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 ("RCE") was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on May 15, 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a Final Office Action dated December 17, 2024 (“Final Office Action”). Following the Final Office Action, Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal on March 18, 2025, and an Appeal Brief on May 8, 2025, after which an Examiner’s Answer was mailed on June 6, 2025. After Applicant filed a Reply Brief on July 23, 2025, the Board issued a Decision on March 16, 2026 (“Decision”) affirming the rejection of all rejections under 35 USC 101 and 103. Applicant then filed the RCE along with an amendment on May 15, 2026 (“the Amendment”), amending claim 1, 7, and 15.
The present non-final Office Action addresses pending claims 1-20 in the Amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §101
Starting on page 6 of the Amendment, Applicant takes the position that the newly added limitation "based on the treatment plan, control operation of a motor of the exercise device to move a pedal to a different location on a pedal arm and to enable a desired range of motion" is not mentally performable and takes the claims out of being considered "abstract idea." While the Examiner agrees that such limitation is not mentally performable, the Examiner disagrees that such limitation takes the claims out of being considered an "abstract idea."
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). MPEP 2106.05(III).
Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. See SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019). MPEP 2106.05(III)(A).
However, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). MPEP 2106.05(III)(C).
In the present case, the independent claims recite a mental process because a healthcare professional (e.g., medical coder) could practically in their mind with pen and paper determine “device-based coding information” by associating information generated by an exercise device (e.g., indicative of actions performed by or with the exercise device) with corresponding medical codes (e.g., ICD codes, CPT codes, etc.) and process/generate a claim for a service based on the device-based coding information. These recitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQe2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Furthermore, the Board agreed with the Examiner's characterization of the present claims as including limitations that recite an abstract idea. See bottom of page 7 of the Decision.
Regarding Applicant's assertion that automated exercise equipment claims including elements related to automatically controlling physical portions of exercise equipment are not directed to abstract ideas per PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc., No. 24-1177 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 11, 2025), page 11, the Examiner disagrees. In PowerBlock, the Federal Circuit noted that claim "[passed] muster at Alice step one" because it was "sufficiently focused on a specific mechanical improvement to [the abstract idea of] selectorized dumbbell weight stacking." See page 10 of PowerBlock. In contrast, the newly added limitation "based on the treatment plan, control operation of a motor of the exercise device to move a pedal to a different location on a pedal arm and to enable a desired range of motion" does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea and because it is merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Specifically, this additional limitation has no effect on the abstract idea of determining device-based medical coding information by associating the actions performed by or with the exercise device with corresponding medical codes and just limits use of the abstract idea to use of device-based medical information generated by an exercise device that has adjustable pedals as opposed to any and all exercise devices (e.g., similar to how the abstract idea was limited to use with cellular telephones in Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 828 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and how the abstract idea was limited to use with the electric grid in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
At the bottom of page 6 to the top of page 7 of the Amendment, Applicant next asserts that the newly added limitation "based on the treatment plan, control operation of a motor of the exercise device to move a pedal to a different location on a pedal arm and to enable a desired range of motion" provides a "practical application" of the abstract idea because it amounts to "applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine" (MPEP 2106.05(b)). The Examiner disagrees because while such "machine" may be recited in a "particular" manner per MPEP 2106.05(b)(I), it does not implement the abstract idea steps of causing the clinic server to determine device-based medical coding information by associating the actions performed by or with the exercise device with corresponding medical codes per MPEP 2106.05(b)(II) and is merely "field of use" per MPEP 2106.05(b)(III) because it does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea and because it is merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Specifically, this additional limitation has no effect on the abstract idea of determining device-based medical coding information by associating the actions performed by or with the exercise device with corresponding medical codes and just limits use of the abstract idea to use of device-based medical information generated by an exercise device that has adjustable pedals as opposed to any and all exercise devices (e.g., similar to how the abstract idea was limited to use with cellular telephones in Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 828 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and how the abstract idea was limited to use with the electric grid in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
On page 7 of the Amendment, Applicant next argues that the newly added limitation "based on the treatment plan, control operation of a motor of the exercise device to move a pedal to a different location on a pedal arm and to enable a desired range of motion" takes the claims out of being considered "certain methods of organizing human activity" because they are allegedly not analogous to any of the examples listed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). However, the Board has asserted that using health information to determine medical coding information as called for in the present claims is a fundamental economic practice failing in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. See page 7 of the Decision. Furthermore, the "control operation" limitation does not provide a "practical application" of or "significantly more" than the abstract idea(s) because it does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea and because it is merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Specifically, this additional limitation has no effect on the abstract idea of determining device-based medical coding information by associating the actions performed by or with the exercise device with corresponding medical codes and just limits use of the abstract idea to use of device-based medical information generated by an exercise device that has adjustable pedals as opposed to any and all exercise devices (e.g., similar to how the abstract idea was limited to use with cellular telephones in Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 828 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and how the abstract idea was limited to use with the electric grid in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
On page 8 of the Amendment, Applicant submits that the mere possibility that any one limitation can be performed as a mental step is insufficient to establish that a claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, Applicant argues that various features of claim 1 do not recite a mental process because they are not recited at "a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind" per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). However, the Board agreed with the Examiner's characterization of the present claims as including limitations that recite an abstract idea. See bottom of page 7 of the Decision.
Applicant next appears to assert that the newly added limitation "based on the treatment plan, control operation of a motor of the exercise device to move a pedal to a different location on a pedal arm and to enable a desired range of motion" improves an existing technological process because it requires complex processing and therefore imposes meaningful limits on the claim. However, not only has Applicant not explained the technological improvement provided by the "control operation" limitation, but there is no requirement that such limitation "requires complex processing" and the limitation in any case amounts to merely limiting use of the abstract idea(s) to a particular "field of use" under MPEP 2106.05(h) which thus does not provide a "practical application" of the abstract idea(s) as discussed herein.
Applicant next asserts that the limitations of these claims amount to significantly more than any abstract idea because the recited structural elements are required to execute the limitations of the claims and are therefore inseparable from these limitations. It appears Applicant is asserting that "structural" limitations can never be separated from "abstract idea" limitations. The Examiner disagrees because the subject-matter eligibility analysis set forth in the MPEP is necessarily a severing of limitations reciting the judicial exception from the “additional limitations.” For instance, MPEP 2106.07(a)(I) states “[a] subject matter eligibility rejection should point to the specific claim limitation(s) that recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) the judicial exception…[and] must explain why those claim limitations set forth or describe a judicial exception” while MPEP 2106.07(a)(II) states “[a]fter identifying the judicial exception in the rejection, identify any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and explain why they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not add significantly more to the exception. The Examiner has identified the limitations reciting the abstract idea and those reciting the “additional limitations” just as required by the MPEP. Therefore, the mere inclusion of "structural elements" does not automatically amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea(s).
The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by the Amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 1, "clinic" should be changed to --the clinic--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more:
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-14 are directed to system (i.e., a machine) and claims 15-20 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories. 35 USC §101.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented system for processing medical claims, comprising:
an exercise device configured to be manipulated by a user while the user performs a treatment plan;
a patient interface associated with the exercise device, the patient interface comprising an output configured to present telemedicine information associated with a telemedicine session; and
a processor of the exercise device configured to:
based on the treatment plan, control operation of a motor of the exercise device to move a pedal to a different location on a pedal arm and to enable a desired range of motion;
generate, while the exercise device is manipulated by the user, device-generated information, wherein the device-generated information generated by the processor of the exercise device is indicative of actions performed by or with the exercise device;
during the telemedicine session, transmit the device-generated information to a clinic server;
cause the clinic server to determine, by associating the actions performed by or with the exercise device with corresponding medical codes, device-based medical coding information; and
cause the clinic server to transmit the device-based medical coding information to a claim adjudication server.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “a mental process” because they are observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a healthcare professional (e.g., medical coder) could practically in their mind with pen and paper determine “device-based coding information” by associating information generated by an exercise device (e.g., indicative of actions performed by or with the exercise device) with corresponding medical codes (e.g., ICD codes, CPT codes, etc.) and process/generate a claim for a service based on the device-based coding information. These recitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQe2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 3, 6, 9, 13, and 17 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below:
-Claims 3, 9, and 17 call for determining device-based medical result information using the device-generated information which just further defines the “mental processes” discussed above.
-Claims 6 and 13 call for determining a “match indicator” using reviewed coding information and the device-based coding information which just further defines the “mental processes” discussed above.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A computer-implemented system for (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) processing medical claims, comprising:
an exercise device configured to be manipulated by a user while the user performs a treatment plan (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
a patient interface associated with the exercise device, the patient interface comprising an output configured to present telemedicine information associated with a telemedicine session (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
a processor of the exercise device configured to (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
based on the treatment plan, control operation of a motor of the exercise device to move a pedal to a different location on a pedal arm and to enable a desired range of motion (mere field of use limitation as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(h);
generate, while the exercise device is manipulated by the user, device-generated information, wherein the device-generated information generated by the processor of the exercise device is indicative of actions performed by or with the exercise device (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
during the telemedicine session, transmit the device-generated information to a clinic server (extra-solution activity (transmitting data) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
cause the clinic server to (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) determine, by associating the actions performed by or with the exercise device with corresponding medical codes, device-based medical coding information; and
cause the clinic server (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) to transmit the device-based medical coding information to a claim adjudication server (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the computer-implemented system, the exercise device, patient interface and output, processor, and servers, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of based on the treatment plan, controlling operation of a motor of the exercise device to move a pedal to a different location on a pedal arm and to enable a desired range of motion, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea and because it is merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Specifically, this additional limitation has no effect on the abstract idea of determining device-based medical coding information by associating the actions performed by or with the exercise device with corresponding medical codes and just limits use of the abstract idea to use of device-based medical information generated by an exercise device that has adjustable pedals as opposed to any and all exercise devices (e.g., similar to how the abstract idea was limited to use with cellular telephones in Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 828 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and how the abstract idea was limited to use with the electric grid in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Regarding the additional limitation of generating, while the exercise device is manipulated by the user, device-generated information indicative of actions performed by or with the exercise device, the Examiner submits that this additional limitations merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity because all uses of the abstract idea (mental process) of determining device-based medical coding information by associating the actions performed by or with the exercise device (device-generated information) with corresponding medical codes would require an exercise device to generate device-generated information indicative of actions performed by or with the exercise device while the device is being manipulated by a user (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)(3)).
Regarding the additional limitation of transmitting the device-generated and device-based coding information, the Examiner submits that these additional limitations merely add insignificant extra-solution activity (transmitting data) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 7 and 15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 7 and 15 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 2, 8, and 16: These claims recite how the device-generated information is generated by the exercise device which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claims 4-6, 10-12, 14, and 18-20: These claims recite transmitting and receiving various types of information and therefore merely represent insignificant extra-solution activity (receiving/transmitting data) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
When the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the computer-implemented system, the exercise device, patient interface and output, processor, and servers, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of based on the treatment plan, controlling operation of a motor of the exercise device to move a pedal to a different location on a pedal arm and to enable a desired range of motion, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea and because it is merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Specifically, this additional limitation has no effect on the abstract idea of determining device-based medical coding information by associating the actions performed by or with the exercise device with corresponding medical codes and just limits use of the abstract idea to use of device-based medical information generated by an exercise device that has adjustable pedals as opposed to any and all exercise devices (e.g., similar to how the abstract idea was limited to use with cellular telephones in Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 828 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and how the abstract idea was limited to use with the electric grid in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Regarding the additional limitations directed to generating, while the exercise device is manipulated by the user, device-generated information indicative of actions performed by or with the exercise device which the Examiner submits merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as evidenced by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0072652 to Alessandri et al. ([0005] in “Background” section”). MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(C); 2106.05(d)(I)(2)(d).
Regarding the additional limitations directed to transmitting the device-generated and device-based coding information which the Examiner submits merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 2, 8, and 16: These claims recite how the device-generated information is generated by the exercise device which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claims 4-6, 10-12, 14, and 18-20: These claims recite transmitting and receiving various types of information and therefore merely represent insignificant extra-solution activity (receiving/transmitting data) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0335951 to Eder (“Eder”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0376327 to Bissonnette et al. (“Bissonnette”), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0345025 to van der Merwe ("van der Merwe"), and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0282228 to Einav et al. (“Einav”):
Regarding claim 1, Eder discloses a computer-implemented system (Figure 1) for processing medical claims ([0022], [0054], and [0062] discuss how insurance companies can use information generated by the system where insurance companies are known to process medical claims), comprising:
an exercise device configured to be manipulated by a user (exercise apparatus 104 in [0028]-[0029] and Figure 1 (not labeled in Figure 1)) while the user performs a treatment plan ([0054] and [0073] disclose how the user of the exercise apparatus follows treatment protocols);
a patient interface associated with the an exercise device, the patient interface comprising an output configured to present … information associated with a … session ([0038] discloses how a visual display can convey information to the user such as user information, exercise instructional information, exercise status information, etc.; also, user interface 208 in Figure 2A can visually present exercise instruction information and feedback regarding use of the exercise apparatus per [0043]-[0044]); and
a processor of the exercise device configured to (processor 130 in Figure 1):
…
generate, while the exercise device is manipulated by the user, device-generated information, wherein the device-generated information generated by the processor of the exercise device is indicative of actions performed by or with the exercise device ([0018], [0025], and [0037] note how the exercise apparatus can generate/record/sense various types of exercise data including exercise, movements, repetitions, timings, etc. (actions performed by/with the apparatus/device));
during the … session, transmit the device-generated information to a clinic server ([0018], [0025], and [0037], note how the exercise apparatus provides the generated/recorded/sensed exercise data to fitness tracking computer system 102 (clinic server) which can be in real-time (during a session) per the end of [0046]);
cause the clinic server to determine, … , device-based … information ([0054] discloses how the fitness tracking computer system (clinic server) can process data from the exercise apparatus based on various metrics such as device/exercise/insurance data which would result in “device-based information”); and
cause the clinic server to transmit the device-based …information to a claim adjudication server (claims 13-14 and [0054] disclose how the fitness tracking computer system (clinic server) can send a report of the analytics (the device-based information) to an insurance entity, where the insurance entity would include a “claim adjudication server” to process/adjudicate the received reports because that is what insurance entities do).
However, Eder appears to be silent regarding the patient interface presenting telemedicine information associated with a telemedicine session.
Nevertheless, Bissonnette teaches ([0173], [0175], [0176], and Figure 28) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art for a control console 2178 of an exercise machine 2100 to provide exercise-related information to a user during a telemedicine session (such that the information provided during the telemedicine session is “telemedicine information”) to advantageously allow a medical professional to monitor the user in real-time during the exercising and provide feedback for improving patient results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the patient interface of Eder to have presented telemedicine information associated with a telemedicine session as taught by Bissonnette to advantageously allow a medical professional to monitor the user in real-time during the exercising and provide feedback for improving patient results. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id. Accordingly, the device-generated information transmitted to the clinic server of Eder is transmitted during the telemedicine session per the combination with Bissonnette.
Furthermore, the Eder/Bissonnette combination appears to be silent regarding based on the treatment plan, control operation of a motor of the exercise device to move a pedal to a different location on a pedal arm and to enable a desired range of motion.
Nevertheless, van der Merwe teaches ([0078]) that it was known in the treatment planning and exercise device art to automatically adjust a pedal stroke length/moment arm (move pedal to a different location on the pedal arm) on an exercise device as required for specialized training or rehabilitation programs (based on a "treatment plan" which would enable some "desired range of motion" based on the adjusted pedal location). As the pedal adjustment is automated per [0078], the device necessarily includes a motor to implement such adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the exercise device processor of the Eder/Bissonnette combination to control operation of a motor of the exercise device (which can be a bicycle per [0052] and Figure 6 of Eder similar to in van der Merwe) to move a pedal to a different location on a pedal arm and enable a desired range of motion based on the treatment plan as taught by van der Merwe to advantageously and automatically guide the user based on the treatment plan to achieve improved results. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Furthermore, the Eder/Bissonnette/van der Merwe combination appears to be silent regarding the device-based information specifically being device-based medical coding information that is determined by associating the actions performed by or with the exercise device with corresponding medical codes.
Nevertheless, Einav teaches (Figure 1, [0354], [0409]-[0411] and claim 20) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art for a controller of a rehabilitation system to determine codes such as CPT codes (“device-based coding information”) based on exercises performed by a user using an exercise device 102 (associating actions performed by/with the exercise device with the CPT/medical codes). Stated differently, as the controller keeps track of patient exercise progress per [0082], then the controller determines the patient has completed particular exercises (and thus determines the device-based coding information) based on device-generated information regarding such exercise progress by associating the actions performed by/with the exercise device with corresponding medical/CPT codes. This arrangement advantageously facilitates generation of bills for processing by insurance companies and the like ([0409], [0461]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the device-generated information to determine device-based coding information by associating the actions performed by or with the exercise device with corresponding medical codes in the system of the Eder/Bissonnette/van der Merwe combination as taught by Einav to advantageously facilitate generation of bills for processing by insurance companies and the like. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 2, the Eder/Bissonnette/van der Merwe/Einav combination discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, further including wherein, during the telemedicine session, the device-generated information is generated by the exercise device ([0018] of Eder notes how the exercise apparatus records data while the apparatus is operated (during an exercise session), which is part of a telemedicine session per the above combination with Bissonnette; again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the patient interface of Eder to have presented telemedicine information associated with a telemedicine session as taught by Bissonnette to advantageously allow a medical professional to monitor the user in real-time during the exercising and provide feedback for improving patient results. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.).
Regarding claim 3, the Eder/Bissonnette/van der Merwe/Einav combination discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, further including wherein, using the device-generated information, the processor is further configured to determine device-based medical result information ([0037]-[0038] of Eder discloses how the exercise apparatus can obtain various data (e.g., repetition data, set data, travel distance, timing, etc., the “device-generated information”) and then display exercise status summary, set count, etc. (device-based medical result information) which the processor would determine based on the device-generated information).
Regarding claim 4, the Eder/Bissonnette/van der Merwe/Einav combination discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 3, further including wherein the processor is further configured to cause the clinic server to transmit the device-based medical result information to a patient notes database ([0039] of Eder discloses how machine data from the exercise apparatus (which includes exercise status summary, repetition count, etc. of [0038] (the device-based medical result information)) is provided to the fitness tracking computer system (clinic server) and [0018], [0054], [0060], [0070] of Eder disclose how the fitness tracking computer system stores the exercise data (which would be in database(s) 116 of Figure 1 and [0031]); the fitness tracking computer system is caused to transmit the exercise data/result information to the database in response to the exercise data/result information being provided to the fitness tracking computer system).
Regarding claim 5, the Eder/Bissonnette/van der Merwe/Einav combination discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, further including wherein the processor is further configured to cause the clinic server to transmit the device-based medical coding information to an electronic medical records database ([0054] of Eder discloses how the fitness tracking computer system (clinic server) can process exercise data from the exercise apparatus based on various metrics such as device/exercise/insurance data which would result in “device-based information” (i.e., device-based medical coding information per the combination with Einav discussed above) and store the data (which would be in database(s) 116 of Figure 1 and [0031]), the fitness tracking computer system is caused to transmit the device-based medical coding information to the database in response to the exercise data being provided to the fitness tracking computer system).
Regarding claim 7, Eder discloses a system (Figure 1) for processing medical claims ([0022], [0054], and [0062] discuss how insurance companies can use information generated by the system where insurance companies are known to process medical claims), comprising:
a processor, of an exercise device, configured to (processors 110, 130 of exercise apparatus in Figure 1):
…
generate, while the exercise device is manipulated by a while the user performs a treatment plan, device-generated information, wherein the device-generated information generated by the processor of the exercise device is indicative of actions performed by or with the exercise device ([0018], [0025], and [0037] note how the exercise apparatus can generate/record/sense various types of exercise data including exercise, movements, repetitions, timings, etc. (actions performed by/with the apparatus/device); [0054] and [0073] disclose how the user of the exercise apparatus follows treatment protocols));
during a … session, transmit, from the exercise device, the device-generated information to a clinic server ([0018], [0025], and [0037] note how the exercise apparatus can generate/record/sense various types of exercise data and provide it to fitness tracking computer system 102 (clinic server) which can be in real-time (during a session) per the end of [0046]);
cause the clinic server to determine, …, device-based … information ([0054] discloses how the fitness tracking computer system (clinic server) can process data from the exercise apparatus based on various metrics such as device/exercise/insurance data which would result in “device-based information”); and
cause the clinic server to transmit the device-based …information to a claim adjudication server (claims 13-14 and [0054] disclose how the fitness tracking computer system (clinic server) can send a report of the analytics (the device-based information) to an insurance entity, where the insurance entity would include a “claim adjudication server” to process/adjudicate the received reports because that is what insurance entities do).
However, Eder appears to be silent regarding based on the treatment plan, control operation of a motor of the exercise device to move a pedal to a different location on a pedal arm and to enable a desired range of motion.
Nevertheless, van der Merwe teaches ([0078]) that it was known in the treatment planning and exercise device art to automatically adjust a pedal stroke length/moment arm (move pedal to a different location on the pedal arm) on an exercise device as required for specialized training or rehabilitation programs (based on a "treatment plan" which would enable some "desired range of motion" based on the adjusted pedal location). As the pedal adjustment is automated per [0078], the device necessarily includes a motor to implement such adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the exercise device processor of Eder to control operation of a motor of the exercise device (which can be a bicycle per [0052] and Figure 6 of Eder similar to in van der Merwe) to move a pedal to a different location on a pedal arm and enable a desired range of motion based on the treatment plan as taught by van der Merwe to advantageously and automatically guide the user based on the treatment plan to achieve improved results. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Furthermore, the Eder/van der Merwe combination appears to be silent regarding the session specifically being a telemedicine session.
Nevertheless, Bissonnette teaches ([0173]-[0176], and Figure 28) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art for a control console 2178 (“clinic server”) to receive exercise data from sensors of an exercise machine 2100 during a telemedicine session to advantageously allow a medical professional to monitor the user in real-time during the exercising and provide feedback for improving patient results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the transmitted the device-generated information from the exercise device to the clinic server in the system of the Eder/van der Merwe combination during a telemedicine session as taught by Bissonnette to advantageously allow a medical professional to monitor the user in real-time during the exercising and provide feedback for improving patient results. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Furthermore, the Eder/van der Merwe/Bissonnette combination appears to be silent regarding the device-based information specifically being device-based medical coding information that is determined by associating the actions performed by or with the exercise device with corresponding medical codes.
Nevertheless, Einav teaches (Figure 1, [0354], [0409]-[0411] and claim 20) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art for a controller of a rehabilitation system to determine codes such as CPT codes (“device-based coding information”) based on exercises performed by a user using an exercise device 102 (associating actions performed by/with the exercise device with the CPT/medical codes). Stated differently, as the controller keeps track of patient exercise progress per [0082], then the controller determines the patient has completed particular exercises (and thus determines the device-based coding information) based on device-generated information regarding such exercise progress by associating the actions performed by/with the exercise device with corresponding medical/CPT codes. This arrangement advantageously facilitates generation of bills for processing by insurance companies and the like ([0409], [0461]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the device-generated information to determine device-based coding information by associating the actions performed by or with the exercise device with corresponding medical codes in the system of the Eder/van der Merwe/Bissonnette combination as taught by Einav to advantageously facilitate generation of bills for processing by insurance companies and the like. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 8, the Eder/van der Merwe/Bissonnette/Einav combination discloses the system of claim 7, further including wherein the device-generated information is generated by the exercise device ([0018] of Eder notes how the exercise apparatus records data while the apparatus is operated).
Regarding claim 9, the Eder/van der Merwe/Bissonnette/Einav combination discloses the system of claim 7, further including wherein, using the device-generated information, the clinic server determines device-based medical result information ([0054] of Eder discusses how the fitness tracking computing system (clinic server) can process the exercise data received from the exercise apparatus and generate time and aggregation data (device-based medical result information) to facilitate tracking patient adherence to treatment regimens and treatment regimen effectiveness).
Regarding claim 10, the Eder/van der Merwe/Bissonnette/Einav combination discloses the system of claim 9, further including wherein the clinic server transmits the device-based medical result information to a patient notes database ([0018], [0054], [0070] of Eder disclose how the fitness tracking computer system stores the aggregated/processed data (which would be in database(s) 116 of Figure 1 and [0031])).
Regarding claim 11, the Eder/van der Merwe/Bissonnette/Einav combination discloses the system of claim 7, further including wherein the clinic server transmits the device-based medical coding information to an electronic medical records database ([0054] of Eder discloses how the fitness tracking computer system (clinic server) can process exercise data from the exercise apparatus based on various metrics such as device/exercise/insurance data which would result in “device-based information” (i.e., device-based medical coding information per the combination with Einav discussed above) and store the data (which would be in database(s) 116 of Figure 1 and [0031]),
Claims 15-19 are rejected in view of the Eder/van der Merwe/Bissonnette/Einav combination as respectively discussed above in relation to claims 7-11.
Claims 6, 12-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0335951 to Eder (“Eder”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0376327 to Bissonnette et al. (“Bissonnette”), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0345025 to van der Merwe ("van der Merwe"), and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0282228 to Einav et al. (“Einav”), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0235884 to Harmon et al. (“Harmon”):
Regarding claim 6, the Eder/Bissonnette/van der Merwe/Einav combination discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, and further discloses transmitting device-based medical coding information to the claim adjudication server (claims 13-14 and [0054] of Eder disclose how the fitness tracking computer system (clinic server) can send a report of the analytics (the device-based information, which is device-based medical coding information per the combination with Einav) to an insurance entity, where the insurance entity would include a “claim adjudication server” to process/adjudicate the received reports because that is what insurance entities do.
However, the Eder/Bissonnette/van der Merwe/Einav combination appears to be silent regarding the clinic server
receiving reviewed medical coding information from an electronic records database, wherein, using the reviewed coding information and the device-based coding information, the clinic server determines a match indicator, and transmits the match indicator to the claim adjudication server.
Nevertheless, Harmon teaches ([0021]-[0023]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art to calculate a probability that certain medical codes apply to a patient based on previous medical codes already logged in the patient registry record (“reviewed coding information from an electronic records database”) and to output a notification (transmit a “match indicator”) when the probability exceeds a threshold. This arrangement advantageously identifies possibly missed medical codes and increases the accuracy of generated bills thereby increasing the likelihood of full compensation for provided services ([0001]-[0003] and [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the clinic server to receive reviewed coding information from an electronic records database, wherein, using the reviewed coding information and the device-based coding information, the clinic server determines a match indicator, and transmits the match indicator to the claim adjudication server in the system of the Eder/Bissonnette/van der Merwe/Einav combination as taught by Harmon to advantageously identify possibly missed medical codes and increase the accuracy of generated bills thereby increasing the likelihood of full compensation for provided services. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claims 12-14 and 20 are rejected in view of the Eder/Bissonnette/van der Merwe/Einav/Harmon combination as discussed above in relation to claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights