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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 7/6/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all claims are novel. This is not found persuasive because of the reasons of record including the teachings as discussed below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 states “the said”. Applicant is advised to consider stating “the”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 9 states “the said”. Applicant is advised to consider stating “the”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 12 states “the said”. Applicant is advised to consider stating “the”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 14 states “the said”. Applicant is advised to consider stating “the”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 states “the said”. Applicant is advised to consider stating “the”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 states “the said”. Applicant is advised to consider stating “the”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 states “the said”. Applicant is advised to consider stating “the”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 states “the said”. Applicant is advised to consider stating “the”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 states “step a)”. Applicant is advised to consider stating “the step a)”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: most of the words start with an uppercase letter instead of a lowercase letter.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: most of the words start with an uppercase letter instead of a lowercase letter.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 states “the said”. Applicant is advised to consider stating “the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 10-15 and 20-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “preferably … the animal” in claim 1, lines 3-7 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether any of this language is required. Applicant is advised to consider deleting this language.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each animal criteria" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "each of the plurality of animal criteria".
The phrase “preferably … the animal” in claim 1, line 10 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether any of this language is required. Applicant is advised to consider deleting this language.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each range" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "each of the range".
Claim 3 recites the limitation "animal criteria" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "of the plurality of animal criteria".
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the one or more values indicative of a body condition” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "one or more values indicative of a body condition".
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the one or more values indicative of a health status” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "one or more values indicative of a body condition".
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the one or more values indicative of a health status” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "one or more values indicative of a body condition".
The phrase “which comprises a computer-implemented method” in claim 15 is vague and indefinite as it unclear how this method is associated with any of the other method steps.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the extracted lists of ingredients” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "extracted lists of ingredients".
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the selected food products” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "selected food products".
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the one or more nutritional criteria” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "one or more nutritional criteria".
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the nutritional value” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "nutritional value".
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the list of ingredients” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "list of ingredients".
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the criteria value” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "criteria value".
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the food products” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "food products".
Claim 29 recites the limitation “the food products” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "food products".
Claim 30 recites the limitation “the ranking” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "ranking".
Claim 30 recites the limitation “the selected food products” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "selected food products".
The phrase “the nutritional profile” in claim 30, lines 3-4 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether this refers to the animal or food products.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “the second database” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "second database".
Claim 32 recites the limitation “the recommended food product” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "recommended food product".
Clarification and/or correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10-15, 20-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2014/0141134).
The claims are directed to a method for characterizing the nutritional needs of an animal and not a method of rating ingredients and comparing to other ingredients. The language not directed to characterizing the nutritional needs of an animal are interpreted to the extent that they further define the characterizing.
The phrase “preferably …” in claim 1, line 3+ is not interpreted as limiting as it is interpreted as optional.
The phrase “key ingredients of each animal …” in claim 1, line 8+ is not interpreted as limiting as animals do not have ingredients.
The phrase “preferably …” in claim 1, line 10+ is not interpreted as limiting as it is interpreted as optional.
The phrase “nutritional profile of the said animal” in claim 1, line 13+ is not interpreted as limiting as animals do not have nutritional profile but rather food.
The phrase “ingredients … animal criteria” in claim 20, lines 3-4 is not interpreted as limiting as animals do not have ingredients.
Claim 22 is not interpreted as limiting as it does not include a method step.
Claims 26-32 are not interpreted as limiting as purchasing and shipping do not further limit the characterizing and food products are not part of characterizing.
Regarding claim 1, Johnson (‘134) teaches a method for characterizing the nutritional needs of an animal, the said method comprising the steps of: a) providing an animal profile, including a plurality of animal criteria (See paras. 27-37, FIGs 1-10, claims 1-20.); b) providing a first database comprising a list of key ingredients to each animal criteria, each one of the said key ingredients being assigned to (i) a range of amount (See paras. 27-37.), and c) processing the animal profile and the first database, thereby providing a nutritional profile of the said animal (See paras. 27-37, FIGs 1-10, claims 1-20.), however, fails to expressly disclose (ii) for each range, a rating providing the importance of the ingredients compared to the importance of the other key ingredients listed in the said first database.
The claims are directed to a method for characterizing the nutritional needs of an animal and not a method of rating ingredients and comparing to other ingredients.
Since Johnson (‘134) is directed to providing a customizable blend for an animal based on the nature of the animal the food available to feed the animal it would have been foreseeable prior to the earliest effective filing date compare/rate the ingredients available to provide the desired nutritional feeding and animal performance. It would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art to effectively evaluate the ingredients based on requirements of the animal.
Regarding claim 3, Johnson (‘134) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose in which one or more of the said animal criteria, from the plurality are prioritized over one or more other animal criteria considered for the animal profile.
The claims are directed to a method for characterizing the nutritional needs of an animal and not a method of prioritizing. Since Johnson (‘134) is directed to providing a customizable blend for an animal based on the nature of the animal the food available to feed the animal it would have been foreseeable prior to the earliest effective filing date to prioritize to provide the desired nutritional feeding and animal performance. It would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art to effectively evaluate the ingredients as based on requirements of the animal.
Regarding claim 10, Johnson (‘134) teaches wherein the said animal is a pet (See para. 30.).
Regarding claim 11, Johnson (‘134) teaches wherein the said animal is a dog (See para. 30.).
Regarding claim 12, Johnson (‘134) teaches wherein the one or more values indicative of a body condition are animal's activity (See paras. 27-30.).
Regarding claim 13, Johnson (‘134) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the said animal is a cat and the one or more values indicative of a health status at step a) are selected from the group comprising: Post weight loss, Overweight, Obesity, Osteoarthritis, Mobility risk factors, Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Stage I or II, CKD Stage III or IV, Proteinuria, Struvite urolith dissolution, Struvite urolith prevention, CaOx prevention, CaP prevention, Idiopathic cystitis, Poor skin and coat, Atopy, non-food related dermatopathies, Dental Calculus, Acute or chronic diarrhea, Acute or chronic vomiting, Gastritis, Enteritis, Colitis, Maldigestion, Malabsorption, Diabetes mellitus, Pancreatitis, Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI), Hyperlipidemia.
Johnson (‘134) teaches the animal being pets (See para. 30.) and the health of the animal (See paras. 30-32.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date that Johnson’s (‘134) method could be applicable to cat as it is common pet like a dog and the other animal. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date that to evaluate any of the claimed specific health criteria as they are typical criteria.
Regarding claim 14, Johnson (‘134) teaches the method discussed above including being applicable to a dog (See para. 30.), however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the one or more values indicative of a health status at step a) are selected from the group comprising: Post weight loss, Overweight, Obesity, Osteoarthritis, Mobility risk factors, CDK Stage I or II, CKD Stage III or IV, Proteinuria, Struvite urolith dissolution, Struvite urolith prevention, CaOx prevention, CaP prevention, Idiopathic cystitis, Poor skin and coat, Atopy, non-food related dermatopathies, Dental Calculus, Acute or chronic diarrhea, Acute or chronic vomiting, Gastritis, Enteritis, Colitis, Maldigestion, Malabsorption, Diabetes mellitus, Pancreatitis, Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI), Hyperlipidemia, Adverse food reaction.
Johnson (‘134) teaches the health of the animal (See paras. 30-32.). It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date that Johnson’s (‘134) method could be applicable to a dog and it would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date that to evaluate any of the claimed specific health criteria as they are typical ciriteria.
Regarding claim 15, Johnson (‘134) teaches which comprises a computer-implemented method (See FIGs 1-10.).
Regarding claims 20, 22, 26-32, Johnson (‘134) teaches a method for characterizing the nutritional needs of an animal comprising: providing an animal profile comprising one or more animal criteria; extracting, from a first database, one or more lists of ingredients associated with the one or more animal criteria; determining a rating associated with the extracted lists of ingredients; comparing the rating with at least one ingredient from the one or more lists of ingredients; determining a nutritional profile of the animal based on at least one of the animal profile, the extracted lists of ingredients (See paras. 27-37, FIGs 1-10, claims 1-20. Claim 22 is not interpreted as limiting as it does not include a method step. Claims 26, 27, 28, 29 are not interpreted as limiting as purchasing and shipping do not further limit the characterizing and food products are not part of characterizing.), however, fails to expressly disclose rating of the extracted lists of ingredients.
The claims are directed to a method for characterizing the nutritional needs of an animal and not a method of rating ingredients and comparing to other ingredients.
Since Johnson (‘134) is directed to providing a customizable blend for an animal based on the nature of the animal the food available to feed the animal it would have been foreseeable prior to the earliest effective filing date compare/rate the ingredients available to provide the desired nutritional feeding and animal performance. It would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art to effectively evaluate the ingredients based on requirements of the animal.
Regarding claim 21, Johnson (‘134) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein extracting, from a second database, a list of food products; selecting at least one food product from the list of food products based on the nutritional profile; ranking the selected food products; determining a recommended food product based on the ranking of the selected food products.
The claims are directed to a method for characterizing the nutritional needs of an animal and not a method of prioritizing. Since Johnson (‘134) is directed to providing a customizable blend for an animal based on the nature of the animal the food available to feed the animal it would have been foreseeable prior to the earliest effective filing date to prioritize to provide the desired nutritional feeding and animal performance. It would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art to effectively evaluate the ingredients as based on requirements of the animal.
Regarding claim 23, Johnson (‘134) teaches wherein the one or more animal criteria comprises a species (See para. 30.).
Regarding claim 24, Johnson (‘134) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein determining the nutritional profile further comprises: generating one or more of nutritional criteria; assigning a criteria value to of the one or more nutritional criteria; comparing the criteria value against the list of ingredients; calculating the nutritional profile based on at least one of the nutritional criteria, the list of ingredients, and the criteria value.
The claims are directed to a method for characterizing the nutritional needs of an animal and not a method of prioritizing. Since Johnson (‘134) is directed to providing a customizable blend for an animal based on the nature of the animal the food available to feed the animal it would have been foreseeable prior to the earliest effective filing date to prioritize to provide the desired nutritional feeding and animal performance. It would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art to effectively evaluate the ingredients as based on requirements of the animal.
Regarding claim 25, Johnson (‘134) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein determining the nutritional profile further comprises: assigning a prioritization value to the one or more nutritional criteria; calculating the nutritional value based on at least one of the nutritional criteria, the list of ingredients, the criteria value, and the prioritization value.
The claims are directed to a method for characterizing the nutritional needs of an animal and not a method of prioritizing. Since Johnson (‘134) is directed to providing a customizable blend for an animal based on the nature of the animal the food available to feed the animal it would have been foreseeable prior to the earliest effective filing date to prioritize to provide the desired nutritional feeding and animal performance. It would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art to effectively evaluate the ingredients as based on requirements of the animal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
July 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights