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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 25 February 2026 has been entered.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 3, 9, 11, and 17-22, and the previous cancelation of claims 8 and 16. Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-22 are pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
Examiner Notes: currently, NO limitation invokes interpretation under § 112(f).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 11, 17, and 20 is/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 recites the limitation “wherein reconstructing the digital signal comprises performing independent signal time superimposition and summations for the third layer segments to obtain the speed and the trajectory of the sequence of samples” [lines 1-3, emphasis applied by Examiner], which is considered indefinite, as it is unclear whether the obtained speed and trajectory of the sequence of samples are meant to refer to the same speed and trajectory of the sequence of samples as determined in claim 1 [“determining a set of initial parameters from the digital signal, the initial parameters comprising trajectory, speed, acceleration and direction data for the sequence of samples” (lines 10-11 of claim 1)], as claim 1 notes that at least the trajectory of the sequence of the samples is used in the process of determining the set of output parameters, which are in turn used to obtain the speed and trajectory of the sequence of samples as recited in claim 3 [“segmenting the digital signal into first layer segments based on changes in the direction of the trajectory of the sequence of samples” (lines 12-13 of claim 1); “determining a set of output parameters based on the segmenting and the target points” (lines 20-21 of claim 1)]; or whether the obtained speed and trajectory of the sequence of samples are meant to define a “reconstructed” speed and trajectory of the “reconstructed” sequence of samples, as the Examiner notes that claims 2-3 refer to steps of reconstructing the digital signal comprising the sequence of samples. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted either interpretation to be applicable based on any additional rejections. The Examiner notes that claim 11 is considered to recite similarly indefinite subject matter to claim 3 as indicated above, wherein the indefinite subject matter of claim 11 is interpreted similar to claim 3 as noted above mutatis mutandis.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the set of initial parameters is determined iteratively, as the sequence of samples is received from the sensor” [lines 2-3, emphasis applied by Examiner], which is considered to lack antecedent basis, as the Examiner notes that an “analog signal indicative of the kinematic data” [line 4 of claim 1] is received from the sensor, wherein an additional step of digitizing is performed on the analog signal to generate a “digital signal comprising a sequence of samples” [line 6 of claim 1]. Furthermore, the recited limitation renders claim 17 unclear, as it is unclear whether the iterative determination of the set of initial parameters is meant to be performed as the analog signal is received from the sensor or as the analog signal is digitized to generate the digital signal. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted either interpretation to be applicable based on any additional rejections. The Examiner notes that claim 20 is considered to recite similarly indefinite subject matter to claim 17 as indicated above [wherein the Examiner notes that claim 9 recites wherein the processing unit performs a function of receiving an analog signal (line 10) and separately digitizing the analog signal to generate a digital signal comprising a sequence of samples (lines 11-13)], wherein the indefinite subject matter of claim 20 is interpreted similar to claim 17 as noted above mutatis mutandis.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-15, and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Each claim has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Representative claim(s) 9 [representing all independent claims] recite(s):
A system for assessing a biological movement performed by a subject, the system comprising:
a sensor configured to acquire kinematic data as the biological movement is performed by the subject;
a processing unit; and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program code executable by the processing unit for:
receiving, from the sensor, an analog signal indicative of the kinematic data;
digitizing the analog signal to generate a digital signal representing the biological movement performed by the subject, the digital signal comprising a sequence of samples obtained at a sampling rate of at least 100 Hz; and
processing the sequence of samples in real-time, as the biological movement is performed by the subject, the processing comprising:
determining a set of initial parameters from the digital signal, the initial parameters comprising trajectory, speed, acceleration and direction data for the sequence of samples;
segmenting the digital signal into first layer segments based on changes in the direction of the trajectory of the sequence of samples;
segmenting the first layer segments into second layer segments based on the acceleration data of the sequence of samples;
determining target points of the second layer segments using parameters from the second layer segments;
segmenting the first layer segments into third layer segments based on the changes in the direction of the trajectory or the acceleration data of the sequence of samples;
determining a set of output parameters based on the segmenting and the target points, the set of output parameters comprising timing information and command information that characterize the biological movement, the command information indicative of a brain input command and represented by a distance and angles for the biological movement, and the timing information indicative of a time of occurrence of the brain input command; and
assessing, based on the set of output parameters, a status of a neuromuscular system of the subject to diagnose and treat a neurodegenerative disease in the subject, wherein a deviation of the status of the neuromuscular system of the subject from a norm is indicative of the neurodegenerative disease.
(Emphasis added: abstract idea, additional element)
Step 2A Prong 1
Representative claim(s) 9 recites the following abstract ideas, which may be performed in the mind or by hand with the assistance of pen and paper:
“processing the sequence of samples in real-time, as the biological movement is performed by the subject, the processing comprising: determining a set of initial parameters from the digital signal, the initial parameters comprising trajectory, speed, acceleration and direction data for the sequence of samples” – may be performed by applying known mathematical equations or formulas to already known or previously collected data to calculate at least a limited amount of data under no particular time constraint [see Applicant’s Specification ¶¶0032-0041 regarding equations and formulas used], wherein the Examiner notes that reciting that the processing is performed “in real time, as the biological movement is performed by the subject” merely defines when the determination is performed and is not considered to impart any limitations [time constraints] that may prevent the determination from being performed when the at least limited amount of data is acquired
“segmenting the digital signal into first layer segments based on changes in the direction of the trajectory of the sequence of samples” – may be performed by merely observing already known or previously collected data and drawing conclusions therefrom [Segmenting the trajectory comprises finding the relevant changes of direction over the sequence of samples in the first layer, and the points d1,s where there are relevant changes of direction in the trajectory (Applicant’s Specification ¶0044)]
“segmenting the first layer segments into second layer segments based on the acceleration data of the sequence of samples” – may be performed by merely applying known mathematical equations/formulas/relationships to already known or previously collected data to calculate at least a limited amount of data under no particular time constraint [see Applicant’s Specification ¶¶0046-0048, Figures 4A-C regarding equations/formulas/relationships applied]
“determining target points of the second layer segments using parameters from the second layer segments” – may be performed by applying known mathematical equations or formulas to already known or previously collected data to calculate at least a limited amount of data under no particular time constraint [see Applicant’s Specification ¶¶0049-0051 regarding equations and formulas used]
“segmenting the first layer segments into third layer segments based on the changes in the direction of the trajectory or the acceleration data of the sequence of samples” – may be performed by merely applying known mathematical equations/formulas/relationships to already known or previously collected data to calculate at least a limited amount of data under no particular time constraint [see Applicant’s Specification ¶¶0052-0054 regarding equations/formulas/relationships applied]
“determining a set of output parameters based on the segmenting and the target points, the set of output parameters comprising timing information and command information that characterize the biological movement, the command information indicative of a brain input command and represented by a distance and angles for the biological movement, and the timing information indicative of a time of occurrence of the brain input command” – may be performed by merely applying known mathematical equations/formulas/relationships to already known or previously collected data to calculate at least a limited amount of data under no particular time constraint [see Applicant’s Specification ¶¶0056-0077 regarding equations/formulas/relationships applied], and wherein the additional limitations regarding the command information and the timing information are considered to merely limit any mental conclusions drawn therefrom from the calculated data
“assessing, based on the set of output parameters, a status of a neuromuscular system of the subject to diagnose and treat a neurodegenerative disease in the subject, wherein a deviation of the status of the neuromuscular system of the subject from a norm is indicative of the neurodegenerative disease” – may be performed by merely drawing mental conclusions based on known or derived data or information [Applicant’s Specification ¶0080], wherein the Examiner notes that the recited “to diagnose and treat” is defined by the “assessing… a status…”, such that the recited “to diagnose and treat” is considered to be abstract idea as identified and does not positively recite performing any particular diagnosis or treatment of a neurodegenerative disease of the subject
If a claim, under BRI, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the mere recitation of extra-solutionary activity (and otherwise generic computer elements) then the claim falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1 of the Mayo framework as set forth in the 2019 PEG.
No limitations are provided that would force the complexity of any of the identified evaluation steps to be non-performable by pen-and-paper practice.
Alternatively or additionally, these steps describe the concept of using implicit mathematical formula(s) [i.e., “processing the sequence of samples in real-time, as the biological movement is performed by the subject, the processing comprising: determining a set of initial parameters from the digital signal, the initial parameters comprising trajectory, speed, acceleration and direction data for the sequence of samples”, “segmenting the digital signal into first layer segments based on changes in the direction of the trajectory of the sequence of samples”, “segmenting the first layer segments into second layer segments based on the acceleration data of the sequence of samples”, “determining target points of the second layer segments using parameters from the second layer segments”, “segmenting the first layer segments into third layer segments based on the changes in the direction of the trajectory or the acceleration data of the sequence of samples”, “determining a set of output parameters based on the segmenting and the target points, the set of output parameters comprising timing information and command information that characterize the biological movement, the command information indicative of a brain input command and represented by a distance and angles for the biological movement, and the timing information indicative of a time of occurrence of the brain input command”] to derive a conclusion based on input of data, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts [Diamond v. Diehr. 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981), Parker v. Flook. 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978), and In re Grams. 888 F.2d 835, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1824 (Fed. Cir. 1989)]. The concept of the recited limitations identified as mathematical concepts above is not meaningfully different than those mathematical concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea [e.g. limitations relating to the data gathered or particular steps which are entirely embodied in the mental process] and amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Thus, these concepts are similar to court decisions of abstract ideas of itself: collecting, displaying, and manipulating data [Int. Ventures v. Cap One Financial], collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis [Electric Power Group], collection, storage, and recognition of data [Smart Systems Innovations].
Step 2A Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Representative claim 9 only recites additional elements of extra-solutionary activity – in particular, extra-solution activity [generic computer function, data gathering] – without further sufficient detail that would tie the abstract portions of the claim into a specific practical application (2019 PEG p. 55 – the instant claim, for example does not tie into a particular machine, a sufficiently particular form of data or signal collection – via the claimed extra-solution activity as identified above, or a sufficiently particular form of display or computing architecture/structure).
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 10-15, and 17-22 merely add detail to the abstract portions of the claim but do not otherwise encompass any additional elements which tie the claim(s) into a particular application/integration [the dependent claim(s) recite generic ‘steps’ which encompass mere computer instructions to carry out an otherwise wholly abstract idea].
Accordingly, the claim(s) are not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claims 1 and 9 as individual wholes fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of extra-solutionary activity [i.e., generic computer function, data gathering] and generic computer elements cannot amount to significantly more than an abstract idea [MPEP § 2106.05(f)] and is further considered to merely implement an abstract idea on a generic computer [MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) establishes computer-based elements which are considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional when recited at a high level of generality].
For the independent claim portions and dependent claims which provide additional elements of extra-solutionary data gathering, MPEP § 2106.05(g) establishes that mere data gathering for determining a result does not amount to significantly more. The extra-solutionary activity of processor steps [acquiring, storing signals etc.] as presently recited, cannot provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
For the independent claims as well as the dependent claims merely reciting generic computer elements and functions [processing unit, non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program code, and functions therein, each recited at a high level of generality], MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) establishes computer-based elements which are considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional when recited at a high level of generality.
Accordingly, the processing unit and non-transitory computer-readable medium recited at a high level of generality, as presently limited, cannot provide an inventive concept since they fall under a generic structure and/or function that does not add a meaningful additional feature to the judicial exception(s) of the claim(s).
Claim(s) 1 and 9 recite “a sensor configured to acquire kinematic data as the biological movement is performed by the subject”. Such a sensor is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, as known by at least:
Applicant’s disclosure is not particular regarding the particular structure of the generically claimed sensor, and recites that the sensor may comprise 3d motion sensing input devices or cameras [the sensor(s) 102 acquire data from 3D motion sensing input devices or cameras that track movement, such as KinectTM, Leap MotionTM, and the like (Applicant’s Specification ¶0025); the sensor(s) 102 are one or more microphones, to capture speech-related kinematic data. The microphone converts sound into an electrical signal and may be implemented using any known or other microphone technology, such as a dynamic microphone (also called moving-coil microphone), a condenser microphone (also called capacitor microphone or electrostatic microphone), a piezoelectric microphone, a fiber-optic microphone, a laser microphone, a MEMS (microelectrical-mechanical system) microphone, and the like. In some embodiments, the sensor(s) 102 are one or more touchscreen displays of a device, such as a tablet or other computing device, to capture handwriting-related kinematic data (Applicant’s Specification ¶0026); Any technology suitable for measuring proper acceleration, by converting mechanical motion into an electrical signal, may be used. For example, the accelerometer may comprise piezoelectric, piezoresistive and/or capacitive components (Applicant’s Specification ¶0027)]. 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 medical technology arts. Thus, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the field of assessing biological movement. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional element because it describes such an additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is 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, Page 3, (III)(A)(1), not attached]. Adding hardware that performs “well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible [TLI Communications].
Claim(s) 1 and 9 recite “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program code executable by the processing unit for:… digitizing the analog signal to generate a digital signal representing the biological movement performed by the subject”. Such processing circuitry/electronics is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, as known by at least:
Applicant’s disclosure is not particular regarding the particular structure of the generically claimed processing unit capable of performing the claimed function of digitizing the analog signal to generate a digital signal, and recites the processing unit and corresponding functionality at a high level of generality [In some embodiments, the signal received from sensor(s) 102 is an analog signal and the signal is digitized by the data acquisition unit 106. In some embodiments, a digitized signal is received directly at the data acquisition unit 106 (Applicant’s Specification ¶0031)]. 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 medical technology arts. Thus, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the field of signal processing. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional element because it describes such an additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is 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, Page 3, (III)(A)(1), not attached]. Adding hardware that performs “well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible [TLI Communications].
Paris (US-20140188010-A1) [it is contemplated that the processing circuitry 50 can comprise an analog-to-digital converter 54 as is conventionally known in the art. In this aspect, it is contemplated that the analog-to-digital converter 54 can be operatively coupled to and positioned between the plurality of accelerometers 30 and at least one of a memory 64 and a wireless transmitter 56. It is further contemplated that the analog-to-digital converter 54 can be configured to receive the outputs of the plurality of accelerometers 30 and convert the outputs into a digital signal configured for further processing by the processing circuitry (Paris ¶0056)]
Examiner’s Note Regarding Particular Treatment or Prophylaxis: Claim(s) 1 and 9 recite subject matter regarding “assessing, based on the set of output parameters, a status of a neuromuscular system of the subject to diagnose and treat a neurodegenerative disease in the subject, wherein a deviation of the status of the neuromuscular system of the subject from a norm is indicative of the neurodegenerative disease”, which the Examiner notes is not considered to be a particular treatment or prophylaxis, as none of the identified claims positively recite or include language that is considered to be a particular treatment or prophylaxis as an additional element to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or allow the identified claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception [MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)], as the cited portion defines the “to diagnose and treat” portion as “assessing… a status”, which is not considered to define any particular type of treatment.
Accordingly, the claim(s) as whole(s) fail amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Examiner’s Note Regarding Prior Art
The closest prior art of record is Wagner (US-20160262685-A1, previously presented) [see p. 13-14 of Non-Final Rejection dated 19 May 2025 regarding subject matter considered to be taught by Wagner not presently reproduced], which is not considered to teach, suggest, or disclose the limitations regarding segmenting the first layer segments into second layer segments based on the acceleration data of the sequence of samples; determining target points of the second layer segments using parameters from the second layer segments; segmenting the first layer segments into third layer segments based on the changes in the direction of the trajectory or the acceleration data of the sequence of samples; determining a set of output parameters based on the segmenting and the target points, the set of output parameters comprising timing information and command information that characterize the biological movement, the command information indicative of a brain input command and represented by a distance and angles for the biological movement, and the timing information indicative of a time of occurrence of the brain input command; and assessing, based on the set of output parameters, a status of a neuromuscular system of the subject to diagnose and treat a neurodegenerative disease in the subject, wherein a deviation of the status of the neuromuscular system of the subject from a norm is indicative of the neurodegenerative disease. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Wagner to incorporate or employ the limitations not taught by Wagner without the benefit of hindsight. As such, the subject matter of claim 1 [and claim 9 due to similarly recited subject matter] is not considered to be taught by any prior art reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 6, filed 25 February 2026, with respect to the previously presented claim objection(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 1 and 9 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 6-7, with respect to the previously applied rejection(s) under § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 3, 11, 18, and 21 under § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 7-9, filed 25 February 2026, [as well as Applicant’s Remarks p. 7-10, filed 11 August 2025, as referenced by the Applicant in the Remarks filed 25 February 2026] with respect to the previously applied rejection(s) under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant asserts that independent claims 1 and 9 do not fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since one or more claim limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind or by hand with the assistance of pen and paper, wherein the Applicant cites the limitations of “acquiring, using a sensor, kinematic data as the biological movement is performed by the subject”, “receiving, from the sensor, an analog signal indicative of the kinematic data”, “digitizing the analog signal to generate a signal representing the biological movement performed by the subject”, and “processing the sequence of samples in real-time, as the biological movement is performed by the subject”. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that in the § 101 analysis, Step 2A Prong 1 “asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim” [MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)], not whether the entire claim falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, in the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis, it is noted that claim [representative of all independent claims] does recite limitations that are directed towards abstract ideas [see “processing…”, “determining…”, “segmenting…”, and “assessing…” limitations as analyzed above], wherein the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s cited limitation of “processing the sequence of samples in real-time, as the biological movement is performed by the subject” is considered to recite an abstract idea that may be performed in the mind or by hand by applying known mathematical equations or formulas to already known or previously collected data to calculate at least a limited amount of data under no particular time constraint [see Applicant’s Specification ¶¶0032-0041 regarding equations and formulas used], wherein the Examiner notes that reciting that the processing is performed “in real time, as the biological movement is performed by the subject” merely defines when the determination is performed and is not considered to impart any limitations [time constraints] that may prevent the determination from being performed when the at least limited amount of data is acquired. Furthermore, the limitations of “acquiring, using a sensor, kinematic data as the biological movement is performed by the subject”, “receiving, from the sensor, an analog signal indicative of the kinematic data”, and “digitizing the analog signal to generate a signal representing the biological movement performed by the subject” are acknowledged as not reciting an abstract idea and instead identified as reciting additional elements that are analyzed at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, wherein it is noted that the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea(s) as a practical application at Step 2A Prong 2 and fail to allow claim 9 [representative of all independent claims] to amount to significantly more as a whole at Step 2B.
The Applicant further asserts that the amended feature “the digital signal comprising a sequence of samples obtained at a sampling rate of at least 100 Hz” restricts the claim limitations from being performed in the mind or by hand, as the human mind is not equipped (whether assisted with pen and paper or not) to digitize an analog signal and generate a digital signal comprising a sequence of samples obtained at a sampling rate of at least 100 Hz. However, while the Examiner does not specifically disagree with the Applicant’s assertion that the argued limitation cannot be performed in the mind or by hand, the Examiner notes that the argued limitation is considered to recite an additional element that is further analyzed at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, wherein the Examiner notes that the functionality of the processing unit to digitize an analog signal is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional at Step 2B, such that the argued limitation fails to allow the claim(s) as individual wholes to amount to significantly more. The Applicant also asserts that the amended feature “processing the sequence of samples in real-time, as the biological movement is performed by the subject” imparts time constraints that prevent the processing steps from being performed when a limited amount of data is acquired. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that the language directed towards the processing being performed in real-time merely defines when the processing is performed and is not considered to impart any time constraints that may prevent when the processing is being performed, as the processing may begin to be performed for at least a limited amount of data in the mind or by hand [see Step 2A Prong 1 analysis above] when the subject begins performing the biological movement.
The Applicant asserts that as per Step 2A Prong 2, the claimed subject matter improves technology related to biological movement analysis, as previously detailed in the response to the Office Action dated May 19, 2025. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument for the same reasons as set forth in the Final Rejection dated 27 October 2025, which is responsive to the Applicant’s response filed 11 August 2025. However, for the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner has further analyzed the Applicant’s arguments in light of the August 4, 2025 memo entitled “Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101” and December 5, 2025, memo entitled “Advance notice of change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins”. In light of the August 4, 2025 memo, the Examiner has analyzed claims 9 [and 1 due to similar subject matter, however for the sake of brevity, claim 9 is analyzed and is considered to be representative of claim 1 as well] at Step 2A Prong 1 to determine whether the claim sets forth or describes an abstract idea, wherein the Examiner notes that claim 9 is considered to recite several limitations [see “processing…”, “determining…”, “segmenting…”, and “assessing…” limitations as analyzed above], wherein the Examiner notes that the recited abstract ideas may be performed in the mind or by hand with the assistance of pen and paper and alternatively or additionally, describe the concept of using implicit mathematical formula(s) to derive a conclusion based on input of data. Next, at Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements identified [“a sensor configured to acquire kinematic data as the biological movement is performed by the subject”, “a processing unit”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program code executable by the processing unit for: receiving, from the sensor, an analog signal indicative of the kinematic data”, “digitizing the analog signal to generate a digital signal representing the biological movement performed by the subject, the digital signal comprising a sequence of samples obtained at a sampling rate of at least 100 Hz”] are analyzed to assess whether the additional elements use or interact with the recited exception to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, wherein the Examiner notes that the identified additional elements in light of the judicial exception fail to interact and impact each other in such a way to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, as the claim fails to reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field, as the alleged improvement of improving the assessment of neuromotor function by allowing “recovery of information that cannot be seen in the velocity profile using other approaches” [Applicant’s Specification ¶0080] and reflects the technical improvement of details relating to the segmentation and determination of output parameters is considered to be recited within limitations identified as being directed towards abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer [an improvement in the abstract idea itself… is not an improvement in technology (MPEP § 2106.05(a)); Specifically, the “improvements” analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)]; and the additional elements fail to amount to more than a recitation of “apply it” (or equivalent) or mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer merely as a tool to perform the limitations directed towards steps that may be performed in the mind or by hand with the assistance of pen and paper and using implicit mathematical formula(s) to derive a conclusion based on input of data. Finally, at Step 2B, the Examiner notes the recitation of a processing unit and non-transitory computer-readable medium and corresponding functionality therein at a high level of generality and wherein a sensor as claimed are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, such that the claim as a whole fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Moreover, in light of the December 5, 2025 memo, the Examiner notes that revised MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) recites “In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field… Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but only in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine that the claim improves technology or a technical field. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology or a technical field, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement… See, e.g., Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), in which the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about 2 previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. Indeed, enumerated improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system. Such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation.” As such, the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s arguments related to the Applicant’s noted improvements [improving the assessment of neuromotor function by allowing “recovery of information that cannot be seen in the velocity profile using other approaches” (Applicant’s Specification ¶0080) and reflects the technical improvement of details relating to the segmentation and determination of output parameters] are not considered to be directed towards the functioning of a computer or technology and are considered conclusory, as the Applicant fails to provide necessary details as to how the alleged improvement improves the functioning of a computer or technology.
The Applicant further asserts that the claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, wherein the Applicant notes that the amended limitation “assessing, based on the set of output parameters, a status of a neuromuscular system of the subject to diagnose and treat a neurodegenerative disease in the subject, wherein a deviation of the status of the neuromuscular system of the subject from a norm is indicative of the neurodegenerative disease” is considered to include language that affirmatively recites or includes an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that the claim language as presented defines the diagnosis/treatment as the assessed status [“assessing, based on the set of output parameters, a status of a neuromuscular system of the subject to diagnose and treat a neurodegenerative disease in the subject” (see emphasis applied)], such that the argued limitation fails to positively recite any particular treatment or prophylaxis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3791