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 .
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “determining a prescription and showing the patient …” The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, is a doctor treating a patient. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (judgement of determining a prescription) and certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of demonstrating – showing the patient the prescribed acupuncture points. If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Analyze integration into a practical application; discuss any claimed technological improvement; address whether extra-solution activity or field-of-use limitations are present. The claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application:
No improvement to the functioning of a computer or VR technology is recited. The recited components—“a processor,” “a memory,” “a user interface,” “a communication interface,” “a VR recording device,” and “a VR headset”—are used in their ordinary capacities to collect data and display information, without any particularized architecture, algorithm, data structure, rendering pipeline, calibration method, or latency mitigation that improves computer/VR operation. See MPEP 2106.05(a), (b), and cases such as SAP America v. InvestPic; Interval Licensing v. AOL (presentation of information absent technological improvement).
The “VR guided acupuncture” field-of-use does not, by itself, integrate the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Extra-solution activity: Steps such as “capturing videos,” “capturing … movements,” “recording … movements,” “replaying … movements,” and “projecting … movements into … [what is] shown” are ancillary data-gathering or output/display steps that occur before or after the abstract decision/presentation and do not meaningfully limit the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Particular machine or transformation: Although the claims recite a “VR headset” and “plurality of actuators,” the headset is used only to display information (presentation of information), and the actuators are recited at a high level of generality (capable of being attached; simulate acupuncture needles). The claims tie the abstract guidance/presentation to generic hardware without specifying any unconventional configuration or how the hardware effects a transformation of an article in a manner integral to the claim’s solution. The claim language focuses on “guiding the patient” to apply/control actuators rather than the system itself performing a specific technical operation that transforms the patient. Unlike Vanda v. West-Ward or Natural Alternatives v. Creative Compounds (which recited specific treatment steps applying a natural relationship to effect a therapeutic outcome), here the steps are to determine, show, and guide, i.e., mental/organizational/display steps implemented on generic devices.
Because the claims merely use generic VR/computing devices to implement mental and presentation steps and to organize patient behavior, they do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B: Assess whether additional elements are significantly more; discuss WURC with evidentiary considerations. The additional claim elements (processor, memory, application program, user interface, communication interface, VR recording device, VR headset, actuators, recording/replay functions) do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas:
Generic computer components performing routine functions (processing, storing, displaying, communicating) are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), 2106.07(a); Alice v. CLS Bank; buySAFE; Electric Power Group. VR headsets and recording devices, as broadly claimed, are conventional peripherals used to capture and present audiovisual content.
The claims do not recite any unconventional arrangement or use of these components that improves their functioning (e.g., no specific rendering algorithm, calibration, tracking, synchronization, low-latency pipeline, sensor fusion, or closed-loop control that departs from routine use).
The “plurality of actuators … controlled by the application program to simulate acupuncture needles” (Claim 15) is recited functionally at a high level without technical implementation detail. Guiding a patient to control actuators via a “virtual control console” (Claim 18) is likewise presentation/instruction. No specific actuator control scheme, feedback sensors, control loop parameters, safety interlocks, or technical constraints are claimed that could rise to an inventive concept.
On the present record, these features appear WURC in the context of VR systems and actuator-based haptic devices. If applicant contests, the Office will provide factual support per Berkheimer (e.g., citations to conventional VR capture/display pipelines and haptic actuator systems in the art).
Therefore, the claims lack an “inventive concept” and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Therefore claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan – Evidence-based complementary and Alternative Medicine in view of Labron et al. (US 2021/0166480)
Re claim 1, Guan teaches a method for treating a patient with a virtual reality (VR) guided acupuncture, comprising:
determining a prescription of acupuncture points or specific body locations; and
showing the patient the prescribed acupuncture points or specific body locations being activated on a three- dimensional animation in a virtual reality viewing device (Guan, 6.2 teaches in acupuncture – virtual acupuncture teaching system can be used to construct intelligent three-dimensional animations, which vividly display the needle insertion level of each acupoint and the danger of an incorrect acupuncture procedure3D animation). Guan does not explicit teach of an avatar. Lebron teaches of virtual reality teaching of interacting with a three- dimensional virtual reality environment with an avatar. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Labron by using an avatar because both references are directed to the same field of endeavor of visualization of treatments in a virtual environment. Additionally, it would have been obvious to incorporate an avatar into Guan because an avatar is a conventional means of visually representing an actor or agent in 3d virtual environment and provides equivalent or three- dimensional animation.
Re claim 2, Labron further teaches of the method according to claim 1, further comprising: capturing personal characteristics of the patient; and
rendering the personal characteristics of the patient onto the avatar to enhance sensation of the patient receiving an acupuncture treatment through the virtual reality viewing device (Labron, pp29 – allows the avatar to be personalized according to characteristics).
Claim 3, Guan teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein showing the patient the prescribed acupuncture points or specific body locations being activated on the avatar in the virtual reality viewing device comprises:
guiding the patient to apply acupuncture at the prescribed acupuncture points or specific body locations, however it does not teach of applying acupuncture actuators, aka electro-acupuncture stimulator. The examiner takes official notice that electro-acupuncture stimulators are old and well known. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified acupuncture with electro-acupuncture stimulator for the same effect of identifying specific acupuncture points.
Claim(s) 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan and Labron as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of CN 107369352A, hereon after known as 352A.
Re claims 4 - 8,
A system for treating a patient with a virtual reality (VR) guided acupuncture,
comprising:
a processor (Labron fig 3);
a memory storing an application program (Labron fig 3);
a user interface; (Labron 112)
a communication interface (Labron pp 24);
a VR recording device (352A - Motion capture subsystem for real-time recording); and
a VR headset (Labron, 112);
wherein when being executed by the processor, the application program causes the processor to:
determine a prescription of acupuncture points or specific body locations; and
show the patient the prescribed acupuncture points or specific body locations
being activated on an avatar in the VR headset (Guan and Labron as explained in claim 1 above and not repeated herein).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guan and Labron to incorporate the teachings of 352A by incorporating the VR recording device in order to capture the treatment of a patient using acupuncture by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re claims 5, 7, 11-14, and 16, 352A and Labron further teaches capturing the physical movement of the actuators (352A teaches of real time recording of performing traditional Chinese medicine including acupuncture), projecting the physical movements of the actuators in the acupuncture treatment being shown in the virtual reality viewing device (Labron, pp 29)
Re claim 6, setting up the actuator at the prescribed acupuncture points was previously addressed in claim 3 and not repeated herein.
Re claim 9, the VR recording device is configured to capture personal characteristics of the patient; and the processor is configured to render the personal characteristics of the patient onto the avatar to enhance sensation of the patient receiving an acupuncture treatment through the virtual reality viewing device (352A – accurately capture and record in real time the facial features etc. Labron, pp29 – allows the avatar to be personalized according to characteristics)
Re claims 10, 15 and 17-20, the limitations of claims 10, 15 and 17-20 has been provided in claim 8 above and not repeated herein, the references provided does not teach of a plurality of actuators capable of being attached to the patient and controlled by the application program to simulate acupuncture needles. The examiner provided official notice in claim 3 that actuators are old and well known and not repeated herein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KANG HU whose telephone number is (571)270-1344. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 6:30-4:30.
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.
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.
KANG HU
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715