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 .
Status of Claims
This present office action is responsive to the Application filed on August 08, 2024. As directed, claims 1-10 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “the target” in ln 7, 9, 13, and 14-15 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the target object-- for consistency.
Examiner suggest amending the limitation, “target” to --target object-- throughout the claims 2-4 and 9-10 for clarity and consistency.
Claim 1 recites, “point position” in ln 8 which Examiner suggest amending to read --point positions” for consistency.
Claim 1 recites, “generate a final massage track” in ln 18 which Examiner suggest amending to read --generate the final massage track-- as it is introduced in ln 12.
Claims 2-9 are objected by virtue of dependency to claim 1.
Claim 2 recites, “generating a final” in ln 1-2 which Examiner suggest amending to read --generating the final--
Claim 2 recites, “on a preset” in ln 2 which Examiner suggest amending to read --on the preset--
Claim 2 recites, “a plurality of massage” in ln 4, 6, and 9 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the plurality of massage-- as it is introduced in claim 1.
Claim 2 recites, “node vector and the preset boundary condition” in ln 10 which Examiner suggest amending to read --node vectors and the preset boundary conditions-- for consistency.
Examiner suggest amending limitations, “vector” and “condition” to --vectors-- and --conditions-- throughout the claims for consistency as it is recited as singular or plurality in other claims which may read into indefinite.
Claim 2 recites, “a plurality of massage tracks” in ln 12 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the plurality of massage tracks-- as it is introduced in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites, “generating a final massage track based on a preset” in ln 1-2 which Examiner suggest amending to read --generating the final massage track based on the preset--
Claim 3 recites, “the pose” in ln 5 which Examiner suggest amending to read --a pose--
Claim 3 recites, “a final massage” in ln 6 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the final massage track--
Claim 4 recites, “a preset” in ln 6 and 8 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the preset-- as “presetting a minimum quantity” is introduced in ln 5 unless it is different value.
Claim 4 recites, “the last group” in ln 10 which Examiner suggest amending to read --a last group--
Claim 5 recites, “setting the preset” in ln 3 which Examiner suggest amending to read --setting a preset--
Claim 5 recites, “wherein the node vector” in ln 4 which Examiner suggest amending to read --wherein each of the node vectors--
Claim 6 recites, “a control vertex”, and “to key points and node vectors” in ln 4-5 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the control vertex-- and --the key points and the node vectors--
Claim 8 recites, “represents a k” in ln 3 which Examiner suggest amending to read --represents the k--
Claim 9 recites, “a final massage track” in ln 12-13 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the final massage track-- as it is introduced in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites, “a final massage” in ln 22 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the final massage--
Claim 10 recites, “point position” in ln 10 which Examiner suggest amending to read --point positions” for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A select module, an acquisition module, a first calculation module, a second calculation module, and a third calculation module in claim 10.
The corresponding structure is interpreted as to --the form of an entire hardware embodiment, an entire software embodiment, or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects or the form of a computer program product embodied on one or more computer-usable storage media having a computer-usable program code-- as described in ¶0112.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, claims recite, in part, “determining a proportion coefficient according to the two-dimensional data of the preliminary massage point position and the point cloud data of the region to be massaged of the target object”. The specification, however, does not provide an adequate description of how the claimed “proportion coefficient” is determined from the two-dimensional (2D) preliminary massage point data and the point cloud data or otherwise provide sufficient objective criteria for determining the coefficient.
Although the specification describes that the preliminary massage point position can be expanded to obtain the target massage point position two-dimensional data (¶0066), the specification does not describe what dimension or characteristics of the point cloud are used to determine the “proportion coefficient” or how those dimensions or characteristics are related to the two-dimensional preliminary massage point position.
The specification also does not provide a representative calculation, mathematical relationship, mapping technique or other sufficiently specific example demonstrating the claimed determination (unless the method of acquiring the “proportion coefficient” is well-known in the art). One of ordinary skills in the art would not know how to make and use of said limitation without sufficient technical details.
Thus, the examiner takes the position that the claim contains subject matter which was not reasonably described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of dependency to claim 1.
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 1-10 are 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.
Regard claims 1, and 10, the limitations, "the two-dimensional data of the massage point position" in claim 1, ln 6 and claim 10, ln 8-9 and “the plurality of segments of massage tracks” in claim 1, ln 18 and claim 10, ln 22 which renders claims indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, it is unclear whether “the two-dimensional data” is intended of the preliminary massage point positions or newly introducing for the target object.
For the examination purposes, it is interpreted to --two-dimensional data of massage positions of the target object--.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of dependency to claim 1.
Claim 3 recites, “the grouping unit” in ln 5 which renders claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear if it is intended to be singular, “unit” or a plural, “units” in comparison with the limitation “preset minimum quantity of grouping units” in ln 6-7.
For the examination purposes, it is interpreted to --grouping units--.
Claim 9 recites, “each target three-dimensional massage point position” in ln 9 for the “cross product of X-axis and Z-axis” and in ln 12 for the “pose” which render claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the “target three-dimensional massage point position” is intended to refer to the “target object” or the “preliminary massage track” as described in ln 5-6.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Although claim 10 recites a system which seems to be an apparatus, the system of claim 10 can be read as software without any structural components in light of specification and 112(f) interpretation as discussed above. Said modules of claim 10 can be merely part of the program algorithms. Thus, claim in its breadth of scope can be directed to only a computer program, which is “software per se.” A software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category.
Claims 1-10 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 is a process/method and is one of the four statutory categories.
[Step 2A, Prong One]
The claim is directed to an Abstract Idea, specifically a mental process including mathematical concepts and/or a certain organized human activity. Specifically, the limitations directed to:
acquiring two-dimensional data of preliminary massage point positions according to a selected massage mode (observation, judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
acquiring point cloud data of a region to be massaged of a target object (observation, judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
determining a proportion coefficient according to the two-dimensional data of the preliminary massage point position and the point cloud data of the region to be massaged of the target object (observation, judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
determining the two-dimensional data of the massage point position of the target based on the two-dimensional data of the preliminary massage point position and the proportion coefficient (observation, judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
acquiring three-dimensional massage point position data of the target according to the two-dimensional data of the massage point position of the target and the point cloud data of the region to be massaged of the target object (observation, judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
generating a final massage track based on a preset massage track planning algorithm according to the three-dimensional massage point position data of the target (observation, judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
grouping three-dimensional massage point positions of the target according to a preset grouping rule to obtain a plurality of massage point position groups; generating a plurality of massage tracks according to the plurality of massage point position groups (observation, judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and
splicing the plurality of segments of massage tracks to generate a final massage track (observation, judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
The indicated limitations recite mental process involving observation, judgement, and evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. For example, a person can acknowledge and select a type of massage to be performed onto a patient while observing a size and a shape of the body and determined how to perform the massage based on a body type of the patient such as adjusting pressure points, massage paths, and etc. A person can further divide the massage points into groups, determine corresponding massage paths for the groups, and combine the individual paths into an overall massage path.
Further, dependent claims 2-9 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
[STEP 2A, Prong Two]
The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The above-identified abstract idea in independent claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims 2-9) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use
Claim 1 recites generating a final massage track. However, the claim does not require the generated massage track to be used to control or operate a massage robot or other physical apparatus. Rather the claimed process terminates with the generation of information representing a massage track. Merely limiting an abstract idea to a particular field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h).
Moreover, the claim does not recite an improvement to the function of a computer or to another technology. Although the specification describes advantages associated with the disclosed trajectory-planning algorithm such as reducing computational requirement and generating a smooth trajectory, claim 1 does not recite a particular improvement in computer functionality or in the operation of a massage robot. Instead, the claim broadly recites mathematical processing for generating a massage trajectory.
[STEP 2B]
The claim does not cite any additional elements/structures that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements include acquiring point cloud data, determining the target massage-point positions, grouping massage points, and splicing the segments into a final massage track. These additional elements, considered individually, merely provide information for, or perform further processing according to, the identified abstract idea.
The additional elements do not require the generated track to control a massage apparatus or otherwise cause a physical operation.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the methods of claims 1-9 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity).
Likewise, the rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above for claim 1, are also applicable to claim 10.
[Step 1]
Claim 10 is a system and is one of the four statutory categories.
[Step 2A, Prong One]
The claim is directed to an Abstract Idea, specifically a mental process including mathematical concepts and/or a certain organized human activity. Specifically, the limitations directed to:
acquiring two-dimensional data of preliminary massage point positions according to a selected massage mode (observation, judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
acquiring point cloud data of a region to be massaged of a target object (observation, judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
determining a proportion coefficient according to the two-dimensional data of the preliminary massage point position and the point cloud data of the region to be massaged of the target object (observation, judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
determining the two-dimensional data of the massage point position of the target based on the two-dimensional data of the preliminary massage point position and the proportion coefficient (observation, judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
acquiring three-dimensional massage point position data of the target according to the two-dimensional data of the massage point position of the target and the point cloud data of the region to be massaged of the target object (observation, judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
generating a final massage track based on a preset massage track planning algorithm according to the three-dimensional massage point position data of the target (observation, judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
grouping three-dimensional massage point positions of the target according to a preset grouping rule to obtain a plurality of massage point position groups; generating a plurality of massage tracks according to the plurality of massage point position groups (observation, judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and
splicing the plurality of segments of massage tracks to generate a final massage track (observation, judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
The indicated limitations recite mental process involving observation, judgement, and evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. For example, a person can acknowledge and select a type of massage to be performed onto a patient while observing a size and a shape of the body and determined how to perform the massage based on a body type of the patient such as adjusting pressure points, massage paths, and etc. A person can further divide the massage points into groups, determine corresponding massage paths for the groups, and combine the individual paths into an overall massage path.
Further, dependent claims 2-9 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
[STEP 2A, Prong Two]
The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The above-identified abstract idea in independent claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims 2-9) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use
Claim 1 recites generating a final massage track. However, the claim does not require the generated massage track to be used to control or operate a massage robot or other physical apparatus. Rather the claimed process terminates with the generation of information representing a massage track. Merely limiting an abstract idea to a particular field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h).
Moreover, the claim does not recite an improvement to the function of a computer or to another technology. Although the specification describes advantages associated with the disclosed trajectory-planning algorithm such as reducing computational requirement and generating a smooth trajectory, claim 1 does not recite a particular improvement in computer functionality or in the operation of a massage robot. Instead, the claim broadly recites mathematical processing for generating a massage trajectory.
[STEP 2B]
The claim does not cite any additional elements/structures that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional structures include, a select module, an acquisition module, a first calculation module, a second calculation module, and a third calculation module which is interpreted as --the form of an entire hardware embodiment, an entire software embodiment, or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects-- as discussed above.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. As such, the additional elements listed above amount to no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity or a generic component that is well-understood, routine, and conventional (Examiner’s Note: see Mackin (US 20170266077 A1), which discloses robotic massage machines having routines which control both the motion of end effectors and the localized ambient environment (¶0002); ¶0040-0042, implies known hardware and software aspects; ¶0065, “maps 3D objects into a 3D model and then that model, in this case a human body, can be visualized and utilized for secondary processes because the form is then known in the computer”). See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
The additional elements include acquiring point cloud data, determining the target massage-point positions, grouping massage points, and splicing the segments into a final massage track. These additional elements, considered individually, merely provide information for, or perform further processing according to, the identified abstract idea.
The additional elements do not require the generated track to control a massage apparatus or otherwise cause a physical operation.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (machine translation of CN 113555083; cited in IDS filed 08/21/2024) in view of Litman et al. (US 20220134551 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wei et al. discloses, a method for generating massage tracks (abstract, “a method and a device for generating a massaging device…for improving the actual effect of the physical therapy massaging improving the user experience”), comprising:
acquiring two-dimensional data of preliminary massage point positions according to a selected massage mode (PG 9, ln 4-15, “…obtaining…and the preset massaging track of the preset model part on the human body model… it can obtain the preset massaging track of the preset model part on the human body model… and the related data of the preset massaging the track, can be pre-stored in the database”);
acquiring point cloud data of a region to be massaged of a target object (PG 9, ln 4-15, “obtaining the human point cloud data of the target user in the target scene, and the first model point cloud data of the human body model… the point cloud data in the target scene can be collected, so as to obtain the collected human point cloud data of the target user”;
determining a proportion coefficient according to the two-dimensional data of the preliminary massage point position and the point cloud data of the region to be massaged of the target object, and determining the two-dimensional data of the massage point position of the target based on the two-dimensional data of the preliminary massage point position and the proportion coefficient (PG 9, ln 4-23, implies determining the proportion coefficient with the human body model and the related data of the preset massaging tracks and collected point cloud data in the target scene so that the massage point positions are calibrated reducing the error caused by the mechanical movement; PG 16, ln 9-20, “…determining the human point cloud data corresponding to a plurality of human body part points corresponding to the preset massaging… scaling coefficient determining module… determining the human body model relative to the target user of the human body scaling coefficient… for based on the scaling coefficient… determining target of the target massaging of the target”;
acquiring three-dimensional massage point position data of the target according to the two-dimensional data of the massage point position of the target and the point cloud data of the region to be massaged of the target object (PG 13, ln 10 - PG 14, ln 19, implies the three-dimensional massage points position is acquired based on the human coordination system and the scaling coefficient); and
generating a final massage track based on a preset massage track planning algorithm according to the three-dimensional massage point position data of the target (PG 13, ln 10 - end of PG 15, implies that the final massage track is achieved based on the process of scaling the massaging trajectories from the calibrated preset massaging tracks by the cloud data).
While Wei et al. further discloses that the massaging track device can ensure the validity and accuracy of the preset track massaging so as to pass through point cloud data multiple conversion and registration, obtaining the scaling coefficient, scaling the preset track massaging accurately and effectively obtaining the target user adaptive target massaging (PG 18 , ln 13-19) and scaling the massaging trajectories (PG 13, ln 10 - end of PG 15), Wei et al. is silent on wherein the preset massage track planning algorithm comprises grouping three-dimensional massage point positions of the target according to a preset grouping rule to obtain a plurality of massage point position groups; generating a plurality of massage tracks according to the plurality of massage point position groups; and splicing the plurality of segments of massage tracks to generate a final massage track.
However, Litman et al., which is analogous to the claimed invention for a method of generating therapeutic massage plan and directing one or more robotic arms to execute (¶0003), teaches a method comprising:
grouping three-dimensional massage point positions of the target according to a preset grouping rule to obtain a plurality of massage point position groups (massage positions are grouped based on the target as shown in Fig 6; ¶0022-0025, implies that the massage patterns grouped based on the massage goals in view of Figs 1-2);
generating a plurality of massage tracks according to the plurality of massage point position groups (mapping of trajectories are shown corresponding to the sequence of massage goals as shown in Fig 6 in view of massage patterns, 104-109 of Fig 1); and
splicing a plurality of segments of massage tracks to generate the final massage track (¶0102, “a 2D plane which is then mapped to the surface of the 3D body”; ¶0118-0127, implies generating the final massage track after combining/collecting the plurality of trajectories as shown in Figs 1 and 6) in purpose of converting these positions to Cartesian coordinates for generating goals for the robot for massaging (¶0008,0149)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method of Wei et al. to include wherein the preset massage track planning algorithm comprises grouping three-dimensional massage point positions of the target according to a preset grouping rule to obtain a plurality of massage point position groups; generating a plurality of massage tracks according to the plurality of massage point position groups; and splicing the plurality of segments of massage tracks to generate a final massage track as taught by Litman et al. in purpose of converting these positions to Cartesian coordinates for generating goals for the robot for massaging (¶0008,0149).
Regarding claim 10, Wei et al. discloses, a system for generating massage tracks (abstract, “a method and a device for generating a massaging device…for improving the actual effect of the physical therapy massaging improving the user experience”), comprising:
a select module (PG 7, ln 2-9; Examiner notes that said module is interpreted as a part of the hardware/software which performs the steps as described in ¶0122) configured to acquiring two-dimensional data of preliminary massage point positions according to a selected massage mode (PG 9, ln 4-15, “…obtaining…and the preset massaging track of the preset model part on the human body model… it can obtain the preset massaging track of the preset model part on the human body model… and the related data of the preset massaging the track, can be pre-stored in the database”);
an acquisition module (PG 7, ln 2-9; Examiner notes that said module is interpreted as a part of the hardware/software which performs the steps as described in ¶0122) configured for acquiring point cloud data of a region to be massaged of a target object (PG 9, ln 4-15, “obtaining the human point cloud data of the target user in the target scene, and the first model point cloud data of the human body model… the point cloud data in the target scene can be collected, so as to obtain the collected human point cloud data of the target user”;
a first calculation module (PG 7, ln 2-9; Examiner notes that said module is interpreted as a part of the hardware/software which performs the steps as described in ¶0122) configured for determining a proportion coefficient according to the two-dimensional data of the preliminary massage point position and the point cloud data of the region to be massaged of the target object, and determining the two-dimensional data of the massage point position of the target based on the two-dimensional data of the preliminary massage point position and the proportion coefficient (PG 9, ln 4-23, implies determining the proportion coefficient with the human body model and the related data of the preset massaging tracks and collected point cloud data in the target scene so that the massage point positions are calibrated reducing the error caused by the mechanical movement; PG 16, ln 9-20, “…determining the human point cloud data corresponding to a plurality of human body part points corresponding to the preset massaging… scaling coefficient determining module… determining the human body model relative to the target user of the human body scaling coefficient… for based on the scaling coefficient… determining target of the target massaging of the target”;
a second calculation module (PG 7, ln 2-9; Examiner notes that said module is interpreted as a part of the hardware/software which performs the steps as described in ¶0122) configured for acquiring three-dimensional massage point position data of the target according to the two-dimensional data of the massage point position of the target and the point cloud data of the region to be massaged of the target object (PG 13, ln 10 - PG 14, ln 19, implies the three-dimensional massage points position is acquired based on the human coordination system and the scaling coefficient); and
a third calculation module (PG 7, ln 2-9; Examiner notes that said module is interpreted as a part of the hardware/software which performs the steps as described in ¶0122) configured for generating a final massage track based on a preset massage track planning algorithm according to the three-dimensional massage point position data of the target (PG 13, ln 10 - end of PG 15, implies that the final massage track is achieved based on the process of scaling the massaging trajectories from the calibrated preset massaging tracks by the cloud data).
While Wei et al. further discloses that the massaging track device can ensure the validity and accuracy of the preset track massaging so as to pass through point cloud data multiple conversion and registration, obtaining the scaling coefficient, scaling the preset track massaging accurately and effectively obtaining the target user adaptive target massaging (PG 18 , ln 13-19) and scaling the massaging trajectories (PG 13, ln 10 - end of PG 15), Wei et al. is silent on wherein the preset massage track planning algorithm comprises grouping three-dimensional massage point positions of the target according to a preset grouping rule to obtain a plurality of massage point position groups; generating a plurality of massage tracks according to the plurality of massage point position groups; and splicing the plurality of segments of massage tracks to generate a final massage track.
However, Litman et al., which is analogous to the claimed invention for a method of generating therapeutic massage plan and directing one or more robotic arms to execute (¶0003), teaches a method comprising:
grouping three-dimensional massage point positions of the target according to a preset grouping rule to obtain a plurality of massage point position groups (massage positions are grouped based on the target as shown in Fig 6; ¶0022-0025, implies that the massage patterns grouped based on the massage goals in view of Figs 1-2);
generating a plurality of massage tracks according to the plurality of massage point position groups (mapping of trajectories are shown corresponding to the sequence of massage goals as shown in Fig 6 in view of massage patterns, 104-109 of Fig 1); and
splicing a plurality of segments of massage tracks to generate the final massage track (¶0102, “a 2D plane which is then mapped to the surface of the 3D body”; ¶0118-0127, implies generating the final massage track after combining/collecting the plurality of trajectories as shown in Figs 1 and 6) in purpose of converting these positions to Cartesian coordinates for generating goals for the robot for massaging (¶0008,0149)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the system of Wei et al. to include wherein the preset massage track planning algorithm comprises grouping three-dimensional massage point positions of the target according to a preset grouping rule to obtain a plurality of massage point position groups; generating a plurality of massage tracks according to the plurality of massage point position groups; and splicing the plurality of segments of massage tracks to generate a final massage track as taught by Litman et al. in purpose of converting these positions to Cartesian coordinates for generating goals for the robot for massaging (¶0008,0149).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mackin (US 20170266077 A1) is cited for a calibrated massage path by a pre-programmed massage path to be adapted to the different body shapes and sizes (¶0056).
Tan et al. (machine translation of CN 112837418) is cited for the area to massage of the human body for automatically dividing area, improving the experience and comfort (abstract).
Chung et al. (US 20220202647 A1) is cited for massaging control system of data acquisition module, point determination module, device alignment module, and component alignment module (¶0094; Fig 2)
Zhang et al. (machine translation of CN 115847449) is cite for controlling the cooperative robot to perform massage movement according to the executable data corresponding to each short track one by one; at the same time of the cooperative robot executing the massage motion corresponding to the length track (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAEICK JANG whose telephone number is (703)756-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kendra D Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/J.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights