Take the 2-minute tour ×
Ask Patents is a question and answer site for people interested in improving and participating in the patent system. It's 100% free, no registration required.

enter image description here

This Patent Application was given a "final rejection" by the US Patent Office. An applicant has several ways to keep an application in this state alive. They include a request for continuing examination. It just involves paying more fees and responding to the rejection. Appealing the rejection is another avenue. If nothing is done it will go abandoned six months from the final rejection.

Some of the grounds for rejection (can be seen in Public PAIR) are based on things the applicant themselves cited to the USPTO.

Thanks to YOU, the Ask Patents community, overly-broad claims have at least been narrowed. Follow @askpatents to block more overly-broad patent applications.

Check out Google Patents for full details about this particular application.

"Method and System for Weight Management"

BASIC APPLICATION DATA:

  • App Number: 13/466661
  • Publication Number: US20120225162 A1
  • Assignee: Scott A. Mann Enterprises Llc
  • Prior Art Cutoff Date: June 15, 2004
  • Availability for Challenge: Open Until March 6, 2013
  • AIA window: CLOSED

APPLICATION OVERVIEW:

US Patent Application #20120225162 describes a weight management method. I'm reasonably sure the claims below correlate with advice I've seen for years in various "women's interest" magazines, in a number of diet books (including Weight Watchers guides), and even the USDA nutrition guide.

1. A method for managing weight, comprising the steps of: eating at least five meals a day with each meal comprising one serving of a vegetable or a fruit, a complex carbohydrate, and a lean protein for a predetermined number of calories per meal at ranges of 25-35% protein, 50-55% carbohydrate, 15-20% fat with a predetermined range of grams of fiber, wherein said predetermined range of calories is about 300 calories or is about 450 calories; losing weight by said eating at least five meals a day; and optimizing body composition by said eating at least five meals a day, [etc.]

Are you familiar with technology similar to that described in this patent application?

If so, please submit evidence of that prior art as an answer below. Please submit only one piece of prior art per answer below. We welcome multiple prior art proposals from the same individual; please create separate answers for each one. This is so the community can vet each individual piece of prior art independently.

For details about what makes good prior art, please see our FAQ.

If you'd like to contribute in another way, please vote or comment on submissions made below. And we welcome you to post your own request for prior art if you know of another questionable patent or patent application.

share|improve this question
1  
At risk of getting flagged, reading this application made me a little sick to my stomach. –  jandjorgensen Sep 20 '12 at 20:07
    
Reformatted for clarity using template –  Micah Siegel Mar 18 '13 at 20:06

4 Answers 4

http://www.fitfaq.com/muscle-building-guide.html Seems to be close, it doesn't have the correct percentages for carbs and fat though.

  • Eat 5-6 healthy, balanced meals per day.
  • Each meal should be approximately 30% protein, 30% fats, 40% carbs.
  • Consume 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight every single day.
  • Good protein sources include: eggs, chicken, turkey, fish, lean beef, cottage cheese, low-fat cheese, whey protein powder, protein bars, and meal replacement powders (MRPs).
  • Good sources of carbs include: vegetables, fruits, legumes, and whole grains (including oatmeal, brown rice, whole grain wheat, etc.).
  • Good sources of fats include: nuts, seeds, olive oil, peanut butter, low fat cheese, fatty-fish, low-fat mayonnaise, and flax seeds.

And http://www.leehayward.com/protein_part2.htm gives percentages in the correct range but doesn't appear to have the other details:

The ideal ratios may vary widely based on these factors, but as a "baseline" I recommend that 30% of your calories come from protein. That leaves 15% from fat and 55% from natural, unrefined complex carbohydrates.

edit to show that this information is "prior": http://web.archive.org/web/20040225033829/http://www.fitfaq.com/muscle-building-guide.html and while not the same page has the same information http://web.archive.org/web/20040606172718/http://www.leehayward.com/howmanycal.htm

share|improve this answer
    
I don't believe that this patent passes the machine or transformation test. –  Diego Escalera Sep 25 '12 at 20:04

Take a look at Livestrong, which has the five-meals-a-day limitation and percentages of protein/carbohydrates/fats (although not the same). There are also some references listed in that article that may be of use.

While not asked, the main issue with this claim (and patent) will be 101 eligibility. It's almost certainly not patentable under this ground.

share|improve this answer
    
the reference from 2002 cited seems particularly relevant –  Plepleus Sep 20 '12 at 18:36
1  
should note, as Plepleus did in another answer, that the Livestrong article itself isn't prior art given the effective filing date of the app. there may also be some good art in the parent case (2005/0276840) which has since gone abandoned –  aosik Sep 20 '12 at 18:39
    
a quick search here already lists a lot from before 2000: scholar.google.be/… –  Stijn Sanders Jul 22 '13 at 19:50

I did a quick search with Searcher.io and a lot of good matches come up:

Just to name a few, and using only the claim posted to seed the search. Sorry I see this question only now!

Disclosure: This prior art was found using Searcher.io - an experimental full-text patent search tool now in beta phase. More info at http://searcher.io/

share|improve this answer

How about this infographic from 8/31/11? Also, a simple google search of "small meals 5 times a day" resulted in 13,700 results.

share|improve this answer
4  
The patent application has an effective filing date of 15 June 2004 so this would not be prior art –  Plepleus Sep 20 '12 at 18:18

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.