DETAILED ACTION
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the application filed December 30, 2024. Claims 1-16 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 1-21 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)
Claims 1-21 are directed towards a method, a system, and a computer-readable medium. 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)
Determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim recites, in part:
generating pet-product relationship data by comparing product content information associated with a product to pet information stored in a pet profile database; and causing a user interface to update a rendering of the product to include information associated with the pet-product relationship data.
The "comparing" and "generating pet-product relationship data" limitations recite an evaluation of information to determine compatibility between products and a pet profile. This is reasonably characterized as evaluating information and making a recommendation, which falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial interactions involving product recommendations. The comparison itself also may be viewed as a mental process because it could practically be performed by a person reviewing product ingredients against a pet profile and determining compatibility.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
(MPEP § 2106.04(d))
Determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Although the claim recites a server system, processors, a database, and a user interface, these components perform their ordinary computer functions of storing data, processing comparisons, and displaying information.
The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology. Rather, the computer is used as a tool to perform the abstract comparison and present the resulting compatibility information to a user.
The updating of the user interface merely presents the results of the comparison and does not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception. Likewise, storing pet information in a database and performing the comparison on a server are generic computer implementations of the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
(MPEP § 2106.05)
Determine whether the claim includes significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements include:
a server system;
one or more processors;
a pet profile database; and
a user interface.
These elements are generic computer components performing conventional functions such as storing data, processing information, and displaying results. The claim does not recite a particular improvement in database technology, image processing, recommendation algorithms, networking, or user interface technology. Nor does it recite any unconventional hardware or non-routine computer functionality.
Viewed individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements merely implement the abstract idea on generic computer technology and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the claim does not include an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding Claims 15 and 16
Independent claims 15 and 16 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-14
Dependent claims 2-14 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, 6-9, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Donavon et al (US 2014/0272028 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 16, Donavon discloses method of matching a pet with a pet product comprising: at a server system including one or more processors::
generating pet-product relationship data by comparing product content information associated with a product to pet information stored in a pet profile database; and (Donavon: Figure 4, paragraph [0060] - Computer 104 processes the pet profile information and/or biological sample (step 404) utilizing at least one algorithm and generates a pet profile (step 406). Each profile may have a unique identifying code and contains the specific customized food product and feeding instructions recommended for the specific pet. The recommended food product includes a pre-manufactured kibble and a customized additive);
causing a user interface to update a rendering of the product to include a rendering of information associated with the pet-product relationship data (Donavon: Figure 4, Figure 4, paragraph [0062] - Computer 104 then provides information to user interface 102 regarding the particular customized pet food, pre-made kibble best suited for the pet and/or customized additive formula that has been created based upon the individual pet's profile (step 408)).
Regarding claim 4, Donavon discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Donavon further discloses identifying mismatch data in response to receiving a request via the user interface to display product purchase information based on a product query and the pet-product relationship data; and restricting display of at least one product based on the mismatch data (Donavon: Figure 4 - create recommendation, paragraph [0062] - Computer 104 then provides information to user interface 102 regarding the particular customized pet food, pre-made kibble best suited for the pet and/or customized additive formula that has been created based upon the individual pet's profile (step 408). For example, in one embodiment, computer 104 provides the user with information regarding a pre-made kibble A2 that is formulated to meet the nutritional needs of the pet based on the information in the pet profile and stored nutritional information).
Regarding claim 6, Donavon discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Donavon further discloses causing an applicator device to apply a pet-specific label to a product package prior to shipment by a fulfillment center, wherein the pet-specific label is based on the pet-product relationship data (Donavon: Figure 4 - print custom label 414).
Regarding claim 7, Donavon discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Donavon further discloses wherein the information associated with the pet- product relationship data includes product recommendation information (Donavon: Figure 4, paragraph [0062] - Computer 104 then provides information to user interface 102 regarding the particular customized pet food, pre-made kibble best suited for the pet and/or customized additive formula that has been created based upon the individual pet's profile (step 408)).
Regarding claim 8, Donavon discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Donavon further discloses wherein the pet-product relationship data comprises at least one of breed-specific pet information; allergy information for a specific pet; ingredient compatibility information with a specific pet; product compatibility information with a specific pet; ingredient dislike information for a specific pet; and product dislike information for a specific pet (Donavon: paragraph [0005] - The method also comprises obtaining a second pet profile information from a user, wherein the second pet profile information includes at least one of a preference regarding an ingredient, a food form, a flavor, a protein source, a shape and a texture).
Regarding claim 9, Donavon discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Donavon further discloses wherein the product content information includes at least one of product ingredient information; product allergy information; unity price information; and information not contained within product package indicia (Donavon: paragraph [0040] -In an exemplary embodiment, the printed material includes customized pet feeding and care information for the individual pet, along with an ingredient statement, guaranteed analysis of the pet food, and a product label).
Regarding claim 11, Donavon discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Donavon further discloses directing the user interface to display a supplied product image and product content information that is not displayed on the supplied product image (Donavon: paragraph [0062] - computer 104 then provides information to user interface 102 regarding the particular customized pet food, pre-made kibble best suited for the pet and/or customized additive formula that has been created based upon the individual pet's profile (step 408). For example, in one embodiment, computer 104 provides the user with information regarding a pre-made kibble A2 that is formulated to meet the nutritional needs of the pet based on the information in the pet profile and stored nutritional information. Alternatively, the system indicates a recommendation for the pet to see a veterinarian prior to buying a customized food, if certain "warning" signs are present in the profile. This recommendation provides the consumer with added health information about the pet between regular vet visits).
Regarding claim 13, Donavon discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Donavon further discloses directing the user interface to display diet recommendation information based on the pet-product relationship data (Donavon: Figure 4, paragraph [0062] - Computer 104 then provides information to user interface 102 regarding the particular customized pet food, pre-made kibble best suited for the pet and/or customized additive formula that has been created based upon the individual pet's profile (step 408)s).
Regarding claim 14, Donavon discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Donavon further discloses wherein the product content information includes a parsed list of ingredients corresponding to the product and the pet information includes pet allergy data and pet dietary preference data, and wherein the pet-product relationship data is indicative of an expected interaction with the product based on a comparison of the parsed list of ingredients to the pet allergy data and pet dietary preference data (Donavon: Figure 4, paragraph [0062] - Computer 104 then provides information to user interface 102 regarding the particular customized pet food, pre-made kibble best suited for the pet and/or customized additive formula that has been created based upon the individual pet's profile (step 408)).
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 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donavon et al (US 2014/0272028 A1) in view of Neumann (US 2024/0346029 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Donavon discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Donavon does not expressly disclose accessing a scanned image file from a digital image of a product; and running an optical character recognition utility on the scanned image file to determine the product content information associated with the product, wherein the comparing the product content information associated with a product with pet information is based on the determined product content information. Neumann discloses:
accessing a scanned image file from a digital image of a product; and running an optical character recognition utility on the scanned image file to determine the product content information associated with the product, wherein the comparing the product content information associated with a product with pet information is based on the determined product content information (Neumann: paragraph [0026] - In some embodiments, processor 112 may utilize image recognition and analysis technologies, system 100 may process photographs or scans of product labels. Captured nutritional information and ingredient lists directly from packaged food items, contributing to the menu data and received as cohort data 116).
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 Donavon to have included accessing a scanned image file from a digital image of a product; and running an optical character recognition utility on the scanned image file to determine the product content information associated with the product, wherein the comparing the product content information associated with a product with pet information is based on the determined product content information, as taught by Neumann because it would accurately and cleanly display a myriad of data (Neumann: paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 10, Donavon and Neumann teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Neumann further discloses wherein the optical character recognition utility includes a text similarity algorithm and matching algorithm configured to identify an exact match for predetermined attribute (Neumann: paragraph [0026] - As used in this disclosure, “OCR” is a process that converts an image of text into a machine-readable text format. Paragraph [0089] - Once the physical menu is scanned, the device may utilize image recognition or optical character recognition (OCR) technology to interpret the menu content and identify specific alimentary items listed. After identifying the items, the device may cross-reference the information with the user's dietary preferences, health goals, and any other relevant data to generate or update the user digital badge).
Claims 3, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donavon et al (US 2014/0272028 A1) in view of Hullverson et al (US 2020/0250733 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Donavon discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Donavon does not expressly disclose preventing the user interface from displaying product purchase information associated with the product based on the pet-product relationship data. Hullverson discloses:
preventing the user interface from displaying product purchase information associated with the product based on the pet-product relationship data (Hullverson: Figure 3 - no price).
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 Donavon to have included preventing the user interface from displaying product purchase information associated with the product based on the pet-product relationship data, as taught by Hullverson because it would provide optimal pet solutions (Hullverson: paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 5, Donavon discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Donavon further discloses:
prior to rendering, on the user interface, product information based on the product query, directing the user interface to render a pet information request; receiving, via the user interface, pet identification information based on the pet information request; (Donavon: Figure 4, paragraph [0060] - Computer 104 processes the pet profile information and/or biological sample (step 404) utilizing at least one algorithm and generates a pet profile (step 406). Each profile may have a unique identifying code and contains the specific customized food product and feeding instructions recommended for the specific pet. The recommended food product includes a pre-manufactured kibble and a customized additive);
based on the product query and the pet identification information, identifying pet- product relationship data; and directing the user interface to display product information based on the product query and the pet-product relationship data (Donavon: Figure 4, paragraph [0062] - Computer 104 then provides information to user interface 102 regarding the particular customized pet food, pre-made kibble best suited for the pet and/or customized additive formula that has been created based upon the individual pet's profile (step 408)).
Donavon does not expressly disclose receiving a product request, via the user interface, to display available products based on a product query; determining that the product request is not associated with a particular pet. Hullverson discloses:
receiving a product request, via the user interface, to display available products based on a product query; determining that the product request is not associated with a particular pet (Hullverson: paragraph [102] - In Step 100, the behavioral data for training and optimization of the pet food recommendation model 63 may be communicated to the pet food recommendation model 63 to provide the recommended pet food 21 most likely to satisfy the requests and preferences of the user 2 and/or the needs or preferences of the pet 1).
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 Donavon to have included receiving a product request, via the user interface, to display available products based on a product query; determining that the product request is not associated with a particular pet, as taught by Hullverson because it would provide optimal pet solutions (Hullverson: paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 12, Donavon discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Donavon does not expressly disclose directing the user interface to display unit price comparison data for all products responsive to a product query based on the pet-product relationship data. Hullverson discloses:
directing the user interface to display unit price comparison data for all products responsive to a product query based on the pet-product relationship data (Hullverson: paragraph [0094] - The filtered list of pet food products may then be sorted using one or multiple criteria chosen by the user, for example, price, availability, and/or brand.).
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 Donavon to have included directing the user interface to display unit price comparison data for all products responsive to a product query based on the pet-product relationship data, as taught by Hullverson because it would provide optimal pet solutions (Hullverson: paragraph [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20060064347 A1, Robinson discloses a method for providing customized manufactured sponsored coupons for the available products.
US 2025/0285162 A1, Cameron et al discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RECOMMENDING A FOOD PRODUCT BASED ON CHARACTERISTICS OF AN ANIMAL.
US 2021/0176970 A1, Engstrom et al discloses Smart Pet Feeding System.
US 2020/0203019 A1, Leon et al discloses SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR INTEGRATING ANIMAL HEALTH RECORDS.
PTO-892 Reference U discloses Personalized Canine Diet Generation Using Machine Learning and Constraint Optimization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN G PALAVECINO whose telephone number is (571)270-1355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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. 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
Prosecution Insights