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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment dated 28 July 2026, the following occurred: Claims 1, 3, 13, and 20 have been amended; Claim 6 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11-13, and 16-20 are pending.
Priority
This application claims priority to PCT/US2020/079689 dated 11 November 2022, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/278,689 dated 12 November 2021.
Notice to Applicant
The Examiner notes the following related applications currently assigned to the Applicant:
18/948,764
18/467,939
18/709,166
The claims of these related applications do not currently present Double Patenting issues with regard to the claims of this Application. The Examiner will reevaluate the claims of the related applications as prosecution progresses.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within independent Claims 1, 13, and 20. The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest performing periodontal disease risk assessment based on received attributes of a pet to generate periodontal disease risk data and, subsequent to this, analyze received pet data that includes the periodontal disease risk data and received genetic test results data to determine a result value.
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, 11-13, and 16-20 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, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite a method, system, and computer readable medium (“CRM”) method for generating health reports based on veterinary oral care health test, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
The limitations of:
Claims 1 and 20 (Claim 1 being representative)
receiving pet data associated with an entity from one or more data sources, and periodontal disease risk data, wherein the pet data comprises halitosis data, wherein the periodontal disease risk data is obtained from a periodontal disease risk determination component, and wherein the periodontal disease risk determination component is configured to: receive one or more periodontal disease attributes; analyze the one or more periodontal disease attributes using a trained machine learning model; determine based on the analysis, a probability for periodontal disease using the trained machine learning model, the probability for periodontal disease being associated with a periodontal disease risk level; generate, based on the probability for periodontal disease determined using the trained machine learning model, the periodontal disease risk data; and transmit the periodontal disease risk data; receiving genetic test results data from a genetic test results datastore; analyzing the pet data received from the one or more data sources and the periodontal disease risk data with the genetic test results data received from the genetic test results database using an interpretation logic data structure, wherein the interpretation logic data structure: includes a plurality of result values and a combination of result statements associated with each result value; and defines a genetic test results range, a periodontal disease risk range, and a halitosis status for each of the plurality of result values, wherein a genetic test result associated with the genetic test results range includes a quantitative polymerase chain reaction genetic test result; determining a result value associated with the pet data, the periodontal disease risk data, and the genetic test results data based on the analysis; determining one or more result statements associated with the result value, wherein each of the one or more result statements includes at least one of a diagnosis or an oral care recommendation; generating one or more health reports based on the one or more result statements; transmitting the one or more health reports to a user.
Claim 13
receive one or more periodontal disease attributes; analyze the one or more periodontal disease attributes using a trained machine learning model; determine, based on the analysis, a probability for periodontal disease using the trained machine learning model, the probability for periodontal disease being associated with a periodontal disease risk level; generate, based on the probability for periodontal disease determined using the trained machine learning model, a periodontal disease risk data; and receive pet data associated with an entity from one or more data sources, and the periodontal disease risk data; receive genetic test results data from the genetic test results datastore; analyze the pet data received from the one or more data sources and the periodontal disease risk data with the genetic test results data received from the genetic test results datastore using an interpretation logic data structure, wherein the interpretation logic data structure: includes a plurality of result values and a combination of result statements associated with each result value; and defines a genetic test results range, a periodontal disease risk range, and a halitosis status for each of the plurality of result values, wherein a genetic test result associated with the genetic test results range includes a quantitative polymerase chain reaction genetic test result; and determine a result value associated with the pet data, the periodontal disease risk data, and the genetic test results data based on the analysis; determine one or more result statements associated with the result value, wherein each of the one or more result statements includes at least one of a diagnosis or an oral care recommendation; generate one or more health reports based on the one or more result statements; and transmit the one or more health reports
, as drafted, is are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a method, system, and/or CRM implemented by one or more processors (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the data one or more processors, this claim encompasses a person collecting pet and genetic data, analyzing the data to produce a report, and outputting the report in the manner described in the identified abstract ideas, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The Examiner notes that the “trained machine learning model” has been included as part of the abstract idea. A review of the Specification indicates at Para. 0043 that the particular type of model employed is described as encompassing linear and logistic regression. As such, the “trained machine learning model” encompasses simplistic mathematical models that are part of the rules or instructions that a person or persons would follow; a person having skill in the art would be able to perform the noted types of data manipulation. For instance, a trained linear regression model can be y=mx+b, where “m” and “b” are the variable that are fit to the data (i.e., trained). While these particular limitations may be considered mathematical relationships and/or mental process consistent with the analysis in Example 42, Claim 2, the claim as a whole is directed towards a method of organizing human activity.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of (Claim 1) one or more first processors, one or more second processors, one or more data sources, and multiple databases, (Claim 13) one or more first and second processors, a memory, and two databases, and (Claim 20) non-transitory computer readable medium that implements the identified abstract ideas. The processors, memory, database(s), sources, and CRM are not described by the Applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic computer components; see Spec. Para. 0045) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims further recite the additional elements of (1) one or more data sources, (2) a genetic test results database, (3) an attributes database, and (4) or one or more user devices. The (1) one or more data sources, (2) test results database, and (3) optional attributes database are interpreted to be part of the computer as discussed, supra. Instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Alternately, items (1)-(3) merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Item (4) merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using (Claim 1) one or more first processors, one or more data sources, and a database, (Claim 13) one or more first and second processors, a memory, and two databases, and (Claim 20) non-transitory computer readable medium to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of (1) one or more data sources, (2) a genetic test results database, (3) an attributes database, and (4) or one or more user devices were determined to either be part of the generic computer (see analysis, supra) or were found to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3-5, 7, 11, 12, and 16-19 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim(s) 3 merely describe(s) how the analysis is performed, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 4 merely describe(s) the results statements, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 5, 7 merely describe(s) the health report, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 11, 17 merely describe(s) the attributes, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 12, 19 merely describe(s) the location of the processors or analytic module, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 16, 18 merely describe(s) the pet data, which further defines the abstract idea, which further defines the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Regarding the objection to Claims 1, 13, and 20, the Applicant has the claims to overcome the basis of objection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-7 and 9-20, the Applicant has cancelled Claims 2, 9, 10, 14, and 15 rendering the rejection of that claim moot. Regarding the remaining claims, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
The claims do not recite a set of behavioral instructions or guidelines for a person or persons to follow.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons noted in the basis of rejection and the reasons presented in prior Office Actions.
The analysis of multiple periodontal disease attributes by a trained machine learning model to determine a probability for periodontal disease cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully submits that the abstract idea was not characterized as a mental process and thus this argument is immaterial.
The claims encompass more than "a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer," as alleged in the Office Action.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully submits that nothing presented by the Applicant falls outside of the rules or instructions categorization under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the specification that the claimed invention provides an improvement over conventional singular-approach methods by integrating multiple data types or sources to assess for periodontal disease in a pet, and detect, e.g., periodontal disease-related patterns from multiple data types or sources that are otherwise undetectable using conventional diagnostic approaches.
Regarding (d), the Examiner does not disagree with this statement; however, this does not describe an improvement to the computer. It describes an improvement to a non-technical problem. Everything described by the Applicant is an improvement to the abstraction. It is not an improvement to the technological environment to which the claim is confined (the computer), it is not an improvement to another technology (because no other technology is claimed), and it is not providing a technical solution to a technical p[problem (there is no technical problem that was caused by the technological environment to which the claim is confined (the computer) presented).
Similarly [to Example 47, Claim 3], the present claims recite additional elements, including the two-stage analysis architecture, the transmission of machine learning-generated periodontal disease risk data between separate processing components, the correlation of the machine learning output with distinct data types (genetic qPCR results, halitosis data) through a specific interpretation logic data structure, and the generation and transmission of health reports with diagnoses or oral care recommendations.
Regarding (e), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention is nothing like Example 47; it has nothing to do with network anomaly detection associated with malicious data packets. Applicant’s claims are processing pet data and creating a report therefrom. Further, none of the features identified in the argument are additional elements. They are all part of the abstraction.
The present claims are distinguishable [from Example 47, Claim 2].
Regarding (f), the Examiner respectfully submits that the distinguishing feature between Claims 2 and 3 of Example 42 is that the invention of Claim 3 actually blocked the malicious traffic. Applicant’s claims are more analogous to Claim 2 where the claim merely outputted information (the report of Applicant’s claims).
The combination of elements in the claims,… is not a well-understood, routine, or conventional arrangement in the field of veterinary diagnostics.
Regarding (g), the Examiner respectfully submits that this is an incorrect assessment by the Applicant. The identified features are part of the abstract idea. They are not additional elements. There is no requirement that the abstraction must be shown to be well-understood, routine, or conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d) states: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry (emphasis added).” Further, MPEP 2106.05(I) states: “As made clear by the courts, the novelty of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter (internal quotations omitted, emphasis original).”
Again, the Examiner has reviewed the as-filed disclosure and cannot suggest a path forward with regard to the lack of subject matter eligibility.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Kortegaard et al. (Screening for periodontal disease in research dogs - a methodology study) which discusses a screening tool that measures CAL and PPD values and provides a distribution that is used to select representative teeth that should be examined regularly.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON S TIEDEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4594. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-4:00pm, off alternate Fridays.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. 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.
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights