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 .
The following is a non-final Office action on the merits in response to Application filed on 8/14/2023. Claims 1-10 are examined and pending.
Claimed Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application filed in China on 8/15/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/8/2024, 9/5/2025, follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, regardless of a system/apparatus, a method, or a product claim.
The claimed invention (Claims 1-10) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, “an idea “of itself”, which have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in new 101 memos of the subject matter eligibility in here (https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility) including 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
Independent claim 1 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to multiple abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and “Mental process”.
Claim 1, Steps of,
acquire target location information provided by a first user and recommend a cryogenic physical therapy device to the first user based on a relationship between the target location information and pre-recorded location information of each of the cryogenic physical therapy devices;
determine whether an account balance of the first user meets a fee deduction condition after the first user selects a target cryogenic physical therapy device, and send a use request to a network module corresponding to the target cryogenic physical therapy device when determining that the account balance meets the fee deduction condition, wherein the use request comprises a start time, a duration and a physical therapy temperature;
acquire the use request received by the network module, generate a control instruction based on the use request, and send the control instruction to the programmable controller;
send end information to the processing unit after the first user has completed cryogenic physical therapy;
generate a fee deduction request based on the end information and send the fee deduction request to the server through the network module;
update the account balance of the first user when receiving the fee deduction request.
fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because the instant claims recite the above steps which are human activities and/or interactions and therefore, certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer.
In addition, claim 1, steps mentioned above also falls within the abstract “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since these limitation covers performance of the limitations in the human mind or by paper and pen. For example, a person can observe/acquire/collect/receive location information, can follow/apply rules/instructions to observe/recommend a therapy device to the user/to execute the instructions/operations, can evaluate/determine a user’s account balance/, can observe/generate/create fee deduction request, can observe/update the account balance.
Further, the step of obtaining/acquiring information/instruction, sending request/information are considered as “insignificant extra-solution activity” to the judicial exception since they are merely collecting/getting/sending data.
Independent claim 1, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. The additional element (a server, a therapy device, an interaction device, a controller which is software/programming instructions) which are recited at a high level of generality, and merely receiving and sending information between the devices, and is not significant more than the abstract ideas described above. Other than reciting “a server”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or by paper and pens. There is no specificity regarding any technology, just broadly, executing the programming instructions, couple of databases to store data, to receive/obtain/send data over internet.
There is no specificity regarding any technology. The steps are mainly collecting data, recommending data, determining data (account balance), executing programming instruction, generating data (request), sending and updating data. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 (step 2B):
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. The claim includes additional element (a server, a therapy device, an interaction device, a controller which is software/programming instructions) which are recited at a high level of generality, and merely receiving and sending information between the devices, and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and thus do not add something of substance to the underlying abstract idea; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The steps are mainly collecting data, recommending data, determining data (checking account balance), executing programming instruction, generating data (request), sending and updating data, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind, and is simply organized information through human activity or merely mental tasks, and is part of, or a related, judicial exception and does not meaningfully limit the application of the identified judicial exception, and as such does not constitute significantly more.
In light of the specification and drawings, the components are merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic computer/device components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive/transmit/display/send information does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 1).
Dependent claims 2-9, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1, without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Viewed as a whole, the claims (1-10) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, the claims do NOT recite limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, the claimed invention, as a whole, does not provide 'significantly more' than the abstract idea, and is non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art Rejection
A search of publicly available prior art fails to yield a reference or combination of references that would make the claimed combination obvious when considered as a whole.
Independent claims 1, as a whole recite a combination of limitations that has Not been found as define over prior art of record (the combination of Nakashima et al. (US 2022/0181017), Mallon et al. (US 2012/0259650), Brojek et al. (US 2005/0004635), Hughes (US 2009/0276272), Lyubchenko (US 2013/0025302), Kuehne (US 20160089262), Geurtin et al. (US 20220062031), Xiao Jiahua (WO-2021088967-A1),
Klejdysz, Robert (WO-2018106133-A1), Gao et al. (CN-114886654-A), and
NPL1, Straburzyńska-Lupa A, Kasprzak MP, Romanowski MW, Kwaśniewska A, Romanowski W, Iskra M, Rutkowski R. The Effect of Whole-Body Cryotherapy at Different Temperatures on Proinflammatory Cytokines, Oxidative Stress Parameters, and Disease Activity in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis.Oxid Med Cell Long (Year: 2018),
NPL2, Wang X, Ren Y, Liu J. Liquid Metal Enabled Electrobiology: A New Frontier to Tackle Disease Challenges. Micromachines (Basel). 2018 Jul 21;9(7):360. doi: 10.3390/mi9070360. PMID: 30424293; PMCID: PMC6082282. (Year: 2018),
and the other references teaches all the claimed features.
The prior art made of record and relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Nakashima et al. (US 2022/0181017),
Mallon et al. (US 2012/0259650),
Brojek et al. (US 2005/0004635),
Hughes (US 2009/0276272),
Lyubchenko (US 2013/0025302),
Kuehne (US 20160089262),
Geurtin et al. (US 20220062031),
Xiao Jiahua (WO-2021088967-A1),
Klejdysz, Robert (WO-2018106133-A1),
Gao et al. (CN-114886654-A),
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN M LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5489. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30am--5pm. Fax is 571-270-6489.
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, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached on 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.
/SUN M LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685