DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 8 December, 2025.
Claims 21, 28 and 40 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 21 – 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 21, 28 and 35 recite: accessing a report indicating whether the animal owner obtained a product associated with a previously recommended treatment for the animal patient from an e-pharmacy; and “updating . . . a compliance portion of a profile of the owner of the animal indicating whether the previous recommended treatment was followed”. Further, if the treatment was not followed an electronic message that includes a reminder and a hyperlink to a vendor to obtain the product. Compliance status is monitored and the compliance portion is updated responsive to the owner accessing the hyperlink. Examiner cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claims.
For example, the claims require indicating that a recommended treatment was followed simply because the product was obtained. Similarly, the claims require updating the compliance portion simply because the owner accessed the vendor hyperlink. However, accessing a hyperlink does not necessarily include obtaining the product; and obtaining the product does not necessarily include following the treatment. The hyperlink could be accessed and the owner may find the treatment unaffordable or unavailable/out-of-stock, and therefore the owner may not obtain the recommended product. Similarly, the treatment may be obtained but not administered.
The specification indicates that compliance is determined based only on whether the product was obtained. Nothing in the specification discloses determining whether the “treatment was followed”; which Examiner construes as including obtaining and administering the treatment according to the recommended treatment protocol. Further, the specification discloses receiving a report for various events including: whether the owner was sent a prescribed protocol, whether the owner opened a message, visited the e-pharmacy, obtained the product, and received successive deliveries. (@ 0055) For purposes of this examination, Examiner assumes that the compliance portion of a profile of the owner indicates whether the previously recommended treatment “was obtained” or “was not obtained”; and that the compliance status is updated responsive to the owner accessing the hyperlink and “obtaining the product associated with the previous recommended treatment”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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.
The following rejection is formatted in accordance with MPEP 2106.
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, accessing a report, via an e-pharmacy associated with 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;
updating, in a veterinary patient information database, a compliance portion of a profile of the owner of the animal patient indicating whether the previous recommended treatment was obtained; and
when the compliance portion indicates that the previous recommended treatment was not obtained, 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; and
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
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.
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.
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, accessing a report indicating whether an owner of the animal patient obtained the product associated with the previous recommended treatment for the animal patient;
when the compliance portion indicates that the previous recommended treatment was not obtained, sending an electronic message to the owner of the animal patient that includes a reminder of the recommended treatment and a hyperlink to a vendor to obtain the product; and
monitoring, subsequent to sending the message, a compliance status of the owner of the animal patient.
The claims, as illustrated by Claim 1, 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.
Monitoring compliance with recommended treatments and providing reminders to the animal owner who are not compliant 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 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.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO
The claims recite limitations that include additional elements beyond those that encompass the abstract idea above including:
a first computing device,
an e-pharmacy associated with prescribed protocols that links a product available for previous recommended treatment for the animal patient;
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 of the owner of the animal patient indicating whether the previous recommended treatment was obtained;
responsive to the owner accessing the hyperlink and obtaining the product associated with the previous recommended treatment, updating the compliance portion.
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 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.
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. §112 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8 December, 2025, with respect to U.S.C. §112 Rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn. Nonetheless, the claims recite additional limitations that fall under this section, as shown above.
The U.S.C. §101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments with respect to U.S.C. §101 Rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Initially, Examiner agrees with the Applicant that the claims do not encompass a mental process; however, Examiner does not agree that the claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity. In particular, Examiner asserts that the claim are directed to “managing personal behavior” including “following rules or instructions”. The MPEP, as cited by the Applicant, describes how a claim comprising: “tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a preset spending limit”, and “when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to a user device”; falls within the “managing personal behavior” subcategory. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank). The pending claims are similar to Intellectual Ventures I LLC in that they include: monitoring (i.e. tracking) e-pharmacy “transactions” (i.e. accessing a hyperlink and obtaining the product) to determine a compliance status relative to obtaining a recommended treatment, and sending a notification when they do not comply.
With respect to the “following rules and instructions” subcategory, Applicant appears to limit MPEP examples to the “how to” claims. Nonetheless, recommended treatments involve instructions to a patient, or pet owner, such as instructions to obtain and administer a particular medication at a particular frequency. As such, monitoring whether the pet owner “follows the treatment”, falls within the “following rules or instructions” subcategory.
Applicant asserts that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims “recite an improvement in communication of veterinary systems” including “unconventional elements” that “provide an unconventional technical solution improving data quality and accuracy”. Initially, Examiner notes that the Applicant declines to identify any element, or arrangement of elements that are unconventional, or point to any section of the specification that discloses such an arrangement. The first and second computing device are disclosed as being purely generic, and in communication with databases and clinic “through a network or the cloud”. Communications, including output messages, are conducted using known communication protocols such as e-mail or SMS. There does not appear to be anything unconventional about this arrangement of elements, nor does the specification describe any unconventional aspects to this arrangement.
Applicant further asserts that “monitoring” is not well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Examiner disagrees. Monitoring compliance with treatment regimens are surely old and well known in medicine. Further the monitoring step is a part of the abstract idea itself, and not an “additional step” to be considered under STEP 2A Prong Two or Step 2B. As such, it is irrelevant whether considering monitoring a compliance status may have been non-routine or unconventional as a factual matter. (See Berkheimer and BSG Tech)
Finally, Applicant asserts improvements that are not commensurate with the scope of the claims, and are also not supported by the specification. Applicant asserts that storing information in the database “increases computational efficiency by eliminating the need to obtain the information from the e-pharmacy”. The specification does not support this feature; further, the claims expressly require accessing a report from the e-pharmacy. Applicant further asserts that the method only sends a message when treatment was not followed, conserving computer resources. There is no support for this bare assertion.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPUB 2011/0196804 A1 to Sutter et al. discloses a system and method for managing veterinary medication prescriptions that includes updating an animal hospital’s records indicating that the veterinarian’s treatment plan has been facilitated.
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 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197.
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: 22 January, 2026
Prosecution Insights