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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, including claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 04 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04 November 2025.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Response to Election/Restriction filed on 04 November 2025. Claims 8-14 were withdrawn. Claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: it uses capitalized letters at the beginning of each element (in lines 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 22, and 24) and ends in a semicolon. Each claim should begin with a capital letter and end with a period (see MPEP 608.01(m)). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because it uses the passive voice (i.e. “sets of questionnaires are asked”). Please rewrite the claim in the active voice for clarity, similar to claim 7 as an example.
Claim 3 is objected to because it uses the passive voice (i.e. “sets of questionnaires are asked”). Please rewrite the claim in the active voice for clarity, similar to claim 7 as an example.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a phone number” in lines 3-4 and again in lines 8-9. There is already “a phone number” recited in line 2. It is unclear whether these later recitations are the same phone number or a different phone number. For the purposes of examination, these elements will be considered to state “the phone number” in lines 3-4 and 8-9. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-7 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a computer processor” repeated in lines 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 22, and 24. There is already “a computer processor” recited in line 3. It is unclear whether these later recitations are the same computer processor or different computer processors. For the purposes of examination, these elements will be considered to state “the computer processor” in lines 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 22, and 24. Appropriate correction is required Claims 2-7 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first set” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this element will be considered to state “a first set.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-7 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second set” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this element will be considered to state “a second set.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-7 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first set of organs” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this element will be considered to state “a first set of organs.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-7 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the order of” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this element will be considered to state “in order of.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-7 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second set of organs” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this element will be considered to state “a second set of organs.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-7 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the order of” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this element will be considered to state “in order of.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-7 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the changing of” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this element will be considered to state “a changing of.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-7 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the calculation of organ conditions” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this element will be considered to state “a calculation of organ conditions.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the calculation of organ conditions” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this element will be considered to state “a calculation of organ conditions.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the gender of the user” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this element will be considered to state “a gender of the user.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the user” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this element will be considered to state “a user.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the user” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this element will be considered to state “a user.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the system” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this element will be considered to state “a system.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims 1-7 fall within one or more statutory categories. Claims 1-7 fall within the category of a process.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claims 1-7 recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites:
receiving a phone number …;
computing … the last three non-zero digits of a phone number, to obtain the first set;
re-computing … the digits within the first set, if the first two digits are greater than eight then subtract eight from that digit, and if the last digit is greater than six then subtract six from that digit;
computing … the last three non-zero digits of a phone number, reversing the last three non-zero digits of a phone number, to obtain the second set;
re-computing … the digits within the second set, if the first two digits are greater than eight then subtract eight from that digit, and if the last digit is greater than six then subtract six from that digit;
listing … the first set of organs by the order of first to last, or top to bottom, Lung, Pericardium, Heart, Stomach, Gallbladder, Bladder;
listing … the second set of organs by the order of first to last, or top to bottom, Spleen, Liver, Kidney, Large Intestine, Triple Burner, Small Intestine;
associating … the first two digits of the first set and the second set with yin or yang, according to traditional Chinese Bagua;
associating … the last digit of the first set and the last digit of the second set, with the changing of yin to yang, or yang to yin;
reporting … organ results based on yin or yang, where yin indicates poor organ condition, yang indicates good organ condition, yin changing to yang indicates poor organ condition changing to good organ condition, and yang changing to yin indicates good organ condition changing to poor organ condition.
Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “traditional Chinese medicine,” which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity. “Traditional Chinese medicine” is considered to be a method of organizing human activity because it is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims include the interaction between a practitioner and a patient.
Alternatively, the claims are considered to recite a mental process because the elements above are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Alternatively, the elements of claim 1 also recite a mathematical process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these elements are directed to “if/then subtraction,” which is an abstract idea because it is a mathematical concept. “If/then subtraction” is considered to be a mathematical concept because it is an example of mathematical calculation, comparing numbers to a maximum and then subtracting from them if they exceed it.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s):
[the method is] computer implemented;
a client device;
[the method is performed] by a computer processor.
The additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application. These additional element merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, considered individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s), individually and in combination, merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This is not enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 2 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
varying sets of questionnaires are asked to confirm the calculation of organ conditions either in the form of leading affirmative questions, or leading negative questions.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 2 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
additional sets of questionnaires are asked to confirm the calculations of organ conditions depending on the gender of the user.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 3 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 4 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
if the calculation results in poor organ condition, a TCM product is recommended.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 4 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
an organ condition, from the calculations, is shown in a pie chart, showing percentages of an organ in good condition and poor conditions.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 5 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
a diagnostic report is shown to explain the organ conditions as a result of the calculations.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 6 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 7 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the system will ask the user to upload a picture of the user's tongue, front face, left side of the face, right side of the face, and previous diagnostic record.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 7 is considered to be ineligible.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-7 are considered to be free of prior art. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closets prior art is considered to be the prior art of record. Zhang discloses a Chinese telemedicine and triage system including yin-yang and meridian calculation. Yuan discloses a system and method to facilitate health evaluation and medical diagnosis of a human subject using meridian and organ calculation. However, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a combination which results in the specific combination of elements described in the language of the claims, such as the specific calculation of number sets starting from a phone number and then applied to organ charts. Accordingly, claims 1-7 are considered to be free of prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yuan et al. (U.S. 20090326381) discloses a system and method to facilitate health evaluation and medical diagnosis of a human subject. Zhang et al. (U.S. 20100280350) discloses a Chinese telemedicine and triage system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN L HANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/B.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684