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 .
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on April 1, 2026 (“April 2026 Response”) which contained, inter alia, claim amendments (“April 2026 Claims”) and “REMARKS/ARGUMENTS” (“April 2026 Remarks”).
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-17 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.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis for Products and Processes1 (“SME Analysis”):
Claims 1-17 are directed to one of the statutory categories.
Claims 1-17 are directed to a system.
Step 2A- Prong One of the SME Analysis:
Claim 1 recites/describes the following steps:
a pet interactive [system] comprising:
[a computing device includes a screen display and a memory, the computing device configured for use;]
within a veterinary office;
[a content management module coupling to the computing device through a network interface,] permitting a developer to create or change content displayed on the screen;
a plurality of vendor functions [communicating with a vendor management module of the developer;]
[the content management module further communicates with a pet health module] having a plurality of selectable topics displayable on the screen; each selectable topic of the plurality of selectable topics corresponds to a video;
an advertisement customization [module] permits an administrator to approve or disapprove a plurality of vendor advertisements for display within the pet interactive [system];
[an algorithm executed by the computing device] that:
retrieves, during presentation of a selected video, a plurality of advertisements approved by the administrator [and stored on the database server];
filters the plurality of approved advertisements based on relevance to the selected video displayed on the screen;
evaluates a number of times each filtered advertisement has been displayed within a defined time period;
eliminates filtered advertisements exceeding a defined playback threshold; and
[automatically] selects and presents, on the screen display, an advertisement having a lowest playback frequency from the filtered advertisements in response to [detection] of a conclusion of the selected video.
These steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth customizing content to be displayed to a user with adjunct advertisements selected according to certain criteria, which amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally, these steps encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) customizing content to be displayed to a user with adjunct advertisements selected according to certain criteria (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim.
As such, Claims 1-17 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A- Prong Two of the SME Analysis:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of:
a system;
a computing device includes a screen display and a memory, the computing device configured for use;
a content management module coupling to the computing device through a network interface,
[functions] communicating with a vendor management module of the developer;
the content management module further communicates with a pet health module;
stored on a database server;
an advertisement customization module;
an algorithm executed by the computing device;
automatically;
detection;
various “module[s]” recited in the dependent claims, and
a portal (as recited in Claim 15).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using a “system,” “a computing device includes a screen display and a memory, the computing device configured for use;” “a content management module coupling to the computing device through a network interface,” “communicating with a vendor management module of the developer;” “the content management module further permits and communicates with a pet health module;” “stored on a database server;” “an advertisement customization module,” “an algorithm executed by the computing device,” performing things “automatically,” a “detection” (e.g.: detecting), various “module(s),” and/or “a portal” is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem.
Dependent Claims 2-17 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in the respective dependent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
Therefore, the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, Claims 1-17 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the SME Analysis:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “system,” “a computing device includes a screen display and a memory, the computing device configured for use;” “a content management module coupling to the computing device through a network interface,” “communicating with a vendor management module of the developer;” “the content management module further permits and communicates with a pet health module;” “stored on a database server;” “an advertisement customization module,” “an algorithm executed by the computing device,” performing things “automatically,” a “detection” (e.g.: detecting), various “module(s),” and/or “a portal” is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, and/or append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity).
Dependent Claims 2-17 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent Claims 2-17 are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
As such, no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above.
For the reasons stated above, Claims 1-17 as whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paige et al. (US 2008/0162175 A1)(“Paige”) in view of Kadry (US 2006/0247968 A1)(“Kadry”), in view of Kugler et al. (US 2012/0191477 A1)(“Kugler”), and further in view of Kraus (US 2007/0174079 A1)(“Kraus”).
As to Claim 1, Paige discloses a pet interactive system (“software provides the ability for a pet owner to submit medical history data prior to a visit, participate in the diagnostic pathway of their pet, interact with unique and innovative content, and complete their clinic visit online using web based tools.” [0009]) comprising:
a computing device (“personal computer,” [0012]) includes a screen display (“touch screen” [0012]) and a memory (“Memory” [0038]), the computing device configured for use within a veterinary office (“The system 100 includes a local system 105 that is located for example in a veterinary clinic.” [0040]);
a content management module (server 305) coupling to the computing device through a network interface (“communications network” [0040], and see Fig.3), permitting a developer to create or change content displayed on the screen (“The web site provides the veterinary staff with an easy to use interface for maintaining all of the content on the local system 335, referred to in this embodiment as kiosks.” [0051]);
[a plurality of vendor functions communicating with a vendor management module of the developer;]
the content management module further communicates with a pet health module (see “Dog Anatomy” interface displayed in Fig.5) having a plurality of selectable (see “Rotate Left,” “Rotate Up,” “Rotate Right,” “Rotate Down,” Fig.5, “In a further alternative embodiment of the system, the anatomy views shown above are not static views but rather can be rotated so that the subject matter can be viewed from a plurality of angles.” [0066]) topics displayable on the screen (“touch screen module has an overview and six close ups of the common anatomical and physiological systems (Dermatology, Orthopedic, Internal Medicine, Ears, Eyes and Throat, Cardiac, Dental, for example) that veterinarians discuss daily with clients.” [0009]); each selectable topic of the plurality of selectable topics corresponds to a video (“In one alternative embodiment of the invention, the view is an animation so that the user can see the joint or other particular anatomical portion in movement.” [0066]) stored on a database server (anatomy database 205, “the anatomy databases 205, 215 generally hold generic images of anatomy, for example, the images of healthy joints and organs. The anatomy database 205 at the remote server is the master database.” [0049]);
an advertisement customization module permits [an administrator to approve or disapprove] a plurality of vendor advertisements for display within the pet interactive system (“Further, the content at the exam room level is customizable, for example, based on selections made by the veterinarian at startup. For example, if a particular diet is preferred, the content at the exam room will provide that preferred information. Preferences can include health recommendations and can also include brand recommendation such as particular food brands. Food providers, for example, are able to advertise via the exam room learning center.” [0012]);
[an algorithm executed by the computing device that:
retrieves, during presentation of a selected video, a plurality of advertisements approved by the administrator and stored on the database server;
filters the plurality of approved advertisements based on relevance to the selected video displayed on the screen;
evaluates a number of times each filtered advertisement has been displayed within a defined time period;
eliminates filtered advertisements exceeding a defined playback threshold; and
automatically selects and presents, on the screen display, an advertisement having a lowest playback frequency from the filtered advertisements in response to detection of a conclusion of the selected video.]
Paige does not directly disclose
a plurality of vendor functions communicating with a vendor management module of the developer;
an administrator to approve or disapprove a plurality of vendor advertisements for display;
an algorithm executed by the computing device that:
retrieves, during presentation of a selected video, a plurality of advertisements approved by the administrator and stored on the database server;
filters the plurality of approved advertisements based on relevance to the selected video displayed on the screen;
evaluates a number of times each filtered advertisement has been displayed within a defined time period;
eliminates filtered advertisements exceeding a defined playback threshold; and
automatically selects and presents, on the screen display, an advertisement having a lowest playback frequency from the filtered advertisements in response to detection of a conclusion of the selected video.
Kadry teaches
a plurality of vendor functions communicating with a vendor management module of the developer (see functions available for selection in the vendor management interface depicted in Fig.4);
an administrator to approve or disapprove a plurality of vendor advertisements (“Preferably the marketing presentation is about a health product or health service. Health products include prescription drugs, over-the-counter drugs, and medical devices such as pain pumps, cardiac defibrillators, and pacemakers.” [0098]) for display (“The present systems and methods can also include a presentation approval interface or module that enables a health provider to review the marketing presentation that may be presented to health consumer. For example, through a web browser, a health provider can enter a password protected control panel. The control panel includes a marketing materials approval page. This page queries the database and displays a table of available marketing materials. Each item in the table includes a hyperlink to view the content; a pushbutton labeled “Approved”; and a pushbutton labeled “Not Approved”. When the doctor chooses “Approved” or “Not Approved,” the appropriate database entry is updated accordingly.” [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paige by the features of Kadry, and in particular to include in Paige, the feature of a plurality of vendor functions communicating with a vendor management module of the developer, as taught by Kadry, because it would help to provide an alternative marketing channel for the vendor; and to include in the an advertisement customization module of Paige, an administrator to approve or disapprove a plurality of vendor advertisements for display, as taught by Kadry, because it would allow the administrator to retain control of the information provided.
Kugler teaches
an algorithm (“software instructions, that when executed by the CPU, cause the device 210 to provide the functionality discussed herein.” [0028]) executed by a computing device (“computing device,” [0024]) that:
retrieves, during presentation of a selected video (“content can include a video,” [0041]), a plurality of advertisements (“the content for the educational information can be created and/or sponsored by one or more entities (e.g., large healthcare organizations, medical device manufacturers, and/or pharmaceutical firms). Those entities can, in some circumstances, provide advertisements that are viewed by the patient 310 before, during, and/or after reviewing the educational information on the device 210.” [0046]) approved by the administrator (“third party entity enters into a sponsorship agreement to deliver the educational information.” “…the agreement could be administered by the location.” [0061], “…a location, such as a doctor’s office or hospital.” [0047]) and stored on a database server (“The server 108 can also store educational information, such as presentations, about different health status of patients. The data can be requested from the server 108 by the device 210, and the server 108 delivers the requested data to the device 210” [0033]);
filters the plurality of approved advertisements based on relevance to the selected video displayed on the screen (“information about the origin or sponsorship for the educational information is provided on the display 216 of the device 210. Such information can, for example, be in the form of an advertisement or indication of sponsorship or affiliation.” [0045], “the content for the educational information can be created and/or sponsored by one or more entities (e.g., large healthcare organizations, medical device manufacturers, and/or pharmaceutical firms). Those entities can, in some circumstances, provide advertisements that are viewed by the patient 310 before, during, and/or after reviewing the educational information on the device 210.” [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Paige/Kadry combination by the features of Kugler, and in particular to include in Paige, the algorithm executed by the computing device that: retrieves, during presentation of a selected video, a plurality of advertisements approved by the administrator and stored on the database server; filters the plurality of approved advertisements based on relevance to the selected video displayed on the screen, as taught by Kugler, because the advertiser “may be allowed to get exposure by…indicating who sponsored the content, or deliver advertising information, which allows the patient to become more aware of the drug options” (Kugler, [0066]) and, additionally, “[c]linical and economic benefits are realized when the patient more fully understands the patient’s conditions and collaborates with the caregiver on treatment. Allowing the caregiver to direct the patient to vetted, credible educational content during idle time in the examination room can result in a decrease patient boredom, an increase in collaboration, and ultimately improve outcomes.” (Kugler, [0018]).
Kraus teaches
evaluates a number of times each filtered advertisement (“the information can be used by that system as part of the criteria used to determine which client education, marketing or other business-related item to be provided to the client” [0050]) has been displayed within a defined time period (“the number of times the digital image was viewed during that period,” [0252]);
eliminates filtered advertisements exceeding a defined playback threshold (“Preferably, the business will include information related to the tracking of previously seen videos as part of the valuation or ranking process. For example, the system could cause items previously viewed by a given client to be valued or ranked so low that they would not be automatically selected again for viewing for that client” [0138]); and
automatically selects and presents, on the screen display, an advertisement having a lowest playback frequency from the filtered advertisements in response to detection of a conclusion of the selected video (“Must check the default play list against what has recently been viewed by the patient and select a video that has not been seen in a specified time or visits.” [0342], “The video(s) assigned to that patient (see Patient Playlist Maintenance in 2.6.3.3 and 2.6.3.4) will queue up and begin playing…” [0414], “‘Next on playlist’ means after any currently playing media completes” [0435]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Paige/Kadry/Kugler combination by the features of Kraus, and in particular to include in the algorithm of Kugler in the Paige/Kadry/Kugler combination, the features of: evaluates a number of times each filtered advertisement has been displayed within a defined time period; eliminates filtered advertisements exceeding a defined playback threshold; and automatically selects and presents, on the screen display, an advertisement having a lowest playback frequency from the filtered advertisements in response to detection of a conclusion of the selected video, as taught by Kraus, because this would help to not repeat the same advertisements to the same viewer, which would allow for the viewing of more advertisements and would also prevent the system from losing the viewer’s interest.
Claims 2-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paige in view of Kadry, in view of Kugler, in view of Kraus, and further in view of the NPL reference- “Montage Interactive | Solutions By Design” webpage (“Montage”).
As to Claim 2, the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus combination discloses as discussed above.
Paige does not directly disclose wherein the pet health module includes an adult canine module.
Montage teaches wherein a pet health module includes an adult canine module (On page 5, a Calorie Counter module for a Pet is shown wherein selections appear for an “Dog” and “Adult”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus combination by the feature of Montage, and in particular to include the adult canine module of Montage, in the pet health module of Paige, in the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus combination, because this would help to provide a more personalized experience for the user, and because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As to Claim 3, the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination discloses as discussed above.
Paige does not directly disclose wherein the pet health module includes a puppy canine module.
Montage teaches wherein the pet health module includes a puppy canine module (On page 5, a Calorie Counter module for a Pet is shown wherein selections appear for a “Dog” and “Puppy 0-4 MOS.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination by the feature of Montage, and in particular to include the puppy canine module as taught by Montage, in the pet health module of Paige, in the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination, because this would help to provide a more personalized experience for the user, and because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As to Claim 4, the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination discloses as discussed above. Paige further discloses wherein the pet health module includes a canine medical module (Fig.5 depicts a “Dog Anatomy” module on the top left corner which including various medical options located on the left side of the screen such as “Skin, Eyes, Ears,” “Mouth,” “Muscles & Bones,” etc.).
As to Claim 5, the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination discloses as discussed above.
Paige does not directly disclose wherein the pet health module includes an adult feline module.
Montage teaches wherein the pet health module includes an adult feline module (On page 5, a Calorie Counter module for a Pet is shown that includes an optional selection of a “Cat” instead of “Dog” and selection of respective age ranges such as “Adult”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination by the feature of Montage, and in particular to include the adult feline module, as taught by Montage, in the pet health module of Paige, in the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination, because this would help to provide a more personalized experience for the user, and because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As to Claim 6, the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination discloses as discussed above.
Paige does not directly disclose wherein the pet health module includes a kitten feline module.
Montage teaches wherein the pet health module includes a kitten feline module (page 4 shows an age calculator for Cats (and Dogs) with age ranges to select from; alternatively, on page 5, the calorie counter module includes an optional selection of a “Cat” instead of “Dog” and selection of respective age ranges to determine ideal calorie intake for the pet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination by the feature of Montage, and in particular to include the kitten feline module, as taught by Montage, in the pet health module of Paige, in the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination, because this would help to provide a more personalized experience for the user, and because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As to Claim 7, the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination discloses as discussed above.
Paige does not directly disclose wherein the pet health module includes a feline medical module.
Montage teaches wherein the pet health module includes a feline medical module (On page 4, a “Cat Diseases” module is shown on the left side of the screen in the “Brochures” module depicted therein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination by the feature of Montage, and in particular to include the feline medical module, as taught by Montage, in the pet health module of Paige, in the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination, because this would help to provide a more personalized experience for the user, and because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As to Claim 8, the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination discloses as discussed above. Paige further discloses wherein the pet health module includes an anatomy module (“anatomy subsystem display,” [0065]).
As to Claim 9, the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination discloses as discussed above. Paige further discloses wherein the anatomy module includes a skeletal anatomy (“the anatomy data bases 205, 215 generally hold generic images of anatomy, for example, the images of healthy joints and organs” [0049], “Muscles & Bones” see Fig.5).
As to Claim 10, the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination discloses as discussed above. Paige further discloses wherein the skeletal anatomy includes a plurality of selectable anatomy topics (see “Select a view >>” “Shoulder,” “Hip,” “Elbow,” “Knee,” Fig.5).
As to Claim 11, the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination discloses as discussed above. Paige further discloses wherein each selectable anatomy topic produces a separate topic page (see “Select a view >>” “Shoulder,” “Hip,” “Elbow,” “Knee” which would produce views corresponding to the selection, Fig.5).
As to Claim 12, the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination discloses as discussed above. Paige further discloses wherein each separate topic page includes a plurality of selectable content (see “Rotate Left,” “Rotate Up,” “Rotate Right,” “Rotate Down,” Fig.5, “In a further alternative embodiment of the system, the anatomy views shown above are not static views but rather can be rotated so that the subject matter can be viewed from a plurality of angles.” [0066]).
As to Claim 13, the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination discloses as discussed above. Paige further discloses wherein each selectable content includes a selectable video (“the view [selected] is an animation so that the user can see the joint or other particular anatomical portion in movement.” [0066]).
As to Claim 14, the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination discloses as discussed above. Paige further discloses wherein each selectable content includes a selectable image (“the view [selected] is an animation so that the user can see the joint or other particular anatomical portion in movement.” [0066]).
As to Claim 15, the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination discloses as discussed above.
Paige does not directly disclose wherein the pet interactive system further comprises a vendor portal.
Kadry teaches an interactive system further comprises a vendor portal (see “Direct communication portal between life science companies and health providers” in the Content Provide Interface depicted in Fig.4, “portal between life science companies and health providers” [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination by the feature of Kadry, and in particular to include in the pet interactive system of the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination, the vendor portal of Kadry, because it would help “to exchange ideas, order drug samples, view product launch campaigns” (Kadry, [0076]), and because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As to Claim 16, the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination discloses as discussed above. Paige further discloses wherein the pet interactive system further comprises a developer portal to aid in customization of front-end user content (“The Ektron CMS 400.net content management system (CMS) 310 powers the publicly visible portion of the web site and provides content management capabilities to the clinic staff.” [0052]).
As to Claim 17, the Paige/Kadry/Kugler/Kraus/Montage combination discloses as discussed above. Paige further discloses wherein the developer portal further includes customization of vendor advertisers associated with the pet interactive system (“Further, the content at the exam room level is customizable, for example, based on selections made by the veterinarian at startup…Preferences can include health recommendations and can also include brand recommendation such as particular food brands. Food providers, for example, are able to advertise via the exam room learning center.” [0012]).
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (see MPEP 2114 II.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the April 2026 Remarks have been fully considered and addressed below.
35 U.S.C. § 101 Arguments
On pages 5-6 of the April 2026 Remarks, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because they require the use of a computer. However, as discussed above in the respective rejection, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using a “system,” “a computing device includes a screen display and a memory, the computing device configured for use;” “a content management module coupling to the computing device through a network interface,” “communicating with a vendor management module of the developer;” “the content management module further permits and communicates with a pet health module;” “stored on a database server;” “an advertisement customization module,” “an algorithm executed by the computing device,” performing things “automatically,” a “detection” (e.g.: detecting), various “module(s),” and/or “a portal” is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant further argues on page 6 of the April 2026 Remarks that the operations of the claim cannot practically be performed in the human mind. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the respective rejection, the limitations of the claim fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas, Additionally, these steps encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) customizing content to be displayed to a user with adjunct advertisements selected according to certain criteria (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
On page 6 of the April 2026 Remarks, Applicant argues that even if the claims recite an abstract idea, it is integrated into a practical application suggesting that it is because it “improves the operation of a computerized multimedia display.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the functions performed are merely directed to a business process of advertising, and does not improve the technology of the display system.
On page 6 of the April 2026 Remarks, Applicant argues that “[t]he claim does not merely display information or apply a business rule. Rather, it recites a specific architecture and control flow that governs how content is selected, filtered, and rendered by the system, thereby improving the technical functioning of the interactive display platform used in a veterinary clinical environment.” However, the selecting, filtering and displaying advertisements based on certain parameters is a mere business practice and it does not improve a display system’s technology regardless of the environment it is used in. Thus, the argument is unpersuasive.
On page 7 of the April 2026 Remarks, Applicant argues that “Amended claim 1 further recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea by requiring a non-conventional, ordered combination of elements, including: • administrator-level advertisement approval controls, • historical playback tracking across defined time periods, • threshold-based elimination of overplayed advertisements, and • automated, event-driven advertisement sequencing without human intervention. These elements operate together as a technical filtering pipeline that controls system behavior and output, not as a generic application of a business concept using conventional computing components.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tracking, approving, and automatically selecting advertisements, even in the order claimed, is not unconventional in the field of advertising. As such, the argument is not found persuasive.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Arguments
On pages 7-8 of the April 2026 Remarks, Applicant argues that Paige does not disclose “an algorithm that dynamically selects advertisements based on relevance to a specific video currently being displayed,” “evaluating historical playback frequency of advertisements within a defined time period or eliminating advertisements that exceed a defined playback threshold prior to post-video display,” and “selecting an advertisement having a lowest playback frequency in response to detection of a video completion event.” However, Paige is not relied upon to teach those features.
As discussed in the respective rejection:
Kugler teaches
an algorithm (“software instructions, that when executed by the CPU, cause the device 210 to provide the functionality discussed herein.” [0028]) executed by a computing device (“computing device,” [0024]) that:
retrieves, during presentation of a selected video (“content can include a video,” [0041]), a plurality of advertisements (“the content for the educational information can be created and/or sponsored by one or more entities (e.g., large healthcare organizations, medical device manufacturers, and/or pharmaceutical firms). Those entities can, in some circumstances, provide advertisements that are viewed by the patient 310 before, during, and/or after reviewing the educational information on the device 210.” [0046]) approved by the administrator (“third party entity enters into a sponsorship agreement to deliver the educational information.” “…the agreement could be administered by the location.” [0061], “…a location, such as a doctor’s office or hospital.” [0047]) and stored on a database server (“The server 108 can also store educational information, such as presentations, about different health status of patients. The data can be requested from the server 108 by the device 210, and the server 108 delivers the requested data to the device 210” [0033]);
filters the plurality of approved advertisements based on relevance to the selected video displayed on the screen (“information about the origin or sponsorship for the educational information is provided on the display 216 of the device 210. Such information can, for example, be in the form of an advertisement or indication of sponsorship or affiliation.” [0045], “the content for the educational information can be created and/or sponsored by one or more entities (e.g., large healthcare organizations, medical device manufacturers, and/or pharmaceutical firms). Those entities can, in some circumstances, provide advertisements that are viewed by the patient 310 before, during, and/or after reviewing the educational information on the device 210.” [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Paige/Kadry combination by the features of Kugler, and in particular to include in Paige, the algorithm executed by the computing device that: retrieves, during presentation of a selected video, a plurality of advertisements approved by the administrator and stored on the database server; filters the plurality of approved advertisements based on relevance to the selected video displayed on the screen, as taught by Kugler, because the advertiser “may be allowed to get exposure by…indicating who sponsored the content, or deliver advertising information, which allows the patient to become more aware of the drug options” (Kugler, [0066]) and, additionally, “[c]linical and economic benefits are realized when the patient more fully understands the patient’s conditions and collaborates with the caregiver on treatment. Allowing the caregiver to direct the patient to vetted, credible educational content during idle time in the examination room can result in a decrease patient boredom, an increase in collaboration, and ultimately improve outcomes.” (Kugler, [0018]).
Kraus teaches
evaluates a number of times each filtered advertisement (“the information can be used by that system as part of the criteria used to determine which client education, marketing or other business-related item to be provided to the client” [0050]) has been displayed within a defined time period (“the number of times the digital image was viewed during that period,” [0252]);
eliminates filtered advertisements exceeding a defined playback threshold (“Preferably, the business will include information related to the tracking of previously seen videos as part of the valuation or ranking process. For example, the system could cause items previously viewed by a given client to be valued or ranked so low that they would not be automatically selected again for viewing for that client” [0138]); and
automatically selects and presents, on the screen display, an advertisement having a lowest playback frequency from the filtered advertisements in response to detection of a conclusion of the selected video (“Must check the default play list against what has recently been viewed by the patient and select a video that has not been seen in a specified time or visits.” [0342], “The video(s) assigned to that patient (see Patient Playlist Maintenance in 2.6.3.3 and 2.6.3.4) will queue up and begin playing…” [0414], “‘Next on playlist’ means after any currently playing media completes” [0435]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Paige/Kadry/Kugler combination by the features of Kraus, and in particular to include in the algorithm of Kugler in the Paige/Kadry/Kugler combination, the features of evaluates a number of times each filtered advertisement has been displayed within a defined time period; eliminates filtered advertisements exceeding a defined playback threshold; and automatically selects and presents, on the screen display, an advertisement having a lowest playback frequency from the filtered advertisements in response to detection of a conclusion of the selected video, as taught by Kraus, because this would help to not repeat the same advertisements to the same viewer, which would allow for the viewing of more advertisements and would also prevent the system from losing the viewer’s interest.
Therefore, the argument is unpersuasive.
On page 8 of the April 2026 Remarks, Applicant argues that Kadry does not disclose “an automated algorithm that operates on an approved set of advertisements to dynamically filter those advertisements based on relevance to a video currently being presented, to evaluate playback frequency within a defined time window, or to eliminate advertisements exceeding a playback threshold,” and “selecting and presenting an advertisement based on lowest playback frequency upon detection of a video completion event.” However, Kadry is not relied upon to teach those features. As discussed in the previous argument, Kugler and Kraus teach those features. Therefore, the argument is unpersuasive.
On page 9 of the April 2026 Remarks, Applicant argues that Kugler does not disclose “filtering advertisements based on correlation to a specific educational video, tracking how often advertisements have been displayed within a defined time period, or eliminating advertisements based on exceeding a playback threshold” and “automatically selecting and presenting an advertisement having a lowest playback frequency in response to a detected video completion.” The limitations that Applicant argues is rejected based on a combination of references. In particular, Kugler is relied upon to teach the feature: filters the plurality of approved advertisements based on relevance to the selected video displayed on the screen (“information about the origin or sponsorship for the educational information is provided on the display 216 of the device 210. Such information can, for example, be in the form of an advertisement or indication of sponsorship or affiliation.” [0045], “the content for the educational information can be created and/or sponsored by one or more entities (e.g., large healthcare organizations, medical device manufacturers, and/or pharmaceutical firms). Those entities can, in some circumstances, provide advertisements that are viewed by the patient 310 before, during, and/or after reviewing the educational information on the device 210.” [0046]). As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that Kugler does not disclose the filtering feature. Furthermore, the other limitations argued by Applicant are taught by Kraus. Specifically, Kraus teaches:
evaluates a number of times each filtered advertisement (“the information can be used by that system as part of the criteria used to determine which client education, marketing or other business-related item to be provided to the client” [0050]) has been displayed within a defined time period (“the number of times the digital image was viewed during that period,” [0252]);
eliminates filtered advertisements exceeding a defined playback threshold (“Preferably, the business will include information related to the tracking of previously seen videos as part of the valuation or ranking process. For example, the system could cause items previously viewed by a given client to be valued or ranked so low that they would not be automatically selected again for viewing for that client” [0138]); and
automatically selects and presents, on the screen display, an advertisement having a lowest playback frequency from the filtered advertisements in response to detection of a conclusion of the selected video (“Must check the default play list against what has recently been viewed by the patient and select a video that has not been seen in a specified time or visits.” [0342], “The video(s) assigned to that patient (see Patient Playlist Maintenance in 2.6.3.3 and 2.6.3.4) will queue up and begin playing…” [0414], “‘Next on playlist’ means after any currently playing media completes” [0435]).
Therefore, the argument is unpersuasive.
On page 9 of the April 2026 Remarks, Applicant argues that Kraus does not disclose “evaluating advertisement playback counts within a defined time period, eliminating advertisements that exceed a defined threshold, or selecting an advertisement having a lowest playback frequency from a filtered set upon completion of a video.” In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because Kraus teaches:
evaluates a number of times each filtered advertisement (“the information can be used by that system as part of the criteria used to determine which client education, marketing or other business-related item to be provided to the client” [0050]) has been displayed within a defined time period (“the number of times the digital image was viewed during that period,” [0252]);
eliminates filtered advertisements exceeding a defined playback threshold (“Preferably, the business will include information related to the tracking of previously seen videos as part of the valuation or ranking process. For example, the system could cause items previously viewed by a given client to be valued or ranked so low that they would not be automatically selected again for viewing for that client” [0138]); and
automatically selects and presents, on the screen display, an advertisement having a lowest playback frequency from the filtered advertisements in response to detection of a conclusion of the selected video (“Must check the default play list against what has recently been viewed by the patient and select a video that has not been seen in a specified time or visits.” [0342], “The video(s) assigned to that patient (see Patient Playlist Maintenance in 2.6.3.3 and 2.6.3.4) will queue up and begin playing…” [0414], “‘Next on playlist’ means after any currently playing media completes.” [0435]).
Applicant further argues “[t]o the extent Kraus addresses repetition, the record does not establish that Kraus teaches the specific quantitative, time-bound frequency analysis and lowest-frequency selection required by amended claim 1.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Kraus teaches that is “[m]ust check the default play list against what has recently been viewed by the patient and select a video that has not been seen in a specified time or visits.” ([0342]). The Examiner notes that a video that has not been seen would amount to a lowest possible playback number which is zero.
Therefore, the argument is unpersuasive.
Lastly, on pages 9-10 of the April 2026 Remarks, Applicant argues that “the rejection does not explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the cited references to arrive at the claimed ordered algorithm,” “[t]he references are relied upon for disparate concepts-information presentation, approval of marketing materials, and content delivery-but the Office Action does not identify a teaching or suggestion in the art to integrate these concepts in the specific manner claimed,” and that the rejection does not explain “how such a combination would yield the claimed system behavior without hindsight reconstruction.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, and as set forth in the respective rejection:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paige by the features of Kadry, and in particular to include in Paige, the feature of a plurality of vendor functions communicating with a vendor management module of the developer, as taught by Kadry, because it would help to provide an alternative marketing channel for the vendor; and to include in the an advertisement customization module of Paige, an administrator to approve or disapprove a plurality of vendor advertisements for display, as taught by Kadry, because it would allow the administrator to retain control of the information provided.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Paige/Kadry combination by the features of Kugler, and in particular to include in Paige, the algorithm executed by the computing device that: retrieves, during presentation of a selected video, a plurality of advertisements approved by the administrator and stored on the database server; filters the plurality of approved advertisements based on relevance to the selected video displayed on the screen, as taught by Kugler, because the advertiser “may be allowed to get exposure by…indicating who sponsored the content, or deliver advertising information, which allows the patient to become more aware of the drug options” (Kugler, [0066]) and, additionally, “[c]linical and economic benefits are realized when the patient more fully understands the patient’s conditions and collaborates with the caregiver on treatment. Allowing the caregiver to direct the patient to vetted, credible educational content during idle time in the examination room can result in a decrease patient boredom, an increase in collaboration, and ultimately improve outcomes.” (Kugler, [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Paige/Kadry/Kugler combination by the features of Kraus, and in particular to include in the algorithm of Kugler in the Paige/Kadry/Kugler combination, the features of: evaluates a number of times each filtered advertisement has been displayed within a defined time period; eliminates filtered advertisements exceeding a defined playback threshold; and automatically selects and presents, on the screen display, an advertisement having a lowest playback frequency from the filtered advertisements in response to detection of a conclusion of the selected video, as taught by Kraus, because this would help to not repeat the same advertisements to the same viewer, which would allow for the viewing of more advertisements and would also prevent the system from losing the viewer’s interest.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore, the argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Carlile- US 2002/0016967 A1, which discusses “[a] method of in waiting room health-care information services comprises providing a physician's waiting room with an in-waiting room video display unit. Video programming from a remote database of health-care information is continually played over the in-waiting room video display unit.” (Abstract). “The content community might include sponsors of, partners to or simply advertisers on the service.” ([0043]).
Applicant’s amendment filed on April 1, 2026 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 MONICA A MANDEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7046. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 10:00 AM-6:00 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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/M.A.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis for Products and Processes in MPEP §2106 III.
Prosecution Insights