DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The application #17/856,204 is a continuation of #17/330,951 filed 5/26/2021. A further continuation of 14/881,499 priority filing of 9/10/2015 is found based on provisional 62/216,487.
Claims 21-25, 27-37,39 and 40. are pending and under examination in this office action.
Double Patenting
Claims 21-25, 27-37,39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of Patent #11030918, dated 6/8/2021 (Application No. 14/881,499). This is a double patenting rejection since the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patent ably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g. In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528,163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP§ 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(l) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.isp.
Claims 21-25, 27-37,39 and 40 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11/030,918. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is anticipated by the Conflicting patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter of patient operable 3D graphics for telemedicine sessions. Body movement’s conformation been compared to ideal body movement.
Claims 1-20 of the parent U.S. Patent No. US 11/030,918 have the subject matter anticipated by the instant child case. The cases are claiming common subject matter of patient operable 3D graphics for telemedicine sessions. The parent is a narrower one operated by a medical profession and client devices run by patients. Body movement’s conformation and non-conformation with respect to thresholds have been compared with ideal body movement. The first and second sensor data for angular motion corrections in telemedicine sessions has been recited.
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 21-25, 27-37,39 and 40 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. The claimed invention is to a sensor device system (1-14, 21, 22), program and method (15-20) and thus fall within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Claims 21, 28, 35 are directed to the abstract idea of client data communication
measuring a position of the portion of the body during a movement performed by the portion of the body; and data comprising the position of the portion of the body during the movement performed from gyroscopic inputs, generates a three-dimensional reconstruction of the body and of the movement performed; determines whether the movement conforms to a predefined movement; in response to the movement conforming to the predefined movement, identifies a suggested change in the movement that conforms to the predefined movement or ideal body movement. The claims element requires the steps of “reading instructions”, “body movement comparing to predefined movement” and “ suggesting of conformation”. They include steps all drawn to concept belong to categorized mental process that a trainer/user would perform in their mind or by using pen and paper to collect, determine data to be displayed but enumerated to be an observation, evaluation, judgement. Again the claims element requires computing device to “establish session”, “access sensor data” indicating change of data by including mathematical calculations for positions to conform predefined movement”. They are certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mathematical concepts amounting to abstract idea (Step 2A Prong1:Yes) .
The claims recite additional elements, including claims recited by additional
elements, including a plurality of sensor devices in data communication with a bands secured to portion of the body, the client device comprising at least one hardware processor, circuitry that measures a position of the portion of the body to which sensor band is secured during a movement performed by the portion of the body; and application module for three-dimensional reconstruction of the movement performed for viewing in a display. None of the aforementioned hardware or software functionalities offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, simple implementation of idea via conventional sensors and computers with plurality of sensors like multiple accelerometer, gyroscopes or magnetometer with respective threshold measurements. The additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the abstract idea identified above, as they are recited in a generic manner. Further they do not result in any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (Step 2A Prong2: No).
Applicant in paragraph 0002-0006 of specification indicated that the sensor circuits for movement determination are generally well known in art. Therefore use of generic personal computers, server computer systems, use of hand-held or laptop devices by sensor input, multiprocessor systems, programmable consumer electronics, network PCs for storing, analyzing and retrieval of routine sessions already known activities in art. For example in art US 20070146484 A1 (Horton et al.), the camera sensors and video recording comparing of riding style (Para 0007,0011, 0019 a conventional method of video recording and camera posture comparison for learning movements ) between rides has been identified as a known phenomenon of equestrian sport in presenting sequence of monitored views and hence of reconstruction of body positions are a well- understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (Step 2B: No).
The dependent claims 22-25,27, 29-34, 36-37,39 40 of the instant case, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims include operation and description involving movement detection, comparison, evaluation and opinion enumerated to be a grouping of abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong1 YES). Use of sensor products and utilization of server & networking devices, generic computer types, predefined sensor arrangements, cloud computing etc.do not indicate an integration of practical application (Step 2A: Prong2 No). The machine use is known and common in use such as so it does not enough to qualify as significantly more. (Step 2B: No).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-25, 27-37,39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 20140147820 A1 Snow et al. (Snow) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number US 20140199672 A1 to Davidson.
Claim 21. Snow teaches a system for telemedicine (Para 0043 physical therapist), comprising:
at least one computing device comprising a processor and a memory ; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor (Fig.1A Para 0008), cause the at least one computing device to at least:
establish a telemedicine session with a remote computing device (Para 0043,0079 remote patients);
access sensor data measured by at least one sensor device attached to a body of a patient (Para 0014 patient body based sensors);
cause a determination of whether a movement performed by the body of the patient conforms to an ideal body movement based at least in part on the sensor data (Fig.6 elements 713, 715 iteration to conform frames ); and
provide an indication of whether the movement conforms to the ideal body movement ( Para 0084 compared to ideal or generic standard movements).
Snow teaches at least one portion of a body of a patient but does not directly teach the at least one sensor device comprising a plurality of gyroscope sensors that measure angular velocities about three axes, and a microcontroller that uses the angular velocities as input to generate angular positions over time for the three axes relative to the at least one sensor device;
Davidson, however, teaches the one sensor device comprising a plurality of gyroscope sensors ( Para 0055 gyroscope) that measure angular velocities about three axes (Para 0066 trainee movement models could contain angular velocities), and a microcontroller that uses the angular velocities as input to generate angular positions over time for the three axes relative to the at least one sensor device (¶0056 bending, extending or rotating angle movement of the arm) cause a determination of whether a movement performed by the body of the patient conforms to an ideal body movement based at least in part on the angular positions over time for the three axes relative to the at least one sensor device indicated in the sensor data compared with predefined angular positions over time indicated by data defining the ideal body movement (Para 0043, 0049 conforms by comparison of body movements including positions and orientation of trainee)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to incorporate one sensor device comprising a plurality of gyroscope sensors ( Para 0055 gyroscope) that measure angular velocities about three axes (Para 0066 trainee movement models could contain angular velocities), and a microcontroller that uses the angular velocities as input to generate angular positions over time for the three axes relative to the at least one sensor device cause a determination of whether a movement performed by the body of the patient conforms to an ideal body movement based at least in part on the angular positions over time for the three axes relative to the at least one sensor device indicated in the sensor data compared with predefined angular positions over time indicated by data defining the ideal body movement, as taught by Davidson, into the system of Snow, in order to provide quick position closeness determination over time.
Snow in combination to Davidson render, in a display, a graphical representation of the at least one portion of the body of the patient based at least in part on the angular positions over time; render, in the display, a graphical representation of the ideal body movement based at least in part on the predefined angular positions over time; and provide an indication of whether the movement conforms to the ideal body movement (Para 0084-0085 comparisons to ideal or generic standard/ideal movements to include graphical representation of the ideal body movement and angular positions based at least in part on the predefined angular positions over time and provide an indication of movement conforms to the ideal body movement in response to an identification of whether at least one of the angular positions at a particular time for the patient exceeds a predefined threshold from at least one of the predefined angular positions at the particular time for the ideal movement ).
Snow in combination teaches the causing of at least one computing device to at least to provide an indication of a suggested change in the movement that conforms to the ideal body movement (Fig.3A element 312 goal data for an ideal body movement; Para 0005, 0006 0041 comparisons and real-time feedback, normalized for varying body sizes with various apparatus; , but the goal is still an "ideal" or "generic" standard with suggested changes; Para 0084 tracking to ideal or generic standard movement).
Claim 22. Snow teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the at least one computing device is operated by the patient, and the remote computing device is operated by a remotely-located provider (Para 0041 remote physical patient).
Claim 23. Snow teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the at least one computing device is operated by a remotely-located provider, and the remote computing device is operated by the patient (Para 0043 patients get remote help operators).
Claim 24. Snow teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the at least one computing device to at least: provide an indication of the movement performed by the body of the patient to the remote computing device ( ).
Claim 25. Snow teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the machine-readable instructions causing the at least one computing device to access the sensor data further cause the at least one computing device to at least receive the sensor data from the remote computing device or a cloud computing environment (Fig.2A cloud computing for sensor data).
Claim 27. Snow teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the at least one sensor device is attached to the body of the patient based at least in part on a predefined arrangement stored in the memory of the at least one computing device (Davidson: Fig.1).
Claim 28. Snow teaches a method for telemedicine (Para 0043), comprising: establishing, by at least one computing device, a telemedicine session with a remote computing device; electronically receiving , by at least one computing device, sensor data measured by at least one sensor device attached to a body of a patient, the at least one sensor device comprising a plurality of gyroscope sensors that measure angular velocities, and a microcontroller that uses the angular velocities as input to generate angular positions for the at least one sensor device; causing, by at least one computing device, a determination of whether a movement performed by the body of the patient conforms to an ideal body movement based at least in part on the angular positions indicated in the sensor data compared with predefined angular positions indicated by data defining the ideal body movement;. (Para 0014 patient body based sensors; causing, by at least one computing device, a determination angular movement performed by the body of the patient conforms to an ideal body movement based at least in part on the sensor data ; Fig.6 elements 713, 715 iteration to conform frames; Para 0084 compare and conforms to ideal or generic standard movements).
Snow in combination teaches the causing of at least one computing device to at least to provide an indication of a suggested change in the movement that conforms to the ideal body movement (Fig.3A element 312 goal data for an ideal body movement; Para 0005, 0006 0041 comparisons and real-time feedback, normalized for varying body sizes with various apparatus; , but the goal is still an "ideal" or "generic" standard with suggested changes; Para 0084 tracking to ideal or generic standard movement).
Claim 29. Snow teaches the method of claim 28, wherein the at least one computing device is operated by the patient, and the remote computing device is operated by a remotely-located provider (Para 0041 remote physical patient).
Claim 30. Snow teaches the method of claim 28, wherein the at least one computing device is operated by a remotely located provider, and the remote computing device is operated by the patient (Para 0043 patients get remote help operators ).
Claim 31. Snow teaches the method of claim 28, further comprising: providing, by the at least one computing device, based at least in part on the angular positions of the at least one sensor device. (Para 0014 patient body based sensors providing indication of whether the angular movement conforms to the ideal body movement to the remote computing device; Para 0084 compare and conforms to ideal or generic standard movements).
Claim 32. Snow teaches the method of claim 28, wherein accessing the sensor data further comprises receiving, by the at least one computing device, the sensor data from the remote computing device or a cloud computing environment (Fig.2A cloud computing for sensor data).
Claim 33. Snow teaches the method of claim 28, further comprising providing, by the at least one computing device, an indication of a suggested change in the movement that conforms to the ideal body movement (Para 0041 suggested changes by way of compliance tracking).
Claim 34. Snow teaches the method of claim 28, wherein the at least one sensor device is attached to the body of the patient based at least in part on a predefined arrangement.
Claim 35. Snow teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium embodying program instructions stored in a memory of at least one computing device, which, when executed by a processor of the at least one computing device (Fig.1A Para 0008), cause the at least one computing device to at least: establish a telemedicine session with a remote computing device( Para 0043); access sensor data measured by at least one sensor device attached to a body of a patient (Para 0014 patient body based sensors); cause a determination of whether a movement performed by the body of the patient conforms to an ideal body movement based at least in part on the sensor data (Fig.6 elements 713, 715 iteration to conform frames); and provide an indication of whether the movement conforms to the ideal body movement ( Para 0084 compared to ideal or generic standard movements).
Snow teaches at least one portion of a body of a patient but does not directly teach the at least one sensor device comprising a plurality of gyroscope sensors that measure angular velocities about three axes, and a microcontroller that uses the angular velocities as input to generate angular positions over time for the three axes relative to the at least one sensor device;
Davidson, however, teaches the one sensor device comprising a plurality of gyroscope sensors ( Para 0055 gyroscope) that measure angular velocities about three axes (Para 0066 trainee movement models could contain angular velocities), and a microcontroller that uses the angular velocities as input to generate angular positions over time for the three axes relative to the at least one sensor device (¶0056 bending, extending or rotating angle movement of the arm) cause a determination of whether a movement performed by the body of the patient conforms to an ideal body movement based at least in part on the angular positions over time for the three axes relative to the at least one sensor device indicated in the sensor data compared with predefined angular positions over time indicated by data defining the ideal body movement (Para 0043, 0049 conforms by comparison of body movements including positions and orientation of trainee)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to incorporate one sensor device comprising a plurality of gyroscope sensors ( Para 0055 gyroscope) that measure angular velocities about three axes (Para 0066 trainee movement models could contain angular velocities), and a microcontroller that uses the angular velocities as input to generate angular positions over time for the three axes relative to the at least one sensor device cause a determination of whether a movement performed by the body of the patient conforms to an ideal body movement based at least in part on the angular positions over time for the three axes relative to the at least one sensor device indicated in the sensor data compared with predefined angular positions over time indicated by data defining the ideal body movement, as taught by Davidson, into the system of Snow, in order to provide quick position closeness determination over time.
Snow in combination teaches the causing of at least one computing device to at least to provide an indication of a suggested change in the movement that conforms to the ideal body movement (Fig.3A element 312 goal data for an ideal body movement; Para 0005, 0006 0041 comparisons and real-time feedback, normalized for varying body sizes with various apparatus; , but the goal is still an "ideal" or "generic" standard with suggested changes; Para 0084 tracking to ideal or generic standard movement).
Claim 36. Snow teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 35, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the at least one computing device to at least: provide an indication of the movement performed by the body of the patient to the remote computing device; and provide the indication of whether the movement conforms to the ideal body movement to the remote computing device (Fig. 6; Para 0041 patient body movements) .
Claim 37. Snow teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 35, wherein the program instructions causing the at least one computing device to access the sensor data further cause the at least one computing device to at least receive the sensor data from the remote computing device or a cloud computing environment (Fig.2A cloud computing for sensor data).
Claim 39. Snow teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 35, wherein the at least one sensor device comprises: a hardware processor; a band to secure the at least one sensor device to a portion of the body of the patient (Para 0014 patient body based band sensors; Para 0008, 0014 depth and movement sensor could include one sensor as accelerometer or a gyroscope)..
Claim 40. Snow teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 35, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the at least one computing device to at least generate a suggested change in the movement based at least in part on a comparison of the movement and the ideal body movement (Para 0041 suggested changes by way of compliance tracking).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments/amendments filed on 11/24/2025 have been considered.
Double patenting rejections of claims 21-25,27-37, 39 and 40 are still hold in abeyance since no terminal disclaimer found.
Upon further consideration, no new ground(s) of rejection provided.
35USC101
Applicant on pages 8-10 of argument remarks 11/24/25 asserted that claims represent a significant technological advancement over conventional camera-based movement analysis systems since previous technological applications have analyzed movement using digital image processing and computer vision and are limited in capability requiring a camera, and is not ideal in detecting the accuracy of body movement. For example, it is difficult to identify small movements in various joints, such as the knee as-Filed Specification, paragraph [0020].
Examiner respectfully traverses and indicate that the positioning of sensors that are equivalent to cameras to track and monitor movements are well-known, routine and commonly known technology in art such as use of gyroscope(s) sensors 115 to and a microcontroller environment 124 measure angular velocities about three axes as input to generate in Figure1 of instant specification (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a)”, (emphasis added). This general combination of gyroscopic sensors and microcontroller processing use could provide better accuracy in detecting small joint movements over simple camera-based systems achievements but could not be considered a “Specific Technical Implementation” that Goes Beyond Generic Computer Use.
Applicant further asserted that claims further recite "cause a determination of whether a movement performed by the body of the patient conforms to an ideal body movement based at least in part on the angular positions over time for the three axes relative to the at least one sensor device indicated in the sensor data compared with predefined angular positions over time indicated by data defining the ideal body movement" as recited by claim 21 is an automated conformance determination using specific angular position data represents a concrete technological solution, not merely organizing human activities or mental processes. Examiner respectfully traverses and indicates that though the Claims include Meaningful Limitations but is not “Beyond Generic Implementation” of sensor data utilization for movement data comparisons using computers.
Applicant also indicated that the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception since the claims as a whole are directed to a specific technological solution for telemedicine that provides concrete improvements over prior art camera-based systems through the use of gyroscopic sensors, microcontroller processing, and automated movement analysis with real- time feedback generation. Also included is specific technical processing steps rendering a display, a graphical representation of the ideal body movement based at least in part on the predefined angular positions over time .
The Examiner characterization of the additional elements is that of merely generic computer use. No improvement on the” functioning of the computer itself’ or “any other technology or technical field” found. The generic capture devices extract images and videos indicative of patient activities to analyze and determine how it mathematically compared to standard movements for a specified event. A record or report could be generated by known software evaluative steps to categorize a patient movements. The court in a similar recent case, Recentive, 692 F. Supp. 3d at 451 found that the asserted claims were “directed to the abstract ideas of producing network maps and event schedules, respectively, but by using known generic mathematical techniques.” It also found that because the machine learning limitations were no more than “broad, functionally described, well-known techniques” they could generally be claimed “only generic and conventional computing devices,” as of the instance case.
35USC103
Applicant on pages 11-13 of argument remarks 11/24/25 asserted the prior art the combination of Snow et al. and Davidson is not providing an indication of a suggested change in the movement that conforms to the ideal body movement" as recited in claims 21, 28, and 35. Applicant continues that the examiner's citations to Snow do not support the rejection. The Examiner's citation to Snow's "suggested changes by way of compliance tracking" refers only to tracking compliance with assigned exercises, not to generating specific corrective movement suggestions.
The Examiner finds that prior art Snow et al. teaches the telemedicine system elements (Para 0043) and respectfully traverses the arguments. The combination of Snow and Davidson is directed to obvious subject matter of providing suggested changes to correct non-conforming movements. While Snow teaches providing results to the patient in real- time and storing of data aggregation and analysis, it is continuously matching and comparing movement to ideal and customized by providing feedback when needed (Fig.6 elements 705, 707, 711 Paragraphs 0020,0068, 0079-0085 patient data comparisons to won personalized standards; 0052, 0054 matching frames);.
Applicant has picked citation for "goal data" in office action rejection statement to be asserting that the reference Snow's "goal data window can show the desired number of repetitions and the desired speed for the exercise" and "shows the number of repetitions accomplished and other relevant data such as the current exercise speed." Snow et al., paragraph [0045, 0054] without that has nothing to do with providing an indication of a suggested change in the movement that conforms to the ideal body movement as recited in the claims. Examiner would like to traverse and point out that the reference as a whole ( as in figure 3A) relates to change in the movement comparing to some ideal movement and a person with ordinary skills in art would be able to determine those expected appropriate conclusion easily.
Applicant’s other argument on details of changes to correct non-conforming movements as in references for trainee movement paths correspond to, or otherwise fall within an acceptable or predetermined range relating to, the trainer movement paths of trainer model do not in commensuration of independent claim recitations. 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is maintained.
Following traversals/Remark are retained as a summarized from prior comments so
as to address apriority varied interpretations. This is also answering proactively
some of the new questions that may arise because of current arguments:
Previous Examiner Response/comments:
Applicant's arguments/amendments filed on 3/25/2024 have been considered while double patenting rejections of claims 21-25,27-37, 39 and 40 are hold in abeyance
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as necessitated by amendments changing the scope of the claims.
If the examiner’s answer cites a different portion of an applied reference which goes no farther than, and merely elaborates upon, what is taught in the previously cited portion of that reference, then the rejection does not constitute a new ground of rejection.
35USC101
Applicant on Page 8 of Argument/Remarks dated 3/25/2024 the claimed invention provides a solution as a technical application with a significant improvement (see, e.g., paragraphs 19-21 of published application), such that the claims, as a whole are, more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize a judicial exception improvements to the telemedicine made by the present disclosure were sufficient to overcome the 101 rejections.
Previously applicant on pages 10-14 of previous arguments/remarks also asserted that the claims 21-40 be considered to be an integration into practical application and are directed to be significantly more than any judicial exception. Examiner respectfully traverses and finds that the additional elements like sensor data and camera could not be reflected as an improvement to technology or use of judicial exception to be meaningfully beyond generally linking judicial exception so that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
It is understood that a human mental process does not include “sensor device comprising a plurality of gyroscope sensors that measure angular velocities about three axes,” and “a microcontroller that uses the angular velocities as input to generate angular positions over time for the three axes relative to the at least one sensor device.” Nevertheless the generic sensor input and measurement and comparing calculated reading outputs from “angular velocities about three axes” are not improvements of the functioning of computational activities in art. They are merely a use of computational machines as a tool to perform some measurement reading output by linking a use of judicial exception to a particular technology.
The machine implementation of a generic camera is not providing either improvement or meaningful limitation of abstract idea of a particular technological environment. Further they do not result in an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. The use of 3D camera attached to a body of patient is generally restricted to "capturing and computer processing" of information “displaying of resulting information" related to the analyzed data. The inclusion of depth and image data are just record of activities or body position in relation to generic capture devices with background features in the 3D images. It also recites just providing of a user interface generally available in art. If some additional features for activities could be considered, they are the recited sensors collecting or capturing in-depth detailed user data amounting to merely an insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception. 35USC101 rejection maintained.
35USC103
Applicant on Pages 9-10 of argument/remarks 3/25/2024 asserts that reference Snow et al. disclose in certain portions about an indication be made that a movement is completed or not completed, but it fails to disclose providing "an indication of a suggested change in the movement that conforms to the ideal body movement," as recited in amended claims 21, and similarly recited in amended claims 28 and 35. Previously on Pages 14-17 of argument/remark applicant indicates that the prior art combination is not teaching the new combination of the elements in amendment for gyroscopic measurement.
Examiner however respectfully traverses and provided further explanation towards rejection the amendment while providing new art in the prior office action. Hence the description of citation about the standard pre-define goal conforming to standard i.e. ideal body movement from prior art Snow et al. clarified the rejection statement analysis under 35USC103 rejection. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADARUZ ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3137. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm CST.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/S.Z/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 March 4, 2026
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715