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 claim(s)
Claims 1-14, 16-21 have been examined. Claims 1, 14 have been amended. Claim 15 has been previously canceled.
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 1-14, 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 recite(s) a method, which is within a statutory category (process). Claim 14 recite(s) an electronic device, which is within a statutory category (machine).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A (MPEP2106.04-07), 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. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The limitations of Independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. Specifically, amended claim 1 recites the steps of
A method for massage coaching comprising:
capturing at least one image with a camera;
displaying the at least one image on a display device;
identifying, with an image recognition algorithm, a person in the at least one image;
identifying, with the image recognition algorithm, at least one target massage position of the person in the at least one image based on an automated body part recognition;
displaying, on the display device, at least one massage indication 1on the at least one target massage position.
Amended Claim 14 recites the steps of
An electronic device comprising
a camera configured to capture at least one image;
a display configured to:
display the at least one image on, and
displaying, on the display, at least one massage indication on the at least one target massage position; and
a processer configured to:
identify, with an image recognition algorithm, a person in the at least one image;
identify, with an image recognition algorithm, at least one target massage position of the person in the at least one image based on an automated body part recognition.
The above limitations of claim 1, under broadest reasonable interpretation, constitutes (b) a certain method of organizing human activity because this limitation could be performed by the staffs, professionals for provide the massage coaching…. Accordingly, the claim is directed toward at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claim 14 is identical as the abstract idea for claim 1, because both claim 1 recites a method, whereas claim 14 recite device.
Furthermore, the following depending claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract.
Dependent claims 5-6, 11 recite the massage type, the use of massage type ‘s devices, video, as being part of the abstract idea, and thus part of organizing human activities.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in MPEP2106.04-07, 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.”
Claim 1 recites the steps of
A method for massage coaching comprising:
capturing at least one image with a camera;
displaying the at least one image on a display device;
identifying, with an image recognition algorithm, a person in the at least one image;
identifying, with the image recognition algorithm, at least one target massage position of the person in the at least one image based on an automated body part recognition;
displaying, on the display device, at least one massage indication 1on the at least one target massage position.
Amended Claim 14 recites the steps of
An electronic device comprising
a camera configured to capture at least one image;
a display configured to:
display the at least one image on, and
displaying, on the display, at least one massage indication on the at least one target massage position; and
a processer configured to:
identify, with an image recognition algorithm, a person in the at least one image;
identify, with an image recognition algorithm, at least one target massage position of the person in the at least one image based on an automated body part recognition.
The above limitations of claim 1, under broadest reasonable
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 limitation “A method for massage coaching comprising: capturing at least one image with a camera; displaying the at least one image on a display device; identifying, with an image recognition algorithm, a person in the at least one image; identifying, with the image recognition algorithm, at least one target massage position of the person in the at least one image based on an automated body part recognition; displaying, on the display device, at least one massage indication 1on the at least one target massage position”. The examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract (using a computer as tools to carry out the abstract idea as noted, See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of ”a processor configured to: identify a person in the at least one image; identify at least one target massage position of the person in the at least one image”, this is a post-solution activity. The examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner of post solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea ((merely data gathering steps as noted, see MPEP 2106.05(g))).
Particularly, the use of a processor, a screen display, a camera, as described in claims 1 and 14 is not positively claimed in the claims as it defines the service but is claimed at such a high level of generality that it represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f). The Specification describes the processor, a camera as generic component (‘Spec.; Para 0024, 0054-0067). The recitation of dependent claims 5-6, 11 for the massage type, the use of video, of camera is not positively claimed in the claim as it defines the service but is claimed at such a high level of generality that it represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f)
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, 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 implement and revise a wellbeing plan, a productivity, 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 is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05).
For these reasons, representative independent claims 1 and 14 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. (The Examiner notes the mere recitation of a server, a processor, a memory does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping or organizing human activity. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea)
The remaining dependent claim limitations are not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, independent claims 1, 14 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 the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For claim 1 limit the use of a processor, a system/device, an artificial intelligence, etc.... The specification merely describes the use of these computing components. The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using these computer devices as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018).), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Further the use of generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patient-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”).
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 USC 101. Therefore, claims 1-14, 16-21 are being held patent ineligible under 35USC101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prokoski (US 20100189313A1) in view of Devam et al. (US20210327144A1 hereinafter Devam) and further in view of Tian et al. (US20200126297A1 hereinafter Tian).
With respect to claim 1, Prokoski teaches a method for massage coaching comprising:
capturing at least one image with a camera (‘313; Para 0324: Fig. 11 is a schematic diagram of an image capture and identification system; Para 00334);
displaying the at least one image on a display device (‘313; Para 0318: FIG. 5 as an exemplar current display showing a feature map projected onto the chest region of a patient showing an enhanced vascular overlay);
identifying, with an image recognition algorithm, a person in the at least one image (‘313; Para 0075: identifying a person by generating a body map of one or more body segments of the person, comparing the body map of said one or more body segments to body maps of corresponding segments of known persons, and applying a threshold test to determine whether one or more body maps of corresponding segments of known persons is a match; );
Devam teaches
Identifying, with the image recognition algorithm, at least one target massage position of the person in the at least one image based on an automated body part recognition; (‘144; Para 0305: By disclosure, Devam describes obtaining a first user input identifying a model source (e.g., a library of candidate models, the patient's body, etc.), the model source providing a model (e.g., a selected model from a library of candidate models, a three-dimensional rendering of a portion of the patient's body, etc.) for use in a procedure performed on a patient, obtaining a second user input identifying a target area, obtaining a third user input indicating a position of the model relative to the target area in massage therapy as illustrated in Para 0406.; Para 0097: automatic detection, algorithms and pattern recognition are used to determine whether microscopic organisms or skin conditions exist. In the case of user interaction, the user can optionally zoom in on an area to get a magnified view. With user interaction, automatic recognition can also be used to draw attention to details within the image and assist in diagnosis);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the system of Prokoski with the technique of rendering an immersive environment as taught by Devam in order to identifying the target position on the body of a person during massage therapy
Tian teaches
displaying, on the display device, at least one massage indication as an overlay on the captured image at the identified at least one target massage position (‘297; Para 0056: by disclosure, Tian describes the 2D image of the patient 107 is received from the control server 136, where the control server 136 processes the 2D image to extract image features and continuously update the 2D image of the patient captured by the imaging sensors 106. The control server 136 further reconstructs the 3D human body model 197 (e.g., 3D human body mesh). In some embodiments, the display generation component 103 also overlays generated acupuncture points 118 received from the central control server 136 on the 3D human body mesh of the patient 197 as shown on the display )(‘144; Para 0116: displaying surgical targets and other pertinent medical and / or anatomical data in an augmented or virtual reality surgical environment . When performing a surgery, there exists a target location and / or anatomical part of the patient . By displaying a three- dimensional rendered image , the efficacy of the surgery can be increased , while reducing patient morbidity and mortality.; Para 0406: Multiple applications exist for embodiments that include articles worn by the user. One such use, for example, is in massage therapy. By recording the sensations of a massage, the massage could then be played back at a later time allowing the user to receive a massage using only the program and wearable device.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the system of Prokoski/Devam with the technique of generating acupuncture points as taught by Tian in order to display an overlay on the captured image at the identified target massage position.
With respect to claim 2, the combined art teaches the method in claim 1, wherein the at least one image is mirrored when displayed, and/or wherein the at least one target massage position is associated with a position of a body part (‘144; Para 0079: he practitioner creates a mirrored copy of the subject's foot, Para 0291).
Claim 16 is rejected as the same reason with claim 2.
With respect to claim 3, the combined art teaches the method in claim 1, wherein the method is performed iteratively once in a predefined time period (‘144; Para 0447: Missing objects are skipped and requests are sent to the host for the missing objects data files. If the files are unavailable, the client is informed such that repeated requests for invalid objects are not made).
Claim 17 is rejected as the same reason with claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, the combined art teaches the method in claim 1, further comprising: receiving an input to select a massage type, and/or determining a massage type according to at least one predetermined condition, wherein the at least one massage indication and/or the at least one target massage position is according to the massage type (‘144; Para 0172: practitioner can use a predetermined gesture to identify the location where they would like to annotate).
Claim 18 is rejected as the same reason with claim 4.
With respect to claim 7, the combined art teaches the method in claim 1, wherein the displaying of the at least one image comprises displaying a guiding outline for guiding a pose of the person (‘313; Abstract; Para 0083: transform images into precise standard poses and segment them by body area).
Claim 21 is rejected as the same reason with claim 7.
With respect to claim 8, the combined art teaches the method in claim 7, wherein the identifying of the person includes identifying whether the person poses according to the guiding outline (‘313; Para 0270).
With respect to claim 9, the combined art teaches the method in claim 1, wherein the at least one target massage position is identified according to at least one shoulder position of the person (‘144; Paras 0392: body part of a person, i.e. shoulder….).
With respect to claim 10, the combined art teaches the method in claim 1, further comprising displaying a massage guiding video simultaneously (‘144; Para 0436: Audio recording may also be performed. Playback is accomplished by simultaneously playing the video recording with an augmented overlay showing the virtual objects and positions).
With respect to claim 11, the combined art teaches the method in claim 10, wherein at least one further massage indication is displayed in the guiding video (‘313; Para 0465: another indication of massage techniques designed to reduce swelling..).
With respect to claim 12, the combined art teaches the method in claim 1, wherein the least one massage indication and/or the at least one further massage indication indicate at least one of a massage direction, a massage position, a massage strength and a massage timing (‘313; Para 0255).
With respect to claim 13, the combined art teaches the method in claim 1, further comprising ending the massage when a predefined time period expired and/or receiving an input to end the massage (‘144; Para 0127).
Claims 5-6, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prokoski (US 20100189313A1) in view of of Devam et al. (US20210327144A1 hereinafter Devam) and further in view of Ellington et al. (US20180161385A1 hereinafter Ellington).
With respect to claim 5, the combined art does not teach, according to the method in claim 4, wherein the massage type is according to at least one of one or a plurality of pregnancy stages and/or one or a plurality of after birth stage. However , Ellington discloses the aforementioned features (‘385; Para 0133: compositions formulated (e.g., in the form of a gel) for use in perineal massage are provided. The practice of perineal massage (PM) widens and relaxes a woman's birth canal during her last month of pregnancy.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the system of Prokoski/Devam with the technique of enhancing homeostasis of pregnancy woman in order to provide the massage therapy to women therapy.
Claim 19 is rejected as the same reason with claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, the combined art teaches the method in claim 5, Ellington discloses wherein the massage type includes at least one of a circling massage, a side pushing massage, a direct pushing massage, a relaxing massage, a lactating promoting massage, a residual milk reduction massage, and a breast shaping massage (‘385; Para 0133).
Claim 20 is rejected as the same reason with claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remark filed 10/23/2-25, the Applicant argued that
For claim rejection under 35USC101, Claim 1 recites "displaying, on the display device, at least one massage indication as an overlay on the captured image at the identified at least one target massage position in real-time as the person moves." These limitations cannot practically be performed in the human mind or by staff members without technological assistance (Remark, page6).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remark, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to claim rejection under 35 USC 101 regarding limitation “displaying, on the display device, at least one massage indication as an overlay on the captured image at the identified at least one target massage position in real-time as the person moves” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejection has been withdrawn.
For claim rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments, see Remark, filed 03/302026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tian reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
WO2018177280A1, 04-10-2018; Wang, Chuan Chung; SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IMPLEMENTING PHYSICAL STIMULATION SERVICE.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEP VAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00AM and 5:00PM EST.
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, Jason B Dunham can be reached at 5712728109. 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.
/HIEP V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights