DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the “AMENDMENT UNDER 37C.F.R. § 1.111” filed 26 February 2026. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 6, and 9-10, as well as the cancelation of claims 2-5 and 7-8. Claims 1, 6, and 9-10 are pending.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 9-10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should read “calculate a difference between the first movement route and the second movement route in the horizontal plane by determining perpendicular distances from knee positions to the straight line reference at each time point to determine lateral knee deviation patterns indicating potential knee osteoarthritis symptoms, [lines 23-26] to read similar to lines 20-23 of claim 9. Claim 10 recites similar language [lines 20-23 of claim 10] that is objected to mutatis mutandis.
Claim 1 should read “to assess a knee joint condition” [lines 30-31]. Claims 9 and 10 recite similar language [lines 27-28 of claim 9; lines 27-28 of claim 10] that are objected to mutatis mutandis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner Notes: currently, NO limitation invokes interpretation under § 112(f).
Examiner’s Note Regarding Intended Use Limitations: Claim 1 recites “A knee trajectory information generation device for early detection and prevention of knee osteoarthritis by analyzing lateral knee thrust patterns” [preamble, lines 1-2], “serving as a biomechanical reference baseline for knee trajectory analysis to identify specific lateral deviation patterns indicative of knee osteoarthritis” [lines 15-17], “visual information corresponding to the calculated difference for medical diagnosis support enabling early detection of lateral knee thrust characteristic of knee osteoarthritis” [lines 27-28], and “output the generated knee trajectory information to a medical terminal device for healthcare professionals including doctors, physical therapists, or care workers to assess knee joint condition and provide early detection of knee osteoarthritis based on the specific lateral deviation patterns” [lines 29-32], wherein the Examiner notes that each limitation is considered to recite an intended use of the invention of claim 1, as each limitation fails to positively recite each respective emphasized portion and merely refers to each emphasized portion as a purpose instead of a concrete step or function performed by or configured to be performed by the invention of claim 1 [See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"); To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim (MPEP § 2111.02(II)), wherein the Examiner acknowledges that the cited portion of the MPEP is with respect to the preamble, however the intended use analysis is considered to similarly cover claim limitations]. The Examiner notes that claims 9-10 are each considered to recite similar language in the preamble and limitations that define intended use limitations and fail to positively recite any step for performing the intended use limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Each claim has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Representative claim(s) 1 [representing all independent claims] recite(s):
A knee trajectory information generation device for early detection and prevention of knee osteoarthritis by analyzing lateral knee thrust patterns comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor connected to the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire walking data from motion sensors or motion capture systems during actual walking of a subject, the walking data including time-series data of a foot position and a knee position of the subject measured in three-dimensional coordinates;
detect continuous heel strikes from the time series data of the foot position to identify gait cycle boundaries for biomechanical analysis;
calculate a first movement route connecting a start point and an end point of a gait cycle by using time-series data of the foot position included in the walking data, wherein the start point and the end point correspond to the detected continuous heel strikes, and the first movement route is calculated as a straight line reference in a horizontal plane serving as a biomechanical reference baseline for knee trajectory analysis to identify specific lateral deviation patterns indicative of knee osteoarthritis;
calculate a second movement route corresponding to a trajectory of the knee position between the start point and the end point of the gait cycle by using time-series data of the knee position included in the walking data, wherein the second movement route represents an actual knee movement path in the horizontal plane during the gait cycle as a curved trajectory deviating from the straight-line reference;
calculate a difference between the first movement route in the horizontal plane by determining perpendicular distances from knee positions to the straight line reference at each time point to determine lateral knee deviation patterns indicating potential knee osteoarthritis symptoms, and the second movement route and generate knee trajectory information including visual information corresponding to the calculated difference for medical diagnostic support enabling early detection of lateral knee thrust characteristic of knee osteoarthritis; and
output the generated knee trajectory information to a medical terminal device for healthcare professionals including doctors, physical therapists, or care workers to assess knee joint condition and provide early detection of knee osteoarthritis based on the specific lateral deviation patterns, wherein
outputting the generated knee trajectory information comprises generating a composite visual representation for display on a screen of the medical terminal device, the composite visual representation being synchronized with a video of the subject walking, the composite visual representation comprising:
a first sign, shaped as a pint, raised on the first movement route at a position corresponding to a current walking phase of the subject, the pin having a head at a position of a knee height immediately above the first movement route; and
a second sign, shaped as an arrow, displayed with the head of the pin as a starting point, wherein a direction and a length of the arrow dynamically change to indicate a direction and a magnitude of the calculated difference, respectively, in conjunction with the current walking phase of the subject in the video.
(Emphasis added: abstract idea, additional element)
Step 2A Prong 1
Representative claim(s) 1 recites the following abstract ideas, which may be performed in the mind or by hand with the assistance of pen and paper:
“acquire walking data from motion sensors or motion capture systems during actual walking of a subject, the walking data including time-series data of a foot position and a knee position of the subject measured in three-dimensional coordinates” – may be performed by merely observing known or previously collected data; wherein the Examiner notes that as presently recited, this limitation fails to positively recite any step of measuring or measurements being performed, wherein the recitation that the walking data is “from motion sensors or motion capture systems” and comprise data in “three-dimensional coordinates” merely limits the type of data
“detect continuous heel strikes from the time series data of the foot position to identify gait cycle boundaries for biomechanical analysis” – may be performed by merely observing known or previously collected data and drawing mental conclusions therefrom
“calculate a first movement route connecting a start point and an end point of a gait cycle by using time-series data of the foot position included in the walking data, wherein the start point and the end point correspond to the detected continuous heel strikes, and the first movement route is calculated as a straight line reference in a horizontal plane serving as a biomechanical reference baseline for knee trajectory analysis to identify specific lateral deviation patterns indicative of knee osteoarthritis” – may be performed by merely observing known or previously collected data and drawing mental conclusions therefrom, or by merely physically drawing a line connecting two points in a plane, as the movement route is defined as a straight line between a start point and an end point; wherein the Examiner notes that the recitation of “a biomechanical reference baseline for knee trajectory analysis to identify specific lateral deviation patterns indicative of knee osteoarthritis” is considered to be an intended use of the biomechanical reference baseline and fails to positively recite any step of performing a knee trajectory analysis to identify specific lateral deviation patterns indicative of knee osteoarthritis
“calculate a second movement route corresponding to a trajectory of the knee position between the start point and the end point of the gait cycle by using time-series data of the knee position included in the walking data, wherein the second movement route represents an actual knee movement path in the horizontal plane during the gait cycle as a curved trajectory deviating from the straight-line reference” – may be performed by merely observing known or previously collected data and drawing mental conclusions therefrom, or by merely physically drawing a line connecting two points in space based on at least a limited amount of known or previously collected data under no particular time constraint
“calculate a difference between the first movement route in the horizontal plane by determining perpendicular distances from knee positions to the straight line reference at each time point to determine lateral knee deviation patterns indicating potential knee osteoarthritis symptoms, and the second movement route and generate knee trajectory information including visual information corresponding to the calculated difference for medical diagnostic support enabling early detection of lateral knee thrust characteristic of knee osteoarthritis” – may be performed by applying known or derived mathematical formulas [“calculating a difference” is considered to define at least subtraction] to at least a limited amount of known or previously collected data under no particular time constraint; wherein the Examiner notes that the recitation “generate knee trajectory information including visual information corresponding to the calculated difference for medical diagnostic support enabling early detection of lateral knee thrust characteristic of knee osteoarthritis” is considered to be an intended use of the output and fails to positively recite any step of detecting lateral knee thrust characteristic of knee osteoarthritis
“output the generated knee trajectory information… for healthcare professionals including doctors, physical therapists, or care workers to assess knee joint condition and provide early detection of knee osteoarthritis based on the specific lateral deviation patterns” – may be performed by merely writing down or verbally stating known or previously determined mental conclusions; wherein the Examiner notes that the recitation “for healthcare professionals including doctors, physical therapists, or care workers to assess knee joint condition and provide early detection of knee osteoarthritis based on the specific lateral deviation patterns” is considered to be an intended use of the output and fails to positively recite any step of healthcare professionals assessing knee joint conditions or detecting knee osteoarthritis
“outputting the generated knee trajectory information comprises generating a composite visual representation… the composite visual representation being synchronized with a video of the subject walking, the composite visual representation comprising: a first sign, shaped as a pint, raised on the first movement route at a position corresponding to a current walking phase of the subject, the pin having a head at a position of a knee height immediately above the first movement route; and a second sign, shaped as an arrow, displayed with the head of the pin as a starting point, wherein a direction and a length of the arrow dynamically change to indicate a direction and a magnitude of the calculated difference, respectively, in conjunction with the current walking phase of the subject in the video” – may be performed by physically/manually drawing a pin and an arrow over or overlaying on at least a limited amount of images or still frames of the subject based on previously determined mental conclusions or derived mathematical conclusions; wherein the Examiner notes that the recitation of the “the composite visual representation being synchronized with a video of the subject walking” does not preclude the limitations identified as being performed in the mind or by hand are performed as a frame-by-frame analysis on a previously recorded video to allow for the composite visual representation to be synchronized with the video
If a claim, under BRI, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the mere recitation of extra-solutionary activity (and otherwise generic computer elements) then the claim falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1 of the Mayo framework as set forth in the 2019 PEG.
No limitations are provided that would force the complexity of any of the identified evaluation steps to be non-performable by pen-and-paper practice.
Alternatively or additionally, these steps describe the concept of using implicit mathematical formula(s) [i.e., “calculate a difference between the first movement route in the horizontal plane by determining perpendicular distances from knee positions to the straight line reference at each time point to determine lateral knee deviation patterns indicating potential knee osteoarthritis symptoms, and the second movement route and generate knee trajectory information including visual information corresponding to the calculated difference for medical diagnostic support enabling early detection of lateral knee thrust characteristic of knee osteoarthritis”] to derive a conclusion based on input of data, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts [Diamond v. Diehr. 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981), Parker v. Flook. 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978), and In re Grams. 888 F.2d 835, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1824 (Fed. Cir. 1989)]. The concept of the recited limitations identified as mathematical concepts above is not meaningfully different than those mathematical concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea [e.g. limitations relating to the data gathered or particular steps which are entirely embodied in the mental process] and amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Thus, these concepts are similar to court decisions of abstract ideas of itself: collecting, displaying, and manipulating data [Int. Ventures v. Cap One Financial], collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis [Electric Power Group], collection, storage, and recognition of data [Smart Systems Innovations].
Step 2A Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Representative claim 1 only recites additional elements of extra-solutionary activity – in particular, generic computer functions – without further sufficient detail that would tie the abstract portions of the claim into a specific practical application (2019 PEG p. 55 – the instant claim, for example does not tie into a particular machine, a sufficiently particular form of data or signal collection – via the claimed generic computer functions, or a sufficiently particular form of display or computing architecture/structure).
Dependent claim(s) 6 merely add detail to the abstract portions of the claim but do not otherwise encompass any additional elements which tie the claim(s) into a particular application/integration [the dependent claim(s) recite generic ‘units’ or ‘steps’ which encompass mere computer instructions to carry out an otherwise wholly abstract idea].
Accordingly, the claim(s) are not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claims 1 and 9-10 as individual wholes fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of extra-solutionary activity [i.e., generic computer functions] and generic computer elements cannot amount to significantly more than an abstract idea [MPEP § 2106.05(f)] and is further considered to merely implement an abstract idea on a generic computer [MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) establishes computer-based elements which are considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional when recited at a high level of generality].
For the independent claim portions and dependent claims which provide additional elements of extra-solutionary data gathering, MPEP § 2106.05(g) establishes that mere data gathering for determining a result does not amount to significantly more. The extra-solutionary activity of processor steps [acquiring, storing, outputting signals, etc.] as presently recited, cannot provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
For the independent claims as well as the dependent claims merely reciting generic computer elements and functions [computer elements recited at a high level of generality and corresponding functions therein], MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) establishes computer-based elements which are considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional when recited at a high level of generality.
Accordingly, the generic computer elements and corresponding functions therein, as presently limited, cannot provide an inventive concept since they fall under a generic structure and/or function that does not add a meaningful additional feature to the judicial exception(s) of the claim(s).
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite a “medical terminal device” and “a screen of the medical terminal device”. Such a terminal device is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, as known by at least:
Applicant’s disclosure is not particular regarding the particular structure of the generically claimed medical terminal device and screen, and recites the medical terminal device and screen at a high level of generality [For example, the terminal device is an information processing device such as a stationary personal computer, a notebook personal computer, a tablet, or a mobile terminal (Applicant’s Specification p. 17:8-10]. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the medical technology arts. Thus, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the field of data processing. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional element because it describes such an additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) [see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, Page 3, (III)(A)(1), not attached]. Adding hardware that performs “well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible [TLI Communications].
Examiner’s Note Regarding Particular Treatment or Prophylaxis: Claim(s) 1 [and similarly claims 9-10] recite “A knee trajectory information generation device for early detection and prevention of knee osteoarthritis by analyzing lateral knee thrust patterns” [preamble, lines 1-2], “serving as a biomechanical reference baseline for knee trajectory analysis to identify specific lateral deviation patterns indicative of knee osteoarthritis” [lines 15-17], “visual information corresponding to the calculated difference for medical diagnosis support enabling early detection of lateral knee thrust characteristic of knee osteoarthritis” [lines 27-28], and “output the generated knee trajectory information to a medical terminal device for healthcare professionals including doctors, physical therapists, or care workers to assess knee joint condition and provide early detection of knee osteoarthritis based on the specific lateral deviation patterns” [lines 29-32], which as analyzed above are considered to define intended use limitations, such that the identified limitations fail to recite any subject matter that may be considered to define a particular treatment or prophylaxis as an additional element to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or allow the identified claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception [MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)]. Furthermore, for the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that even if the identified limitations were amended to be positively recited [positively recite detecting and preventing knee osteoarthritis, assessing a condition of the knee joint], the recited detection, prevention, and assessment are recited at a high level of generality and thus fail to be sufficiently particular to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or allow the identified claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception [MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)]. The Examiner also notes that claim 1 [and similarly claims 9-10] does recite the limitation “calculate a difference between the first movement route in the horizontal plane by determining perpendicular differences from knee positions to the straight-line reference at each time point to determine lateral knee deviation patterns indicating potential knee osteoarthritis symptoms” [lines 23-26], which is considered to positively recite determining lateral knee deviation patterns indicating potential knee osteoarthritis symptoms, but is not considered to be a particular treatment or prophylaxis as an additional element to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or allow the identified claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception [MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)].
Accordingly, the claim(s) as whole(s) fail amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Subject Matter Not Taught By Prior Art
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 10, the closest prior art of record is Grosserode (US-20230172491-A1, previously presented), Takeichi (US-20200250408-A1), Simms (US-20100076721-A1, previously presented), and Emura (US-20150243171-A1, previously presented).
The Examiner notes that Grosserode, Takeichi, Simms, and Emura, alone or in combination, fail to teach the subject matter regarding the particularity of the calculated first movement route, calculated second movement route, and the calculated difference between the first movement route and the second movement route as amended [See Non-Final Rejection dated 26 November 2025 p. 8-24 regarding subject matter taught by Grosserode, Takeichi, Simms, and Emura, as previously applied]. Grosserode, which was previously applied to teach calculating movement routes of foot position and knee position throughout a gait cycle [Grosserode ¶¶0013, 0016, 0020, 0051, 0059, Figs. 4-13], and Takeichi, which was previously applied to teach subject matter regarding calculating movement routes of different body parts of a subject to connect a start point and an end point of a gait cycle [Takeichi ¶0063, Fig. 7], fail to teach the particularity regarding “wherein the start point and the end point correspond to the detected continuous heel strikes, and the first movement route is calculated as a straight line reference in a horizontal plane serving as a biomechanical reference baseline for knee trajectory analysis to identify specific lateral deviation patterns indicative of knee osteoarthritis… wherein the second movement route represents an actual knee movement path in the horizontal plane during the gait cycle as a curved trajectory deviating from the straight-line reference… calculate a difference between the first movement route in the horizontal plane by determining perpendicular distances from knee positions to the straight line reference at each time point to determine lateral knee deviation patterns indicating potential knee osteoarthritis symptoms, and the second movement route” as claimed. Simms and Emura were previously applied to teach limitations directed towards the presently amended generated composite visual representation and fail to teach, disclose, or suggest the calculated first movement route, calculated second movement route, and the calculated difference between the first movement route and the second movement route as amended
As such, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified any of Grosserode, Takeichi, Simms, and Emura to employ the limitations not taught by any of the previously applied prior art references without the benefit of hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 9-25, filed 26 February 2026, with respect to the previously applied rejections under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant asserts that (I. a.) the claim features identified as being directed to mathematical concepts do not actually “recite” [MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)] those mathematical concepts regardless of whether those concepts might be involved with the actually recited claim features, wherein the Applicant notes that the Examiner’s analysis that some claim features “may be performed by applying known or derived mathematical formulas to at least a limited amount of known or previously collected data under no particular time constraint” do not actually recite the asserted “known or derived mathematical formulas”. However, the Examiner notes that the analysis at Step 2A Prong 1 comprised an analysis to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, wherein the identified judicial exception is an abstract idea that may be performed in the mind or by hand, wherein the analysis that some claim features “may be performed by applying known or derived mathematical formulas to at least a limited amount of known or previously collected data under no particular time constraint” is an analysis as to how the identified claim limitation may be performed in the mind or by hand. The Examiner further notes that some limitations were also analyzed and noted to alternatively or additionally describe the concept of using implicit mathematical formula(s) to derive a conclusion based on input of data, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. As such, the identified claim limitations are each considered to be mental processes and not solely mathematical concepts.
The Applicant asserts that (I. b.) the amendments to claim 1 are more particular than the “court decisions” referred to by the Examiner [the Examiner notes that specific court decisions were cited as relevant with respect to the analysis of limitations directed towards computer implementation of abstract ideas (see Non-Final Rejection dated 26 November 2025 p. 5], and further cites example 37 claim 2 and notes that the guidance indicates that the claim features are not directed to mental processes because involved claim features require computer processor functions, wherein the Applicant notes similar limitations in amended claim 1 directed towards generating a composite visual representation for display on a screen. The Applicant further cites the August 4, 2025 memorandum [“the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome”] and the streamlined analysis of MPEP § 2106.06(a) [“when viewed as a whole, clearly does not seek to tie up any judicial exception such that others cannot practice it”]. However, the Examiner notes that the cited court decisions regarding collecting, displaying, and manipulating data [Int. Ventures v. Cap One Financial], collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis [Electric Power Group], collection, storage, and recognition of data [Smart Systems Innovations] were cited to highlight the similarly between the claimed limitations and court identified abstract ideas, not to specifically generalize the claimed limitations. Furthermore, regarding example 37 claim 2, the Examiner notes that the example is different from amended claim 1, as at the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis, example 37 claim 2 was identified as not reciting any judicial exception, whereas as analyzed at Step 2A Prong 1 above, claim 1 is considered to recite several limitations directed towards judicial exceptions.
Regarding the August 4, 2025 memorandum, the Examiner notes that the cited portion of the memo is directed towards the improvements consideration at Step 2A Prong 2, wherein the Examiner notes that the Applicant has failed to specifically identify any particular limitation or recitation that is meant to embody any particular improvement; however, the Examiner notes that the limitations directed towards the analysis of three-dimensional walking data are all considered to be recited in limitations identified as being abstract ideas, which the Examiner notes is discussed in detail in the Examiner’s response to Applicant’s argument II below. Finally, regarding the streamlined eligibility analysis, the Examiner notes that the claimed system/method define steps that have been identified as being directed towards abstract ideas at Step 2A Prong 1, such that further analysis at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B is required, wherein based on the Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B analysis above, representative claim 1 and those dependent therefrom are not considered allowable over the § 101 rejection, such that the claims are not eligible for streamlined analysis.
The Applicant asserts that (I. c.) the Examiner has exceed boundaries according to a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims at Step 2A Prong 1 [MPEP § 2106(II)(3), MPEP § 2111], as the Applicant notes that: the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim 1 features do not imply “mental processes” in the human mind or with pen and paper, the specification does not support that the claim 1 features should mean the “mental processes” in the human mind or with pen and paper, and it is not clear how it could be reasonably be concluded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted the claim 1 features to mean the “mental processes” in the human mind or with pen and paper. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument and notes that the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis included and currently includes the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretations as to how the identified limitations may be performed in the mind or by hand. Furthermore, the Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the limitations identified as being directed towards abstract ideas may not be “practically performed” in the human mind or by hand with the assistance of pen and paper.
The Applicant asserts that (II) claim 1 has been amended to recite a specific, functional user interface structure that is generated by the claimed device, and wherein the outputting step is now described as generating a composite visual representation that is synchronized with a video of the subject’s walking motion, wherein the composite representation dynamically changes to visually represent the knee deviation in real-time. As such, the Applicant asserts that the amendments represent a tangible, practical application that improves the functionality of the computer itself similar to example 37 claim 2 [the Examiner notes that example 37 claim 1 is also referenced by the Applicant on p. 14 of the Applicant’s Remarks as relevant to the instant argument]. The Applicant notes relevance of Ex Parte Desjardins. The Applicant further directs attention to p. 7-8 of the Non-Final Rejection dated 26 November 2025 [understood to refer to p. 12 of the Non-Final Rejection, which recites the § 103 modification as referenced by the Applicant] regarding the § 103 modification identifying computer improvements of “to allow for visualization of displacement of each of a subject’s foot and knee throughout a gait cycle” as indicative of the similarly claimed subject matter meeting the criteria of MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Firstly, the Examiner notes that the Applicant asserts that the composite visual representation represents the knee deviation “in real-time”, which the Examiner has interpreted to refer to the composite visual representation being in sync with the video of the subject’s walking motion; however, the Examiner notes that the recitation of the representation of knee deviation being “in real-time” is not specifically recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner notes that the argued improvement of “generating a composite visual representation that is synchronized with a video of the subject’s walking motion, wherein the composite representation dynamically changes to visually represent the knee deviation” is recited within limitations that have been identified as being abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer with additional elements that are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional; which the Examiner further notes is different from example 37 claim 1, as the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis identified the automation by the processor as a specific improvement over prior systems, and from example 37 claim 2, which based on the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis did not recite any limitation directed towards a judicial exception. The “improvements” are not considered to be additional elements, as the generation of a composite visual representation and limitations to further limit the composite visual representation, are identified as being abstract ideas at Step 2A Prong 1 above. As such, under MPEP 2106.05(a), "an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology". Specifically, the "improvements" analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity [MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)]. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception [MPEP § 2106.05(a)]. It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally) [MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I)]. As such, the claims do not recite additional elements that may integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application of the abstract ideas, and thus the claimed invention is not considered to improve other technology or technical field.
In light of the December 5, 2025 memo, the Examiner notes that revised MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) recites “In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field… Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but only in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine that the claim improves technology or a technical field. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology or a technical field, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement… See, e.g., Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), in which the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about 2 previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. Indeed, enumerated improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system. Such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation.” As such, the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s arguments related to the Applicant’s noted improvements [“generating a composite visual representation that is synchronized with a video of the subject’s walking motion, wherein the composite representation dynamically changes to visually represent the knee deviation”] are not considered to be directed towards the functioning of a computer or technology and are considered conclusory, as the Applicant fails to provide necessary details as to how the alleged improvement improves the functioning of a computer or technology [the Examiner notes that the cited portions of the Applicant’s Specification of ¶¶0008, 0040-0042, 0045, 0047, 0049-0054, 0062, 0065, 0067, 0098, 0109 (which are interpreted to refer to the paragraph numbers of the Specification as viewed on Google Patents, as the presently attached specification only contains page and line numbers, not paragraph numbers) are considered to be embodied in the limitations identified above as being directed towards abstract ideas].
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s acknowledgement of the separation between the § 101 and prior art analysis, however the Examiner directs attention to the portion of MPEP § 2106.05 as partially cited by the Applicant, wherein “The examination under 35 U.S.C. 101 is distinct and separate from the examination under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103, as recited in the MPEP: As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.")…Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 (MPEP 2106.05(I))”. The Examiner notes that any modification to “improve” any prior art reference as part of a § 103 rejection is not considered relevant to establish that the Applicant’s claimed invention is considered to define an improvement to function of a computer or technology.
The Applicant asserts that (III) the Step 2B analysis should be withdrawn pending the Examiner’s further search and consideration, allowable, at least by the criteria of § 102/103, which the Applicant considered informative, if not dispositive, to the Step 2B analysis. The Applicant further asserts that the claims recite “significantly more” through the inventive concept of the specific process of generating the composite visual representation, which the Applicant alleges is not a “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity and is instead directed towards a non-conventional technique for data visualization, and is further a specific technical solution to a technical problem that improves computer functionality. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that while the specific process of generating the composite visual representation is not a “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity, the Examiner notes that the analysis of the limitations directed towards generating the composite visual representation are directed towards an abstract idea performed by a generically recited computer, wherein the computer itself is considered to be “well-understood, routine, conventional” [See Step 2B analysis of Applicant’s disclosure lacking particularity regarding the recitation of a computer device comprising a screen recited at a high level of generality]. Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the generation of the composite visual representation as being directed towards a non-conventional technique for data visualization, and is further a specific technical solution to a technical problem that improves computer functionality, the Examiner directs attention to the Examiner’s responses to Applicant’s argument II regarding the relevance of the prior art analysis with respect to the present § 101 rejections and improvement analysis.
The Applicant requests that (IV) the Examiner make a suggested claim amendment [MPEP § 2106.07(a)(II)]. However, the Examiner notes that it is not readily apparent what particular amendments may be made to overcome the applied § 101 rejections. The Examiner notes that based on analysis of the Applicant’s Specification with respect to subject matter directed towards a particular treatment or prophylaxis as previously discussed in the Interview held on 17 February 2026 [see Interview Summary dated 20 February 2026] and corresponding limitations directed towards diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis, there does not appear to be any portion of the Applicant’s Specification directed towards particular treatment or prophylaxis being applied or performed based on any conclusions derived from use of the Applicant’s invention.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 26-27, with respect to the previously applied rejections of claims 1 and those dependent therefrom under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1 and those dependent therefrom under § 103 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights