DETAILED ACTION
The present office action represents a nonfinal action on the merits.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 18, 2026 has been entered.
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 .
Priority
This application claims the priority date of provisional application 62/910,232 of October 3, 2019, provisional application 63/066,488 of August 17, 2020, continuation in part of 17/021,895 of September 15, 2020, continuation application 17/150,938 of January 15, 2021, provisional application 63/194,772 of May 28, 2021, and continuation in part of 17/739,906 of May 9, 2022.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 19-20 are amended and claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 disclose based on the treatment plan, control, via the artificial intelligence engine, operation of at least one pedal of the electromechanical machine that is used by the second user to perform the treatment plan. In the Specification paragraph [0060], the treatment apparatus may be an electromechanical machine including one or more weights, an electromechanical bicycle, an electromechanical spin-wheel, a smart-mirror, a treadmill, or the like is described. There is no written description provided of how a smart-mirror, a treadmill contains at least one pedal. By virtue of their dependence from Claim 1, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent Claims 2-18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-18 are drawn to a method for mathematical modelling for prediction of occupational task readiness and enhancement of incentives for rehabilitation into occupational task readiness, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., process). Claim 19 is drawn to a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine). Claim 20 is drawn to a system for mathematical modelling for prediction of occupational task readiness and enhancement of incentives for rehabilitation into occupational task readiness, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine)
Claims 1-18 recite a method comprising:
receiving first data pertaining to a first user using an electromechanical machine to perform a treatment plan, wherein the first data comprises at least one attribute of the first user and at least one attribute of an occupational task associated with the first user;
receiving second data pertaining to a second user, wherein the second data comprises at least one attribute of the second user and at least one attribute of an occupational task associated with the second user;
determining whether the at least one attribute of the second user matches with the at least one attribute of the first user, and whether the at least one attribute of the occupational task associated with the second user matches with the at least one attribute of the occupational task associated with the first user;
responsive to determining that the at least one attribute of the second user matches with the at least one attribute of the first user and that the at least one attribute of the occupational task associated with the second user matches with the at least one attribute of the occupational task associated with the first user, predicting, via an artificial intelligence engine, an estimate of when the second user performing the treatment plan would be capable of performing the occupational task associated with the second user;
based on the estimate associated with the treatment plan, determining, via the artificial intelligence engine, one or more incentives associated with a likelihood of the user adhering to the treatment plan;
transmitting, to a computing device associated with the second user, the one or more incentives to be presented on a user interface of the computing device; and
based on the treatment plan, control, via the artificial intelligence engine, operation of at least one pedal of the electromechanical machine that is used by the second user to perform the treatment plan.
Claim 19 recites tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processing device to:
receive first data pertaining to a first user using an electromechanical machine to perform a treatment plan, wherein the first data comprises at least one attribute of the first user and at least one attribute of an occupational task associated with the first user;
receive second data pertaining to a second user, wherein the second data comprises at least one attribute of the second user and at least one attribute of an occupational task associated with the second user;
determine whether the at least one attribute of the second user matches with the at least one attribute of the first user, and whether the at least one attribute of the occupational task associated with the second user matches with the at least one attribute of the occupational task associated with the first user;
responsive to determining that the at least one attribute of the second user matches with the at least one attribute of the first user and the that at least one attribute of the occupational task associated with the second user matches with the at least one attribute of the occupational task associated with the first user, predict, via an artificial intelligence engine, an estimate of when the second user performing the treatment plan would be capable of performing the occupational task associated with the second user;
based on the estimate associated with the treatment plan, determine, via the artificial intelligence engine, one or more incentives associated with a likelihood of the user adhering to the treatment plan; and
based on the treatment plan, control, via the artificial intelligence engine one or more control instructions, operation of at least one pedal of the electromechanical machine that is used by the second user to perform the treatment plan.
Claim 20 recites a system comprising:
a memory device storing instructions;
a processing device communicatively coupled to the memory device, the processing device executes the instructions to:
receive first data pertaining to a first user using an electromechanical machine to perform a treatment plan, wherein the first data comprises at least one attribute of the first user and at least one attribute of an occupational task associated with the first user;
receive second data pertaining to a second user, wherein the second data comprises at least one attribute of the second user and at least one attribute of an occupational task associated with the second user;
determine whether the at least one attribute of the second user matches with the at least one attribute of the first user, and whether the at least one attribute of the occupational task associated with the second user matches with the at least one attribute of the occupational task associated with the first user;
responsive to determining that the at least one attribute of the second user matches with the at least one attribute of the first user and that the at least one attribute of the occupational task associated with the second user matches with the at least one attribute of the occupational task associated with the first user, predict, via an artificial intelligence engine, an estimate of when the second user performing the treatment plan would be capable of performing the occupational task associated with the second user;
based on the estimate associated with the treatment plan, determine, via the artificial intelligence engine, one or more incentives associated with a likelihood of the user adhering to the treatment plan;
transmit, to a computing device associated with the second user, the one or more incentives to be presented on a user interface of the computing device; and
based on the treatment plan, control, via the artificial intelligence engine, operation of at least one pedal of the electromechanical machine that is used by the second user to perform the treatment plan.
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., obtaining patient information; managing patient information, in this case mathematical modeling for prediction of occupational task readiness and enhancement of incentives for rehabilitation into occupational task readiness). The underlined limitations are not part of the identified abstract idea (the method of organizing human activity) and are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent claims 2-18 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea (or contain the same additional elements found in the independent claim), and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 19, and 20.
The dependent claims recite additional limitations, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 19, and 20.
The additional elements from claims 1, 19, and 20 include:
control, via the artificial intelligence engine, operation of at least one pedal of the electromechanical machine that is used by the second user to perform the treatment plan (apply it, MPEP 2106.05(f); generally linking, MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional elements from claims 1, 19, and 20 include:
artificial intelligence engine (apply it, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
a user interface (apply it, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
a computing device (apply it, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
one or more control instructions (apply it, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
electromechanical machine
The additional elements from claim 19 include:
tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processing device to (apply it, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements from claim 20 include:
a system (apply it, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
a memory device storing instructions (apply it, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
a processing device communicatively coupled to the memory device, the processing device executes the instructions to (apply it, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claims include the following additional elements beyond those recited in the independent claims:
during a telemedicine session (generally linking, MPEP 2106.05(h)).
These additional elements, in the independent claims are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e., the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of “control, via the artificial intelligence engine, operation of at least one pedal of the electromechanical machine that is used by the second user to perform the treatment plan”, “an artificial intelligence engine”, “tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processing device to”, “a system”, “a memory device storing instructions”, “a processing device communicatively coupled to the memory device, the processing device executes the instructions to”, and “a computing device”, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea e.g., see Specification Paragraphs [0035], [0037], [0044]-[0045], [0115]-[0116], [0142], [0150], and [0222] (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Generally linking - during a telemedicine session and control, via the artificial intelligence engine, operation of at least one pedal of the electromechanical machine that is used by the second user to perform the treatment plan (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification discloses that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature (i.e., the Specification Paragraphs [0035], [0037], [0044]-[0045], [0115]-[0116], [0142], [0150], and [0222] discloses that the additional elements (i.e., control, via the artificial intelligence engine, operation of at least one pedal of the electromechanical machine that is used by the second user to perform the treatment plan, the one or more control instructions, operation of the physical portion of the electromechanical machine that is used by the second user to perform the treatment plan, an artificial intelligence engine, tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processing device to, a system, a memory device storing instructions, a processing device communicatively coupled to the memory device, the processing device executes the instructions to, and a computing device) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions that are well understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e., healthcare, mathematical modeling for prediction of occupational task readiness and enhancement of incentives for rehabilitation into occupational task readiness);
Relevant court decisions: The following example of court decision demonstrating well understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving patient physical therapy data, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives user’s information and task results.
Dependent claims 2-18 include other limitations, but none of these functions are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The application, is an attempt to organize human activity and mathematical concepts, using systems and methods for remote medical assistance. The inventive concept is mathematical modeling for prediction of occupational task readiness and enhancement of incentives for rehabilitation into occupational task readiness, which is not patentable. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Free from Prior Art
Examiner acknowledges the limitations in claims 1, 19, and 20:
receiving first data pertaining to a first user using an electromechanical machine to perform a treatment plan, wherein the first data comprises at least one attribute of the first user and at least one attribute of an occupational task associated with the first user;
receiving second data pertaining to a second user, wherein the second data comprises at least one attribute of the second user and at least one attribute of an occupational task associated with the second user;
determining whether the at least one attribute of the second user matches with the at least one attribute of the first user, and whether the at least one attribute of the occupational task associated with the second user matches with the at least one attribute of the occupational task associated with the first user;
responsive to determining that the at least one attribute of the second user matches with the at least one attribute of the first user and that the at least one attribute of the occupational task associated with the second user matches with the at least one attribute of the occupational task associated with the first user, predicting, via an artificial intelligence engine, an estimate of when the second user performing the treatment plan would be capable of performing the occupational task associated with the second user;
based on the estimate associated with the treatment plan, determining, via the artificial intelligence engine, one or more incentives associated with a likelihood of the user adhering to the treatment plan;
transmitting, to a computing device associated with the second user, the one or more incentives to be presented on a user interface of the computing device;
based on the treatment plan, control, via the artificial intelligence engine, operation of at least one pedal of the electromechanical machine that is used by the second user to perform the treatment plan.
are free from prior art when considered in combination with the other limitations, and are not subject to any prior art rejections under 103. The closest prior art is:
Mallon (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0259648 A1) (Paragraphs [0016], [0037]-[0038], [0120], and FIG. 2A discuss a movement monitoring and management system receive subject sensor data related to certain activities, exercises or movements performed by the subject, the sensor data can include GPS sensors, physiologic sensors, strength sensors, motion sensors, etc. placed on the subject based on exercises and movements performed from a tailored treatment plan; and whether any equipment, weights, etc., were set up correctly.).
Mallon (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0259648 A1) (Paragraphs [0032] and [0036]-[0038] discuss the system receives sensor data from many patients’ experiences and the algorithms can detect proper performance of a prescribed treatment plan but also the effectiveness of the treatment, i.e., whether the patient is progressing, regressing, straining too hard, unable to perform certain exercises, or whether the exercises are too easy or are not producing the intended results, etc. for the patient or group of patients.).
Mallon (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0259648 A1) (Paragraphs [0113]-[0114], [0123]-[0124] discuss the system can compare the patients’ data and capacity and limit information with data for a population of individuals for which similar data has been acquired and this can allow the server to determine baseline capabilities and to develop an individualized treatment plan; the custom treatment plan can, for example, include modification to a standard treatment plan, e.g., based on the patient's or individual's data and based on the comparison to others within the similar population; algorithms can be trained to predict future results, problems, progression, whether the patient is ready to advance to another level, etc.).
Mallon (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0259648 A1) (Paragraph [0121]-[0123] discuss the algorithms can also be configured to determine whether the patient or individual is adhering to his or her treatment plan, whether the patient or individual is ready to advance to a new level, whether the treatment plan needs to be modified and adjusted, or even whether some kind of alarm condition such as over-exertion exists while the patient or individual is performing the activities, exercises or movements.).
Mallon (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0259648 A1) in view of Fomin (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0129808 A1), Brust (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0329933 A1), Levital (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0253241 A1), and Barragan Gomez (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0179210 A1) (Paragraphs [0028]-[0029] discuss control and regulate the pedals.)
It would not be obvious to combine all of the references, accordingly, the 103 rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 18, 2026 have been fully considered.
Claim Objections:
Examiner withdraws the claim objections in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
With respect to claim 1 and the Prong 1 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant’s amendment fails to overcome the previous rejection. Claim 1 as amended recites an abstract idea, a method of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. Applicant states, “the claims are analogous to the claims in PowerBlock Holdings. In last year's Federal Circuit decision, PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc., No. 24-1177 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 11, 2025), automated exercise equipment claims including elements related to automatically controlling physical portions of exercise equipment are not directed to abstract ideas.” (Remarks, pages 10-11). Examiner respectfully disagrees. PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. is distinguishable from the present application because it contained specificity and structure to satisfy 101. Further, claim 1 is high level and there is no indication as to what type of control is occurring and there is no specificity related to the structure and control of the pedal as it relates to the electromechanical machine. Here, controlling the pedal of the electromechanical machine does not appear to have any nexus to the recited abstract idea as the treatment plan relates to incentives and not the functioning of the electromechanical machine. Applicant should consider incorporating the pedal mechanism to the treatment plan to detail what type of control is happening, recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, and how is the pedal part of the treatment plan. See Specification Paragraph [0091] and 2106.05(f)(1). It is not enough to claim a solution without disclosing how to complete it. The improvement is to the abstract idea, mathematical modeling for prediction of occupational task readiness and enhancement of incentives for rehabilitation into occupational task readiness.
While practical application is a way to overcome the Prong 2 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, claim 1 as written fails to result in a practical application. Applicant states, “the revised USPTO guidance for step 2A, prong two, indicates that limitations that are indicative of a practical application of an abstract idea include "applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine." MPEP 2106.05(b) describes that the particular machine needs to have a specific structure (e.g., Eibel's Fourdrinier machine), which the recited pedal of the electromechanical machine does have, and that the particular machine not be a generic computer.” (Remarks, page 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation controlling operation of at least one pedal without more does not detail whether the control changes the pedal as it relates to the treatment plan – for example, is there an increase or decrease in resistance or speed based on sensor information and analysis of the treatment plan, etc. Here, controlling operation of at least one pedal of the electromechanical machine does not have any nexus to the treatment plan, there is no indication of what is being transmitted based on the treatment plan, and there are no details how the control is actually changing the pedal pursuant to the treatment plan. Here, the application is organizing human activity or mathematical concepts, directed to the abstract idea of organizing patient readiness information, specifically, mathematical modeling for prediction of occupational task readiness and enhancement of incentives for rehabilitation into occupational task readiness. Claim 1 should relate to electromechanical machines that have a pedal. The additional elements in claim 1 include an artificial intelligence engine, a computing device, and a user interface, however, they do not result in a practical application as they are recited at an apply it level, as stated above.
Applicant states, “regarding MPEP 2106.05(f), the component of the physical portion of the exercise machine claimed and described in the specification is significantly more because it "plays a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed." (Versata)… the relevant claim limitations in these examples at best recite steps or instructions that are intended to be simply relayed to and subsequently performed by a human.” (Remarks, pages 11-12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, controlling operation of at least one pedal of the electromechanical machine does not have any nexus to the treatment plan. It is unclear how the limitations improve an existing technological process. All components in the claims are being used for their intended purpose and as written do not result in a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. For the reasons stated above, claim similarly fails to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant’s arguments with regard to 103 are moot because the 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWN TRINAH HAYNES whose telephone number is (571)270-5994. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:15PM.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached on (571)272-8109. 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.
/DAWN T. HAYNES/
Art Unit 3686
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686