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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 04/28/2026.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 2-20 are newly added.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
IDS
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 04/28/2026 has been reviewed and considered.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1 and 11 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of prior art, however the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth below. All dependent claims are also free of prior art by virtue of dependency, but remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Taking amended claim 1 as a representative claim, the claims as amended are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1 now recites the claimed features of wherein the sensor measurements include one or more of heart rate data, temperature data, or breath rate data; determining, by the processing system and utilizing a computer vision system, a tongue condition of the pet based on the image data, wherein the computer vision system processes the image data utilizing an image classification model to determine the tongue condition; generating, by the processing system and utilizing a machine learning model, a set of attributes ... based on the pet information, the sensor measurements, and the determined tongue condition; wherein the temperature classification comprises one of a warm classification, a neural classification, or a cool classification.
Donovan (US 2016/0012748 A1) discloses receiving, by a processing system of a platform, pet information corresponding to the pet from a client user device of a user associated with the pet; receiving, by the processing system, sensor measurements from one or more wearable devices worn by the pet ...wherein the sensor measurements include one or more of heart rate data, temperature data, or breath rate data (¶ [0060]); receiving, by the processing system, image data from one or more home devices associated with an owner of the pet; ... generating, by the processing system ... a set of attributes relating to the pet based on the pet information, the sensor measurements ... the set of attributes including a temperature attribute indicating a body temperature of the pet; ... determining , by the processing system, a pet food recommendation from a pet product database ... determining, by the processing system, a quantity of food to recommend for the pet based on the set of attributes; and providing, by the processing system, a diet recommendation indicating the pet food recommendation and the quantity of food to the user via a communication network (see Office Action of 01/28/26 pgs. 8-10).
However, Donovan does not disclose or render obvious: receiving ... via an API of the platform; determining, by the processing system and utilizing a computer vision system, a tongue condition of the pet based on the image data, wherein the computer vision system processes the image data utilizing an image classification model to determine the tongue condition; generating ... utilizing a machine learning model, a set of attributes relating to the pet based on ... the determined tongue condition; determining, by the processing system, a temperature classification corresponding to the pet based on the set of attributes, wherein the temperature classification comprises one of a warm classification, a neutral classification, or a cool classification; determining, by the processing system, a recipe score corresponding to the pet based upon the temperature classification and the set of attributes.
Chang “Understanding the Food Cure with Chinese Yin-Yang Theory” discloses determining, by the processing system, a temperature classification corresponding to the subject based on the set of attributes, wherein the temperature classification comprises one of a warm classification, a neutral classification, or a cool classification; and determining a score based upon the temperature classification (see Office Action of 01/28/26 pg. 10).
However, Chang does not disclose or render obvious: receiving ... via an API of the platform; determining, by the processing system and utilizing a computer vision system, a tongue condition of the pet based on the image data, wherein the computer vision system processes the image data utilizing an image classification model to determine the tongue condition; generating ... utilizing a machine learning model, a set of attributes relating to the pet based on ... the determined tongue condition; determining, by the processing system, a recipe score corresponding to the pet based upon the temperature classification and the set of attributes.
Solari (US 2018/0233223 A1) discloses: receiving data via an API of the platform; and determining, by the processing system, a recipe score correspond to the subject based on ... the set of attributes; and determining a food recommendation based on the recipe score (see Office Action of 01/28/26 pgs. 10-11).
However, Solari does not disclose or render obvious; determining, by the processing system and utilizing a computer vision system, a tongue condition of the pet based on the image data, wherein the computer vision system processes the image data utilizing an image classification model to determine the tongue condition; generating ... utilizing a machine learning model, a set of attributes relating to the pet based on ... the determined tongue condition; determining, by the processing system, a recipe score corresponding to the pet based upon the temperature classification and the set of attributes.
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the features of the claims exist individually, the combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence obtained to reach the combination of features as claimed would require substantial reconstruction of Applicant' s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6, 8-11, 16, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 8, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,361,368 B2 in view of Zatvan et al. (US 2021/0369115 A1).
Pending claim 1 (which is exemplary of pending claim 11) is anticipated by the combination of claims 5 and 6 of the patent. Claims 5-6 of the patent do not anticipate the amended limitations associated with determining a tongue condition, however Zatvan– which is also directed to a remote diagnostics of a subject – teaches determining, by the processing system and utilizing a computer vision system, a tongue condition of the pet based on the image data, wherein the computer vision system processes the image data utilizing an image classification model to determine the tongue condition in ¶ [0059] “a qualitative and quantitative assessment of changes in the color of ... the surface of mucous membrane tissues (tongue, oral mucosa, sclera of the eyes), for which, in real time, from the video stream, a computer software program using computer vision technologies selects the necessary investigated elements of the facial image or parts of it and performs numerical and graphic processing of color indicators based on intellectual and statistical analysis of the data obtained, automatically identifies signs (injections, hyperemia, pallor) and generates its outcome and results in form of recommendation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the tongue condition as taught by Zatvan in the patented invention in order to provide determine immediate health condition of the subject (Zatvan ¶ [0010]).
Accordingly pending claims 1 and 11 are considered to be obvious in view of patented claims 5 and 6, further in view of Zatvan. Dependent claims 6, 8, 9, and 10 (exemplary of dependent claims 16, 18, 19, and 20) are also considered to be obvious in view of patented claims 3, 5, 1, and 8, respectively, by at least the same rationale.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility (SME) analysis described in MPEP 2106.03, the instant claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention identified by 35 U.S.C. 101. In the instant case, claim 1-10 are directed to a method, and claims 11-20 are directed to a system.
In Step 2A Prong One, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Claim 1, as exemplary, recites abstract concepts including: receiving ... pet information corresponding to the pet from a client user device of a user associated with the pet; receiving, by the processing system, sensor measurements ... wherein the sensor measurements include one or more of heart rate data, temperature data, or breath rate data; receiving ... image data from ... an owner of the pet; determining ... a tongue condition of the pet based on the image data, generating ... a set of attributes relating to the pet based on the pet information, the sensor measurements, and the determined tongue condition, the set of attributes including a temperature attribute indicating a body temperature of the pet; determining... a temperature classification corresponding to the pet based on the set of attributes, wherein the temperature classification comprises one of a warm classification, a neutral classification, or a cool classification; determining ... a recipe score corresponding to the pet based upon the temperature classification and the set of attributes; determining... a pet food recommendation from a pet product database based on the recipe score; determining... a quantity of food to recommend for the pet based on the set of attributes; and providing, by the processing system, a diet recommendation indicating the pet food recommendation and the quantity of food to the user via a communication network..
These identified limitations recite the abstract idea of “recommending pet food for a pet”, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
In Step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Instant claims 1 and 11 recite additional elements including: a processing system of a platform; utilizing a computer vision system ... wherein the computer vision system processes the image data utilizing an image classification model; a client device; one or more wearable devices worn by the pet; an API of the platform; one or more home devices; a communication network. The processing system, client device, computer vision system, image classification model, wearable devices, API, home devices, and communication network are each recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing generic computer functions of transmitting information and executing instructions) such that it amounts to no more than “apply it” or mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements amounts to a generic computer environment and generic network environment. For example, none of the computer elements are described in terms of how they perform the desired functions and there is no specific arrangement/architecture to recited in the claim. Such generic, results-based claiming without description of the mechanisms for achieving the results are equivalent to “apply it”. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. See MPEP 2106.05. Claim 1 is thus directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the SME analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a general computer components. For the same reason, the elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea with a generic computer does not add significantly more in Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in ordered combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “the present claims are not solely directed to ‘recommendation pet food for a pet’ that is merely an abstract idea” and that the present claims are similar to Examples 35 and 36.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims are not directed to a method of ensuring secure transmission of data from a card using a smart label and encryption techniques (as in Example 35), neither are the present claims directed to a high resolution video camera array with overlapping views in combination with a recognition model that utilizes character data and contour information to improve computer vision technology (as in Example 36). Unlike these examples, the present combination of steps do not provide a technological solution to a technological problem.
The objective of the instant claims is to “determine a pet food/treat recommendation in an appropriate manner” (Remarks, pg. 13). To this end, the claim recites a combination of data gathering steps, data analysis, and outputting the result (i.e., a diet recommendation). This a commercial goal, not a technological problem, and the proposed solution of utilizing existing technology of wearable device sensors, home device camera, computer vision system, and ML model to gather and analyze data, does not create a technological improvement in the technologies themselves.
Applicant argues that “the use of sensor(s) in a ‘wearable device,’ ‘image data,’ a ‘computer vision system,’ and a ‘machine learning model’ is not well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of determining a diet and/or pet food recommendation”, however the argument contains no explanation of why any of these activities alone or in combination are non-conventional. The mere use of a generically described sensor, wearable device, computer vision system, and ML model in the context of determining a diet or pet food recommendation is not equivalent to reciting an unconventional step or series of steps that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception. As the courts determined in Recentive Analytics, claims applying existing technology to a new data environment are not patent eligible where the claims do not specify specific methods for making the existing technology better.
Applicant further argues that the claims are eligible at least according the to the Ex parte Dejardins decision (Remarks, pg. 13).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The patent eligibility inquiry under 35 U.S.C. 101 is a threshold inquiry. Even if a claimed invention qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must also satisfy the other conditions and requirements of the patent laws, including the requirements for novelty (35 U.S.C. 102 ), nonobviousness (35 U.S.C. 103 ), and adequate description and definite claiming (35 U.S.C. 112 ). Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 602, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2010). Therefore, examiners should avoid focusing on only issues of patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 to the detriment of considering an application for compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102, 35 U.S.C. 103, and 35 U.S.C. 112, and should avoid treating an application solely on the basis of patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 except in the most extreme cases.
The claims were examined at the proper level of generality for what they recite, and properly analyzed to determine if they met the requirements of the patent laws including 35 USC 101, 35 USC 102, 35 USC 103, and 35 USC 112.
For at least these reasons, the Examiner is maintaining the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20.
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/28/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pingali (US 2020/0381116 A1) provides a system and method for providing personal health advice based on multimodal oral sensing data obtained from a plurality of user(s).
Irshad, Sana & Ahsan, Kamran & Khan, Muhammad & Iqbal, Sarwat & Hussain, Muhammad & Shafiq, Farhan & Emad, Shah. (2021)(NPL Reference U) reviews different cases of wireless sensors for cattle and pet animals tracking and monitoring.
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 KENNEDY A GIBSON-WYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 PM.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764 and Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/K.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
