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 .
This communication is in response to the amendment received on 11/11/2025. Claims 1-2, 5-10, 13-15, 17, 19-20, 22, 24-28 remain pending in this application.
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 7-8 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.
Claims 7 and 8 recite:
"7. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: analyzing, by the one or more processors, the pet profile database record to determine a plurality of recommended grooming style images for the pet; displaying, by the one or more processors, the at least one of the plurality of recommended grooming style images via the user device; and receiving, by the one or more processors, at least one grooming style user selection from the plurality of recommended grooming style images.
8. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, the method further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, a grooming history or a training history for the selected external pet care system service; and associating, by the one or more processors, the grooming history or the training history with the medical record.”.
Claim 7 recites “grooming style for the pet” in lines 4, 6-8, and claim 8 recites “grooming history” in lines 3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The recitation of “grooming pet care services” has been removed from the independent claims 1, 9 and 15. The recitation of “the external pet care services” has been replaced by “external pet care systems” and claim 6 recites “one or more external pet care systems include a training pet care system, a veterinary pet care system or a holistic pet care system”.
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 1-2, 5-10, 13-15, 17, 19-20, 22 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 22, 24 and 26 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 9-10, 13-14, 25 and 27 are drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 15, 17, 19-20 and 28 are drawn to a non-transitory medium which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 1, 9 and 15 have been amended to recite and directed to an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, which claim limitations provided below with markings separating abstract elements from the additional limitations, wherein the bolded style represents the additional limitations beyond abstract idea and remaining limitations are directed to the abstract idea as discussed below:
“…hosting, by one or more processors of a pet platform, a pet care services portal corresponding to a user and a pet on a user device, wherein the hosting includes displaying the pet care services portal being based on a user profile database record of the user and a pet profile database record of the pet on the user device;
authenticating, by the one or more processors, a plurality of external pet systems corresponding to a plurality of provider services to validate that each of the plurality of external pet systems corresponds to a section of the pet care services portal, wherein the authenticating includes:
transmitting, by the one or more processors, an electronic communication to an external pet service device associated with at least one of the plurality of external pet systems;
receiving, by the one or more processors, a response electronic communication that includes a unique identifier from the external pet service device;
verifying, by the one or more processors, that the unique identifier corresponds to an external pet system of the plurality of external pet systems; and
in response to the verifying, associating, by the one or more processors, the verified external pet system with a service provider database record in a pet care platform database;
determining, by the one or more processors, one or more access restrictions for at least one of the plurality of authenticated external pet systems;
selecting, by the one or more processors, a data subset of the pet profile database record based on the one or more access restrictions for the at least one of the plurality of external pet systems;
transmitting, by the one or more processors, the data subset to the external pet service device of the at least one of the plurality of authenticated external pet systems;
receiving, by the one or more processors, pet service search data input by the user via the pet care services portal;
in response to the receiving, determining, by the one or more processors, one or more external pet care systems of the plurality of authenticated external pet systems that match the pet service search data based the location data of the user and travel boundary data of the at least one of the plurality of external pet systems;
receiving, by the one or more processors, a user selection via a user interface of an authenticated external pet care system from one or more displayed external pet care systems,
determining, by the one or more processors, a medical record requirement for the selected external pet care system, wherein the medical record requirement includes a vaccination requirement and a time threshold;
identifying, by the one or more processors, from the pet profile database record, an external pet medical system associated with the pet and a pet identifier of the pet known to the external pet medical system;
sending, by the one or more processors, a medical record request associated with the pet to the external pet medical system, the medical record request including the pet identifier and indicating the medical record requirement, wherein sending the medical record request to the external pet medical system triggers the external pet medical system to determine whether a medical record of the pet satisfies the medical record requirement;
based on sending the medical record request, receiving, by the one or more processors, a portion of medical record data corresponding to the pet identifier from the external pet medical system, wherein the portion of the medical record data includes an indicator corresponding to whether the pet satisfies the medical record requirement and a subset of additional medical details;
creating, by the one or more processors, a reservation based on the portion of the medical record data by including the indicator in a reservation database record, wherein the creating includes populating the reservation database record with a subset of the portion of the medical record data; and
in response to the creating, associating, by the one or more processors, the pet profile database record with the service provider database record of the selected external pet care system.”
These limitations correspond to “certain methods of organizing human activity” (with a recitation of generic computing components-one or more processors), based on managing personal behavior and interactions between people regarding determining one or more external pet care services that match with a request and location data, creating a reservation for pet care service, upon creating the reservation, determining a medical record requirement for the selected pet care service. This is a method of managing interactions between people (such as user following rules and instructions). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor, generic user device with interface and generic memory devices does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping.
The processor and the user device are recited at a high level of generality, and claim steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic devices. The current specification recites “In the following methods, various acts may be described as performed or executed by a component from FIG. 15, such as the server system 1515, the user device 1505, or components thereof. However, it should be understood that in various embodiments, various components of the environment 1500 discussed above may execute instructions or perform acts including the acts discussed below. An act performed by a device may be considered to be performed by a processor, actuator, or the like associated with that device. Further, it should be understood that in various embodiments, various steps may be added, omitted, and/or rearranged in any suitable manner.” in par. 96 and “The user device 1505 may be configured to enable the user to access and/or interact with other systems in the environment 1500. For example, the user device 1505 may be a computer system such as, for example, a desktop computer, a mobile device, a tablet, etc.” in par. 89.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2, 8, 10 also recite an abstract idea of managing interactions between people using generic computing devices (shown bolded), for instance, claims 2, 10 recite “associating, by the one or more processors, the reservation with the user profile database record”, claim 8 recites “determining, by the one or more processors, a grooming history or a training history for the external pet care system; and associating, by the one or more processors, the grooming history or the training history with the medical record” and newly added claim 26-28 recite “determining, by the one or more processors, via the pet care platform, an active status or a non-active status for each of the plurality of external pet systems; and selecting, by the one or more processors, at least one of the plurality of authenticated external pet systems based on the location data and the active status”. These claims also correspond to a user following rules and instructions to determine pet services for the pet using generic computing devices (certain methods of organizing human activity).
Claims 2, 5-8, 10, 13-14, 17, 19-20, 22, 24-28 ultimately dependent from Claims 1, 9 and 15 and include all the limitations of Claims 1, 9 and 15. Therefore, claims 2, 5-8, 10, 13-14, 17, 19-20, 22, 24-28 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2, 5-8, 10, 13-14, 17, 19-20, 22, 24-28 describe a further limitation regarding the basis for determining pet services for a pet. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claims 1, 9 and 15, without adding significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims recite the additional elements that are shown in bolded style above. These additional elements correspond to 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)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to 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 one or more processors to perform determining, identifying and associating steps amount to no more than mere instructions 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.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 5-10, 13-15, 17, 19-20, 22, 24-28 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed below in the order in which they appear.
Applicant argues that claims are not directed to managing personal behavior and interactions (such as following rules), and provides systems and methods for improving functioning of a computing device, by authenticating pet care service devices, and then transmitting data based on specific access restrictions to the pet care service devices.
In response, Examiner submits that these limitations are not part of the abstract idea, but part of the additional elements that 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)).
Applicant argues that the additional elements of authenticating external services, determining access restrictions for the external services and providing accurate matches to external services based on location and boundary data are directed to improvements in the efficiency, accuracy and security of the technical field of managing electronic transactions of pet care services data.
In response, Examiner submits that granting electronic access to a user is described in the current specification as follows “As another example, the grooming history, training history, and/or holistic care history may be accessible by a veterinary service provider, in order for the service provider to make a more informed decision about the pet’s medical care. Therefore, various types of information stored at the web platform in relation to a pet may be shared among multiple external pet care services, in accordance with certain rules or restrictions (e.g., access rules or restrictions) defined for each external pet care service. In some embodiments, the associating may include the web platform sending a notification to the at least one user profile or the at least one pet profile, where the notification includes the details of the grooming history and/or the training history. The notification may allow for the at least one user profile or the at least one pet profile to confirm, edit, and/or deny the grooming history and/or the training history.” in [0084] and “A user may engage with the web platform as a registered user (e.g., signed in to a user profile) or an unregistered user (e.g., does not have a user profile). If an unregistered user attempts to reserve services, schedule an appointment, and/or message a provider, such unregistered user may be directed to register/sign-up to the web platform before continuing further. Unregistered users may browse, search for services, browse business listings/search results, and/or view specific business pages. When unregistered users attempt to take action on a page (e.g., book services), they may be prompted to sign up or log in to the web platform. However, such unregistered users may be able to browse the site, business listings, and services offered, without creating a user profile first. Registration may be simple, where the requesting process may only require an email and password. The email may be required to be verified before booking services.” in [0061]. There is no indication of an improved technology for accessing the platform and the access is being provided for the registered users with a username (email) and a password, which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the computing science.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §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 DILEK B COBANOGLU whose telephone number is (571)272-8295. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Obeid Mamon can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/DILEK B COBANOGLU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights