DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 12 May, 2026.
Claims 21, 28 and 35 have been amended.
Claims 21 – 40 are currently pending and have been examined.
This application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/095,849 now U.S. 12,027,241.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 May, 2026 has been entered.
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 21 - 40 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), and does not include additional elements that either: 1) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or 2) that provide an inventive concept – i.e. element that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea because, when considered as a whole, the plain focus of the claims is on an abstract idea.
Claim 21 is representative. Claim 21 recites:
A computer-implemented method of increasing veterinary health care compliance, comprising:
receiving, at a first computing device, information indicating that an animal patient has scheduled an appointment for a visit to a veterinary practice;
in response to receiving the information indicating that the animal patient has scheduled the appointment for the visit to the veterinary practice, identifying patients eligible for prescribed protocols by executing via a rules algorithm an automated comparison of numerical diagnostic data for the animal patient against a predetermined numerical threshold and accessing a report, via an e-pharmacy server associated with the prescribed protocols that links a product available for previous recommended treatment for the animal patient, indicating whether an owner of the animal patient obtained the product associated with the previous recommended treatment for the animal patient from the e-pharmacy server;
updating, in a veterinary patient information database, a compliance portion of a profile of the owner of the animal patient indicating whether the product for the previous recommended treatment was obtained to synchronize the veterinary patient information database with the e-pharmacy report and maintain accuracy of the profile;
utilizing a matching engine to identify a compliance gap based on the profile, and when (i) the compliance portion indicates that the previous recommended treatment was not obtained and (ii) the numerical diagnostic data satisfies the predetermined numerical threshold, sending, subsequent to updating the veterinary patient information database, an electronic message to a second computing device associated with the owner of the animal patient that includes a reminder of the recommended treatment and a hyperlink to a vendor to obtain the product;
monitoring, subsequent to sending the electronic message, a compliance status of the owner of the animal patient, and, responsive to the owner accessing the hyperlink and obtaining the product associated with the previous recommended treatment, updating the compliance portion of the veterinary patient information database to synchronize the profile with an underlying data store of the e-pharmacy server.
Claim 35 recites medium with instructions executed by a processor, and Claim 28 recites a system that executes the steps of the method recited in Claim 21.
STEP 1
The claims are directed to a system, a method and non-transitory computer readable medium which are included in the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE
The claims, as illustrated by Claim 21, recite limitations that encompass an abstract idea including:
A method of increasing veterinary health care compliance, comprising:
receiving information indicating that an animal patient has scheduled an appointment for a visit to a veterinary practice;
in response to receiving the information indicating that the animal patient has scheduled the appointment for the visit to the veterinary practice, identifying patients eligible for prescribed protocols by comparison of numerical diagnostic data for the animal patient against a predetermined numerical threshold and accessing a report, indicating whether an owner of the animal patient obtained the product associated with the previous recommended treatment for the animal patient;
identify a compliance gap based on the profile, and; and when the compliance portion indicates that the previous recommended treatment was not obtained and (ii) the numerical diagnostic data satisfies the predetermined numerical threshold, sending, subsequent to updating the veterinary patient information database, a message to the owner of the animal patient that includes a reminder of the recommended treatment and a link to a vendor to obtain the product;
monitoring, subsequent to sending the electronic message, a compliance status of the owner of the animal patient.
The claims, as illustrated by Claim 21, recite limitations that encompass an abstract idea within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping –
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
Receiving information that the owner of an animal patient has not obtained a previously recommended treatment, and has diagnostic data below a threshold, thereby identifying a compliance gap; sending a reminder message; and monitoring further compliance, is process that merely organizes this human activity and “manages this personal behavior”. This type of activity, i.e. tracking compliance and reminding responsible entities regarding medical treatment compliance, includes conduct that would normally occur when managing a patient’s particular disease, medical condition or state. For example, it is routine in medicine for a doctor to monitor patient compliance with recommended treatments, and to remind them to obtain and take the medications according to the prescription. Treatments involve instructions to a patient, such as instructions to take a particular medication at a particular frequency falls within the “following rules or instructions” subcategory. In the instant claims the instructions merely require an animal owner to obtain the treatment. As such, the claims recite an abstract idea within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
The claims, as illustrated by Claim 21, also recite limitations that encompass an abstract idea within the “mental processes” grouping – concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. The claims recite:
identifying patients eligible for prescribed protocols by comparison of numerical diagnostic data for the animal patient against a predetermined numerical threshold;
identify a compliance gap based on the profile.
The claims compare a numerical diagnostic data value to a threshold. Comparing a numerical value to a threshold is a process that, except for generic computer implementation steps, can be performed in the human mind.
The claims further identify compliance gaps. The specification does not use this term, and Examiner construes this to mean that the patient is not compliant with the recommended treatment – i.e. they did not obtain it. Nonetheless, identifying a compliance gap based on a report indicating non-compliance, is an observation process that, except for generic computer implementation steps, can be performed in the human mind.
The Courts have unequivocally found that collecting and analyzing data and displaying the results is abstract, when it is performed using conventional computer and network technology.
Collecting information, including when limited to particular content, is within the realm of abstract ideas, and analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, and displaying certain results, without more, are mental processes within the abstract idea category. Merely presenting the results of abstract processes is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis (Electric Power Group v. Alstom S.A. (Fed Cir, 2015-1778, 8/1/2016).
As such, the claims recite an abstract idea within the mental process grouping.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO
The claims recite limitations that include additional elements beyond those that encompass the abstract idea above including:
A computer-implemented method; a first computing device; a second computing device; an e-pharmacy associated with prescribed protocols that links a product available for previous recommended treatment for the animal patient;
executing via a rules algorithm; utilizing a matching engine;
sending an electronic message to a second computing device associated with the owner of the animal patient;
updating, in a veterinary patient information database, a compliance portion of a profile indicating whether the previous recommended treatment was obtained to synchronize the veterinary patient information database with the e-pharmacy report and maintain accuracy of the profile;
responsive to the owner accessing the hyperlink and obtaining the product associated with the previous recommended treatment, updating the compliance portion of the veterinary patient information database to synchronize the profile with an underlying data store of the e-pharmacy server.
However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of that idea in accordance with the MPEP. (see MPEP 2106.05)
The first and second computing device and e-pharmacy server are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Similarly, electronic messages with hyperlinks sent between computers merely describe the environment in which the method takes place. Messages may be sent using any known messaging technique such as: an e-mail message or SMS message. These elements merely add instructions to implement the abstract idea on computers, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Updating a database is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. The specification describes “updating” in generic terms, with no technical details as to how this function is performed. Updating a database with compliance information in order to determine further processing steps is an insignificant data gathering step. Notably, the specification does not use the term “synchronize” in any form.
Here, Examiner notes that many of the steps that encompass the abstract idea above may also be construed as extra-solution data gathering steps. For example, receiving information indicating an appointment; accessing a report; and monitoring a compliance status of the owner; are data gathering steps.
Nothing in the claim recites specific limitations directed to a technological improvement. Similarly, the specification is silent with respect to these kinds of improvements. Improving data collection and accuracy simply by updating a conventional database; and improving protocol adherence by monitoring compliance, are not technological improvements. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of conventional computer functions, as is the case here, does not qualify as a particular machine, nor does the recitation of a generic computer impose meaningful limits in the claimed process. (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract treatment compliance monitoring and reminder process into a practical application of that process.
STEP 2B
The additional elements identified above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract treatment compliance monitoring and reminder process. Updating a database is a well-understood, routine and conventional computer function – i.e. electronic recordkeeping as in Alice and Ultramercial. Storing and retrieving information from memory is a routine and conventional computer function as in Versata and OIP Tech. Sending electronic messages is a conventional technique. For example, the specification discloses messages maybe sent using purely conventional e-mail or SMS techniques.
The additional structural elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer structure (i.e. a first/second computing device/processor e -pharmacy, computer-readable medium). Each of the above components are disclosed in the specification as being purely conventional and/or known in the industry. Because the specification describes these additional elements in general terms, without describing particulars, Examiner concludes that the claim limitations may be broadly, but reasonably construed, as reciting well-understood, routine and conventional computer components and techniques. The specification describes the elements in a manner that indicates that they are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars in order to satisfy U.S.C. 112. Considered as an ordered combination the limitations recited in the claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered individually. As such, the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide significantly more than the abstract treatment compliance monitoring and reminder process, or an inventive concept.
The dependent claims add additional features including:
those that merely serve to further narrow the abstract idea above such as:
further limiting the diagnostic test results (Claim 26, 33);
those that recite additional abstract ideas such as:
accessing diagnostic results and identifying the patient as eligible for a new prescribed protocol (Claim 22, 29, 36);
matching a patient profile to messages and information (Claim 23, 30, 37);
sending follow-up messages based on diagnostic test results and non-compliance (Claim 27, 34, 40);
those that recite well-understood, routine and conventional activity or computer functions such as:
updating profiles (Claims 22, 25, 26, 29, 32, 33, 36, 39);
sending messages and hyperlinks (Claims 23, 30, 37);
those that recite insignificant extra-solution activities such as:
generating a new compliance report (Claim 24, 31, 38);
or those that are an ancillary part of the abstract idea.
The limitations recited in the dependent claims, in combination with those recited in the independent claims add nothing that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, or that amounts to significantly more. As such, the additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or provide an inventive concept that transforms the claims into a patent eligible invention.
The apparatus claims are no different from the method claims in substance. “The equivalence of the method, system and media claims is readily apparent.” “The only difference between the claims is the form in which they were drafted.” (Bancorp). The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer, while the apparatus claims recite generic computer components configured to implement the same idea. Specifically, Claims 28 - 40 merely add the generic hardware noted above that nearly every computer will include. The apparatus claim’s requirement that the same method be performed with a programmed computer does not alter the method’s patentability under U.S.C. 101 (In re Grams). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
The U.S.C. §101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments, filed 12 May, 2026, with respect to U.S.C. §101 Rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant assets that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but to “a specific technological process for synchronizing disparate data stores to maintain clinical integrity of medical records”.
In particular, Applicant asserts that the claims require “Clinical Data Processing” i.e. - “executing a rules algorithm to filter numerical diagnostic data against predetermined numerical thresholds.” The rules algorithm merely performs an automated comparison of the numerical diagnostic data to a threshold. Such comparisons are readily made in the human mind, and an algorithm that performs this function merely “applies” the algorithm to the abstract mental process.
Applicant further asserts that the claims require “Algorithmic Analysis” i.e. – “a algorithmic identification of a clinical gap”. As with “synchronizing”; the specification does not use the term “clinical gap”. Examiner construes this to mean identification of non-compliance – i.e. the patient owner did not obtain the recommended product. Nonetheless, this is an observation or judgement based on the reported non-compliance; and under the broadest reasonable interpretation of this feature in view of the specification, such observations and judgements are readily made in the human mind.
Applicant further asserts a practical application – “a technological improvement . . . particular to computer technology”. Applicant asserts that the claims provide “technical accuracy of records”; and notes that the specification discloses “correct updating of animal patient records.” Here, Examiner asserts that it is the updating that makes the electronic records correct. There is no error detection or correction, or measure of data accuracy. As such updating records so that they are accurate is an extra-solution activity and is a purely conventional computer function.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a technical solution to the problem of fragmented data silos by synchronizing a patient record with a pharmacy server. Again, as has been noted above, the specification does not disclose “synchronizing” data. There is no disclosure related to any type of problem with updating the database, or that any data is in fragmented data silos, or has any type of incompatibility. There is no disclosure of “a bidirectional data synch between network servers” or “updating the profile to reflect the underlying data store of the e-pharmacy”. The specification teaches updating the veterinary database “to be indicative of the report”; and “allows for correct updating”. The claims limit updating to “a compliance portion” of the profile. This is an ordinary database operation, and represents a generic, routine and conventional computer function – i.e. electronic recordkeeping. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) II)
Applicant further asserts that updating includes correcting data mismatches. In addition to this argument being outside the scope of the pending claims, the specification is utterly silent with respect to any type of data correction.
Applicant argues an inventive concept including an automated feedback loop, automated rule based evaluations, and improved diagnostic evaluation. Here, as above, any type of diagnostic evaluation is outside the scope of the claims. Additionally, the feedback loop and rule-based evaluations are identified above as part of the abstract idea recited in the claims. The abstract idea cannot also serve as a practical application or an inventive concept.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPUB 2014/0052463 A1 to Cashman et al. discloses a veterinary health system that includes receiving periodic reports regarding medication compliance, and storing relevant information in a database record about the animal and the animal owner.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to John A. Pauls whose telephone number is (571) 270-5557. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Fri. 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773.
Official replies to this Office action may now be submitted electronically by registered users of the EFS-Web system. Information on EFS-Web tools is available on the Internet at: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/index.jsp. An EFS-Web Quick-Start Guide is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portal/efs/quick-start.pdf.
Alternatively, official replies to this Office action may still be submitted by any one of fax, mail, or hand delivery. Faxed replies should be directed to the central fax at (571) 273-8300. Mailed replies should be addressed to “Commissioner for Patents, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.” Hand delivered replies should be delivered to the “Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.”
/JOHN A PAULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Date: 26 August, 2026
Prosecution Insights