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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 and 9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,393,573 and in view of Treiner 20120299731
Claims 1 and 9: claim 1 and 2 of the ‘573 patent provides a teaching of a method of preparing a nutrition, health, and/or wellness recommendation for an animal (see col. 25:63-65) the method comprising: collecting data on one or more of a health, diet, behavior, and environmental parameter of the animal (see col. 23:65-67); analyzing the data (see col. 26:4-15) wherein the analyzing of the data comprises developing a baseline behavior pattern regarding use of the waste container and identifying a change in use of the waste container away from the baseline behavior pattern wherein the developing of the baseline behavior pattern and the identifying of the change in use comprise calculation of a covariance matrix and further application of Kalman filter for tracking the mean and covariance of an evolving process and atypical deviation from baselines (see col. 26:5-16); and
providing the nutrition, health, and/or wellness recommendation based upon the analyzed data (see col. 26:17-18); and
wherein the nutrition, health, and/or wellness recommendation recommends a nutritional or feeding change for the animal (see col. 26:24-27).
The ‘573 patent is silent on the teaching of having monitoring an animal who uses a waste container; environmental parameter on at least one of a (i) weight-sensing device placed under the waste container; on a processor to track at least one of event frequency in the waste container.
However, the Treiner reference provides a teaching of monitoring an animal who uses a waste container (see paragraph 47 waste deposited by an animal); on at least one of a (i) weight-sensing device placed under the waste container (see paragraph 42 and 47-48 weight sensor under the waste container used to detect the weight of waste deposited and the weight of the animal); and on a processor to track at least one of event frequency in the waste container (see paragraph 122 frequency of trip event to the waste), event duration in the waste container (see paragraph 122 duration of time spent inside the waste container).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘573 patent with the feature of having monitoring an animal who uses a waste container; environmental parameter on at least one of a (i) weight-sensing device placed under the waste container; on a processor to track at least one of event frequency in the waste container; as taught Treiner reference, in order to provide an analysis of the animal physiological pattern (see paragraph 32).
Claim 2: claim 2 of the ‘573 patent provides a teaching of wherein the recommendation is selected from one or more of a change in environment.
Claim 3: claim 3 of the ‘573 patent provides a teaching of wherein the health parameter of the animal is selected from one or more of the animal's age; sex; gender; species or breed; body weight; body mass index (BMI); body composition; body temperature; gait force; reproductive aspects; skin and coat condition; cardiovascular system; gastrointestinal and kidney functions; vision, cognitive health; and combinations thereof.
Claim 4: Claim 4 of the ‘573 patent provides a teaching of wherein the diet parameter of the animal is selected from one more of the animal's food and water consumption and amount and time of day thereof; nutritional profile of the food consumed; vitamin, supplement, and/or medication consumption; and combinations thereof.
Claim 5: Claim 5 of the ‘573 patent provides a teaching of wherein the behavior parameter of the animal is selected from one or more of the animal's activity profiles comprising (which includes one or more of calories burned, steps or distance traveled, intensity levels, changes in elevation, and time of day information; elimination activity comprising (which includes one or more of frequency, amount, and time of day information); vocalization; and combinations thereof.
Claim 6 : Claim 6 of the ‘573 patent provides a teaching of wherein the environmental parameter of the animal is selected from one or more of weather information comprising (which includes one or more of air temperature, humidity, heat index, and precipitation[[)]]; location coordinates of the animal; location coordinates of at least one of food, water, a waste container, a sleeping location or a resting location of the animal food/water/waste container/sleeping or resting locations; presence or absence of an owner or caretaker owner/caretaker at the location; presence or absence of a child or an elderly person children/elderly at the location; and combinations thereof.
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 1-6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claims 1 recite:
A method of preparing a nutrition, health, and/or wellness recommendation for an animal, the method comprising:
collecting data on one or more of a health, diet, behavior, and environmental parameter of the animal on at least one a (i) weight sensing device placed under the waste container or (ii) a motion/movement detection device placed under the waste container;
analyzing the data on a processor to track at least one event frequency in the waste container, event duration in the waste container or time of day event in the waste container;
wherein the analyzing of the data comprises developing a baseline behavior pattern regarding use of the waste container and identifying a change in use of the waste container away from the baseline behavior pattern (see col. wherein the developing of the baseline behavior pattern and the identifying of the change in use comprise calculation of a covariance matrix and further application of Kalman filter for tracking the mean and covariance of an evolving process and atypical deviation from baselines; and
providing the nutrition, health, and/or wellness recommendation based upon the analyzed data;
wherein the nutrition, health, and/or wellness recommendation recommends a nutritional or feeding change for the animal.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “mobile module”, “setting module”, “dashboard module”, “analytical module”, “notification module” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a veterinarian collecting data from an animal, analyzing said data and providing recommendation according to said analysis.
With respect to the limitation of “a (i) weight sensing device placed under the waste container or (ii) a motion/movement detection device placed under the waste container”. The examiner takes the position that this limitation can be interpreted as extra-solution activity that does not transform ineligible subject matter into a patent eligible subject matter as the limitation amounts to a data gathering steps. Additionally, the same limitation can also be interested as a field of use or technological environment. In this particular, the use of a weight sensing device in a novel location (waste container) does not change the fact that the applicant is using a well-known device (weigh sensor) to gather data that is used in the analysis.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing said steps in the human mind, then it falls within the “mental process” and “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – ““mobile module”, “setting module”, “dashboard module”, “analytical module”, “notification module” claim 7 are merely are merely generic computer components, performing generic computer functions of storing and processing data. Taking each element individually and as a whole, the recitation of the computer elements amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Further, there are no additional elements that improve the functioning of a computer itself, applies the abstract idea with a particular machine (in this case, the method can be performed by a generic computer performing generic computer functions), or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 76).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-6 and 9-13/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 9 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the limitations of gathering multiple types of information for each of a health, diet, behavior, and environmental parameter (claims 2-6), and a computer-implemented method and computer product serve only to further limit and describe the abstract idea. Similarly claims 10-13 are also directed to an abstract idea since it further expounds on the observation or the data analysis step.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of "a computer program product, comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium" (claim 9) are merely are merely generic computer components, performing generic computer functions of storing and processing data. Taking each element individually and as a whole, the recitation of the computer elements amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Further, there are no additional elements that improve the functioning of a computer itself, applies the abstract idea with a particular machine (in this case, the method can be performed by a generic computer performing generic computer functions), or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 on claims 1-6, 9-13 are not warranted because the limitation of “wherein the analyzing of the data comprises developing a baseline behavior pattern regarding use of the waste container and identifying a change in use of the waste container away from the baseline behavior pattern wherein the developing of the baseline behavior pattern and the identifying of the change in use comprise calculation of a covariance matrix and further application of Kalman filter for tracking the mean and covariance of an evolving process and atypical deviation from baselines”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the limitation in question appears to combine the abstract idea of analyzing data of animal activities in a waste container and calculate said data with covariance matrices and Kalman filter. However, these limitation does not improve the analysis under 35 U.S.C 101 as the combination of an abstract idea (data analysis – mental process) and the calculation of said data using a covariance matrix and Kalman filter another abstract idea (mathematical process) would not be considered to be significantly more.
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 ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715