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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Again, Applicant continues to argue that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and do not recite one. The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claims are directed to a pet care booking platform and also recites it, which falls into the category certain methods of organizing human activity, namely, business relations. Is it Applicant’s assertion that notification of a service to a user, as recited by the claim, is a not a commercial interaction or a business relation?
Applicant further argues, “For example, generating, based on a determination that a first pet profile database record satisfies a first timing threshold, a first digital notification associated with a first pet service, and automatically transmitting that notification to a first electronic device associated with a user, constitutes a technical improvement because it replaces brittle, clock-only reminders with an automatically transmitted, customized user notifications which are based on underlying fluctuating data. (See Specification at [0062], [0049]…. Therefore, this architecture improves the reliability, consistency, and correctness of time-based notifications in a networked environment, which is a technical problem rooted in how computer systems synchronize data and events across heterogeneous platforms rather than a mere organization of human activity.)” The Examiner disagrees. as this is considered a part of the abstract idea and thus cannot provide a technological improvement. Accordingly. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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 21-26, 28-36 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter 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.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
hosting pet care services, the pet care services storing a user profile corresponding to a user identifier of a user and a pet corresponding to a pet identifier of a pet, the user profile including user location data, the pet profile being associated with the user profile by linking the pet identifier with the user identifier,
determining a pet history corresponding to the pet in relation to one or more of a plurality of pet services, and a corresponding per service user for each of the plurality of pet services, wherein the determining the pet history includes:
determining, an active status or a non-active status for each of the plurality of pet services:
selecting, a pet service based on the user location data and the pet service having the active status;
initiating, a pet service corresponding to the selected pet service for each of the plurality of pet grooming services;
receiving, a response communication that includes a unique identifier from the pet service
verifying, that the unique identifier corresponds to an account of the selected pet service;
in response to the verifying, sending, a confirmation request to the pet service, the confirmation request including the pet identifier and a request to confirm whether the pet corresponding to the pet identifier has engaged with the selected pet service;
receiving, a confirmation response from the service, the confirmation response including a data record associated with the pet identifier; and
storing, the data record, the storing including associating the data record with the pet identifier;
creating, at least one pet profile record that includes the pet history;
retrieving, by the one or more processors, first access rules for a first pet service wherein the first access rule includes a timing threshold;
determining, based on the first access rule, a first pet profile record of the at least one pet profile record, wherein the first pet profile record is associated with the first access rule;
generating, based on a determination, that the first pet profile database record satisfies the first timing threshold, a first notification associated with the first pet service; and
based on the generating, automatically transmitting, the first notification to a user device associated with a user.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, processors, pet care services portal, web platform, web platform database, electronic communication, user device, database record, memory, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, non-transitory computer readable medium, processors, pet care services portal, computer system, electronic transactions, web platform, web platform database, electronic communication, user device, database record, memory. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
- (non-transitory computer readable medium, computer system, portal processors, processors, pet care services portal, web platform, web platform database, electronic transactions, electronically storing, electronic communication, user device, notification, database record, memory);
mere data gathering/post solution activity in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process,-(transmitting a digital notification) see MPEP 2106.05 (g)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; While claims 25, 33 and 36 describe a microchip identifier; claims 23 describe a device and processor, claims 24 and 28 describe processors, 22, 29-30 and 39 describe web platforms, 28-database record; 28, 31, 38 and 40 describe a user device, these additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights