DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 09/10/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1, 4, 9-10, 13, 16, and 18-20 have been amended; claims 2-3, 5-6, 11-12, 14-15, and 17 remain unchanged; claims 7-8 are canceled; and no new claims have been added.
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 11/12/2021
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections:
Examiner withdraws the previous 112(b) rejections in view of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Applicant argues that the claims are directed towards an improvement to a technology and points to the specification. The specification outlines that there is a problem involving the underdiagnosing of disease in pets and that current methods exit to assess oral microbiome but it is not a comprehensive assessment. An improved assessment is not necessarily a technical improvement, therefore the improvement here can be to the abstract idea (the assessment).
Step 2B:
Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. Using more data (a comprehensive list of factors) in order to perform an assessment is not significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, there are no additional elements present which integrated with the abstract idea to form significantly more. Applicant points to a certain arrangement as being non-well-known, but this is not a relevant determination for abstract idea limitations. This would be a good consideration if the limitations in question were additional elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites “a pet profile database” in lines 3 and 34-35. Examiner is unsure if these are the same databases. Based on this lack of clarity claim 19 has been deemed indefinite. Examiner is interpreting that these are the same databases.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 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. Claims 1-6 and 9-18 are drawn to a system, claim 19 is drawn to a system, and claim 20 is drawn to a method, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a system for providing pet health diagnostic and aftercare information, comprising:
a) a pet profile server comprising a pet profile storage and configured to:
1) receive an activation code from b) a first user device, wherein the activation code is associated with a sample collected from a pet using an oral diagnostic kit;
2) receive pet metadata from the first user device; and
3) store the pet metadata in association with the activation code in the pet profile storage;
c) a test results server comprising a test results storage and configured to:
4) receive the activation code from d) a second user device;
5) receive test results data from the second user device; and
6) store the test results data in association with the activation code in the test results storage; and
e) an analytics component executed by one or more processors and configured to:
7) receive first information from the pet profile server, wherein the first information includes the pet metadata associated with the activation code and the activation code;
8) receive second information from the test results server, wherein the second information includes the test results data associated with the activation code and the activation code;
9) retrieve, from the first information, the activation code;
10) retrieve, from the second information, the activation code;
11) match the activation code retrieved from the first information with the activation code retrieved from the second information to establish a linkage between the pet metadata from the pet profile server and the test results data from the test results server;
12) analyze, based on the activation code, the pet metadata and the test results data separately;
13) determine, based on the analyzing and the established linkage, a correlation between the pet metadata and the test results data, wherein the pet metadata and the test results are received from f) different servers that are independently populated by different users;
14) process, based on the correlation, the pet metadata with the test results data;
15) generate, based on the processing of the pet metadata with the test results data, at least one diagnosis and at least one health recommendation;
16) automatically generate, based on the at least one diagnosis and at the least one health recommendation, a report for a pet owner and a report for a veterinarian;
17) automatically transmit the report for the pet owner to the pet profile server for transmission to the first user device; and
18) automatically transmit the report for the veterinarian to the pet profile server for transmission to g) a third user device.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) receive an activation code, wherein the activation code isa associated with a sample collected from a pet using an oral diagnostic kit, 2) receive pet metadata, 3) store the pet metadata in association with the activation code in the pet profile storage, 4) receive the activation code, 5) receive test results data, 6) store the test results data in association with the activation code in the test results storage, 7) receive first information, wherein the first information includes the pet metadata associated with the activation code and the activation code, 8) receive second information from the test results server, wherein the second information includes the test results data associated with the activation code and the activation code, 9) retrieve, from the first information, the activation code, 10) retrieve, from the second information, the activation code, 11) match the activation code retrieved from the first information with the activation code retrieved from the second information to establish a linkage between the pet metadata and the test results data, 12) analyze, based on the activation code, the pet metadata and the test results data separately, 13) determine, based on the analyzing and the established linkage, a correlation between the pet metadata and the test results data, wherein the pet metadata and the test results are received from things that are independently populated by different users, 14) process, based on the correlation, the pet metadata with the test results data, 15) generate, based on the processing of the pet metadata with the test results data, at least one diagnosis and at least one health recommendation, 16) automatically generate, based on the at least one diagnosis and the at least one health recommendation, a report for a pet owner and a report for a veterinarian, 17) automatically transmit the report for the pet owner to the entity for transmission to the other entity, and 18) automatically transmit the report for the veterinarian to the entity for transmission to another entity. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, one can match data and then determine a recommendation/report.
Claim 19 recites a system for providing pet health diagnostic and aftercare information, comprising:
h) a pet profile database 19) storing pet metadata in association with an activation code from an oral diagnostic kit,
i) a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) results database 20) storing qPCR results in association with the activation code, and
e) an analytics component executed by one or more processors and configured to:
21) retrieve first information from the pet profile database, wherein the first information includes the pet metadata associated with the activation code and the activation code from the pet profile database;
22) retrieve second information from the qPCR results database, wherein the second information includes the qPCR results associated with the activation code and the activation code;
23) retrieve, from the first information, the activation code;
24) retrieve, from the second information, the activation code;
25) match the activation code retrieved from the first information with the activation code retrieved from the second information to establish a linkage between the pet metadata from the pet profile database and the qPCR results from the qPCR results database;
26) analyze, based on the activation code, the pet metadata and the qPCR results separately;
27) determine, based on the analyzing and the established linkage, a correlation between the pet metadata and the qPCR results, wherein the pet metadata and the qPCR results are received from f) different servers that are independently populated by different users;
28) upon determining the correlation, process the pet metadata with the qPCR results;
29) generate, based on the processing of the pet metadata with the qPCR results, at least one diagnosis and at least one health recommendation;
30) automatically generate, based on the at least one diagnosis and the at least one health recommendation, a report for a pet owner and a report for a veterinarian;
31) automatically transmit the report for the pet owner to a pet profile database for transmission to a) a first user device; and
32) automatically transmit the report for the veterinarian to the pet profile database for transmission to j) a veterinarian device.
Claim 19 recites, in part, performing the steps of 19) storing pet metadata in association with an activation code from an oral diagnostic kit, 20) storing qPCR results in association with the activation code, 21) retrieve first information, wherein the first information includes the pet metadata associated with the activation code and the activation code, 22) retrieve second information, wherein the second information includes the qPCR results associated with the activation code and the activation code, 23) retrieve, from the first information, the activation code, 24) retrieve, from the second information, the activation code, 25) match the activation code retrieved from the first information with the activation code retrieved from the second information to establish a linkage between the pet metadata and the qPCR results, 26) analyze, based on the activation code, the pet metadata and the qPCR results separately, 27) determine, based on the analyzing and the established linkage, a correlation between the pet metadata and the qPCR results, wherein the pet metadata and the qPCR results are received from things that are independently populated by different users, 28) upon determining the correlation, process the pet metadata with the qPCR results, 29) generate, based on the processing of the pet metadata with the qPCR results, at least one diagnosis and at least one health recommendation, 30) automatically generate, based on the at least one diagnosis and the at least one health recommendation, a report for a pet owner and a report for a veterinarian, 31) automatically transmit the report for the pet owner to an entity for transmission to an other entity, and 32) automatically transmit the report for the veterinarian to the entity for transmitting to another entity. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, one can match data and then determine a recommendation/report.
Claim 20 recites a computer-implemented method of providing pet health diagnostic and aftercare information, comprising:
33) receiving, by e) an analytics component executed by one or more processor and from c) a pet profile server comprising a pet profile storage, first information, wherein the first information includes pet metadata associated with an activation code and the activation code, wherein the pet metadata and the activation code have been input by a first user using a) a first user device, the activation code identified by the first user from an oral diagnostic kit;
34) receiving, by the analytics component and from h) a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) results server comprising a qPCR results storage, second information, wherein the second information includes qPCR results associated with the activation code and the activation code, wherein the qPCR results are obtained from a qPCR assay of an oral sample collected from a pet using the oral diagnostic kit;
35) retrieving, by the analytics component and from the first information, the activation code;
36) retrieving, by the analytics component and from the second information, the activation code;
37) matching, by the analytics component, the activation code retrieved from the first information with the activation code retrieved from the second information to establish a linkage between the pet metadata from c) the pet profile server and the qPCR results data from d) the test results server;
38) analyzing, by the analytics component and based on the activation code, the pet metadata and the qPCR results separately;
39) determining, by the analytics component and based on the analyzing, and the established linkage, a correlation between the pet metadata and the qPCR results, wherein the pet metadata and the qPCR results are received from f) different servers that are independently populated by different users;
40) upon determining the correlation between the pet metadata and the qPCR results, processing, by the analytics component, the pet metadata with the qPCR results;
41) automatically generating, by the analytics component and based on the processing of the pet metadata with the qPCR results, a report for a veterinarian containing at least one diagnosis, and a report for a pet owner containing at least one health recommendation;
42) automatically transmitting, by the analytics component, the report for the pet owner to the pet profile server for transmission to the first user device; and
43) automatically transmitting, by the analytics component, the report for the veterinarian to the pet profile server for transmission to j) a veterinarian device.
Claim 20 recites, in part, performing the steps of 33) receiving, from a pet profile storage, first information, wherein the first information includes pet metadata associated with an activation code and the activation code, wherein the pet metadata and the activation code have been input by a first user, the activation code identified by the first user from an oral diagnostic kit, 34) receiving, from a qPCR results storage, second information, wherein the second information includes qPCR results associated with the activation code and the activation code, wherein the qPCR results are obtained from a qPCR assay of an oral sample collected from a pet using the oral diagnostic kit, 35) retrieving, from the first information, the activation code, 36) retrieving, from the second information, the activation code, 37) matching the activation code retrieved from the first information with the activation code retrieved from the second information to establish a linkage between the pet metadata and the qPCR results, 38) analyzing, based on the activation code, the pet metadata and the qPCR results separately, 39) determining, based on the analyzing, and the established linkage, a correlation between the pet metadata and the qPCR results, wherein the pet metadata and the qPCR results are received from things that are independently populated by different users, 40) upon determining the correlation between the pet metadata and the qPCR results, processing the pet metadata with the qPCR results, 41) automatically generating, based on the processing of the pet metadata with the qPCR results, a report for a veterinarian containing at least one diagnosis, and a report for a pet owner containing at least one health recommendation, 42) automatically transmitting, the report for the pet owner to the entity for transmission to an other device, and 43) automatically transmitting the report for the veterinarian to the entity for transmission to another entity. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, one can match data and then determine a recommendation/report.
Depending claims 2-6 and 9-18 include all of the limitations of claim 1, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 9-11, 16, and 18 add additional, functional limitations to the claims. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 2-6, 12-15, and 17 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 2-6 and 9-18 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) a pet profile server comprising a pet profile storage, b) a first user device with a user interface, c) a test results server comprising a test results storage, d) a second user device with a user interface, e) an analytics component executed by one or more processors, f) different servers, g) a third user device, h) a pet profile database, i) a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) results database (if a computer), and j) a veterinarian device to perform the claimed steps.
The e) an analytics component executed by one or more processors in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0097] where there is recitation of a generic processor, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the a) pet profile server comprising a pet profile storage, a) first user device with a user interface, c) test results server comprising a test results storage, d) second user device with a user interface, f) different servers, g) third user device, h) pet profile database, i) quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) results database, and j) veterinarian device in these steps adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of a), b), c), d), f), g), h), and i) which amounts to mere data gathering and recitation of j) which amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. 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 and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) a pet profile server comprising a pet profile storage, b) a first user device with a user interface, c) a test results server comprising a test results storage, d) a second user device with a user interface, e) an analytics component executed by one or more processors, f) different servers, g) a third user device, h) a pet profile database, i) a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) results database (if a computer), and j) a veterinarian device with a user interface to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity) and mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The a) a pet profile server comprising a pet profile storage, b) a first user device with a user interface, c) a test results server comprising a test results storage, d) a second user device with a user interface, f) different servers, g) a third user device, h) a pet profile database, i) a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) results database (if a computer), and j) a veterinarian device in these steps add insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives code data, result data, and metadata from a), b), c), d), f), g), h), and i), and transmits the data to j) a veterinarian device over a network, for example the Internet.
Furthermore, the current invention generates reports utilizing e) an analytics component executed by one or more processors, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components or insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
No Art Rejections
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 have not been given art rejections in view of the combinations of references which could be used to reject these claims being unreasonable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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 at 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
