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 .
Notice to Applicant
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed June 10, 2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 has been amended. Claims 3 and 5-7 have not been modified. Claims 2, 4, and 8-13 have been cancelled. Claims 14-16 have been added. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 14-16 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below.
Applicant argues 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections, pg. 7 of Remarks:
Regarding Prong One Step 2A, Applicant argues that the claims are not abstract. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant application recites using machine learning models to perform activities that are typically performed by veterinary doctors. Claim limitations that Applicant highlights, such as “estimating information on a behavior of a domestic animal from sensor data measured by a behavior sensor for the domestic animal” and "estimating health status of the domestic animal with reference to the information on the behavior of the domestic animal and a health criterion for the domestic animal", are activities that are typically performed by a veterinary doctor for their animal patient. Thus, the claims are characterized as certain methods of organizing human activity as managing the personal behaviors of a veterinary doctor.
Regarding Prong Two Step 2A, Applicant argues that the claims provide a practical application by (1) using a specific device, (2) effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, and (3) improving the accuracy of event occurrence information. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding (1), the six-axis angular velocity/acceleration sensor is only applied to perform an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). No specific, technical improvements are made to the sensor itself by only applying it to gather data for subsequent processing.
Regarding (2), When considering if a particular treatment and prophylaxis is considered a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two, Examiner considered the factors presented in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2):
• Factor A: The treatment plan determined from the abstract idea is not ""particular,"" i.e., specifically identified so that it does not encompass all applications of the judicial exception(s). Here, the treatment delivered is not specified. The only limitation regarding the type of treatment is that it is “a substance to be injected or administered to the domestic animal”. Additionally, the delivery of the treatment is to be manually performed by a human and not integrated into the computer system performing the abstract idea.
• Factor B. The treatment limitation does not have a significant relationship to the judicial exception – that is it does not integrate the law of nature into a practical application. As stated above, because the delivered treatment is not defined, any possible treatment could not reasonably be considered known in the art as a treatment for any type of disease of the domestic animal.
• Factor C. The treatment or prophylaxis limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception and is only extra-solution activity or a field-of-use (see MPEP § 2106.05(g))). The administering step of a substance according to a generated treatment recommendation is well known, nominally related to the inventive concept of creating the treatment recommendation, and amount to necessary data output similar to that of In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The step does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of determining a treatment recommendation for a patient.
Therefore, the claims only recite the prophylactic step as a tool which only serves to as insignificant post solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre/post-solution activity) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
Regarding (3), improving the accuracy of estimating health and feedback on how to manage an animal is an improvement to the abstract idea of animal care and diagnosis. An improvement to the abstract idea does not amount to an improvement to technology or a technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(III) stating “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”). Furthermore, efficiency is not enough to amount to a practical application via an improvement to computer or technology under Step 2A Prong 2 (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: ii. accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) (also see MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) stating “"claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not provide an inventive concept (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”), and, thus, the combination of the generic computer components do not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces; note this is applied to Step 2B as well as Step 2A Prong 2).
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant argues that the Office Action fails to meet the necessary burden outlined in the Berkheimer Memorandum. However, the consideration under Step 2B is if the additional elements, alone or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field – the novelty of the abstract idea is not considered relevant under the Step 2B analysis. Here, the additional elements (processors, behavior recognition model, estimation model, device of the user, behavior sensor, six-axis angular velocity/acceleration sensor), alone or in combination, amount to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer and using two generic algorithms. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014). Examiner submits that the claim citation of "wherein in the estimating step,...." is directed to the abstract idea and is not an additional element. The only additional element recited on pg. 14 of the Remarks is the machine learning-based estimation model, which is a generic model that is simply applied to perform the abstract idea of estimating the health status of an animal.
Applicant argues 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections, pg. 9 of Remarks:
Examiner finds Applicant arguments convincing and withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. Please see explanation below.
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, 3, 5-7, and 14-16 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.
Amended claim 1 recites “A method performed in a system” and “wherein the method further comprises the step of injecting or administering the substance to the domestic animal on the basis of the second breeding information.” As the injection or administration is performed by a user, as demonstrated by Fig. 7 (below) which depicts the system only instructing a user to inject or administer treatments, it is indefinite as to how the system is performing the injection or administration as that interventional action occurs separate from the system.
PNG
media_image1.png
532
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner suggests removing the “in a system” language.
Claims 3, 5-7, and 14-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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, 3, 5-7, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a method (claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 14-15). Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 14-15 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, 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).
The Examiner has identified method claim 1 as the claims that represent the claimed invention for analysis.
Claim 1:
A method performed in a system for monitoring an object, the system comprising one or more processors and the method comprising the steps of:
by the one or more processors, estimating information on a behavior of a domestic animal being estimated from sensor data measured by a behavior sensor for the domestic animal using a machine learning-based behavior recognition model, wherein the behavior sensor includes a six-axis angular velocity/acceleration sensor;
by the one or more processors, estimating health status of the domestic animal with reference to the information on the behavior of the domestic animal and a health criterion for the domestic animal;
by the one or more processors, determining first breeding information on the domestic animal on the basis of the health status;
by the one or more processors, providing the first breeding information to a user by displaying the first breeding information on a screen of a device of the user according to the health status;
by the one or more processors, receiving the user's feedback on the first breeding information via an input means of the user's device;
by the one or more processors, determining second breeding information on the domestic animal on the basis of the feedback on the first breeding information;
by the one or more processors, providing the second breeding information to the user by displaying the second breeding information on the screen of the user's device; and
by the one or more processors, estimating information on a behavior of the domestic animal after the second breeding information is provided to the user from sensor data measured by the behavior sensor using the machine learning-based behavior recognition model,
wherein the first breeding information includes information on a diagnosis of the domestic animal and information on a breeding environment of the domestic animal,
wherein, the information on the diagnosis and the information on the breeding environment are estimated using a machine learning-based estimation model that is trained on the basis of a correlation between the information on the behavior of the domestic animal and the health criterion for the domestic animal, and the information on the diagnosis of the domestic animal and the information on the breeding environment of the domestic animal,
wherein the health status of the domestic animal is estimated as one of three or more states that are classified depending on a degree of healthiness of the domestic animal,
wherein the first breeding information is determined such that other information is at least partially included in the first breeding information according to the health status,
wherein the second breeding information includes at least one of information on an action to be taken by the user for the domestic animal and information on a management method corresponding to the health status of the domestic animal,
wherein, the health status is estimated using the machine learning- based estimation model that is trained on the basis of the feedback, the second breeding information, and the information on the behavior of the domestic animal after the second breeding information is provided to the user,
wherein the information on the behavior of the domestic animal after the second breeding information is provided includes a change in the health status of the domestic animal that occurs when the user manages the domestic animal according to at least one of the action to be taken by the user for the domestic animal and the management method corresponding to the health status of the domestic animal,
wherein the second breeding information further includes a type of disease of the domestic animal determined on the basis of the user's feedback on the first breeding information and information on prescription or treatment for the disease of the domestic animal,
wherein the information on prescription or treatment for the disease of the domestic animal includes information on a substance to be injected or administered to the domestic animal, and
wherein the method further comprises the step of injecting or administering the substance to the domestic animal on the basis of the second breeding information.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity as managing personal behaviors. The claim elements are directed towards “estimating information on a behavior of a domestic animal”, “estimating health status of the domestic animal”, “determining second breeding information on the domestic animal” (which corresponds to “information on an action to be taken by the user for the domestic animal and information on a management method”), and “estimating information on a behavior of the domestic animal after the second breeding information is provided to the user”, which is diagnosing and monitoring the behavior and health of an animal. Diagnosing and monitoring the behavior and health of an animal condition falls under the abstract concept of managing personal behaviors, as diagnosing is a human activity that is regularly performed by veterinary specialists for their patients. It is important to note that the examples provided by the MPEP such as social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions are provided as examples and not an exclusive listing. Furthermore, the user device facilitates an interaction between the user and the device by providing information to the user and obtaining input.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 8 is abstract for similar reasons.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – 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 idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04 (ID)(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 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 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 elements beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional elements” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
Additional elements cited in the Claims:
One or more processors (1); behavior sensor (1); six-axis angular velocity/acceleration sensor (1); machine learning-based behavior recognition model (1); machine learning-based estimation model (1); screen of a device (1,8); substance (1); non-transitory computer readable medium (7); electrolyte (15)
Any computing devices (processors, user device) capable of performing the steps of the claim are taught at a high level of generality such that they are merely applied to perform the abstract idea. Pg. 11 of Applicant specification recites: “any type of digital equipment having a memory means and a microprocessor for computing capabilities, such as a smart phone, a tablet, a smart watch, a smart band, smart glasses, a desktop computer, a notebook computer, a workstation, a personal digital assistant (PDAs), a web pad, and a mobile phone, may be adopted as the device 400 according to the invention.” As any generic computing device is applied to perform the abstract idea, no specific, technical improvements are being made to the technology of computing devices.
Machine learning models (machine learning-based behavior recognition model, machine learning-based estimation model) are also taught at a high level of generality. Pg. 14, lines 11-16 of Applicant specification recites: “the behavior recognition model may be implemented using a variety of known machine learning algorithms. For example, it may be implemented using an artificial neural network such as a convolutional neural network (CNN) or a recurrent neural network (RNN), but is not limited thereto.” Pg. 19, lines 3-8 further recites: “Meanwhile, the machine learning-based estimation model may be implemented using a variety of known machine learning algorithms. For example, it may be implemented using an artificial neural network such as a convolutional neural network (CNN) or a recurrent neural network (RNN), but is not limited thereto.” No specific, technical improvements are being made to the field of machine learning as known machine learning algorithms are simply applied to perform the abstract idea.
The behavior sensor is also taught at a high level of generality. Pg. 10 of Applicant specification recites: “the sensor 300 according to one embodiment of the invention is digital equipment capable of connecting to and then communicating with the object monitoring system 200, and may include a known six-axis angular velocity/acceleration sensor… the sensor 300 according to one embodiment of the invention may include a different type of sensor other than the angular velocity and acceleration sensor, and may be inserted inside a body of a domestic animal (e.g., a calf).” No specific, technical improvements are being made to sensor technologies as any sensor that could be placed on or inserted inside an animal may be applied to perform the insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data from.
The non-transitory computer readable medium is also taught at a high level of generality. Pg. 25, lines 3-11 of Applicant specification recites: “Examples of the computer-readable recording medium include the following: magnetic media such as hard disks, floppy disks and magnetic tapes; optical media such as compact disk-read only memory (CD-ROM) and digital versatile disks (DVDs); magneto-optical media such as floptical disks; and hardware devices such as read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM) and flash memory, which are specially configured to store and execute program instructions.” No specific, technical improvements are being made to computer readable mediums as they are simply used to perform the insignificant extra-solution activity of storing data.
Substances are taught at a high level of generality. Applicant specification does not specify what substances may be injected or administered or what disorders are to be treated by the substance. As such, the recitation of substances fails to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis.
Electrolytes are also taught at a high level of generality. Fig. 5 notes that electrolytes may be injected but does not specify what types of electrolytes are injected or what digestive disorders are to be treated by electrolyte injection. As such, the recitation of electrolytes fails to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis
PNG
media_image2.png
524
840
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID)(A)(2).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 3: This claim recites herein the information on the diagnosis includes at least one of at least one suspected symptom and at least one suspected causative agent of the domestic animal; which only serves to further limit the abstract idea of the diagnosis.
Claim 5: This claim recites wherein the information on the breeding environment includes at least one of bodily changes, physical changes, and managerial changes associated with the breeding environment of the domestic animal; which only serves to further limit the information.
Claim 6: This claim recites wherein the health criterion includes information on a past behavior of the domestic animal, and wherein the health status is estimated by comparing the information on the behavior with the information on the past behavior; which teaches an abstract idea of comparing information with historical data can be performed mentally. This claim further serves to limit the health criterion information.
Claim 7: This claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored thereon a computer program for executing the method of Claim 1; which teaches a computing product at a high level of generality with no specific, technical improvements to non-transitory computer-readable recording mediums.
Claim 14: This claim recites wherein: the first breeding information includes a plurality of suspected symptoms of the domestic animal, and the user's feedback is a selection of one or more symptoms among the plurality of suspected symptoms; which only serves to narrow the information and feedback from the user.
Claim 15: This claim recites wherein: the type of disease of the domestic animal is a digestive disorder; and the substance to be injected or administered to the domestic animal is electrolyte; which does not teach a particular treatment or prophylaxis, as electrolytes encompass any electrically charged mineral that are used for conducting electrical impulses in the body including sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, among others, and does not have more than a nominal or insignificant relationship to the judicial exception as any digestive disorder, which may or may not be treated by generic electrolytes.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims 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 claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
Amount to elements that have been recognized as activities in particular fields (such as Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(i);storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 3, 5-7, 10, and 12-13, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as activities in particular fields, claims 3, 5-7, 10, and 12-13, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(ii); claims 3, 5-7, 10, and 12-13, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(iv). 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 14-15 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 16
Claim 16 is found to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The claims recite abstract ideas of organizing human activity as managing personal behaviors of veterinarians by receiving and processing data from an animal’s owner to estimate the animal’s behavior and health to provide a prescription or treatment for a disease, which is are human activities typically performed by veterinarians (Step 2A, Prong One: Yes). However, the claims also recite additional elements that use the judicial exception by effecting a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition (Step 2A, Prong Two: Yes). Specifically, claim 16 identifies particular treatments of injecting or administering Kapran or Bimastat, which are linked to a diagnosis of rotavirus, making the administration step significantly related to the recited diagnostic data processing.
Thus, claim 16 is found to qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 as integrating the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding Prior Art
Examiner notes that the claims were searched and considered, and no prior art rejection is supplied at this time. Although the individual limitations of the claims are known, the combination of the claim limitations, to which the claimed invention pertains, would not be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art. Based on prior art search results, the prior art deemed closest to the instant claims is:
Shaw (US 20220044815), which teaches estimating health status of a domestic animal, determining first breeding information, providing breeding information, receiving user feedback, and determining second breeding information. However, Shaw fails to teach or render obvious the estimating the behavior of an animal from sensor data using a machine learning-based behavior recognition model, estimating second breeding information using the behavior recognition model, wherein the first breeding information includes information on a breeding environment, performing diagnosis using a machine learning-based estimation model, wherein the health status is estimated as one of three or more states, wherein the estimation model is trained on several types of data, wherein the second breeding information includes a change in the health status of the animal, wherein the second breeding information further includes a type of disease of the animal, and administration of a substance in the manner claimed.
Gelfand (US 20200175611), which teaches estimating behavior of a domestic animal from sensor data using a machine learning-based behavior recognition model, wherein the first breeding information includes information on a breeding environment of the domestic animal, wherein the behavior recognition model is trained on specific data types. However, Gelfand fails to teach or render obvious wherein the behavior sensor includes a six-axis angular velocity/acceleration sensor, estimating behavior of the animal after the second breeding information is provided, wherein the behavior of the domestic animal after the second breeding information is provided includes a change in the health status of the animal, wherein the second breeding information includes a change in the health status of the animal, wherein the health status of the domestic animal is estimated as one of three or more states that are classified depending on a degree of healthiness of the domestic animal, wherein the second breeding information further includes a type of disease of the animal, and administration of a substance in the manner claimed.
Madeley (WO 2021173571 A1), which teaches wherein the behavior sensor includes a six-axis angular velocity/acceleration sensor, estimating information on a behavior of the domestic animal after the second breeding information is provided, wherein the machine learning- based estimation model is trained on specific types of data, and wherein the information on the behavior of the domestic animal after the second breeding information is provided includes a change in the health status of the animal. However, Madeley fails to teach or render obvious wherein the health status of the domestic animal is estimated as one of three or more states that are classified depending on a degree of healthiness of the domestic animal and wherein the second breeding information further includes a type of disease of the animal based on the user’s feedback on the first breeding information in the manner claimed.
Gritzman (US 20210045362), which teaches wherein the health status of the domestic animal is estimated as one of three or more states. However, Gritzman fails to teach or render obvious wherein the second breeding information further includes a type of disease of the animal based on the user’s feedback on the first breeding information in the manner claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oli; M. W., Evaluation of Fructooligosaccharide Supplementation of Oral Electrolyte Solutions for Treatment of Diarrhea (Recovery of the Intestinal Bacteria), Jan 1998, Digestive Diseases and Sciences, Volume 43, pgs. 138-147, which teaches oral electrolyte solutions to replenish salts and water lost during diarrhea.
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 whose telephone number is (571)272-3931. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on (571)270-1360. 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.
/D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights