DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species C in the reply filed on 08/01/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. This is found persuasive for the reasons stated in the Applicant’s reply.
The requirement is therefore WITHDRAWN.
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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "terminating the first training session" in the third bullet of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because this limitation was removed from claim 1 upon amendment. Correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the primary enforcer" in the third and fourth bullets of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because reference to the first of this limitation was removed from claim 1 upon amendment. Claim 6 also recites “deriving the first movement profile…based on the gait profile, the transition profile, and the post profile” in the last bullet of the claim. The first movement profile is already derived in Claim 1, therefore it is unclear if this is the same movement profile, if the first instance in Claim 1 is recalculated, or if this is a typographical error. Correction is required.
Claim 7 recites, “wherein accessing the video feed recorded by the optical sensor comprises accessing the video feed recorded by the optical sensor and integrated into a training apparatus configured to dispense units of primary reinforcer toward a range of locations within the working field via a dispenser integrated into the training apparatus” in the first bullet of the claim. The bolded portion of the claim does not appear to further limit the method step of accessing the video feed. In fact, it is unclear how this language further limits the method claim as it appears to describe actions (recording, dispensing) and physical components (optical sensor, training apparatus, primary reinforcer, dispenser) that are perform actions outside the scope of the claim. This also affects the antecedent basis of “the training apparatus” in the third bullet of the claim. Correction is required.
Claim 9 recites, “wherein accessing the video feed recorded by the optical sensor comprises accessing the video feed recorded by the optical sensor integrated within a wearable device worn by the animal” and Claim 10 recites, “wherein accessing the video feed recorded by the optical sensor comprises accessing the video feed recorded by the optical sensor integrated within a device arranged within the working field”. It is unclear how the bolded portions of the claim language further limit the claimed method step of accessing the video feed. It is unclear whether these dependent claims further limit the scop of the independent claim at all. Correction is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation, “wherein extracting the first timeseries of position data for the set of anatomical features of the animal comprises”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Correction is required.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "deriving a first movement profile for the animal during the first video session based on the gait profile, the transition profile, and the pose profile" and “deriving a first movement profile for the animal based on the first timeseries of position data, the second timeseries of position data, and the set of position data, the first movement profile representing movement of the animal along the first pathway during the first test period” in 3rd and 4th limitations from the end of the claim. It is unclear if these are meant to be the same first movement profile that is derived based on all of the listed information, or if these are two different, mis-named movement profiles. Correction is required.
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 and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for monitoring health of an animal comprising: during a first video session: accessing a video feed recorded by an optical sensor defining a field of view intersecting a working field; and detecting the animal in the working field; at a first time during the first video session, detecting the animal at a first location within the working field in the video feed; during a first test period succeeding the first time and within the first video session, detecting movement of the animal along a first pathway extending from the first location toward a second location in the video feed; and in response to detecting movement of the animal along the first pathway in the video feed: collecting a first timeseries of position data representing changes in position of a set of anatomical features of the animal during the first test period; deriving a first movement profile for the animal based on the first timeseries of position data, the first movement profile representing movement of the animal along the first pathway during the first test period; accessing a baseline movement profile defined for the animal; characterizing a difference between the baseline movement profile and the first movement profile; in response to the difference exceeding a threshold difference, predicting presence of a first abnormality in the first movement profile for the animal; and in response to predicting presence of the first abnormality: generating a first notification indicating detection of the first abnormality; and serving the first notification to a user affiliated with the animal. The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract idea of A method for monitoring health of an animal comprising: during a first training session: accessing a video feed recorded by an optical sensor defining a field of view intersecting a working field; and detecting the animal in the working field in the video feed; at a first time during the first video session, detecting the animal at a first location within the working field in the video feed; during a first test period succeeding the first time and within the first video session, detecting movement of the animal along a first pathway extending from the first location toward a second location in the video feed; and in response to detecting movement of the animal along the first pathway in the video feed: collecting a first timeseries of position data representing changes in position of a set of anatomical features of the animal during the first test period; deriving a first movement profile for the animal based on the first timeseries of position data, the first movement profile representing movement of the animal along the target pathway during the first test period; accessing a baseline movement profile defined for the animal; predicting presence of a first abnormality in the first movement profile based on a difference between the first movement profile and the baseline movement profile; accessing a diagnostic model linking abnormalities in movements of animals to a set of causal pathways; interpreting a first confidence score for a first causal pathway, in the set of causal pathways, for the first abnormality based on the difference and the diagnostic model; and characterizing health of the animal based on the first confidence score and the first causal pathway, as found in claim 14, and A method for monitoring health of an animal comprising: during a first training session: accessing a video feed recorded by an optical sensor defining a field of view intersecting a working field; and detecting the animal in the working field in the video feed; at a first time during the first video session, detecting the animal at a first location within the working field in the video feed; during a first test period succeeding the first time and within the first video session, in response to detecting movement of the animal along a first pathway extending from the first location toward a second location in the video feed, collecting a first timeseries of position data representing changes in position of a set of anatomical features of the animal during the first test period; during a second test period succeeding the first time and within the first video session: in response to detecting transition of the animal into a target pose, collecting a second timeseries of position data representing changes in position of the set of anatomical features of the animal during the second test period; and in response to detecting the animal in a first pose falling within a threshold deviation of the target pose, collecting a set of position data representing position of the set of anatomical features of the animal in the first pose; deriving a gait profile for the animal based on the first timeseries of position data, the gait profile representing movement of the animal along the first pathway; deriving a transition profile for the animal based on the second timeseries of position data, the transition profile representing movement of the animal transitioning into the target pose; deriving a pose profile for the animal based on the set of position data, the pose profile representing posture of the animal in the target pose; deriving a first movement profile for the animal during the first video session based on the gait profile, the transition profile, and the pose profile; deriving a first movement profile for the animal based on the first timeseries of position data, the second timeseries of position data, and the set of position data, the first movement profile representing movement of the animal along the first pathway during the first test period; accessing a baseline movement profile defined for the animal; and characterizing health of the animal based on a difference between the baseline movement profile and the first movement profile, as found in claim 18.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claims 1, 14, and 18 belong to a statutory category, namely it is a method.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, claim 1 is found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a Mental Process. This can be seen in the claim limitations of detecting, collecting, deriving, accessing, characterizing, predicting, and generating which is the judicial exception of a mental process because these limitations are merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements in order to analyze and characterize the movement and health of an animal and is capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 14 and 18.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claims 1, 14, and 18, the claimed methods recite additional elements including accessing a video feed recorded by an optical sensor however these elements are found to be merely “data gathering and output steps, which are recited at a high level of generality, and thus merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The generic data gathering step is recited at such a high level of generality (e.g. accessing a video feed, not even requiring the optical sensor in the scope of the claim) that it represents no more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a video feed. See MPEP 2106.05(h)
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed method. For instance, the video feed is only the source of visual information that a person could observe on their own. Using a video feed does not affect the abstract steps that result in a characterization of an animal’s movement and health.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to merely performing insignificant extra-solution activities. Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document)”.
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that Claims 1, 14, and 18, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 3-13 and 15-17, and 19-21, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for parent claims 1, 14, and 18. Specifically, they further include details on what data the movement and health analyses are based on. It is noted that the training apparatus discussed in claim 7, the wearable device worn by the animal in claim 9, and the device arranged within the working field in claim 10, do not appear to be required by the scope of the claim.
Reasons for Allowability over the Prior Art
Claims 1 and 3-21 are allowable over the prior art. The reasons for allowance are that the prior art does not teach, nor does any reasonably obvious combination of prior art teach, detecting an animal at a first location within a working field (with the narrow interpretation of this limitation by the PTAB decision in application 17/538242) with the specific time series limitations in the context of predicting the presence of a health abnormality based on specifically defined movement profiles generated while moving during the video session in combination with all the current limitations.
The closest available prior art includes:
Hanson (US 2016/0316716) – teaches tracking the location and movement of an animal by video, including identifying movements by a gesture recognizer engine.
Grisel (US 2017/0262599) – teaches using video footage to monitor the health of an animal, specifically, lameness of a horse.
Sayers (US 2014/0020635) – teaches using video surveillance to detect the location of a pet and intervene with multiple options to keep the animal within a desired location, including a treat dispenser.
These references alone or in combination do not teach the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANITA Y COUPE whose telephone number is (571)270-3614. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5 pm.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Anita Y Coupe/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights