DETAILED ACTION
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the application filed October 22, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
(MPEP § 2106)
The claims are directed to a method, system, and computer-readable medium.
Conclusion: The claims are directed to a statutory category: a process, a machine, and article of manufacture, as defined under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception – Abstract Idea
(MPEP § 2106.04)
The claim recites an abstract idea because it is directed to mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions/marketing).
Limitations that compose the abstract idea:
“receiving … pet metadata from a user” (data gathering / input)
“processing … the pet metadata to determine … recommendations” (analyzing information to make a selection/recommendation—can be performed mentally or with pen and paper in concept)
“displaying … the … recommendations” (presenting results)
This is akin to collecting customer information and using it to recommend products, which courts have found to be an abstract idea when claimed at a high level of generality using generic computer components (e.g., recommendations/targeted marketing and information analysis).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
(MPEP § 2106.04(d))
The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Additional elements (beyond the abstract idea):
“computer-implemented,” “one or more processors” (generic computer implementation)
These additional elements merely perform the abstract idea on a generic processor and do not recite a technological improvement (e.g., improved recommendation algorithm tied to a technical problem in computer technology), do not effect a transformation or control a particular machine in a meaningful way, and do not apply the idea in a specific, practical manner beyond the routine steps of receiving, processing, and displaying information.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
(MPEP § 2106.05)
The claim does not recite an inventive concept. The additional elements amount to generic computer components performing routine functions (receiving data, processing data, displaying results). There are no meaningful limitations on how the recommendations are determined (no specific model, feature extraction, training, or improved computation), and no unconventional arrangement of components.
Therefore, the claim is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding Claims 11 and 17
Independent claims 11 and 17 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 merely set forth further embellishments to the abstract idea, and therefore do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, 14, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zedayko et al (US 2021/0035289 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 17, Zedayko discloses computer-implemented method for providing one or more personalized pet product recommendations based on pet metadata to a user comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, pet metadata from a user; processing, by the one or more processors, the pet metadata to determine one or more pet product recommendations (Zedayko: paragraph [0008] - The method may further include receiving metadata associated with the image, the metadata including a questionnaire response related to one or more of a health, a behavior, a current diet, a supplement, a medication, ethnographic information, a breed, a weight of the animal, a weight of the stool sample, and a size of the animal, and wherein the metadata is used at least in part in predicting the health characteristic);
displaying, by the one or more processors, the one or more pet product recommendations to the user (Zedayko: Figure 9, paragraph [0179] - As shown in step 912, the method 900 may include providing a treatment (which may include a recommendation) in view of the health characteristic).
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 20, Zedayko discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 1, 11, and 17. Zedayko further discloses wherein the pet metadata includes at least one of: a pet name, a pet age, a pet breed, a pet life stage, a pet body condition, or a pet health condition (Zedayko: paragraph [0008] - The method may further include receiving metadata associated with the image, the metadata including a questionnaire response related to one or more of a health, a behavior, a current diet, a supplement, a medication, ethnographic information, a breed, a weight of the animal, a weight of the stool sample, and a size of the animal, and wherein the metadata is used at least in part in predicting the health characteristic).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Zedayko discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 1 and 11. Zedayko further discloses wherein the processing the pet metadata is based at least in part on a hierarchy of a plurality of factors (Zedayko: paragraph [0008] - The method may further include receiving metadata associated with the image, the metadata including a questionnaire response related to one or more of a health, a behavior, a current diet, a supplement, a medication, ethnographic information, a breed, a weight of the animal, a weight of the stool sample, and a size of the animal, and wherein the metadata is used at least in part in predicting the health characteristic).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Zedayko discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 3 and 14. Zedayko further discloses wherein the hierarchy of the plurality of factors includes a pet life stage factor, a pet body condition factor, and a pet breed factor (Zedayko: paragraph [0008] - The method may further include receiving metadata associated with the image, the metadata including a questionnaire response related to one or more of a health, a behavior, a current diet, a supplement, a medication, ethnographic information, a breed, a weight of the animal, a weight of the stool sample, and a size of the animal, and wherein the metadata is used at least in part in predicting the health characteristic).
Regarding claim 7, Zedayko discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Zedayko further discloses obtaining, by the one or more processors, a microbiome result associated with a pet fecal sample; andprocessing, by the one or more processors, the pet metadata further based on the microbiome result to determine one or more pet product recommendations (Zedayko: p abstract - The present teachings generally include techniques for characterizing the health of an animal (e.g., gastrointestinal health) using image analysis (e.g., of a stool sample) as a complement, alternative, or a replacement to biological specimen sequencing).
Regarding claim 8, Zedayko discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 7. Zedayko further discloses wherein, based on the microbiome result, the one or more pet product recommendations include at least one recommendation for a pet product containing prebiotics or prebiotic-like fibers (Zedayko: paragraph [0008] - The personalized dietary supplement may include a predetermined amount of one or more of a probiotic, a prebiotic, a digestive enzyme, an anti-inflammatory, a natural extract, a vitamin, a mineral, an amino acid, a short-chain fatty acid, an oil, and a formulating agent.).
Regarding claim 9, Zedayko discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 7. Zedayko further discloses determining, by the one or more processors, a diet containing prebiotics or prebiotic-like fibers is recommended based on the microbiome result; in response to the determination, determining, by the one or more processors, the one or more pet product recommendations based on the processing of the pet metadata (Zedayko: paragraph [0008] - The personalized dietary supplement may include a predetermined amount of one or more of a probiotic, a prebiotic, a digestive enzyme, an anti-inflammatory, a natural extract, a vitamin, a mineral, an amino acid, a short-chain fatty acid, an oil, and a formulating agent., Figure 5).
Regarding claim 10, Zedayko discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 7. Zedayko further discloses wherein the pet fecal sample includes one or more of a physical pet fecal sample or an image of the pet fecal sample (Zedayko: paragraph [0006] - The present teachings generally include techniques for characterizing the health of an animal (e.g., gastrointestinal health) using image analysis (e.g., of a stool sample) as a complement, alternative, or a replacement to biological specimen sequencing).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5, 6, 13, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zedayko et al (US 2021/0035289 A1) in view of Roche et al (WO 2021/207370).
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 19, Zedayko discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 1, 11, and 17. Zedayko does not expressly disclose correlating, by the one or more processors, the processed pet metadata with a list of pet products that contain a minimum level of fiber, the correlating resulting in a list of the one or more pet product recommendations. Roche discloses correlating, by the one or more processors, the processed pet metadata with a list of pet products that contain a minimum level of fiber, the correlating resulting in a list of the one or more pet product recommendations (Roche: page 11, paragraph [20]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and apparatus of Zedayko to have included correlating, by the one or more processors, the processed pet metadata with a list of pet products that contain a minimum level of fiber, the correlating resulting in a list of the one or more pet product recommendations, as taught by Roche because it would help provide the pet with the proper diet (Roche: page 1).
Regarding claims 6, 16, and 18, Zedayko discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 1, 11, and 17. Zedayko does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more pet product recommendations include a link to facilitate a purchase of one or more pet products corresponding to the one or more pet product recommendations. Roche discloses wherein the one or more pet product recommendations include a link to facilitate a purchase of one or more pet products corresponding to the one or more pet product recommendations (Roche: page 17 - recommendation can be displayed on user display, in part to assists user with purchasing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and apparatus of Zedayko to have included wherein the one or more pet product recommendations include a link to facilitate a purchase of one or more pet products corresponding to the one or more pet product recommendations, as taught by Roche because it would help provide the pet with the proper diet (Roche: page 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PTO-892 Reference U discloses Innovations in Pet Nutrition: Formulation, Palatability, and Health Outcomes.
US 2022/0394999 A1, Jackson et al discloses Pet Food Compositions.
US 2022/0177946 A1, Ikeda et al discloses PET FOOD RECOMMENDING DEVICE AND PET FOOD RECOMMENDING METHOD, SUPPLEMENT RECOMMENDING DEVICE AND SUPPLEMENT RECOMMENDING METHOD, AND INTESTINAL AGE CALCULATION FORMULA DETERMINING METHOD AND INTESTINAL AGE CALCULATION METHOD.
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.
KATHLEEN GAGE PALAVECINO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/KATHLEEN PALAVECINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688