DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 5-6, & 10 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 6/17/2026.
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 § 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, 5-6, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1 & 5 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); Claims 6 & 10 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, Claims 1, 5-6, & 10 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. An intelligent pet breeding interaction system, comprising:
a storage module configured store a daily weight change rate standard value, a plurality of first postures corresponding to a mental health indicator, and a plurality of second postures corresponding to a physical health indicator,
wherein the mental health indicator comprises an activity level indicator, an interaction behavior indicator, and an emotional indicator, and the plurality of first postures comprise a plurality of activity postures corresponding to the activity level indicator, a plurality of interaction postures corresponding to the interaction behavior indicator, and a plurality of grooming postures corresponding to the emotional indicator,
and
wherein the physical health indicator comprises a sleep quality indicator, and the plurality of second postures comprise a plurality of sleep postures corresponding to the sleep quality indicator;
an image capturing module configured to monitor a target object to generate a monitoring image;
a sensing module configured to detect a weight change of an excretion device to generate a daily weight change rate;
a processing module configured to:
compare the target object in the monitoring image with the plurality of activity postures to generate an activity level score,
compare the target object in the monitoring image with the interaction postures to generate an interaction behavior score,
compare the target object in the monitoring image with the grooming postures to generate an emotional score,
generate a mental health score according to the activity level score, the interaction behavior score, and the emotional score,
compare the target object in the monitoring images with the plurality of sleep postures to generate a sleep quality score,
generate a physical health score according to the sleep quality score,
compare the daily weight change rate with the daily weight change rate standard value to generate a deviation, and
adjust the physical health score according to the deviation; and
an artificial intelligence module configured to receive an inquiry message and generate a response message according to the inquiry message, the mental health score, and the physical health score.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because receiving user data such as weight and posture behavior, determine various indicators using the posture data, monitoring and comparing images of the user, generating weight data, generating score data, and receiving and generating inquiry and response messages are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 6 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 5 & 10 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 5 & 10 recite generating an animation of the target object based on the inquiry message and scores. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim 6, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
1. An intelligent pet breeding interaction system, comprising:
a storage module configured store a daily weight change rate standard value, a plurality of first postures corresponding to a mental health indicator, and a plurality of second postures corresponding to a physical health indicator,
wherein the mental health indicator comprises an activity level indicator, an interaction behavior indicator, and an emotional indicator, and the plurality of first postures comprise a plurality of activity postures corresponding to the activity level indicator, a plurality of interaction postures corresponding to the interaction behavior indicator, and a plurality of grooming postures corresponding to the emotional indicator,
and
wherein the physical health indicator comprises a sleep quality indicator, and the plurality of second postures comprise a plurality of sleep postures corresponding to the sleep quality indicator;
an image capturing module configured to monitor a target object to generate a monitoring image;
a sensing module configured to detect a weight change of an excretion device to generate a daily weight change rate;
a processing module configured to:
compare the target object in the monitoring image with the plurality of activity postures to generate an activity level score,
compare the target object in the monitoring image with the interaction postures to generate an interaction behavior score,
compare the target object in the monitoring image with the grooming postures to generate an emotional score,
generate a mental health score according to the activity level score, the interaction behavior score, and the emotional score,
compare the target object in the monitoring images with the plurality of sleep postures to generate a sleep quality score,
generate a physical health score according to the sleep quality score,
compare the daily weight change rate with the daily weight change rate standard value to generate a deviation, and
adjust the physical health score according to the deviation; and
an artificial intelligence module configured to receive an inquiry message and generate a response message according to the inquiry message, the mental health score, and the physical health score.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the storage module, processing module, and artificial intelligence module; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of a sensing module obtaining weight change, an image capturing module configured to monitor a target object to generate a monitoring image, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim 6 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the storage module, processing module, and artificial intelligence module; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Regarding the additional limitation of a sensing module obtaining weight change, an image capturing module configured to monitor a target object to generate a monitoring image, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, Claims 1, 5-6, & 10 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a system as described in the preamble. However, the claim does not positively recite any elements that necessarily constitute a system or apparatus, such as computer hardware. It is not clear what structure is included or excluded by the claim language. Software per se is not patentable under § 101; therefore, the claimed invention does not fall within a statutory class of patentable subject matter. See MPEP 2106.01. Examiner recommends amending the claim to clearly include hardware in order to overcome this rejection. Dependent claim 5 is also rejected due to the dependency from claim 1.
Prior Art Rejection
All of the cited references fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of: wherein the mental health indicator comprises an activity level indicator, an interaction behavior indicator, and an emotional indicator, and the first postures comprise a plurality of activity postures corresponding to the activity level indicator, a plurality of interaction postures corresponding to the interaction behavior indicator, and a plurality of grooming postures corresponding to the emotional indicator, wherein the processing module is configured to compare the target object in the monitoring image with the activity postures to generate an activity level score, compare the target object in the monitoring image with the interaction postures to generate an interaction behavior score, and compare the target object in the monitoring image with the grooming postures to generate an emotional score, wherein the processing module is configured to generate the mental health score according to the activity level score, the interaction behavior score, and the emotional score.
The most relevant prior art of record includes:
Shriberg (US20210110895) teaches to systems and methods for assessing a mental state of a subject in a single session or over multiple different sessions, using for example an automated module to present and/or formulate at least one query based in part on one or more target mental states to be assessed.
Ofir (US20210015415) teaches to monitoring a user's well-being. The methods may comprise collecting one or more sensor data, analyzing at least a subset of the collected sensor data, extracting features from the collected and/or analyzed sensor data, and determining one or more of a physical score, a psychological score and a total score. The methods may further comprise determining a user's well-being based on one or more of the scores.
Dhillon (US20230317246) teaches to a system for facilitating mental health assessment and enhancing mental health via facial recognition and content associated with other physical attributes is provided. In particular, the system receives content associated with physical attribute of a user from at least one sensor and receives self-assessed emotional states from the user. The system extracts features from the content and determines, based on the content and by utilizing artificial intelligence models, predicted emotional states of the user by comparing the features to training information utilized to train the artificial intelligence models.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection on pages 6-11 in regards to claims 1, 5-6, & 10 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that:
The claims do not recite an abstract idea but include provisions of a number of processor-controlled operations that are not reasonably performed by a human, such as a medical or healthcare professional.
The Examiner, however, asserts that Applicant has made conclusory statements regarding how the recited operations amount to an abstract idea. The Examiner argues that the present claims are similar to the example found in In re Meyer - a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982) – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). Here, the present claims recite a process including receiving user data such as weight and posture behavior, determine various indicators using the posture data, monitoring and comparing images of the user, generating weight data, generating score data, and receiving and generating inquiry and response messages which amounts to managing personal behavior.
The various steps are part of a special-purpose algorithm that turns a general-purpose computer into a special-purpose computer.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the holding of In re Alappat is understood by the USPTO to be overturned at least with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 implementing the Alice Corp. two-part framework. A general purpose computer does not become a special purpose computer or a particular machine when it implements a particular program. The court in Alice stated generic computer components implementing abstract ideas do not become statutory by merely being configured to perform “specific computerized functions.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360. Contrary to Alappat, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention;” simply “doing it” on a generic computer isn’t enough to satisfy §101. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358. And, the CAFC has more recently stated that “[In re] Alappat has been superseded by Bilski, 561 U.S. at 605-06, and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).” Eon Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, No. 2014-1392, slip op. at 11 (Fed. Cir. May 06, 2015).
The claims qualify as eligible subject matter under the streamlined analysis review.
The Examiner asserts that it is not clear how the claims improve a technology or computer functionality and therefore the streamlined eligibility analysis is not appropriate. Applicant’s claims are not directed to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself but an improvement to the abstract idea; and the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. In other words, it is respectfully submitted that the focus of the Applicant’s claims is not on any improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools
Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-18 regarding claims 1, 5-6, & 10 being rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schechter (US20090247834) teaches to a method for improving the quality of life of a patient. The method involves assessing the patient's quality of life by evaluating parameters relating to the patient's health, and assigning a score in relation to the evaluated parameters. In one version, the patient's score is compared to a standard score, and a treatment program is assigned to the patient on the basis of the comparison.
Mott (US20220367059) teaches to A system, method, and apparatus for assessing pet wellness. The method includes receiving data related to a pet. The method also includes determining based on the data one or more health indicators of the pet, and performing a wellness assessment of the pet based on the one or more health indicators.
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 Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights