DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the filing of the application on 3/06/2023. Since the initial filing, no claims have been amended, added, or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figs. 6-9, and 11 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(1) whereby an exploded view must be embraced by brackets in order to show the relationship between the components.
Fig. 12 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) where numbers must be clean, black, and durable enough to enable satisfactory reproduction characteristics. The units shown for the dimensions in Fig. 12 are illegible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-6, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rummerfield (US 2006/0247095) in view of Hartman et al. (US Pat. 7,996,080).
Regarding claim 1, Rummerfield teaches electromechanical device for rehabilitation (see Fig. 1 exercise trainer 2), comprising: one or more pedals (see Fig. 1 pedals 42) coupled to one or more radially-adjustable couplings (see Fig. 1 cranks 10; where cranks 10 are adjustable to any radial angle as they rotate); an electric motor (see Fig. 1 electric motor 12) coupled to the one or more pedals via the one or more radially-adjustable couplings (see [0014] and Fig. 1 where motor 12 connects to the cranks 10 and sprocket 9); a control system comprising one or more processing devices (see Fig. 1 bike control and readout (BCR) computer 20) operatively coupled to the electric motor (see [0014]), wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to: responsive to a first trigger condition occurring, control the electric motor to operate in a passive mode by independently driving the one or more radially-adjustable couplings rotationally coupled to the one or more pedals (see [0017] where a first trigger condition where the computer detects tired muscles, and operates the motor to drive the pedals without force applied by the user, resulting in a passive mode); wherein the first trigger condition is set based on a treatment plan (see [0017] where the computer controls when the system switches from one mode to another, thus setting threshold values for each trigger state according to some treatment algorithm).
Rummerfield lacks a detailed description of wherein the treatment plan was generated by one or more machine learning models trained to output the treatment plan based on input related to at least one of a procedure the user underwent or a characteristic of the user.
However, Hartman teaches an exercise and rehabilitation device, where a treatment plan generated by a controller is done by machine learning due to input values of the procedure (see Col. 8 lines 11-28 where a treatment delivered by the stimulation controller is trained via an adaptive feedback control, where values from the stimulation procedure are input into the controller in order to adjust the output of the stimulator).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outputted force used for the motions of the Rummerfield device to come from an adaptive machine learning controller as taught by Hartman, as it would allow for the device to be continuously updating the outputted force based on real-time data, in order to ensure that the applied force is appropriate (Hartman; see Col. 8 lines 11-28).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Rummerfield device has the one or more processing devices are further configured to: responsive to a second trigger condition occurring, control the electric motor to operate in an active-assisted mode (Rummerfield; see [0017] where the computer, based on changing data as the patient tires, changes to a mode where partial motor support is given) by: measuring revolutions per minute of the one or more radially-adjustable couplings, and causing the electric motor to drive the one or more radially-adjustable couplings rotationally coupled to the one or more pedals when the measured revolutions per minute satisfy a threshold condition (Rummerfield; see [0017] where the revolutions per minute (RPM) is a measured value with a desired target, where a current RPM is compared to a target RPM to maintain a desired RPM, which is rotational movement of the couplings and pedals); and responsive to a third trigger condition occurring, control the electric motor to operate in a resistive mode by providing resistance to rotation of the one or more radially- adjustable couplings coupled to the one or more pedals (Rummerfield; see [0017] where the motor can be operated in a brake mode to provide resistance to the pedaling of the user, resulting in a resistance of the couplings and pedals).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Rummerfield device has wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to, responsive to a fourth trigger condition occurring, control the electric motor to operate in an active mode by powering off to enable another source to drive the one or more radially-adjustable couplings via the one or more pedals (Rummerfield; see [0017] where the system can initially operate in a zero resistance mode, where the motor is effectively off and the pedal force is provided by the movement of the user before the user tires), wherein each of the first trigger condition, the second trigger condition, the third trigger condition, and the fourth trigger condition comprise at least one of an initiation of a pedaling session via a user interface of the control system, a period of time elapsing, a detected physical condition of a user operating the electromechanical device, a request received from the user via the user interface, or a request received via a computing device communicatively coupled to the control system (Rummerfield; see [0017] where each mode results from the desired mode from the computer, and result from either the initiation of the session (e.g. zero resistance or brake mode), or from changes in the physical tiredness of the user (partial and full assist)).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Rummerfield device has the radially-adjustable couplings are configured for translating rotational motion of the electric motor to radial motion of the pedals (Rummerfield; see [0014] where the crank arms 10 transfer motion to pedals 42).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Rummerfield device has the electric motor operates in each of the passive mode, the active-assisted mode, and the resistive mode for a respective period of time during a pedaling session based on a treatment plan for a user operating the electromechanical device (Rummerfield; see [0029] where each mode is used for a period of time during a full therapy session).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Rummerfield device has the one or more processing devices controls the electric motor to independently drive the one or more radially-adjustable couplings rotationally coupled to the one or more pedals at a controlled speed specified in a treatment plan for a user operating the electromechanical device while operating in the passive mode (Rummerfield; see [0017] where the motor is controlled to drive the crank arms/ pedals at a desired RPM).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Rummerfield device has the one or more processing devices are further configured to: control an imaging system to capture an image of a body part of the patient being rehabilitated; and transmit the image of the body part to a computing device operated by a clinician, wherein the computing device is communicatively coupled to the control system (Rummerfield; see [0024] where a camera can capture the motion of the patient to remotely show a clinician).
Regarding claim 19, Rummerfield teaches a system comprising: one or more pedals (see Fig. 1 pedals 42) coupled to one or more radially-adjustable couplings (see Fig. 1 cranks 10; where cranks 10 are adjustable to any radial angle as they rotate); an electric motor (see Fig. 1 electric motor 12) coupled to the one or more pedals via the one or more radially-adjustable couplings (see [0014] and Fig. 1 where motor 12 connects to the cranks 10 and sprocket 9); a control system comprising one or more processing devices (see Fig. 1 bike control and readout (BCR) computer 20) operatively coupled to the electric motor (see [0014]), wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to: responsive to a first trigger condition occurring, control the electric motor to operate in a passive mode by independently driving the one or more radially-adjustable couplings rotationally coupled to the one or more pedals (see [0017] where a first trigger condition where the computer detects tired muscles, and operates the motor to drive the pedals without force applied by the user, resulting in a passive mode); wherein the first trigger condition is set based on a treatment plan (see [0017] where the computer controls when the system switches from one mode to another, thus setting threshold values for each trigger state according to some treatment algorithm).
Rummerfield lacks a detailed description of wherein the treatment plan was generated by one or more machine learning models trained to output the treatment plan based on input related to at least one of a procedure the user underwent or a characteristic of the user.
However, Hartman teaches an exercise and rehabilitation device, where a treatment plan generated by a controller is done by machine learning due to input values of the procedure (see Col. 8 lines 11-28 where a treatment delivered by the stimulation controller is trained via an adaptive feedback control, where values from the stimulation procedure are input into the controller in order to adjust the output of the stimulator).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outputted force used for the motions of the Rummerfield device to come from an adaptive machine learning controller as taught by Hartman, as it would allow for the device to be continuously updating the outputted force based on real-time data, in order to ensure that the applied force is appropriate (Hartman; see Col. 8 lines 11-28).
Regarding claim 20, Rummerfield teaches a method for controlling, via a processing device (see Fig. 1 computer 20), an electromechanical device (see Fig. 1 exercise trainer 2), comprising: responsive to a first trigger condition occurring, control the electric motor to operate in a passive mode by independently driving the one or more radially-adjustable couplings rotationally coupled to the one or more pedals (see [0017] where a first trigger condition where the computer detects tired muscles, and operates the motor to drive the pedals without force applied by the user, resulting in a passive mode); wherein the first trigger condition is set based on a treatment plan (see [0017] where the computer controls when the system switches from one mode to another, thus setting threshold values for each trigger state according to some treatment algorithm).
Rummerfield lacks a detailed description of wherein the treatment plan was generated by one or more machine learning models trained to output the treatment plan based on input related to at least one of a procedure the user underwent or a characteristic of the user.
However, Hartman teaches an exercise and rehabilitation device, where a treatment plan generated by a controller is done by machine learning due to input values of the procedure (see Col. 8 lines 11-28 where a treatment delivered by the stimulation controller is trained via an adaptive feedback control, where values from the stimulation procedure are input into the controller in order to adjust the output of the stimulator).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outputted force used for the motions of the Rummerfield device to come from an adaptive machine learning controller as taught by Hartman, as it would allow for the device to be continuously updating the outputted force based on real-time data, in order to ensure that the applied force is appropriate (Hartman; see Col. 8 lines 11-28).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rummerfield in view of Hartman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US Pat. 10,796,803).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Rummerfield device has the processing device.
The modified Rummerfield device lacks a detailed description of wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to: receive, from a wearable device, an amount of steps taken by a user over a certain time period; calculate whether the amount of steps satisfies a step threshold of a treatment plan for the user; and present the amount of steps taken by the user on a user interface and an indication of whether the amount of steps satisfies the step threshold.
However, Lee teaches a system for monitoring exercise of a user, that receives, from a wearable device, an amount of steps taken by a user over a certain time period (see Col. 15 lines 5-16 where a wearable device can include a step number counting unit); calculate whether the amount of steps satisfies a step threshold of a treatment plan for the user (see Col. 14 lines 47-65 where the system collects the step data and analyzes it for classification, the step collection and analysis allowing for a determination of the efficacy of the motion as seen in Col. 17 lines 56-67); and present the amount of steps taken by the user on a user interface and an indication of whether the amount of steps satisfies the step threshold (see Col. 15 lines 59-63).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensing system and controller of the modified Rummerfield device to include a step counter and threshold thereof as taught by Lee, as it would provide an additional sensing means for the efficacy and duration of the session, providing greater control over when the change or stop the session.
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rummerfield in view of Hartman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gatelli (US Pub 2019/0091506).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Rummerfield device has the processing device, pedals, and motor.
The modified Rummerfield device lacks a detailed description of the one or more processing devices are further configured to: receive a request to stop the one or more pedals from moving; and lock the electric motor to stop the one or more pedals from moving over a configured period of time.
However, Gatelli teaches an electromechanical exercise device comprising one or more processing devices configured to: receive a request to stop the one or more pedals from moving; and lock the electric motor to stop the one or more pedals from moving over a configured period of time (see [0070] where the system has a switch that can be actuated to send a signal to the motor to prevent motion).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control of the device taught by the modified Rummerfield device to include the locking functionality taught by Gatelli in order to provide additional safety to the user by preventing unintentional movement.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Rummerfield device has the processing device, pedals, and motor, wherein the pedaling session comprises operating in the passive mode, the active-passive mode, and the resistive mode for respective periods of time (Rummerfield; see [0029]).
The modified Rummerfield device lacks a detailed description of wherein the one or more processing devices are further to lock the electric motor to prevent the one or more pedals from moving for a certain amount of time after a pedaling session is complete.
However, Gatelli teaches an electromechanical exercise device comprising one or more processing devices configured to: receive a request to stop the one or more pedals from moving; and lock the electric motor to stop the one or more pedals from moving over a configured period of time after a pedaling session is complete (see [0070] where the system has a switch that can be actuated to send a signal to the motor to prevent motion, and the user can press that switch when the session is complete).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control of the device taught by the modified Rummerfield device to include the locking functionality taught by Gatelli in order to provide additional safety to the user by preventing unintentional movement.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rummerfield in view of Hartman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sivaraj (US 9,737,761).
The modified Rummerfield device has the processing device.
The modified Rummerfield device lacks a detailed description of the one or more processing devices are further configured to: receive, from a wristband worn by the user, a heartbeat of the user as the user operates the electromechanical device; and responsive to determining that the heartbeat exceeds a target heartbeat condition, control the electric motor to reduce the resistance provided to the rotation of the one or more radially- adjustable couplings coupled to the one or more pedals.
However, Sivaraj teaches comprising one or more processing devices configured to: receive, from a wristband (Fig. 1 heart rate monitor 165) worn by the user, a heartbeat of the user as the user operates the electromechanical device (see column 7 lines 1-7); and responsive to determining that the heartbeat exceeds a target heartbeat condition, control the electric motor to reduce the resistance provided to the rotation of the one or more radially- adjustable couplings coupled to the one or more pedals (see column 22 lines 7-14).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by the modified Rummerfield device to include the heart rate based resistance adjustment and monitor taught by Sivaraj in order to prevent the user from overexerting themselves.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably 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); 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,596,829. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the instant application and ‘829 patent are not substantive.
Instant Application
‘829 Patent
An electromechanical device for rehabilitation, comprising: one or more pedals coupled to one or more radially-adjustable couplings; an electric motor coupled to the one or more pedals via the one or more radially- adjustable couplings; a control system comprising one or more processing devices operatively coupled to the electric motor, wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to: responsive to a first trigger condition occurring, control the electric motor to operate in a passive mode by independently driving the one or more radially-adjustable couplings rotationally coupled to the one or more pedals, wherein the first trigger condition is set based on a treatment plan, wherein the treatment plan was generated by one or more machine learning models trained to output the treatment plan based on input related to at least one of a procedure the user underwent or a characteristic of the user.
An electromechanical device for rehabilitation, comprising: one or more pedals coupled to one or more radially-adjustable couplings; an electric motor coupled to the one or more pedals via the one or more radially-adjustable couplings; a control system comprising one or more processing devices operatively coupled to the electric motor, wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to: responsive to a first trigger condition occurring, control the electric motor to operate in a passive mode by independently driving the one or more radially-adjustable couplings rotationally coupled to the one or more pedals; responsive to a second trigger condition occurring, control the electric motor to operate in an active-assisted mode by: measuring revolutions per minute of the one or more radially-adjustable couplings, and causing the electric motor to drive the one or more radially-adjustable couplings rotationally coupled to the one or more pedals when the measured revolutions per minute satisfy a threshold condition; and responsive to a third trigger condition occurring, control the electric motor to operate in a resistive mode by providing resistance to rotation of the one or more radially-adjustable couplings coupled to the one or more pedals, wherein the first trigger condition, the second trigger condition, and the third trigger condition are set based on a treatment plan, wherein the treatment plan was generated by one or more machine learning models trained to output the treatment plan based on input related to at least one of a procedure the user underwent or a characteristic of the user.
As seen above, claim 1 of the instant application is just a broader version of claim 1 of the ‘829 patent, without any substantive differences.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘829 patent.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of the ‘829 patent.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of the ‘829 patent.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of the ‘829 patent.
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of the ‘829 patent.
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of the ‘829 patent.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of the ‘829 patent.
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of the ‘829 patent.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of the ‘829 patent.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to claim 10 of the ‘829 patent.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of the ‘829 patent.
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to claim 12 of the ‘829 patent.
Claim 14 of the instant application corresponds to claim 13 of the ‘829 patent.
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to claim 14 of the ‘829 patent.
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to claim 15 of the ‘829 patent.
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to claim 16 of the ‘829 patent.
Claim 18 of the instant application corresponds to claim 17 of the ‘829 patent.
Claim 19 of the instant application corresponds to claim 18 of the ‘829 patent, as a broader version thereof.
Claim 20 of the instant application corresponds to claim 19 of the ‘829 patent, as a broader version thereof.
Thus, as the claims of the instant application are not substantively different from the claims of the ‘829 patent, they are not understood to be patentably distinct.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 7, 9-10, and 13-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the Double Patenting rejection(s) in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D ZIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-3349. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571)272-5139. 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.
/MATTHEW D ZIEGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785