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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action having a notification date of April 15, 2025 (“non-final Office Action”). Following the non-final Office Action, Applicant filed an amendment on July 2, 2025 (the “Amendment”), amending claims 1-3, 11-13, and 18-20.
The present Final Office Action addresses pending claims 1-20 in the Amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §101
Starting on page 3 of the Amendment, Applicant's takes the position that the newly added limitations of claim 1 (i.e., receiving, by the one or more processors, a user selection of a private user data subset corresponding to the at least one user profile and a private pet data subset corresponding to the at least one pet profile; receiving, by the one or more processors, a selection of the electronic key from an external device; in response to receiving the selection, transmitting the at least one user profile without the private user data subset and the at least one pet profile without the private pet data subset for display to the external device) are not "certain methods of organizing human activity." However, this position is moot because the Examiner is now asserting that at least some of these limitations are "mental processes" as set forth in the rejection below.
On pages 3-7 of the Amendment, Applicant takes the position that certain limitations of claim 1 (i.e., generating a single electronic key for a user profile and a pet profile, receiving a user selection of private data for the user profile and the pet profile, receiving a selection of the electronic key, and then transmitting the non-private data to an external device for display on the external device) are "additional limitations" that provide a "practical application" of the abstract idea by efficiently transferring non-private data from two different database records to an external device via selection of a single electronic key. The Examiner disagrees that the present claims include additional limitations that provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
In contrast, a person could practically in their mind with pen and paper generate a key based on the at user profile and pet profiles (e.g., writing down a particular picture/number that identifies the user/pet profile set per [0066] of the present specification), receive a user selection of a private user data subset corresponding to the at least one user profile and a private pet data subset corresponding to the at least one pet profile (e.g., observing a selection of particular sensitive/private data in the user and pet profiles), and receive a selection of the key (e.g., again, such as via observing a selection of the key). Accordingly, Applicant's assertion on page 7 that such limitations are incapable of being performed in the human mind is incorrect.
In summary, the majority of the independent claims are directed to the mental process abstract idea of receiving a first data set including user and pet identifiers, retrieving corresponding profiles, updating the profiles, generating a key based on the profiles, retrieving a selection of private data in the profiles, and retrieving a selection of the key. These are not complex, technical steps as asserted by Applicant. Furthermore, actually transmitting the user/pet profiles after first (mentally) determining which private data to exclude and (mentally) receiving the key selection is just adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g))(e.g., similar to cutting hair after first (mentally) determining the hair style). Finally, the additional limitation of the (mentally-generatable) key being electronic merely amounts to using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea which is equivalent to "apply it" (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
In response to Applicant's assertion that certain limitations "[result] in a more efficient, as well as accurate, system for pet and user data transfer…," "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). MPEP 2106.05(f).
The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §103
These rejections are withdrawn in view of the Amendment.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more:
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 11-17 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), and claims 18-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories. 35 USC §101.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 and July 2024 updates issued by the USPTO as incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 11 recites:
A computer system for dynamically managing electronic pet care data, the computer system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
hosting a user portal corresponding to at least one user and at least one pet, the user portal including at least one user profile and at least one pet profile, wherein one or more database records store the at least one user profile and the at least one pet profile;
receiving a first data set from a first external system, the first external system including at least one of: a wellness system, a diagnostic system, a homing system, a genetics system, or a third party services system, wherein the first data set includes at least one user identifier and at least one pet identifier;
retrieving the at least one user profile and the at least one pet profile based on the at least one user identifier and the at least one pet identifier respectively;
updating the at least one pet profile based on the first data set;
generating an electronic key based on the at least one user profile and the at least one pet profile;
displaying the electronic key on a user interface of the user portal;
receiving a user selection of a private user data subset corresponding to the at least one user profile and a private pet data subset corresponding to the at least one pet profile;
receiving a selection of the electronic key from an external device; and
in response to receiving the selection, transmitting the at least one user profile without the private user data subset and the at least one pet profile without the private pet data subset for display to the external device.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite "mental processes" because they are observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). As an example, a person could practically in their mind with pen and paper receive a first data set including user and pet identifiers (e.g., via visually reviewing such data), retrieve user and pet profiles based on the at least one user identifier and the at least one pet identifier respectively (e.g., identifying profiles with similar names, IDs, account numbers, etc.), update the pet profile based on the first data set (e.g., adding data to the pet profile), generate a key based on the at user profile and pet profiles (e.g., a particular code that identifies the user/pet profile set), display the generated key (e.g., via writing it down), receive a user selection of a private user data subset corresponding to the at least one user profile and a private pet data subset corresponding to the at least one pet profile (e.g., particular sensitive data), and receive a selection of the key.
These recitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis found to be "mental processes" in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQe2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claims “directed to collection of information, comprehending the meaning of that collected information, and indication of the results, all on a generic computer network operating in its normal, expected manner,” fail step one of the Alice framework. In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Claims directed to “collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data’’ are abstract. Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. General Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Claims directed to organizing, storing, and transmitting information determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Cyberfone Sys., L.L.C. v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App’x 988, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12, 14-17 and 19 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below:
-Claims 2, 12, and 19 call for receiving a user selection of a data subset including a subset of data associated with the user and pet profiles and associating the data subset with the key which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claims 4 and 16 recite how the first data set includes activity data captured by a pet worn sensor which just further defines the at least one abstract idea.
-Claims 5 and 17 recite how the first data set includes wellness plan data or diagnostic data associated with the pet which just further defines the at least one abstract idea.
-Claim 6 recites how the first data set includes an adoption/registration record or a personalized match based on the user/pet profile which just further defines the at least one abstract idea.
-Claim 7 recites how the first data set includes a genetic analysis which just further defines the at least one abstract idea.
-Claim 8 recites how the first data set includes a booking data and/or a communication from an external services which just further defines the at least one abstract idea.
-Claims 9, 10, 14, and 15 recite details of the user profile (e.g., name, address, etc.) and pet profile (e.g., name, image, wellness score, etc.) and thus just further define the at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A computer system for dynamically managing electronic pet care data, the computer system comprising (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
at least one memory storing instructions (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
hosting a user portal corresponding to at least one user and at least one pet, the user portal including at least one user profile and at least one pet profile, wherein one or more database records store the at least one user profile and the at least one pet profile (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
receiving a first data set from a first external system (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the first external system including at least one of: a wellness system, a diagnostic system, a homing system, a genetics system, or a third party services system (mere field of use limitation as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), wherein the first data set includes at least one user identifier and at least one pet identifier;
retrieving the at least one user profile and the at least one pet profile based on the at least one user identifier and the at least one pet identifier respectively;
updating the at least one pet profile based on the first data set;
generating an electronic (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) key based on the at least one user profile and the at least one pet profile;
displaying the electronic (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) key on a user interface of the user portal (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
receiving a user selection of a private user data subset corresponding to the at least one user profile and a private pet data subset corresponding to the at least one pet profile;
receiving a selection of the electronic (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) key from an external device (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
in response to receiving the selection, transmitting the at least one user profile without the private user data subset and the at least one pet profile without the private pet data subset for display to the external device (extra-solution activity (transmitting data) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the computer system including memory storing instructions, processor for executing the instructions to perform operations, hosting a user portal including database records storing the user and pet profiles, the first data set being received from a first external system, the key being electronic, and the electronic key being displayed on a UI of the portal, and the key selection being received from an external device, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of the first external system including at least one of: a wellness system, a diagnostic system, a homing system, a genetics system, or a third party services system, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Regarding the additional limitation of transmitting the user and pet profiles without the respective private user and pet data subset for display to the external device in response to receiving the selection, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 11 and analogous independent claims 1 and 18 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claim 11 and analogous independent claims 1 and 18 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
-Claims 3, 13, and 20 call for transmitting the data subset to the external device which just amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
-Claims 4 and 16 recite how the first external system includes the wellness system which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
-Claims 5 and 17 recite how the first external system includes the diagnostic system which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
-Claim 6 recites how the first external system includes the homing system which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
-Claim 7 recites how the first external system includes the genetics system which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
-Claim 8 recites how the first external system includes the third party services system which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
When the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 11 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the computer system including memory storing instructions, processor for executing the instructions to perform operations, hosting a user portal including database records storing the user and pet profiles, the first data set being received from a first external system, the key being electronic, and the electronic key being displayed on a UI of the portal, and the key selection being received from an external device, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of the first external system including at least one of: a wellness system, a diagnostic system, a homing system, a genetics system, or a third party services system, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Regarding the additional limitations directed to transmitting the user and pet profiles without the respective private user and pet data subset for display to the external device in response to receiving the selection which the Examiner submits merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) as discussed above, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
-Claims 3, 13, and 20 call for transmitting the data subset to the external device which just amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
-Claims 4 and 16 recite how the first external system includes the wellness system which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
-Claims 5 and 17 recite how the first external system includes the diagnostic system which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
-Claim 6 recites how the first external system includes the homing system which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
-Claim 7 recites how the first external system includes the genetics system which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
-Claim 8 recites how the first external system includes the third party services system which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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, Jason Dunham, can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights