvements byreciting
`
`particular programming/software process steps for generating dynamic menu arrangement based
`
`{P64308 06110903. DOCX}
`23
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 17/467,517
`
`Attorney Docket No. P64308
`
`on the decrypted the biological information and the dietary information of the user along with the
`
`particular programming/software processsteps related to the sequential encryption based on time
`
`series association between time whenthe biological information is measured and the
`
`identification information of the user, fragmentation of the encrypted biological information and
`
`dietary information, and decryption of the biological information and dietary information of the
`
`user as part of generating the dynamic menu.
`
`That is, the claim features are reciting a particular way of programming or designing
`
`software for generating dynamic menus. MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) specifically states that “[a]
`
`particular way of programmingor designing software to create menus”is indicative of showing
`
`an improvement in computer-functionality. Therefore, the particular way of programming or
`
`designing software for generating dynamic menusasrecited in the claim features denotes an
`
`improvement in computer-functionality per MPEP 2106.05(a)(1) such that the claims are
`
`integrated into a practical application under step 2, prong 2 in the streamline analysis, leading to
`
`pathwayBand the independent claims having eligible subject matter under §101 (see MPEP
`
`2106.04).
`
`Furthermore, it is also noted that the process described by the claim features also
`
`represents an improvementto the technical field because it describes a generation of dynamic
`
`menusbased on private user data information such as biological information and dietary
`
`information in contrast to the current status quo of standard static menus.
`
`Assuch, the claim features recited in the independentclaims are integrated into a
`
`practical application under step 2A, prong 2 in the streamline analysis, leading to pathway B and
`
`the independent claims havingeligible subject matter under §101 (see MPEP 2106.04) for the
`
`{P64308 06110903. DOCX}
`24
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 17/467,517
`
`Attorney Docket No. P64308
`
`reasons stated above. Since the independent claims are eligible under §101, the dependent claims
`
`are also eligible under §101 by virtue of their dependency from the independentclaims.
`
`Therefore, as explained above, applicant submits that the claims are eligible under step
`
`2A, prong 2 via integration into a practical application and thus, consideration under step 2B is
`
`not needed. However, applicant would also like to additionally note that the claim features are
`
`also significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05). For instance, the claims
`
`recite meaningful claim features regarding the dynamic menu generation and secure management
`
`of private user data information such as biological information and dietary information of the
`
`user, with the claim features being described in further detail above, enabling such claim features
`
`and claims to be significantly more than the judicial exception.
`
`Applicant would also like to address the citation of Nasserbakhtet al. in relation to step
`
`2B, wherein the examinerstated that Nasserbakhtet al. allegedly teaches that the previous claim
`
`feature are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (WURC). Applicant respectfully
`
`disagrees and reiterate the explanations and arguments given above in the “Response to
`
`examiner’s arguments” section, which explains why Nasserbakhtet al. does not teach applicant’s
`
`claim features and does not support the examiner’s arguments. Thus, applicant’s claim features
`
`are not WURC. Rather, applicant’s claim features are significantly more than the judicial
`
`exception.
`
`Therefore, while consideration under step 2B is not needed because the amendedclaim
`
`features and claims recite technological improvements understep 2A, prong 2, it can be seen
`
`from the explanation above that the claim features and claim also recite features that are
`
`significantly more than the judicial exception as well.
`
`{P64308 06110903. DOCX}
`25
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 17/467,517
`
`Attorney Docket No. P64308
`
`Applicant again reiterates though that the amended claim features and claim recite a
`
`technological improvement, enabling the claims to be eligible under pathway B and having
`
`eligible subject matter under §101. Since the independent claims are eligible under §101, then
`
`the dependent claims are also eligible by virtue of their dependency.
`
`Accordingly, for the various reasons explained above, applicant respectfully requests
`
`reconsideration and withdrawal of the §101 rejections against the independent claims andtheir
`
`respective dependent claims and the allowance ofthese claims.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`In view of the fact that none of the art of record, whether considered alone, or in any
`
`proper combination thereof, discloses or renders obvious the pending claims of the present
`
`application, and in further view of the above amendments and remarks, reconsideration of the
`
`examiner's action and allowance of the present application are respectfully requested and
`
`submitted to be appropriate.
`
`Applicant notes that this amendmentis being made to advance prosecution ofthe
`
`application to allowance and should not be considered as surrendering equivalents of the territory
`
`between the claims prior to the present amendmentand the amendedclaims. Further, no
`
`acquiescenceas to the propriety of the examiner's rejection is made by the present amendment.
`
`All amendments to the claims which have been made in this amendment, and which have not
`
`been specifically noted to overcomea rejection based upontheprior art, should be considered to
`
`have been made for a purpose unrelated to patentability, and no estoppel should be deemedto
`
`attach thereto.
`
`{P64308 06110903. DOCX}
`26
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 17/467,517
`
`Attorney Docket No. P64308
`
`Applicant requests that the examiner contact the undersigned should the examiner
`
`have any suggestions for advancing prosecution.
`
`Should an extension of time be necessary to maintain the pendency ofthis application,
`
`including any extensions of time required to place the application in condition for allowance by
`
`an examiner's amendment, the Commissioneris hereby authorized to charge any additional fee to
`
`Deposit Account No. 19-0089.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/James P. Bonnamy/
`Reg. No. 63,649
`James P. Bonnamy
`
`Bruce H. Bernstein
`Reg. No. 29027
`
`April 2, 2024
`GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN,P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, VA 20191
`(703) 716-1191
`
`{P64308 06110903. DOCX}
`27
`
`