Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Change in Examiner
2. Julie Shanker is no longer continuing prosecution on application number 18/013,248. It has been transferred to Examiner Jessica Lemieux.
DETAILED ACTION
3. This Final Office action is in response to the application filed on December 28th, 2022 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on September 18th, 2025. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Priority
3. Application 18/013,248 was filed on December 28th, 2022 which is a 371 of PCT/KR2020/011830 field on September 3rd, 2020 which claims priority to KR10-2020-0081043 filed on July 1st, 2020.
Examiner Request
4. The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 29th, 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on June 25th, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant argues that the amended claim 8 recites sufficient structure and therefore overcome the rejection under 35 USC § 112(b), asserting that elements such as terminals and servers provide definite structural limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection is not based on the recitation of “offline guardian terminal,” “online guardian terminal,” or “shared pet server.” Those elements were not rejected. Instead, as set forth in the Office Action, the rejection is directed to claim limitations reciting “units for” and now amended to “units configured to” perform specific functions, including:
a shared pet registration unit configured to receive information and raising conditions of a pet…;
a co-parenting registration unit configured to provide information on the pet…;
a payment processing unit configured to collect and accumulate donations…;
a chat room providing unit configured to provide a chat room service…;
a breeding service providing unit configured to provide a breeding service…;
a sale processing unit configured to receive sale information…;
These limitations invoke 35 USC § 112(f) because they recite functional language without sufficient recitation of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions. The specification fails to disclose corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function of these “units,” such as specific computer components, software algorithms, or circuitry, and fails to clearly link any disclosed structure to the recited functions. Rather, the written description of the originally filed application merely repeats the claim language at a high level without further technical detail. Accordingly, claim 8 remains indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the claims with reasonable certainty. The rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) is therefore maintained.
7. Applicant argues that “the claims are not directed to an abstract idea but rather to a specific technological system for coordinating pet care through a distributed network architecture.” More specifically Applicant argues that “they address the technological problem of enabling coordinated pet care between geographically separated users through a specific server-mediated architecture that distinguishes between different types of users based on their physical relationship to the pet.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the updated 35 USC § 101 rejection, the claims recite commercial interactions including marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and the claims fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, specifically coordinating shared responsibility, approval, communication, and transactions related to pet care and ownership. The recited computing components merely serve as a tool to implement these activities and does not change the fundamental character of the claims. Accordingly, the claims remain directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
8. Applicant argues that the claims require specific technical components-offline guardian terminals for users with physical custody, online guardian terminals for remote users, and a shared pet server with database and website infrastructure- arranged in a particular way to achieve a technological result.” Examiner notes that this argument is not persuasive. While the claims recite generic computing components, they do so at a high level of abstraction, without any improvement to the functioning of the computer components themselves, or any other technology. The alleged arrangement merely reflects using the generic computing components as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Such generic networked interactions do not constitute a technological improvement and instead represent the application of an abstract idea using generic computer components performing their ordinary functions.
9. Applicant argues that “the claimed invention improves computer technology itself by providing a novel architecture for managing distributed user interactions based on their physical relationship to a shared resource” which is “analogous to the patent-eligible claims in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com et al., 113 USPQ2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014)”. Examiner notes that this argument is not persuasive because the patent at issue in DDR dealt with a problem necessarily rooted in computer technology: Internet users visiting one web site might be interested in viewing products sold on a different web site, but the owners of the first web site did not want to constantly redirect users away from their web site to a different web site. Id. at 1257-58. The claimed solution used a series of steps that created a hybrid web page incorporating "look and feel" elements from the host web site with commerce objects from the third-party web site. Id. Unlike the situation in DDR Holdings, the pending claim do not solve a problem specifically arising in computer networks, nor do they modify the network behavior. Instead the claims use generic computing components as toosl to facilitate coordination between users regarding pet care activities. Accordingly, the claims are not analogous to DDR Holdings and do not recite a technological improvement.
10. Applicant argues that “the ordered combination of elements provides significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The specific distinction between offline and online guardian terminals, the server-mediated registration and approval process, the database-driven matching system, and the integration with external delivery systems represent an inventive concept that was not well- understood, routine, or conventional at the time of filing. The prior art of record confirms this, as none of the cited references teach or suggest this specific architectural arrangement.” Examiner notes that this argument is not persuasive. Examiner notes that a 35 USC § 101 rejection does not rely on prior art rejections under 35 USC § 102 or 103 to establish ineligibility, nor does it require a showing of anticipation or obviousness. Applicant’s arguments improperly commingle eligibility analysis with patentability analysis, conflating the absence of explicit teachings in the cited prior art with the presence of an inventive concept under 35 USC § 101. However, eligibility under 35 USC § 101 is a separate inquiry from novelty and nonobviousness, and the absence of identical disclosures in the prior art does not, by itself, demonstrate that the claims recite an inventive concept. Accordingly the 35 USC § 101 rejection is maintained.
11. Applicant’s arguments, with respect to 35 USC § 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. The 35 USC § 102 and 103 of claims 1-8 has been withdrawn.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claim 8 is directed to a server (i.e., a machine). As such, each claim is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Referring to Claim 1, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of the claim in bold:
a first step of transmitting, by an offline guardian terminal of an offline guardian who directly raises a pet at home, information of the pet being raised including photos and videos containing daily life of the pet, and a raising condition to apply a registration of a shared pet;
a second step of receiving, by the shared pet server, the registration application of the shared pet from the offline guardian terminal, storing the information and raising condition in a database, and registering the pet as the shared pet by creating a shared pet registration page accessible through a shared pet website;
a third step of accessing, by an online guardian terminal of an online guardian who does not directly raise the pet, the shared pet server through the shared pet website to identify the information on the pet registered as the shared pet on the shared pet registration page and transmitting an application for co-parenting of the shared pet to the shared pet server wherein the application includes information identifying the online guardian; and
a fourth step of receiving, by the shared pet server, the application for co-parenting from the online guardian terminal, providing, by the shared pet server, the application of co-parenting to the offline guardian terminal, receiving an approval on the co-parenting from the offline guardian terminal, registering, by the shared pet server, the user of the online guardian terminal as a co-parent in the database, and providing access rights to the online guardian terminal for accessing shared pet information and performing co-parenting activities through the shared pet server.
Referring to Claim 8, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of the claim in bold:
An online pet co-parenting server comprising:
a processor;
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the server to implement;
a shared pet registration unit configured to receive information and raising conditions of a pet being raised including photos and videos containing daily life of the pet from an offline guardian terminal of an offline guardian who directly raises the pet at home, store the information in a database, and register the pet as a shared pet by creating a shared pet registration page accessible through a shared pet website;
a co-parenting registration unit configured to provide information on the pet registered as the shared pet to an online guardian terminal of an online guardian who does not directly raise the pet through the shared pet website, receive an application for co-parenting for the shared pet from the online guardian terminal, provide the application for co-parenting to the offline guardian terminal, and register the user of the online guardian terminal as a co-parent in the database when receiving the approval for the co-parenting from the offline guardian terminal;
a payment processing unit configured to collect and accumulate donations for the shared pet from the online guardian termina in a payment systeml;
a chat room providing unit configured to provide a chat room service between the offline guardian terminal and the online guardian terminal for exchanging information about the shared pet;
a breeding service providing unit configured to provide a breeding service between the shared pet of the offline guardian terminal and the shared pet of another offline guardian terminal by matching shared pets based on breeding conditions stored in the database; and
a sale processing unit configured to receive sale information of shared baby pets from the offline guardian terminal, process sale applications according to priority orders, and request delivery of the shared baby pet to a delivery company server when receiving the sale information of the shared baby pet born by the shared pet from the offline guardian terminal or another offline guardian terminal and depositing the sale amount through the payment processing unit according to the sale order of the shared baby pet.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the bolded steps of claims 1 and 8, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites commercial interactions including marketing or sales activities or behaviors (i.e., matching users to become co-owners of pets through information submission and retrieval). Thus, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite commercial interactions including marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and the claims fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) 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 (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a shared pet server, offline guardian terminal, an online guardian terminal, shared pet website page (claims 1 and 8) and processor and memory (claim 8). The computer hardware is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic terminals and servers) such that they amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since they do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. The additional elements of using computer hardware (terminals and servers) amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea in a conventional manner. Further, the additional elements of using computer hardware are elements that describe well-understood, routine, conventional activities, for example, receiving or transmitting data over a network. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on or with the use of generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are recited in claim 8 and include:
a shared pet registration unit configured to receive information and raising conditions of a pet…;
a co-parenting registration unit configured to provide information on the pet…;
a payment processing unit configured to collect and accumulate donations…;
a chat room providing unit configured to provide a chat room service…;
a breeding service providing unit configured to provide a breeding service…;
a sale processing unit configured to receive sale information…;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
a shared pet registration unit configured to receive information and raising conditions of a pet…;
a co-parenting registration unit configured to provide information on the pet…;
a payment processing unit configured to collect and accumulate donations…;
a chat room providing unit configured to provide a chat room service…;
a breeding service providing unit configured to provide a breeding service…;
a sale processing unit configured to receive sale information…;
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification as filed fails to describe any corresponding structure for these “units” such as computer components, software algorithms or circuitry. Instead, the specification merely recites the claim language without further description. Therefore, claim 8 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Subject Matter Distinguished from Prior Art
Upon further consideration of the amendments and arguments, the prior art rejections under 35 USC § 102 and 103 are withdrawn. The withdrawal of the prior art rejections should not be construed as an admission that the claims are allowable, as the claims remain rejected under 35 USC § 101 (claims 1-8) and 112 (claim 8). The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claim 1 and 8 as presently amended. The cited prior art of record Maung (US 2020/0352139) which discloses a system generally relating to pet co-parenting and information sharing, ISHIZUKA JP 2002132904 which discloses contractual co-ownership of living organisms, Yarnall Jr. (US 2007/0226257) which discloses animal breeding registration systems, and Thalheim (US 2013/0198175) which discloses pet searching and listing functionality relate generally to the claimed invention. However, none of the cited references, alone or in combination expressly teach or suggest the specific architectural distinctions recited in independent claims 1 and 8 as presently amended.
In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest all of the features in the independent/dependent claim # and more specifically the limitations of the claimed architectural distinction between an offline guardian terminal operated by a user who directly raises the pet at home and an online guardian terminal operated by a user who does not directly raise the pet, including the server-mediated registration and approval process that governs interaction rights based on physical custody of the pet, in combination with the other claim limitations, either individually or in any combination that would have been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 JESSICA LEMIEUX whose telephone number is (571)270-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, TARIQ HAFIZ can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626