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 08/14/2024.
Claim 1 is currently pending and have been examined.
Continuation in Part
This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Application No. 17/838,411 filed June 13, 2020, which is continuation of U.S. Application No. 16/962,386, filed July 15, 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 11,361,368.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,361,368 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because video data of the patent claim anticipates the image data recited in instant claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 is directed to a method.
In Step 2A Prong One, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Claim 1 recites abstract concepts including: 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 via an API of the platform; 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, and the image data, the set of attributes including a temperature attribute indicating a body temperature of the pet; determining, by the processing system, a temperature classification corresponding to the pet based on the set of attributes; determining, by the processing system, a recipe score corresponding to the pet based upon the temperature classification and the set of attributes; determining, by the processing system, a pet food recommendation from a pet product database based on the recipe score; 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..
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 claim 1 recites additional elements including: a processing system of a platform; 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, 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan (US 2016/0012748 A1) in view of Solari (US 2018/0233223 A1), and further in view of Chang (“Understanding the Food Cure with Chinese Yin-Yang Theory”).
Claim 1 – Donovan discloses a method for recommending pet food for a pet comprising:
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 (¶ [0092] “The user has the ability to create and edit these profiles to include their personal and animal information”; FIG. 7);
receiving, by the processing system, sensor measurements from one or more wearable devices worn by the pet ...(¶ [0034] “the data ... may be derived from sensor or measurement technology placed on or around the animal; ¶ [0066]);
receiving, by the processing system, image data from one or more home devices associated with an owner of the pet (¶ [0047] “exemplary animal data may include ... a video or picture or plurality thereof an animal”; ¶ [0068]);
generating, by the processing system, a set of attributes relating to the pet based on the pet information, the sensor measurements, and the image data, the set of attributes including a temperature attribute indicating a body temperature of the pet (¶ [0043] “body temperature”; ¶ [0047] “Taken as a whole, therefore, exemplary animal data may include, for example, any observable measure of the health or physical state of an animal determined by various means, and may be quantitative or qualitative, such as ... a body temperature of an animal); ...
determining, by the processing system, a pet food recommendation from a pet product database ...(¶ [0039] “recommendations include any number of nutritional, health, and wellness aspects of the animal. This may include ... what and how to feed the animal”; ¶ [0056] “collected data and analysis may, in turn, lead to outcomes and recommendations regarding ... nutritional/feeding change”);
determining, by the processing system, a quantity of food to recommend for the pet based on the set of attributes (¶ [0053] “over/under feeding issues”; ¶ [0056] “the amount of food/treats to provide”); 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 (¶ [0039] “ Engagement of the individuals with and to the system can also be via web-based or software applications, e-mail, text, phone, and other relevant forms of electronic communication”; ¶ [0056] “These collected data and analysis may, in turn, lead to outcomes and recommendations regarding one or more of changes in environment; initiating, limiting, or increasing exercise protocols; administration or cessation of vitamins, supplements, or medication; initiating or modifying training protocols; nutritional/feeding changes; veterinary visits; combinations thereof; and the like.”).
Donovan does not disclose limitations associated with determining a temperature classification corresponding to the pet. However, Chang – which like Donovan is related to providing nutritional recommendations – teaches:
determining, by the processing system, a temperature classification corresponding to the subject based on the set of attributes (pg. 4, ¶ [0003] “For the Chinese medical doctor, his job is to first make diagnosis in order to determine what type of Yin-Yang imbalance the patient is”; pg. 7, ¶ [0004] “A cold, explained by a Chinese medical doctor, is caused by cold wind that invades the body and weakens the person’s Yang. Ginger, which is type of food with ‘hot’ energy, falls into the category of Yang food. Therefore, ginger can increase and strength weakened Yang, and cure the patient”; and
determining a score based upon the temperature classification (pg. 4, ¶ [0005] “there should be four possible states of imbalance: preponderance (excess) of Yin; preponderance (excess) of Yang; weakness (deficiency) of Yin; weakness (deficiency) of Yang”; pg. 5, ¶ [0002] “The doctor’s prescription should contain herbal medicines to fulfill those above-mentioned purposes”).
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 temperature classifications as taught by Chang in the method for recommending pet food, of Donovan, in order to open up a new perspective to understand how food and medicine may benefit health (Abstract, Chang).
The combination of Donovan in view of Chang does not disclose receiving data via an API of the platform or limitations associated with determining a recipe score. However, Solari – which like Donovan is directed to recommending consumables based on health assessments – teaches:
receiving data via an API of the platform (Solari ¶ [0071] “utilities one or more Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to interaction with host device 100”); and
determining, by the processing system, a recipe score corresponding to the subject based ... the set of attributes (Solari ¶ [0021] “The discloses system calculates scores indicative of the nutritional value of a consumable, such as an ingredient, a food, a meal, or a diet” and “the calculated scores ... are tailored to an individual user”; ¶ [0022] “the scores are calculated according to an equation that takes into account ... characteristics of the individual for whom the scores are calculated”);
determining a food recommendation based on the recipe score (Solari ¶ [0145] “ the disclosed system randomly selects a set of foods that would both improve the user's overall nutritional health score and also improve the nutrient health score for the selected nutrient”; ¶ [0149] “In a prospective embodiment, where the user indicates the intention to consume amounts of spinach and chocolate, the disclosed system calculates nutritional health scores for all combinations of spinach/chocolate and if an optimal score can be achieved by reducing one of the two indicated intended amounts, the system suggests that the intake of that food be reduced to maximize score”).
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 API and recipe score as taught by Solari in the method of Donovan in view of Chang because a system is need that calculates a nutritional health score that is customized to the individual for different amounts of foods consumed (Solari ¶ [0015]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mikami et al. (US 9,810,674 B2) relates to a method for evaluating food preference of pets.
N. Nirwal, N. Sardana and A. J. Bhatt (NPL Reference U) discusses a mobile based healthcare application named “Hopeful Hearts” that will help the mobile user to monitor his/her health regularly.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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
/Jeffrey A. Smith/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688