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 .
Response to Amendment
This FINAL office action is in response to the claims filed on February 24, 2025.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Subject Matter Free of Art
Claims 1-10 include subject matter that is free of prior art. The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within independent claim 1. In particular, the cited prior art fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of:
a user terminal configured to register a companion animal and then answer at least one question and a checklist for noting an abnormality, measuring a sleeping respiratory rate (SRR), recording a status, and recording syncope and seizures;
a wearable device worn on the companion animal and woken up by an acceleration that is caused due to the companion animal collapses, record the abnormality and transmit the recorded abnormality,
a veterinary hospital terminal configured to output records written through the user terminal; and
a medical record service providing server including a basic information part configured to allow the user terminal to record basic information of the companion animal when the user terminal registers the companion animal, an abnormality note part configured to display and store the abnormality note and a time in a messenger form when the abnormality note is written through the user terminal, an SRR part configured to store time-series changes of the SRR in a log and visualize the time-series changes of the SRR as a graph when the user terminal measures the SRR, and a syncope-seizure distinction part configured to map questions and a checklist for syncope and seizures to a record and answers and store the record and answers mapped to the questions and checklist,
wherein the SRR part calculates the SRR of the companion animal by analyzing a video captured for a preset period of time to check whether an SRR of a companion animal that has a heart disease and takes a heart medicine continuously increases up to a preset value or more or decreases down to another preset value or less by measuring changes in the depth of the chest or abdomen using a skeleton algorithm to find one cycle, and the number of breaths may be automatically recorded for the preset period,
wherein the veterinary hospital terminal is further configured to transmit diagnosis and a prescription of prescription drug which are generated by diagnosing medical record of the companion animal recorded in the medical record service providing server, wherein the medical record includes the basic information, the abnormality note, the SRR and the record and the answers for the syncope and seizures, and wherein the user terminal is further configured to automatically set and trigger an alarm at a medication time of the prescribed prescription drug based on the prescription of the prescription drug.
The closest prior art Chung et al. (KR 20220026644A) teaches a user terminal configured to register a companion animal and then answer at least one question and a checklist for noting an abnormality, recording a status; a veterinary hospital terminal configured to output records written through the user terminal and a medical record service providing server including a basic information part configured to allow the user terminal to record basic information of the companion animal when the user terminal registers the companion animal.
The closest prior art Hur (KR 20220091652A) teaches measuring a sleeping respiratory rate (SRR), an abnormality note part configured to display and store the abnormality note and a time in a messenger form when the abnormality note is written through the user terminal, an SRR part configured to store time-series changes of the SRR in a log and visualize the time-series changes of the SRR as a graph when the user terminal measures the SRR.
The closest prior art Kuperman et a. (US 20230062081 A1) teaches a syncope-seizure distinction part configured to map questions and a checklist for syncope and seizures to a record and answers and store the record and answers mapped to the questions and checklist.
The closest prior art Menkes et al. (US 20140123912 A1) teaches a wearable device worn on the companion animal and woken up by an acceleration that is caused due to the companion animal collapses, record the abnormality and transmit the recorded abnormality.
The closest prior art Iwasaki et al. (JP2016224777A) teaches wherein the user terminal is further configured to automatically set and trigger an alarm at a medication time of the prescribed prescription drug based on the prescription of the prescription drug.
However, the Examiner does not find that the cited references separately nor in combination fairly teach the limitations of the amended claims. In particular, the Examiner does not find that the cited references teach analyzing a video to measure SRR by measuring changes in the depth of the chest or abdomen using a skeleton algorithm to find one cycle, and the number of breaths may be automatically recorded for the preset period.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 6-8 recites “a wearable device worn on the companion animal and woken up by an acceleration that is caused due to the companion animal collapses, record the abnormality and transmit the recorded abnormality”. This should instead read “… due to the companion animal collapsing, the device configured to record the abnormality and transmit the recorded abnormality”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the veterinary hospital terminal is further configured to transmit diagnosis and a prescription of prescription drug which are generated by diagnosing medical record of the companion animal recorded in the medical record service providing server.” It is unclear what the diagnosing medical record is referring to or if this is a typographical error. Claims 2-10 are rejected due to dependency.
Claim 6 recites “when at least one wearable device interoperates with the user terminal”. It is unclear if this wearable device is the same or different from the wearable device in claim 1. Claim 7 is rejected due to dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 discloses that the user terminal outputs a medication time of each prescription drug as an alarm at medication intervals of the prescription drug . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Eligibility Step 1 (Does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?)
Claims 1-10 are drawn to a system and thus, are within the four statutory categories.
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?)
Claims 1-10 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below:
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis.
Claim 1 recites a series of steps for diagnosing a pet with a heart disease, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea that falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., following a set of rules or instructions).
Claim 1 recites the following limitations which set forth the abstract idea:
registering a companion animal and then answering at least one question and a checklist for noting an abnormality, measuring a sleeping respiratory rate (SRR), recording a status, and recording syncope and seizures;
outputting records written through the user terminal; and
recording basic information of the companion animal when the companion animal is registered,
displaying and storing the abnormality note and a time in a messenger form ,
storing time-series changes of the SRR in a log and visualizing the time-series changes of the SRR as a graph when the SRR is measured, and
mapping questions and a checklist for syncope and seizures to a record and answers and storing the record and answers mapped to the questions and checklist,
transmitting diagnosis and prescription of prescription drugs which are generated by diagnosing medical record of the companion animal recorded in the medical record service providing server, where the medical record includes the basic information, the abnormality note, the SRR, and the record and the answers for the syncope and seizures, and
automatically setting and triggering an alarm at a medication time of the prescribed prescription drug based on the prescription of the prescription drug.
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
A user terminal
A veterinary hospital terminal
A medical record service providing server with various parts
A wearable device worn on the companion and woken up by an acceleration that is caused due to the companion animal collapsing
wherein the SRR of the companion animal is calculated by analyzing a video captured for a preset period of time to check whether an SRR of a companion animal that has a heart disease and takes a heart medicine continuously increases up to a preset value or more or decreases down to another preset value or less using a skeleton algorithm to find one cycle of breathing
The noted above additional elements are recited a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. A skeleton algorithm falls under mathematics and using the algorithm is considered applying it. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)(I) which states that merely having the words “apply it” and/or “generally linking” the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The use of additional elements noted above as tools to implement/automate the abstract idea does not render claim 1 to be patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?):
Claim 1 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements noted above to perform the generic computer functions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component or generally link the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05 (I)(A)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1 is, therefore, not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-10 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 8-10 do not recite any additional elements in addition to those recited in claim 1.
Dependent claims 6-7 recite the following additional elements:
at least one wearable device with an acceleration sensor, a microphone, a pulse rate sensor, a temperature sensor, and a respiratory rate sensor.
The noted above additional elements merely “generally link” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)(I) which states that merely having the words “apply it” and/or “generally linking” the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more). Therefore, claims 6-7 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Claims 6-7 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements noted above to perform the generic computer functions amount to no more than mere generally link the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05 (I)(A)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 6-7 is, therefore, not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or 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. Claims 2-10 are, therefore, not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-10
Issue #1:
Applicant argues: “Firstly, the applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention does not fall within "certain method of organizing human activities" grouping of abstract ideas, in particular specific limitations of "the SRR part calculates the SRR of the companion animal by analyzing a video captured for a preset period of time to check whether an SRR of a companion animal that has a heart disease and takes a heart medicine continuously increases up to a preset value or more or decreases down to another preset value or less by measuring changes in the depth of the chest or abdomen using a skeleton algorithm to find one cycle, and the number of breaths may be automatically recorded for the preset period, wherein the veterinary hospital terminal is further configured to transmit diagnosis and a prescription of prescription drug which are generated by diagnosing medical record of the companion animal recorded in the medical record service providing server, wherein the medical record includes the basic information, the abnormality note, the SRR and the record and the answers for the syncope and seizures, and wherein the user terminal is further configured to automatically set and trigger an alarm at a medication time of the prescribed prescription drug based on the prescription of the prescription drug". The specific limitations described above can only be accomplished through a computer with an image processing technology (video analyzing), and the information of diagnosis and a prescription of prescription drug is transmitted between a user terminal and a veterinary hospital terminal, not a mental process/performed mentally. The claimed invention cannot be practically performed in the human mind since human mind is not equipped to extracting pixels from an image and to transmitting information of diagnosis and a prescription of prescription drug. Therefore, the amended claim 1 with limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind does not recite a mental process. The claim 1 is not abstract ideas that fall within the notion of "mental processes/performed mentally".”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner did not characterize the argued limitations as being a mental process or being performed mentally in the human mind. Additionally, the Examiner has characterized the terminals/computer/server as additional elements that apply the abstract idea highlighted in the rejection above. Analyzing a video and calculating the respiratory rate using a skeleton algorithm is applying the algorithm (mathematics) to determine the respiratory rate. Additionally, the Examiner has not characterized the claimed invention as a mental process, but rather as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.
Issue #2:
Applicant argues: “Secondly, the applicant respectfully submits that the claimed features at issue is more than merely applying the claimed steps on a generic processor and sensor. The specific function of setting and triggering alarm(s) for the prescribed medical should be considered as an administrating a treatment to the patient. Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole is integrated into a practical application, rather than mere monopolizing every usages of the claimed invention.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Setting and triggering alarms to take or administer medication is not considered as administering a treatment to a patient. The claims do not recite administering a particular treatment to a patient, and triggering an alarm does not indicate that a treatment was in fact administered.
Issue #3:
Applicant argues: “Thirdly, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claim is directed to improvements in the collaborative treatment instead of an abstract idea. Paragraph [0047] of as-filed specification stated that "The collaborative treatment part 391 may cause a single or plurality of veterinary hospital terminals 400 to output records and answers input through the user terminal 100 according to a setting, cause the single or plurality of veterinary hospital terminals 400 to share diagnostic and medical records, and allow sharing of diagnostic, remedial, and treatment data uploaded by the single or plurality of veterinary hospital terminals 400.... the collaborative treatment part 391 may be set so that the same medical record and chart are viewed, diagnosed, and shared among multiple hospitals rather than within one hospital", and paragraph [0048] of as-filed specification stated that "The community part 393 may create at least one community and allow user terminals 100 to share information with each other. Users who register companion animals of like kinds, with like diseases, or with like ages may be allowed to create a community and share information". In order to solve the problem that patient data is dispersed across hospitals, and it is difficult to integrate the patient data, the claimed invention provides method that goes one stage further is a personal health record (PHR), and through a PHR system, medical data of companion animals can be shared among guardians as well as hospitals, and therefore a companion animal and its guardian visit a veterinary hospital, medical data is submitted to the hospital or checked on the platform, and a veterinarian can determine the companion animal's condition quickly and efficiently. Compared with the existing technology, the present invention solves the problem that the health records of companion animals are only stored in a single clinic to make the health records transmits among various hospitals. At the same time, disease data can be collected from the health records and then learned and verified by Al algorithms to predict and detect diseases in an early stage.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies on regarding collaborative treatment and dispersion of patient data are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-10
Regarding the prior art rejection of claims 1-10, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments in light of the present amendments and finds them persuasive. The prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
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 MALAK M NASSER whose telephone number is (703)756-4610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached on 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.
/MALAK M NASSER/Examiner, Art Unit 3687 /KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687