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 .
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is in response to amendments filed on 03/04/2026. Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are pending in the application. Claims 1-8 and 10-14 have been rejected as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “wherein the patient satisfies the performance benchmark within the treatment plan; and” in lines 1-3, needs to be removed, and the phrase “a frequency, a duration, and an intensity” in line 5, needs to be changed to “the frequency, the duration, and the intensity”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a frequency, a duration, and an intensity” in line 5, needs to be changed to “the frequency, the duration, and the intensity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “further comprising the clinician interface including a plan modification control” in line 3, needs to be changed to “the clinician interface further including a plan modification control”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “wherein the treatment plan comprises a rehabilitation regimen” in lines 1-2, needs to be changed to “wherein the treatment plan is a rehabilitation regimen”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-5 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 3 recites: “The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the one or more computers are configured to automatically modify the treatment plan in response to the patient satisfying the predetermined condition”, and claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends, recites: “wherein the treatment plan is modified in at least one of a frequency, a duration, and an intensity, wherein the modification is based on an occurrence of a predetermined condition, and wherein the predetermined condition comprises a performance benchmark based on the number of steps taken by the patient in a day”. It is unclear, whether and how “the patient satisfying the predetermined condition” recited in claim 3, is different from “occurrence of a predetermine condition”. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claims 4-5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claim 3.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 5 recites: “The computer-implemented system of claim 3, wherein the patient fails to satisfy the performance benchmark within the treatment protocol; and wherein one or more computers are configured to decrease at least one of a frequency, a duration, and an intensity of an aspect of the treatment protocol in response to the patient failing to satisfy the performance benchmark”, while claim 3, upon which claim 5 depends, recites: “The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the one or more computers are configured to automatically modify the treatment plan in response to the patient satisfying the predetermined condition”, and claim 1, upon which claim 3 (and claim 5) depend(s), recites: “wherein the treatment plan is modified in at least one of a frequency, a duration, and an intensity, wherein the modification is based on an occurrence of a predetermined condition, and wherein the predetermined condition comprises a performance benchmark based on the number of steps taken by the patient in a day”. Claims 1 and 3 require the modification to be made to the treatment plan, while claim 5 requires the modification being made to the treatment protocol. As such, it is unclear whether the modification is being made to the treatment plan or the treatment protocol. Also, it is unclear how the performance benchmark, which is based on the number of steps taken by the patient in a day, can be within the treatment protocol, as the treatment protocol appear to include activities using the treatment device which comprises a stationary cycling machine according to claim 1. Furthermore, it is unclear how at least one of a frequency, a duration, and an intensity of an aspect of the treatment protocol is decreased (hence modified) in response to the patient failing to satisfy the performance benchmark as recited in claim 5, when claim 3 (upon which claim 5 depends) clearly requires automatic modification of the treatment plan in response to the patient satisfying the predetermined condition and claim 1 (upon which claim 3 and claim 5 depend) requires modification of the treatment plan based on occurrence of a predetermined condition, wherein the predetermined condition comprises a performance benchmark based on the number of steps taken by the patient in a day. In other words, it appears that according to claims 1 and 3, modification to the treatment plan is done when a performance benchmark (a predetermined condition) occurs/satisfied, while according to claim 5, the modification to the treatment protocol/plan occurs when the performance benchmark (a predetermined condition) does not occur/is not satisfied (hence the treatment plan/protocol is modified regardless of whether the performance benchmark occurs/satisfied or not). Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested.
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 1-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-8 and 10-14 recites at least one step or instruction for managing, modifying and providing a treatment plan having treatment protocols, each of which have a plurality of session periods of different types, for and to a patient, which involve observation, evaluation, judgements and opinion regarding the patient’s performance parameters and further involve managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), which are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG and as certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG.
A detailed evaluation of each claim has been shown below. Please note that the underlined portions show the abstract idea, the bolded portions show additional elements, and the statement within the parenthesis clarify the specific abstract idea of the specific limitation.
Specifically, the claims recite:
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented system for managing a treatment plan, comprising:
a clinician interface comprising a patient profile display and a protocol management display, the patient profile display presenting historical data regarding performance of the treatment plan by a patient, and the protocol management display presenting controls for modifying a treatment protocol within the treatment plan (i.e., drawing and writing on a piece of paper with a pen historical data of a patient and draw blank boxes or specific check boxes on the paper for modifying a treatment protocol; involves opinion, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 Peg and managing interactions between people, which is grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG); and
a treatment device configured to be manipulated by the patient while the patient performs the treatment protocol, and the treatment device comprises a stationary cycling machine, wherein the treatment protocol itself comprises a plurality of sessions for treatment of a body part of the patient, and each of the plurality of sessions specifies using a motor to produce an external force, wherein the external force has respective attributes, and (i) at least one value of the respective attributes differs between the plurality of sessions and (ii) the external force is applied to at least one pedal of the stationary cycling machine (i.e., mentally noting and/or writing with a pen on a paper, different sessions with different amounts of force in different directions, to be applied to the user; involves evaluation and judgement which are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG and managing interaction between people (including teaching, and following rules or instructions), which is grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG ); and
an ambulation sensor configured to track and store a number of steps taken by the patient (i.e., observing a user’s activities/walking and mentally counting the number of steps taken by the patient and memorizing the number of steps taken or writing it on a paper with a pen; involves observation and evaluation, which are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG);
wherein each session within the plurality of sessions comprises an ordered combination of session periods of different types, with each of the session periods including a particular activity for treating the body part of the patient; wherein each of the session periods is selected from a group of the different types of session periods, the group of the different types of session periods comprising a passive period, an assisted period, an active period, and a resistance period; wherein the particular activity of each passive period includes moving the body part by the external force; wherein the particular activity of each assisted period includes moving the body part by the patient with assistance of the external force; wherein the particular activity of each active period includes the patient moving the body part without assistance of the external force; wherein the particular activity of each resistance period includes the patient actively moving the body part against a resistance force (i.e., mentally noting and/or writing with a pen on a paper, different sessions with different amounts of force in different directions, to be applied to the user; involves evaluation and judgement which are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG and managing interaction between people (including teaching, and following rules or instructions), which is grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG );
wherein one or more computers are configured to generate and modify the treatment protocol such that a type of session period selected to be included in the treatment protocol is based on a performance of the patient during another type of session in the treatment protocol (i.e., writing with a pen and paper, the sessions and changing (by erasing and/or rewriting) a type of a session with another based on observation; involve observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG); and
wherein the treatment plan is modified in at least one of a frequency, a duration, and an intensity, wherein further the modification is based on an occurrence of a predetermined condition, and wherein the predetermined condition comprises a performance benchmark based on the number of steps taken by the patient in a day (i.e., changing (by erasing and/or rewriting) a session with different parameters upon determining the patient has completed a predetermined number of step counts; involve observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
2. (Previously Presented) The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the treatment plan comprises a rehabilitation regimen, and the body part comprises at least one of a joint, a bone, or a muscle group (involving similar mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as that of claim 1).
3. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the one or more computers are configured to automatically modify the treatment plan in response to the patient satisfying the predetermined condition (involving similar mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as that of claim 1).
4. (Previously Presented) The computer-implemented system of claim 3, wherein the patient satisfies the performance benchmark within the treatment plan; and wherein the one or more computers are configured to increase at least one of a frequency, a duration, and an intensity of an aspect of the treatment plan in response to the patient satisfying the performance benchmark (involving similar mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as that of claim 1).
5. (Previously Presented) The computer-implemented system of claim 3, wherein the patient fails to satisfy the performance benchmark within the treatment protocol; and wherein the one or more computers are configured to decrease at least one of a frequency, a duration, or an intensity of an aspect of the treatment protocol in response to the patient failing to satisfy the performance benchmark (involving similar mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as that of claim 1).
6. (Previously Presented) The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the treatment protocol is one of a plurality of treatment protocols within the treatment plan; and further comprising the clinician interface including a plan modification control configured to modify the plurality of treatment protocols within the treatment plan (involving similar mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as that of claim 1).
7. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the treatment plan comprises a rehabilitation regimen, and wherein the computer-implemented system further comprises:
a patient interface including an output device and an input device for communicating information to and from the patient (involving similar mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as that of claim 1),
wherein the treatment device is configured to be manipulated by the patient for performing the rehabilitation regimen upon the body part, with the body part comprising at least one of a joint, a bone, or a muscle group (involving similar mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as that of claim 1); and
wherein the patient interface and the treatment device are each configured to operate from a patient location geographically separate from a location of the clinician interface.
8. (Previously Presented) The computer-implemented system of claim 7, wherein at least one of the patient interface and the treatment device is configured to communicate with the one or more computers to receive the treatment plan and to report data regarding performance by the patient in following the treatment plan (involving similar mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as that of claim 1).
10. (Previously Presented) The computer-implemented system of claim 7, further comprising a force sensor configured to measure a force applied by the patient.
11. (Previously Presented) The computer-implemented system of claim 7, wherein the treatment device comprises a position sensor configured to measure at least one of a linear motion or an angular motion of the body part of the patient.
12. (Previously Presented) The computer-implemented system of claim 7, wherein the clinician interface comprises an overview display including summary information regarding each of a plurality of different patients (involving similar mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as that of claim 1).
13. (Previously Presented) The computer-implemented system of claim 7, further comprising a computer of the one or more computers configured to store data regarding the treatment plan (involving similar mental processes as that of claim 1).
14. (Previously Presented) The computer-implemented system of claim 7, further comprising a computer of the one or more computers configured to store data regarding performance by the patient in following the treatment plan (involving similar mental processes as that of claim 1).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-8 and 10-14 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 2
The above-identified abstract idea in independent Claim 1 (and dependent Claims 2-8 and 10-14) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 1), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: one or more computers, display (displaying clinician interface and patient interface), a treatment device comprising a stationary cycling machine with at least one pedal and a position sensor, a motor, an ambulation sensor, a force sensor, an input device and an output device, are generically recited computer elements or conventional exercise devices and their parts, or conventional sensors in independent claims and their respective dependent claims, which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, 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. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-8 and 10-14 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: one or more computers, display (displaying clinician interface and patient interface), a treatment device comprising a stationary cycling machine with at least one pedal and a position sensor, a motor, an ambulation sensor, a force sensor, an input device and an output device.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components or conventional exercise device with their components, or conventional sensors which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks in various exercise areas. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. 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.
Additionally, in light of Applicant’s specification, ¶ [0040]-[0041] and [0047]-[0048], the claimed terms one or more computers, display, input device, output device, are reasonably construed as a generic computing devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the one or more computers. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activities’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-8 and 10-14 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. 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.
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 method, system and a machine-readable storage medium of Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or mathematical concept) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-8 and 10-14 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in Claims 1-8 and 10-14 do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-8 and 10-14 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-8 and 10-14 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are partially persuasive.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b):
The amendments have overcome the previous rejection of claims 3-5, 8, and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). However, with respect to claims 3-5, the amendments, have introduced further indefiniteness. As such, claims 3-5 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (see above for details).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103:
Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 are found persuasive. As such, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C §101:
Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C §101, have been considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2A, Prong 1, stating:
“The Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis requires: (1) identify the specific claim limitation(s) believed to recite a judicial exception; (2) determine which category the judicial exception falls into (mathematical concept, mental process, or method of organizing human activity); and (3) for mental processes specifically, evaluate whether the limitations can practically be performed in the human mind (with or without pen and paper). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Here, the Office performed the first two steps: it identified specific claim limitations of claims 1-8 and 10-14 that it believed recite a judicial exception, and it categorized them as mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the Office parsed the claims into alleged "abstract ideas" (the functional claim limitations, including the session protocol structure, the generation and modification of treatment protocols based on patient performance, and the modification of the treatment plan based on step-count data) and "additional elements" (comprising the hardware components: motor, pedals, ambulation sensor, and computer). However, the Office failed to perform the critical third step: it never evaluated whether the claimed limitations, taken as a whole, can practically be performed in the human mind.
The Office Action's analysis is conclusory rather than analytical, as required. The Office Action states that the claims "involve observation, evaluation, judgements and opinion" and concludes that the claims recite an abstract idea. But at no point does the Office Action evaluate whether the claimed limitations, taken as a whole, can practically be performed in the human mind. Instead, the Office Action strips the functional limitations away from the hardware that performs them, labels the hardware as "additional elements" to be addressed later at Prong 2, and then characterizes the remaining functional limitations in isolation as mental processes.”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. As shown above, the Office has identified specific claim limitations that recite the abstract idea, determined the specific category or categories that the abstract idea falls into, provided explanation regarding how those categories are determined. As shown above, when the abstract idea fell into the category of “mental process”, the Office has provided explanation how such abstract idea can be performed in the human mind (with or without pen and paper). For instance, regarding presenting historical data regarding performance of the treatment plan by a patient and presenting controls for modifying a treatment protocol within the treatment plan (recited in claim 1), the Office has stated: “i.e., drawing and writing on a piece of paper with a pen historical data of a patient and draw blank boxes or specific check boxes on the paper for modifying a treatment protocol; involves opinion, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 Peg and managing interactions between people, which is grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG”. Therefore, it is clearly shown how such abstract idea is performed in the human mind with pen and paper. With respect to “managing interactions between people”, it is clear that such abstract idea involves interaction between a patient and a clinician. In response to applicant’s arguments that the Office Action strips the functional limitations away from the hardware that performs them and labels the hardware as “additional elements”, the Examiner would like to mention that according to the portion of MPEP cited by applicant regarding Step 2A, prong 1, the analysis requires: “(1) identify the specific claim limitation(s) believed to recite a judicial exception”. A hardware is not an abstract idea, as such it is considered “additional elements”, and therefore, analyzed under Prong 2.
In response to applicant’s arguments stating:
“Thus, for example, the claims require "each of the plurality of sessions specifies using a motor to produce an external force" where "the external force is applied to at least one pedal of the stationary cycling machine." The claims further require an ambulation sensor "configured to track and store a number of steps taken by the patient," with "the treatment plan ... modified in at least one of a frequency, a duration, and an intensity based on an occurrence of a predetermined condition, wherein the predetermined condition comprises a change in the number of steps taken by the patient in a day." And the claims require that "a computer is further configured to generate and modify the treatment protocol such that a type of session period selected to be included in the treatment protocol is based on performance of the patient during another type of session in the treatment protocol." The Office's analysis neglects limitations on any of these claimed physical elements - a motor producing external forces applied to pedals, an ambulation sensor tracking and storing step counts, and a computer automatically generating and modifying treatment protocols - and is thus incomplete. None of these limitations can be reduced to a mental step by stripping the function from the hardware that performs it. This is precisely the type of oversimplified analysis that the Appeals Review Panel cautioned against in Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential): "Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality" that potentially meaningful technical limitations are dismissed without adequate explanation.”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. The Office has not neglected limitations of any of he claimed physical elements, such as a motor producing external forces applied to pedal, an ambulation sensor tracking and storing step count, and a computer automatically generating and modifying treatment protocol. As stated above, a treatment device comprising a stationary cycling machine having at least one pedal (which is configured to be manipulated by the patient while the patient performs the treatment protocol) is a conventional exercise machine. The claims have not provided any specific structural limitations that specifies the stationary cycling machine recited the claim. The same also applies to the motor. The claim does not require the motor to be part of the stationary cycling machine. But even assuming it is, such stationary cycling machines having a motor that provides assistance and resistance, are also conventional. Also note that nothing specific regarding the motor has been claimed. Furthermore, the limitation of “each of the plurality of sessions specifies using a motor to produce an external force”, does not require the treatment device or the motor to receive the treatment plan/protocol with the plurality of sessions from the clinician interface and in response thereto, automatically produce an external force according to a corresponding session. The same also applies with respect to the motor producing external force applied to the pedals. With respect to the ambulation sensor, as shown above, the function of such sensor, to track and store a number of steps taken by the patient, can in fact be performed in the mind (with or without pen and paper). The claim does not require a specific ambulation sensor to be used for tracking and storing a number of steps taken by the patient. As for one or more computer automatically generating and modifying the treatment protocol and/or plan, the claim does not require the computer to automatically generate and modify the treatment protocol and/or plan. Furthermore, as stated above, such function of generating and modifying the treatment protocol and/or plan can be performed in the human mind. The one or more computer is considered an additional element. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer”.
In response to applicant’s arguments stating:
“The Office Action's characterization of the session-period limitations is particularly unsupported. The claims require "an ordered combination of session periods of different types," selected from "a passive period, an assisted period, an active period, and a resistance period," where "the particular activity of each passive period includes moving the body part by the external force," "the particular activity of each assisted period includes moving the body part by the patient with assistance of the external force," "the particular activity of each active period includes the patient moving the body part without assistance of the external force," and "the particular activity of each resistance period includes the patient actively moving the body part against a resistance force." These are physical therapy protocols executed by a machine on a patient's body. No amount of writing on paper or cogitation can move a body part by an external force, assist a patient's leg through a range of motion, or provide graduated resistance against movement.”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. The claim recites “wherein each session within the plurality of sessions comprises an ordered combination of session period of different types, with each of the session periods including a particular activity for treating the body part of the patient”. The claim does not require such ordered combination of session periods of different types to be received from the clinician interface, by the treatment device/motor, and in response thereto the treatment device/motor provide the external force according to each of those session periods. Please note that according to the claim, a clinician can write, on a paper with a pen, a treatment plan with a treatment protocol having a plurality of sessions, each session having a combination of different types of session periods written in a specific order (and hand it to a patient), and then the patient or the clinician can manually set up the treatment device according each session period in the order provided, to provide the required external force for the patient to exercise against. In response to applicant’s statement that these session periods are physical therapy protocols executed by a machine on a patient body, the Examiner would like to mention that the claim, as currently recited, does not require the machine/treatment device to execute these sessions/protocols. Furthermore, the claim does not require the treatment device/machine execute such sessions/protocols automatically in response to receiving them from the clinician interface. It appears from applicant’s arguments that applicant is arguing narrower than claimed.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2A, Prong 2 reciting:
“Even assuming arguendo that the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims as a whole integrate any such idea into a practical application. The claims recite a specific, closed-loop rehabilitation system in which: (1) a motor-driven stationary cycling machine applies variable external forces to pedals across distinct session-period types (passive, assisted, active, resistance), (2) an ambulation sensor tracks daily step counts outside of therapy sessions, and (3) one or more computers automatically modify the treatment plan, in frequency, duration, or intensity, when the patient's step-count data meets or fails to meet a performance benchmark. This is a particular technological implementation that solves a specific problem in the field of orthopedic rehabilitation: conventional systems required clinicians to manually monitor patient activity between sessions and subjectively decide whether to adjust motor-driven treatment parameters. The claimed system eliminates this manual step by integrating ambulatory monitoring data with automatic, reactive protocol modification.”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. Nowhere in the claims, have the applicant recited “a motor-driven stationary cycling machine applies variable external forces to pedals across distinct session period types”. As such, applicant is arguing narrower than claimed. Regarding applicant stating: “The claimed system eliminates this manual step by integrating ambulatory monitoring data with automatic, reactive protocol modification”, no such reactive protocol modification has been recited in the claim. In fact, the claim does not even require the one or more computers communicating with the ambulation sensor and receiving the number of steps taken from the ambulation sensor, and in response therefore, modifying the protocol/plan.
As stated above, the recited 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 (i.e. physical therapy or orthopedic rehabilitation).
In response to applicant’s arguments stating:
“The Office Action dismisses the additional elements, the motor, pedals, ambulation sensor, and computer, as "generically recited computer elements or conventional exercise devices" that "do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field." See Office Action, page 12, 1. 19. But the Examiner evaluates these elements in isolation rather than considering what the claimed combination achieves. The Desjardins Memorandum instructs that, when evaluating a claim as a whole, examiners "should not dismiss additional elements as mere 'generic computer components' without considering whether such elements confer a technological improvement to a technical problem." See USPTO Memorandum dated December 5, 2025, "Advance notice of change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins" (revision to MPEP §2106.05(a)). And as the Federal Circuit has held, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for their specific requirements. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The relevant question is not whether a motor, a sensor, or a computer is individually generic, but whether their specific combination and interaction, a motor-driven cycling machine whose treatment protocols are automatically modified based on ambulatory sensor data evaluated against a performance benchmark, represents an improvement to rehabilitation technology. It does.”,
the Examiner would like to mention that the additional elements (i.e. one or more computers, a stationary cycling machine having at least one pedal, a motor, a display, an ambulation sensor), as recited in the claims, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2B, stating:
“The Office Action also asserts that the specification "does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement" and compares the case to Affinity Labs v. DirecTV. This characterization is inaccurate. Unlike Affinity Labs, where the claims recited only the generic concept of delivering content to a device, the claims here recite a specific configuration of physical therapy hardware, ambulatory sensing, and automatic protocol adaptation that operates as an integrated system. The specification, as discussed above, describes this integrated system in detail. This is a technological solution to a technological problem. See Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding patent eligibility where the particular configuration of sensors and methods of using sensor data eliminated complications inherent in previous solutions). Even under Step 2B, the ordered combination of elements amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The claimed system combines a clinician interface with patient profile and protocol management displays, a motor-driven stationary cycling machine providing passive, assisted, active, and resistance session periods, an ambulation sensor tracking daily step counts, and one or more computers that automatically modify the treatment plan based on whether patient step counts satisfy a performance benchmark. The Office Action contends that these elements are "well understood, routine, and conventional" and cites Versata, OIP Technologies, and TLI Communications for the proposition that generic computer components performing basic functions do not supply an inventive concept. But the Office's analysis incorrectly considers each element individually and concludes that because each component (a computer, a display, a sensor, a motor) is known, the combination cannot provide significantly more. This misapplies the Step 2B inquiry. The question is not whether each element is individually conventional, but whether the ordered combination of elements is conventional. See BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional arrangement of known, conventional elements). Here, the particular ordered combination is non-conventional.”,
the Examiner would like to mention that no specific configuration of a physical therapy hardware or ambulation sensor has been claimed or described in the specification. It is clear from the claims and the specification that the claimed limitations require no improved computer resources (and treatment apparatus and sensors), just already available computers (and treatment apparatus and sensors), with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the various claimed function. Furthermore, applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the one or more computers. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. 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.
Regarding applicant’s assertion: “Even under Step 2B, the ordered combination of elements amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The claimed system combines a clinician interface with patient profile and protocol management displays, a motor-driven stationary cycling machine providing passive, assisted, active, and resistance session periods, an ambulation sensor tracking daily step counts, and one or more computers that automatically modify the treatment plan based on whether patient step counts satisfy a performance benchmark.”, the Examiner would like to further mention that such clinician interface, such motor-driven stationary cycling machine, such ambulation sensor and such one or more computers in a claim, have been recited in a disconnected manner. The claim does not require any of the clinician interface, treatment device, ambulation sensor and one or more computers to be connected to each other or communicate with each other and perform actions based on such communications. The claims as currently presented, basically require one or more computers to generate a treatment plan with a treatment protocol, and modify the plan/protocol based on data obtained by a sensor (such data obtained from the sensor may manually be input to the one or more computers, since the claims do not recite any connection/communication between the sensor and the one or more computers), and a patient uses a stationary bicycle to perform the treatment protocol/plan (whereby the bicycle may be manually set up according to the treatment protocol/plan (including modified treatment protocol/plan), since the claims do not recite any connection/communication between the clinician interface or the one or more computers). Therefore mere recitation of these limitations/elements in a claim, does not amount to significantly more.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 pm.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571)272- 4966. 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.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights