DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that when considered as a whole, currently pending claim 1 includes a combination of features which clearly represent significantly more than an abstract idea by providing meaningful limits on the judicial exception. Examiner asserts that there is no indication that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, inventive concept, nor integrate it into a practical application. As noted in the rejection reproduced below, the claim was examined as a whole in accordance to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, see MPEP 2106.04. Also as noted in Step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claim recites limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components, and thus does not recite a practical application.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 recites an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and where the claim includes specific elements that are not well understood, routine, and conventional, and that the Office determined that the claim is novel and nonobvious in view of the previously cited art. Examiner asserts that regarding the Step 2B analysis of the rejection, that prior art is not necessary to establish significantly more subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), specifically “Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination.” Examiner directs the Applicant to the Step 2B analysis of the rejection where cases were cited to analyze the additional elements as being well understood, routine and conventional, and further recitation of the Applicant's Specification to show the generic nature of the computing components to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 is reproduced below.
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 1-4, 7-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
It is appropriate for the Examiner to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as recited in the following Steps: 1, 2A, and 2B, see MPEP 2106(III.).
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 1:
First, the Examiner is to establish whether the claim falls within any statutory category including a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, see MPEP 2106.03(II.) and MPEP 2106.03(I).
Claims 1-10 are related to a system, and claims 11-20 are also related to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, these claims are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong One:
Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test demonstrates whether a clam is directed to a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(I.). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, where Prong One establishes the judicial exception. Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes, see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(1.) and 2106.04(a)(2).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A virtual care veterinary system, comprising:
one or more processors coupled to one or more data storage devices including computer program logic executable by the one or more processors to provide a user-interactive computer platform accessible via one or more communications networks,
wherein the program logic comprises:
a provider module including program code executable to electronically set up a provider profile representing a veterinary clinic, the provider profile including an identification of each veterinarian in the veterinary clinic's practice;
generate a provider dashboard interface including provider-selectable options for interacting with a plurality of clients and a plurality of veterinary specialists via a user interface established by the platform; and
a client module including program code executable to register a plurality of clients with provider profile in the platform, including:
set up and maintain a client profile for each of the plurality of clients, the client profile including an identification of at least one pet and/or animal; and
generate a client dashboard interface for each client, including client- selectable options for interacting with a veterinary care provider via a user interface established by the platform;
a specialists module including program code executable to register a plurality of specialists with the provider profile in the platform, including:
set up and maintain a specialist profile for each of a plurality of veterinarian specialists, each specialist profile including at least one area of specialty and electronic contact information; and
a medical resources module including program code executable to establish virtual sessions between the provider, at least one client, and/or at least one specialist via a user interface established via the platform; and
a scheduler module including program code executable to:
enable a user having a client profile to login to the platform and to provide a user interface to enable to the user to make, change, and cancel appointments with a veterinarian of the provider,
create a virtual waiting room where the client waits for a scheduled appointment after login to the platform,
automatically generate an electronic notification to the veterinarian and/or specialist indicating that the client is in the virtual waiting room, and
enable the veterinarian and/or specialist to electronically admit the client into the appointment.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing interactions between people because the following steps of the claim recite abstract limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, that are related to social activities:
setting up a provider profile representing a veterinary clinic, the provider profile including an identification of each veterinarian in the veterinary clinic’s practice, where the provider profile is an abstraction of the “identifications” of the veterinarians in the clinic that are part of the veterinary system,
interacting with a plurality of clients and a plurality of veterinary specialists, where options are available for the interactions between the groups of the clients and the specialists that are part of the veterinary system,
registering a plurality of clients with a provider profile, where the registering is an abstract action to associate the clients with the provider that are part of the veterinary system,
set up and maintain a client profile for each of the plurality of clients, the client profile including an identification of at least one pet and/or animal, where the client profile that is set up and maintained is an abstraction of the “identifications” of the clients that are the pets/animals that are part of the veterinary system,
interacting with a veterinary care provider, where options are available for the interactions between the clients and care providers that are part of the veterinary system,
registering a plurality of specialists with the provider profile, where the registering is an abstract action to associate the specialists with the providers that are part of the veterinary system,
set up and maintain a specialist profile for each of a plurality of veterinarian specialists, each specialist profile including at least one area of specialty and electronic contact information, where the specialist profile that is set up and maintained is an abstraction of the characteristics related to the specialists including specialty and electronic contact info,
establish sessions between the provider, at least one client, and/or at least one specialist, where the action of “establishing” a session is meant to establish a communication between the entities of the veterinary system,
enabling the user to make, change and cancel appointments with a veterinarian of the provider, where these are abstract limitations of the interactions related to the appointment,
creating a waiting room where the client waits for a scheduled appointment, which is an abstract construction of an area to wait in before the session,
generating a notification to the veterinarian and specialist indicating that the client is in the waiting room, which is an abstract limitation further describing the communication with the veterinarians and other parties,
enabling the veterinarian to admit the client into the appointment, which is an abstract limitation further describing the communication related to the appointment.
Therefore, as a whole, the claim recites the abstract limitations of instruction or operations that are used for identifying entities, including the provider, specialist, and clients, related to a veterinary environment and the communication interactions between those entities via the sessions, and is thus related to social activities under managing interactions between people.
The abstract idea recited in claim 11 is similar to that of claim 1.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., processor) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
Claims 2 and 12 recite abstract limitations further describing the establishing the collaboration session to further diagnose a pet, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claims 3 and 13 recite abstract limitations describing sharing historical information, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claims 4 and 14 recite abstract limitations describing to treat the pet from an appointment, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claims 7 and 17 recite abstract limitations describing sending notifications and sending infuriation about the treatment, therefore further describing the abstract idea. Claims 8 and 18 recite abstract limitations further describing the notifications that are sent a pager message, for example, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claims 9 and 19 recite abstract limitations of generating and sending the provider an appointment request notification, thus further reciting the abstract idea. Claims 10 and 20 recite further abstract limitations describing the notification being a pager message, thus further describing the abstract idea.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exceptions into a “practical application,” see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(2.) and 2106.04(d)(I.).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A virtual care veterinary system, comprising:
one or more processors coupled to one or more data storage devices including computer program logic executable by the one or more processors to provide a user-interactive computer platform accessible via one or more communications networks,
wherein the program logic comprises (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
a provider module including program code executable to electronically set up (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) a provider profile representing a veterinary clinic, the provider profile including an identification of each veterinarian in the veterinary clinic's practice;
generate a provider dashboard interface including provider-selectable options for (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) interacting with a plurality of clients and a plurality of veterinary specialists via a user interface established by the platform (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and
a client module including program code executable to (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) register a plurality of clients with provider profile in the platform, including:
set up and maintain a client profile for each of the plurality of clients, the client profile including an identification of at least one pet and/or animal; and
generate a client dashboard interface for each client, including client- selectable options for (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) interacting with a veterinary care provider via a user interface established by the platform (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
a specialists module including program code executable to (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) register a plurality of specialists with the provider profile in the platform, including:
set up and maintain a specialist profile for each of a plurality of veterinarian specialists, each specialist profile including at least one area of specialty and electronic contact information; and
a medical resources module including program code executable to (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) establish virtual (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) sessions between the provider, at least one client, and/or at least one specialist via a user interface established via the platform; and (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
a scheduler module including program code executable to (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
enable a user having a client profile to login to the platform and to provide a user interface to (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) enable to the user to make, change, and cancel appointments with a veterinarian of the provider,
create a virtual (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) waiting room where the client waits for a scheduled appointment after login to the platform (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
automatically generate an electronic (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) notification to the veterinarian and/or specialist indicating that the client is in the virtual waiting room, and
enable the veterinarian and/or specialist to electronically (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) admit the client into the appointment.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of the processors with storage devices and computer logic to provide a user interactive computer platform accessible via communications networks, a provider module, generating a provider dashboard interface with provider selectable options, a UI established by the platform, a client module, generating a client dashboard interface for each client including selectable options and a user interface, a specialists module, a medical resources module with an interface, the virtual aspect of the session, and a scheduler module with executable code to enabling a user having a client profile to login to the platform and to provide a user interface to create a virtual waiting room, automatically generating an electronic notification and electronically admitting the client, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0031, 0033] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of a processor and memory for the overall computing system and the use of a communications network. [0039] recites the provider module in detail. [0039] recites the dashboard interface for the module with selectable options on the interface regarding the use of the UI for the interactions of clients and specialists. [0038] recites the client module in detail. [0038] recites the client module having a dashboard interface and UI selectable options in the UI for the interactions. [0040] recites s specialist module that stores their information. [0046] recites the medical resources module with the interface for the virtual aspect of the remote collaboration session via the internet. [0041, 0042] recites the use of a scheduler module. [0041] recites the use of the client profile to login to the platform. [0060] recites the virtual waiting room. [0042, 0061] recites the automated electronic notification for the virtual waiting room to electronically admit the client. These limitations recite the use of generic computing technologies, including the use of “modules” and interactive UIs to establish virtual connections between people including the virtual waiting rooms and appointments to carry out the abstract idea in a computing environment. Additionally, the use of the system to generate notifications and “automatically” generating notification is merely the result of automating the abstract idea on basic computer technologies without a technological improvement and is thus mere computer implementation.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to manage veterinary communications, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception , see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
For these reasons, the independent claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claims 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, and 14 recite the “real time” aspect of sending information via the platform for the virtual collaboration sessions, reciting the mere computer implementation by using network communications to send data with no technology improvement. Claims 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19 and 20 recite the use of a notifier module that sends notifications to the users of the veterinary system as described, however the use of the module with the electronic notifications to perform the abstract limitations is mere computer implementation, as there is no indication of a technology improvement.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see additionally MPEP 2106.05(II.). Further, it may need to be established, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, that the additional elements recite well understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding the additional limitation of the processors with storage devices and computer logic to provide a user interactive computer platform accessible via communications networks, a provider module, generating a provider dashboard interface with provider selectable options, a UI established by the platform, a client module, generating a client dashboard interface for each client including selectable options and a user interface, a specialists module, a medical resources module with an interface, the virtual aspect of the session, and a scheduler module with executable code to enabling a user having a client profile to login to the platform and to provide a user interface to create a virtual waiting room, automatically generating an electronic notification and electronically admitting the client, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”). [0031, 0033] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of a processor and memory for the overall computing system and the use of a communications network. [0039] recites the provider module in detail. [0039] recites the dashboard interface for the module with selectable options on the interface regarding the use of the UI for the interactions of clients and specialists. [0038] recites the client module in detail. [0038] recites the client module having a dashboard interface and UI selectable options in the UI for the interactions. [0040] recites s specialist module that stores their information. [0046] recites the medical resources module with the interface for the virtual aspect of the remote collaboration session via the internet. [0041, 0042] recites the use of a scheduler module. [0041] recites the use of the client profile to login to the platform. [0060] recites the virtual waiting room. [0042, 0061] recites the automated electronic notification for the virtual waiting room to electronically admit the client. These limitations recite the use of generic computing technologies, including the use of “modules” and interactive UIs to establish virtual connections between people including the virtual waiting rooms and appointments to carry out the abstract idea in a computing environment. The use of the system to generate notifications and “automatically” generating notification is merely the result of automating the abstract idea on basic computer technologies without a technological improvement and is thus mere computer implementation and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the establishment of a communication between the entities recites the use of a network to send information between devices, thus recites well understood, routine, and conventional activities.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and therefore claims 1-4, 7-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS whose telephone number is (571)272-6719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Jason B Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. 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.
/CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3686
/JASON B DUNHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3686