DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-18 are currently pending. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, and 18 have been amended. The drawings have been amended to overcome the drawing objections, claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 10 have been amended to overcome the objections, and claims 1, 6, 9, 10, and 18 have been amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the 27 October 2025. The Applicant has also provided the references mentioned in [0004] and [0005] of the filed specification and the IDS filed 31 January 2026 has been considered.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including a step (E1) of placing the individual on a seat of the measurement bench. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The steps of:
a step (El) of placing the individual on a seat of the measurement bench;
a step (E2) of moving the seat into a test position, said test position being farther back than a standard position wherein the individual is in contact with a force platform via the at least one lower or upper limb of the individual, said force platform being intended to measure a force generated by said at least one lower or upper limb of the individual;
a step (E3) of locking the seat in the test position;
a step (E4) of loading the seat with a predetermined load;
a step (E5) of unlocking the seat, said seat being driven toward the force platform by the predetermined load;
a step (E6) wherein the individual lands on the force platform;
a step (E7) wherein the individual pushes against the force platform; and
a step (E10) of processing data from said acquired signals.
set forth a judicial exception. Steps E1-E7 describe a concept of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Step E10 describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to Organizing Human Activity and a Mental Process, which are Abstract Ideas.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites a step (E10) of processing data from said acquired signals, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The processing of data does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the processed data, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea. It is noted that section 2106.05(a) II. of the MPEP states that “…it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.”
STEP 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional step of:
a step (E8) of acquiring signals regarding the force generated by the individual on said force platform during the landing step (E6) and/or the pushing step (E7).
The acquiring step is well-understood, routine and conventional activities for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the providing and recording steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
The same rationale applies to claim 10.
Regarding claim 10, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited frame, seat, locking/unlocking device, loading device, and processing software are configured to perform the Abstract Idea and the recited force platform and acquisition device are generic sensors configured to perform pre-solutional data gathering activity. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims. Claims 1-9 add to the Abstract Idea and claims 11-18 recites presolutional steps of data gathering or also add to the Abstract Idea. The steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
Examiner’s Note
Upon further consideration, the Examiner has found that the claims are directed to an Abstract Idea. Because this was not mentioned previously on the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 27 October 2025, a second Non-Final Office Action was issued.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AURELIE H TU whose telephone number is (571)272-8465. The examiner can normally be reached [M-F] 7:30-3:30.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/AURELIE H TU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791