www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/467,517
`
`09/07/2021
`
`HIROSHI YAHATA
`
`P64308
`
`8853
`
`GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN,P.L.C.
`1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
`RESTON, VA 20191
`
`COBANOGLU,DILEK B
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3686
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/29/2023
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`gbpatent @ gbpatent.com
`greenblum.bernsteinplc @ gmail.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-32 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`Cj} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-32 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)___is/are objected to.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)1) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1... Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1) Certified copies of the priority documents have beenreceived in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 05/25/2023.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20230925
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`47/467,517
`YAHATAet al.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`DILEK B COBANOGLU
`3686
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 08/04/2023.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,517
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA 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.
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR
`
`1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued
`
`examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the
`
`finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's
`
`submission filed on 08/04/2023 has been entered.
`
`Claims 1-32 remain pending in this application.
`
`A Terminal Disclaimer has been received on 08/04/2023 and entered.
`
`The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph has been withdrawnin light of
`
`the amendments and remarks.
`
`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 requirementsofthis title.
`
`Claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial
`
`exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
`
`Step1:
`
`Claims 1-32 are drawn to a method whichis within the four statutory categories(i.e. process).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,517
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Step 2A, Prong 1:
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim 1 recites “estimating, based on the biological information of the user_and a corresponding
`
`measured timing data ..., a cumulative intake of a specific nutrient or calories taken in past one or more
`
`meals in a predetermined period...; generating information indicating a degree of dietary restriction
`
`depending on a progressof a disease of the user, using the cumulative intake of the specific nutrient or
`
`calories taken in the past one or more meals in the predetermined period; generating, based on the menu
`
`information and the information indicating the degree of dietary restriction the personalized menu for
`
`the user so as to meet the information indicating the degree of dietary restriction”.
`
`These limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity based on
`
`managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people based on determining and
`
`generating a personalized menu items for the user considering user’s dietary restriction and cumulative
`
`intake of the specific nutrient or calories taken in a predetermined period. These steps can be performed
`
`by a person considering rules or instructions on dietary restrictions and user’s cumulative food intake. The
`
`mere nominal recitation of a generic information terminal (user’s smartphone) and generic network does
`
`not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claim recites
`
`an abstract idea.
`
`The limitations of “generating information indicating a degree of dietary restriction depending on
`
`a progress of a disease of the user based on the biological information of the user and the cumulative
`
`intake of the nutrients or calories in a period of time; generating, based on the menu information and the
`
`information indicating the degree of dietary restriction a personalized menu for the user so as to meet
`
`the information indicating the degree of dietary restriction” also correspond to a mental process, since
`
`under their broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations cover performance of the limitations in
`
`the mind (or using pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly,
`
`the claim recites an abstract idea.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,517
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 4
`
`Dependent claims also recite an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity,
`
`such as:
`
`claim 4 recites “the reducing of the ingredient includes removing the ingredient such that an
`
`amountofthe ingredient is zero”,
`
`claim 5 recites “the personalized menu is generated from the menu information by excluding or
`
`graying out a dish including an ingredient specified by the information indicating the degree of dietary
`
`restriction as an ingredient to be avoided by the user”,
`
`claim 13 recites “the personalized menu is generated such that when a dish in the one or more
`
`dishes includes a greater amount of the specific nutrient than the maximum acceptable intake in the
`
`current meal, the dish is excluded or grayed out”,
`
`claim 14 recites “the personalized menu is generated such that when a dish included in the or
`
`more dishes contains a smaller amountof the specific nutrient than the target intake in the current meal,
`
`the dish is excluded or grayed out”,
`
`claim 15 recites “the personalized menu is generated such that when a dish included in the one
`
`or more dishes contains a greater amountof calories than the maximum acceptable intake of calories in
`
`the current meal, the dish is excluded or grayed out”,
`
`claim 16 recites “the personalized menu includes a dish obtained such that when a dish included
`
`in the one or more dishes contains a greater amountof the specific nutrient than the maximum acceptable
`
`intake in the current meal, the dish is added with an ingredient containing a neutralizing nutrient having
`
`an effect that intake of the neutralizing nutrient together with the specific nutrient neutralizes an adverse
`
`effect of the greater amountof specific nutrient than the maximum acceptable intake”.
`
`These claim limitations also correspond to an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing
`
`human activity (managing interactions between people for determining and generating a personalized
`
`menu for the user.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,517
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 5
`
`Claims 2, 6-12, 17-32 are ultimately dependent from Claim 1 and include all the limitations of
`
`Claim 1. Therefore, claims 2, 6-12, 17-32 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2, 6-12, 17-32 describe a
`
`further limitation regarding the basis for generating a personalized menu for a user. These are all just
`
`further describing the abstract idea recited in claim 1, without adding significantly more.
`
`Step 2A, Prong 2:
`
`This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite
`
`yo
`the additional elements of “first and second servers”,
`
`“an informational terminal (such as a smartphone
`
`yo
`ownedbythe user)”,
`
`“a network”, “outputting a request of acquisition of the menu information from a
`
`second server by the information terminal”, “acquiring identification information (of the user) from the
`
`information terminal”, “a biosensor that detects the biological
`
`information of the user”, which are
`
`hardware or 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)).
`
`This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
`
`In particular, the servers,
`
`information terminal (personal mobile device) and the networkare recited at a high-level of generality
`
`(i.e., as performing generic computer functions of acquiring data, generating information based on user
`
`data (providing information on degree of dietary restrictions and a personalized menu based on the user
`
`data) such that it amounts no more than mereinstructions to apply the exception using generic computer
`
`components.
`
`The current specification recites:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,517
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 6
`
`“..This dish ordering system includes a store terminal 1100 and a mobile terminal 1200. The store
`
`terminal 1100 and the mobile terminal 1200 are installed in a store of a restaurant 1000. The store
`
`terminal 1100 is a computer that transmits menu information. The store terminal 1100 includes a
`
`communication unit for communicating with an external apparatus, a computational processing unit for
`
`performing a computational process, a memoryfor storing data, and a UI unit for displaying and operating
`
`information...” in par. 97,
`
`“\.The mobile terminal 1200 is a mobile terminal such as a smartphone owned by a user who
`
`visits the store 1000...” in par. 98,
`
`“This information processing system mainly includes three apparatus groups. [0104]Afirst
`
`apparatus group includes an information terminal 100 such as a smartphone ownedbya user...” in par.
`
`103-104,
`
`“..The second apparatus group includes a first server 200. The first server 200 is a personal
`
`information server that stores personal information related to a user such that the personal information
`
`is decrypted and distributed at a plurality of locations...” in par. 105,
`
`“..The third apparatus group is a group including a second server 300 by which each company
`
`manages data specific to the company...” in par. 112,
`
`“The camera 103 is an image capturing apparatus including a CMOS sensor and/or the like. The
`
`camera 103 is used to capture a QR code or the like attached to a seat in a store of a restaurant.” In par.
`
`135,
`
`“The computational processing unit 104 is realized using a processor such as a CPU. The
`
`computational processing unit 104 executes, on the information terminal 100, the OS, the above-
`
`described matching application, the QR code reader, the browser, and the like.” In par. 136,
`
`“..The biosensor 600 is a sensor for acquiring biological information. The biological information
`
`acquired includes information about, for example, a heart rate, a blood pressure, a blood oxygen
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,517
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 7
`
`concentration, a blood sugar (glucose) level, HbAlc, breathing, a body temperature, an amount of water,
`
`calorie intake, an acceleration, the number of steps, activity/calory consumption, smell, myoelectricity,
`
`brain waves, a sleeping state, bioimpedance, and a urine salt concentration. Biosensors capable of sensing
`
`these pieces of biological information have already been putinto practical use...” in par. 121.
`
`Therefore, the devices (apparatuseslisted above) recited in the claims are described in the current
`
`specification as generic devices. The claims recite mere instructions to apply the exception using generic
`
`computer components.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`these additional elements do not
`
`integrate the abstract
`
`idea into a practical
`
`application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims
`
`are directed to an abstract idea.
`
`Claims also recite other additional limitations beyond abstract idea, including functions such as
`
`acquiring/receiving data from a server/database, outputting/transmitting data to the information
`
`terminal (user device) are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05 (g)), which do not
`
`provide a practical application for the abstract idea.
`
`Step 2B:
`
`The claim doesnotinclude additional elements that are sufficient to amountto 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 an information terminal (personal mobile device) to
`
`perform acquiring data and generating (organizing) data based on the acquired user information/menu
`
`information steps amount to no more than mereinstructions 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 current specification recites:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,517
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 8
`
`“The computational processing unit 104 generates information indicating the degree of dietary
`
`restriction depending on the progressof the disease of the user, based on the acquired menu information
`
`and the acquired biological information and/or disease information related to the user.” In par. 140,
`
`“The computational processing unit 104 generates a personalized menu for the user so as to meet
`
`the generated information indicating the degree of dietary restriction. The personalized menu may
`
`include, for example, a dish obtained by modifying a dish included in the menu information acquired by
`
`the computational processing unit 104 so as to reduce the amount of an ingredient specified by the
`
`information indicating the dietary restriction as an ingredient to be avoided by the user. This allows the
`
`user to smoothly order a dish including no ingredients to be avoided.”in par. 141.
`
`Therefore, generating data indicates organizing data based on the acquired requirements.
`
`Organizing data based on the acquired requirements is a well-understood, routine and conventional
`
`activity in the field, which is not sufficient to amountto significantly more than the judicial exception.
`
`Additionally, the additional element of transmitting and receiving information to and from a user
`
`device amountsto insignificant extra-solution activity.
`
`Therefore, claims 1-32 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-
`
`statutory subject matter.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's argumentsfiled 08/04/2023 have been fully considered.
`
`The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph has been withdrawnin light of
`
`the amendments and remarks.
`
`Arguments about 35 USC 101 rejection:
`
`Applicant argues that the current claims are directed to an improvementthe technologysince
`
`they are directed to solving an occurrence of mistaken serving of a dish that does not meetthe dietary
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,517
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 9
`
`restriction of a person and prevent a user whois subject to a dietary restriction from being served with a
`
`dish that does not comply with the dietary restriction of the user. In response, Examiner submits that
`
`providing a recommendation for a dish that is proper for the user’s dietary restrictions correspond to
`
`providing data only. The system cannot prevent physically serving of any dish to the user nor prevent
`
`the user ordering anotherdish other than the recommendedone. The system may provide information
`
`for proper dishes for the user, however, this does not provide any improvementto any technology.
`
`Claim limitations of estimating a cumulative intake of a specific nutrient or calories based on
`
`information received form the first server, and generating a personalized menu based on a degree of
`
`dietary restriction of the user and also from the menu information correspond to mereinstructions 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(a), (f) & (h)).
`
`Applicant argues that any judicial exception to which the claim may be directed (if any)is
`
`integrated into a practical application thereof, which imposes a clear meaningful limit to the judicial
`
`exception and which is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize any such judicial exception.
`
`In response, Examiner submits that MPEP recites “The claim should add meaningful limitations beyond
`
`generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform
`
`the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. The phrase “meaningful limitations" has been
`
`used by the courts even before Alice and Mayoin various contexts to describe additional elements that
`
`provide an inventive concept to the claim as a whole (in section 2106.05(e)). The current claims recite
`
`woe
`the additional elements of “first and second servers”,
`
`“an informational terminal (such as a smartphone
`
`ww
`ownedby the user)”,
`
`rif
`
`“a network”, “outputting a request of acquisition of the menu information from a
`
`second server by the information terminal”, “acquiring identification information (of the user) from the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,517
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 10
`
`information termina |”, “a biosensor that detects the biological information of the user”, which are
`
`hardware or 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/automatean 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)).
`
`Additionally, MPEP 2106.05(e) recites “The claim should add meaningful limitations beyond
`
`generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform
`
`the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. The phrase “meaningful limitations" has been
`
`used by the courts even before Alice and Mayoin various contexts to describe additional elements that
`
`provide an inventive concept to the claim as a whole.”. The current claims do not recite any additional
`
`element provide any technological improvement, therefore the additional elements added to the
`
`judicial exception (abstract idea) do not amount to meaningful limitations that can transform a claim
`
`into patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to DILEK B COBANOGLU whosetelephone number is (571)272-8295. The examiner
`
`can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 ET.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,517
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 11
`
`Examiner interviewsare available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a
`
`USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use
`
`the USPTO Automated Interview Request(AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
`
`Mamon Obeid can be reached on 5712701813. The fax phone number for the organization where this
`
`application or proceedingis 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 aboutfiling 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 3686
`
`