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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 21-40 are currently pending. Claims 1-20 are canceled and Claims 21-40 are newly added in the Claims filed on February 17, 2026. Claims 21-38 are examined and Claims 39-40 are withdrawn, for the reasons disclosed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on September 17, 2024, November 13, 2024, and February 26, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 21 and 34 recite a variety of acronyms (i.e. WBC, MCHC, MCV, MCH, RDW, ALT, BUN), without providing any definitions for each of the acronyms. Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claims 1-11 and 21-38, drawn to utilizing a plurality of particular biological parameters to predict an age of an animal generate a feeding schedule, classified in G16H 50/20.
Claims 12-20, drawn to a system/apparatus that includes an exterior surface and an interior cavity containing an electrical circuit comprising various sensors, classified in A01K 29/007.
Claims 39-40, drawn to utilizing an activity of a subject to classify the subject as healthy or unhealthy and determine the age of a subject, classified in G16H 50/30.
Inventions I (Claims 1-11 and Claims 21-38), II (Claims 12-20), and III (Claims 39-40) are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I (Claims 1-11 and 21-38) has separate utility such as gathering specific biological parameters in order to calculate and/or predict metrics related to aging without reciting the specific structural/hardware components required to gather the data as recited in subcombination II (Claims 12-20), and without reciting the classification of the subject as healthy or unhealthy as is required by subcombination III (Claims 39-40). Subcombination II has separate utility such as reciting a plurality of specific structural/hardware components for measuring biological parameters, without reciting any type of calculation or prediction as is recited by subcombination I, and without reciting the classification of the subject as healthy or unhealthy as is required by subcombination III. Subcombination III has separate utility such as diagnosing/classifying the healthiness/unhealthiness of the subject, without requiring the specific biological parameters as is required by subcombination I, and without requiring the structural/hardware components as is recited by subcombination II. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
As an initial matter, Applicant’s election of the Invention I (Claims 1-11 and 21-38) in the reply filed on February 17, 2026 is acknowledged. However, because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Hence, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Additionally, as shown above, now canceled Claims 1-11 and newly submitted Claims 21-38 are interpreted as corresponding to the elected Invention I, now canceled Claims 12-20 correspond to unelected Invention II, and newly submitted Claims 39-40 correspond to Invention III, which represents an invention that is independent or distinct from the elected Invention I. Hence, as shown below, Claims 21-38 are examined, whereas Claims 39-40 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03
Additionally, Examiner previously attempted to contact Nikhil Heble (Reg. No. 61,347) on Monday, March 9, 2026 and Wednesday, March 11, 2026, to discuss the aforementioned requirement for restriction and election, but ultimately did not receive a response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 21 and 34, Claims 21 and 34 recite “[calculating] a mobility score based upon the received data.” The Specification does not disclose how the mobility score is calculated based on at least one digital biomarker, at least two of the claimed traditional biomarkers, and at least one epigenetic marker. For example, [0132] of the as-filed Specification discloses utilizing “a combination of at least two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, or nine biomarkers to diagnose and/or recommend suitable treatment plan for the respective pets,” but does not disclose how any of the aforementioned biomarkers are actually utilized to produce the recommended treatment. Hence, at most, the Claims and Specification disclose a set of inputs (i.e. the at least one digital biomarker, the at least two traditional biomarkers, and the at least one epigenetic marker), and an output (i.e. the mobility score ultimately leading to the recommended feeding recommendation), but does not disclose a specific methodology or algorithm explaining how the output is obtained from the inputs, and hence does not demonstrate that the inventor had possession of this feature at the time of filing.
Additionally, Claims 21 and 34 further recite “[determining] a level of activity or age based upon the mobility score.” Similar to the rationale provided above for the mobility score, the Claims and the Specification do not disclose specifics regarding how the level of activity or age is determined from the mobility score. The claim language recites an input (i.e. the mobility score), and an output (i.e. the level of activity or age), but the Specification does not disclose a specific methodology or algorithm explaining how the output is obtained from the input, and hence does not demonstrate that the inventor had possession of this feature at the time of filing.
Dependent Claims 22-33 and 35-38 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) due to their dependence from independent Claims 21 and 34.
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 21-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 21-38 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 21-33 are drawn to a system for determining a feeding recommendation, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 34-38 are drawn to a method for determining a feeding recommendation, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 21, which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: A system for generating a custom feeding recommendation for an individual companion animal comprising:
a biosensor,
a processor configured to determine at least one of sex, neuter status, age and size of the companion animal;
a database associated with the processor; and
a program executable by the processor configured to:
receive data comprising (a) at least one digital biomarker from the biosensor including at least one data point correlating to activity of the companion animal; (b) at least two traditional biomarkers, comprising: WBC, urea nitrogen, chloride, phosphorus, MCHC, MCV, MCH, RDW, eosinophils, lymphocytes, ALT, BUN, creatinine, BUN to creatinine ratio, sodium, triglycerides, platelet to lymphocyte ratio; and (c) at least one epigenetic marker including the DNA methylome;
calculate a mobility score based upon the received data;
determine a level of activity or age based upon the mobility score; and
generate a customized feeding recommendation based on the determination.
The underlined limitations as shown above recite the abstract idea of a mathematical concept and/or a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and/or mathematical calculations (in this case, calculating a mobility score and determining a level of activity or age include at least mathematical calculations), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case, the steps of determining a sex, neuter status, age, or size of a companion animal, receiving various data, calculating the mobility score based on the received data, determining a level of activity or age based on the mobility score, and generating a customized feeding recommendation based on the determination include following rules or instructions for determining a feeding recommendation for a companion animal), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claim 34 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 21, because the only difference between Claims 21 and 34 is that Claim 21 recites a system and its associated hardware structure, whereas Claim 34 recites a method.
Dependent Claims 22-33 and 35-38 include other limitations, for example Claim 22-28, 31, and 37-38 recite particular types of data to be processed, Claim 30 recites obtaining additional types of data, Claim 35 recites evaluating the companion animal relative to a subject of the same age, Claim 36 recites determining acceleration or deceleration of phenotypic age, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04, and/or do not further narrow the abstract idea and instead only recite additional elements, which will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 22-33 and 35-38 nonetheless recite the same abstract idea as independent Claims 21 and 34.
Hence Claims 21-38 recite the aforementioned abstract idea.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 21 and 34 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the biosensor, the processor, and the database) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the biosensor, the processor, and the database, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see [0036]-[0037] and [00136] of the as-filed Specification, and see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language of the biosensor, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Additionally, dependent Claims 22-33 and 35-38 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (e.g. the wearable device recited in dependent Claim 29, the various devices recited in dependent Claim 33), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the various types of data recited in dependent Claim 22-28, 30-31, and 36-38), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claims 21 and 34, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence Claims 21-38 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 21 and 34 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the biosensor, the processor, and the database), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the additional elements comprise limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The present Specification expressly disclosing that the structural additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
[0036]-[0037] and [00136] of the as-filed Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the biosensor, the processor, and the database) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems;
Relevant court decisions: The functional limitations interpreted as additional elements are analogized to the following examples of court decisions demonstrating 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 additional elements recite wirelessly transmitting/receiving data to/from the biosensor to the database and the processor, e.g. see [00238] of the as-filed Specification;
Performing repetitive calculations, e.g. see Parker v. Flook, and/or Bancorp Services v. Sun Life – similarly, the additional elements recite performing basic calculations (i.e. calculating a mobility score, determining a level of activity or age) and does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims;
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the additional elements merely recite the creating and maintaining of the data on a database;
Dependent Claims 22-33 and 35-38 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the wearable device recited in dependent Claim 29, the various devices recited in dependent Claim 33), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the various types of data recited in dependent Claim 22-28, 30-31, and 36-38), and/or the limitations recited by the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claims 21 and 34, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Hence, Claims 21-38 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 21-38 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Free From Prior Art
Claims 21-38 are not presently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103, and hence would be in condition for allowance if amended to overcome the rejections presented under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 101. The following represents Examiner’s characterization of the most relevant prior art references and the differences between the present claim language and the prior art references in view of 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103:
With regards to 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103, the following represents the closest prior art to the claimed invention, as well as the differences between the prior art and the limitations of the presently claimed invention.
Lo (US 2022/0013236) teaches a system that determines the activity level of a user based on various data received from a wearable sensor, for example sleep data, heart data, and/or temperature, levels of various chemicals, proteins, and/or cells, and data from an accelerometer, and transmits the data to a server for processing and/or analysis, e.g. see Lo [0012]-[0013], [0015], [0018], and [0020]. Additionally, the server utilizes the received data to determine a movement level of the subject, e.g. see Lo [0015], and combines the heart data with the accelerometer data to classify the user’s activity level, e.g. see Lo [0026]. However, Lo does not teach receiving at least two traditional biomarkers comprising WBC, urea nitrogen, chloride, phosphorus, MCHC, MCV, MCH, RDW, eosinophils, lymphocytes, ALT, BUN, creatinine, BUN to creatinine ratio, sodium, triglycerides, platelet to lymphocyte ratio. Additionally, Lo does not teach receiving at least one epigenetic marker including the DNA methylome. Moreover, Lo does not teach utilizing the at least two traditional biomarkers and the DNA methylome to determine the mobility score and subsequently the activity level or age. Additionally, Lo does not teach generating a customized feeding recommendation based on the determined activity level or age.
Kennedy (US 2020/0188327) teaches selecting an age-related phenotype consisting of a plurality of types including reduced mobility and modulation of DNA methylation, e.g. see Kennedy [0168]. That is, Kennedy teaches that reduced mobility and modulation of DNA methylation are factors in determining an age-related phenotype, but does not specifically teach calculating the mobility for a user and subsequently using the calculated mobility as a basis for determining an activity or age level. Additionally, Kennedy teaches a variety of additional health measures used in assessing healthspan, e.g. see Kennedy [0179], and further teaches utilizing the age-related phenotypes as a basis for selecting and administering pharmacological agents (i.e. a customized feeding recommendation), e.g. see Kennedy [0003] and [0167]. However, Kennedy does not teach that the selected measures of health used in assessing healthspan include at least two traditional biomarkers comprising WBC, urea nitrogen, chloride, phosphorus, MCHC, MCV, MCH, RDW, eosinophils, lymphocytes, ALT, BUN, creatinine, BUN to creatinine ratio, sodium, triglycerides, platelet to lymphocyte ratio. Additionally, Kennedy does not teach receiving sensor data (i.e. digital biomarkers), and using the received sensor data as one of the bases used for determining the mobility of the user.
Frangos (“Functional Aging: Integrating Functionality to a Multidimensional Assessment of Healthy Aging,” Hindawi Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research, Volume 2023, 28 January 2023) teaches that DNA methylation changes have been studied in combination with external risk factors regarding its effect on aging, e.g. see Frangos Section 1.1 Aging and Classical Biomarkers of Age, pgs. 1-2. Frangos further teaches that a DNA methylation score may be used in combination with a composite score or index to evaluate a patient’s chronological age and mortality, and also teaches that a functional aging index including walking speed may also be used to evaluate a patient’s chronological age and mortality, e.g. see Frangos Section 1.4 Function Tests as Markers of Poor Clinical Outcomes and Mortality, pg. 4. However, Frangos does not teach that the factors used in assessing aging include at least two traditional biomarkers comprising WBC, urea nitrogen, chloride, phosphorus, MCHC, MCV, MCH, RDW, eosinophils, lymphocytes, ALT, BUN, creatinine, BUN to creatinine ratio, sodium, triglycerides, platelet to lymphocyte ratio. Additionally, Frangos does not teach generating a customized feeding recommendation based on the determined activity level or age.
Lee (“Age and Physical Activity Levels in Companion Dogs; Results From the Dog Aging Project,” J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci, 2022, Vol. 77, No. 10, 1986-1993) teaches providing dog owners with a Health and Life Expectancy Survey (HLES) to assess the dog’s environment, behavior, lifestyle, diet, and health, e.g. see Lee Section DAP Survey Data, pg. 1987, and also evaluating the dog’s activity, e.g. see Lee Section Activity Measures and Predictor Variables pgs. 1987-1988. Furthermore, the DAP data is processed through regression models to determine statistical significance of predictor variables in order to ultimately determine the relationship between dog physical activity and dog age. However, Lee does not teach utilizing at least two traditional biomarkers comprising WBC, urea nitrogen, chloride, phosphorus, MCHC, MCV, MCH, RDW, eosinophils, lymphocytes, ALT, BUN, creatinine, BUN to creatinine ratio, sodium, triglycerides, platelet to lymphocyte ratio in order to determine a mobility score, determining a level of activity or age based on the mobility score, and further does not teach determining a customized feeding recommendation based on the level of activity or age.
The aforementioned references are understood to be the closest prior art. Various aspects of the claimed invention are known individually, but for the reasons disclosed above, the particular manner in which the elements of the present invention are claimed, when considered as an ordered combination, distinguishes from the aforementioned references and hence the invention recited in Claims 21-38 is not considered to be disclosed by and/or obvious in view of the inventions of the closest prior art references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm Pacific.
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, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/JOHN P GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681