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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on July 15, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN202241040652 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed July 14, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each non-patent literature publication and also fails to comply with and 37 CFR 1.98(b)(5), which requires each non-patent literature publication to be identified by a publisher, author (if any), date and place of publication. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the physiotherapist” in line 1. There is insufficient basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis causes the meaning of the claim to be unclear. A lack of clarity arises because it is unclear as to which earlier recited element (if any) the limitations reference. For the purposes of examination, the limitations are interpreted as not referring to any earlier recited elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four categories.
The independent claim 1 recites:
[…] receive, […], one or more inputs from a user in response to one or more questions associated with ailments and requirements pertaining to the user;
[…] receive metrics and movement data of the user while implementing the customized workout plan during the rehabilitation session;
extract one or more clinical features based on the received metrics and movement data of the user by at least one of: coordinating, smoothing, normalization, dimensionality reduction, temporal correlation, windowing, and feature extraction; and
compare the extracted one or more clinical features with the standard one or more clinical features to determine if there are deviations; and
[…] provide, […], one or more dynamic feedbacks to the user in real-time based on the determined deviations, wherein the one or more dynamic feedbacks are associated with correction of at least one of: posture and movement to overcome the determined deviation.
The independent claim 11 recites:
receiving, […], one or more inputs from a user in response to one or more questions associated with ailments and requirements pertaining to the user;
receiving metrics and movement data of the user while implementing the customized workout plan during the rehabilitation session;
extracting one or more clinical features based on the received metrics and movement data of the user by at least one of: coordinating, smoothing, normalization, dimensionality reduction, temporal correlation, windowing, and feature extraction;
comparing the extracted one or more clinical features with the standard one or more clinical features to determine if there are deviations; and
providing, […], one or more dynamic feedbacks to the user in real-time based on the determined deviations, wherein the one or more dynamic feedbacks are associated with correction of at least one of: posture and movement to overcome the determined deviation.
The above claim limitations constitute an abstract idea that is part of the Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes group identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019. See footnotes 14 and 15.
“A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words ….” October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, II. A. i. “[T]here are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping.” Id. at II. A. ii. “[A] claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.” Id. at II. A. iii. See for example, SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution).
The claimed steps of receiving, extracting, comparing and providing can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
With respect to the pending claims, for example, a physician can perform the claimed step of receiving by mentally noting a user input based on questions asked to a user and further receive metrics and movement data by mentally noting how the user is moving during a workout plan. The physician can then extract a clinical feature based on the metrics and movement data already noted and compare those to a standard value to determine a deviation. Further, the physician can provide feedback to a user based on the deviations by utilizing a pen/pencil and paper. Thus, the claims can be readily interpreted as being a mere application of a mental process on a computer.
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. For example, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 recite steps (e.g. receiving) that can be performed in the mind. Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
This judicial exception (abstract idea) in claims 1-20 is not integrated into a practical application because:
The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for receiving, creating, rendering, extracting, comparing and providing merely invoke a computer as a tool.
The data-gathering step (receiving) does not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computer that is used as a tool for receiving, creating, rendering, extracting, comparing and providing.
The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to provide information about deviations in a workout implemented by a user.
The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computer for receiving, creating, rendering, extracting, comparing and providing. The claims do not apply the obtained data to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in an post-solution step.
The additional elements are identified as follows: a receiver module; a user engagement module; a data collection module; a progress and performance module; a feedback module; a user device; an explainable artificial intelligence (AI) model; one or more sensors or a camera.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
the non-patent literature cited herewith:
Jovanov, Emil, et al. "A wireless body area network of intelligent motion sensors for computer assisted physical rehabilitation." Journal of NeuroEngineering and rehabilitation 2.1 (2005): 6.
see Fig. 1
Kos, Anton, and Anton Umek. "Wearable sensor devices for prevention and rehabilitation in healthcare: Swimming exercise with real-time therapist feedback." IEEE internet of things journal 6.2 (2018): 1331-1341.
see Fig. 1-3
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(lI) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional elements as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volosin (US 20210035674 A1) in view of Kaliraman (US 20230130914 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Volosin discloses a system for conducting interactive rehabilitation sessions with continuous monitoring (see paragraph 0071, system, techniques and devices for individualized cardiac rehabilitation plan), the system comprising:
a receiver module to receive, via a user device, one or more inputs from a user in response to one or more questions associated with ailments and requirements pertaining to the user (see paragraph 0071, device receives via a user interface patient feedback responses to questions associated with pre workout, post workout, surveys and indications of exertion; and see paragraph 0090 and Fig. 1; and see paragraph 0005, processor receives input via user interface);
a user engagement module to create and render a customized workout plan to the user for initiating the rehabilitation session (see paragraph 0110-0119, a user interface screen #625 is provided to create and render a plan to a user for rehabilitation; and see paragraph 0090 and Fig. 1, user interface #108 is connected to processor #118), wherein the customized workout plan is created based on the received one or more inputs and includes one or more standard clinical features (see paragraph 0125-0128, a physician selected cardiac rehabilitation plan will utilize several parameters such as those see in Table 4 which include shortness of breath, chest pain, fatigue, heart rate and average sleep rate and where shortness of breath, chest pain and fatigue are asked as pre-exercise questions to the user; and see paragraph 0149, pre-exercise questions);
a data collection module to receive metrics and movement data of the user while implementing the customized workout plan during the rehabilitation session (see paragraph 0153-0156, processor can receive patient data from wearable medical device prior to, during and post exercise including ECG information and motion information; and see paragraph 0090 and Fig. 1, data storage #104 is connected to processor #118);
a progress and performance analysis module (see paragraph 0090 and Fig. 1, at least one processor #118) to:
extract one or more clinical features based on the received metrics and movement data of the user by at least one of: coordinating, smoothing, normalization, dimensionality reduction, temporal correlation, windowing, and feature extraction (see paragraph 0153-0158, patient data include ECG data information and motion data information where the data received via sensors #710 can be digitized and processed through a digital signal processing unit #720 and frequency selection filters and circuits can operate to isolate frequency ranges of interest to indicate a condition; and see paragraph 0316, adequate signal quality is assessed); and
compare the extracted one or more clinical features with the standard one or more clinical features to determine if there are deviations (see paragraph 0306, processor can compare monitored patient information which includes ECG heart rate and motion information to threshold information for the activity); and
a feedback module to provide, […], one or more dynamic feedbacks to the user in real-time based on the determined deviations (see paragraph 0291 and Table 14: the display can show patient notifications on a user interface; for example the display can show user in real time “work harder” if heart rate is below a threshold, “good pace” if heart rate is within a threshold range and “slow down” if heart rate is above a threshold”), wherein the one or more dynamic feedbacks are associated with correction of at least one of: posture and movement to overcome the determined deviation (see paragraph 0291, the display shows patient notifications to correct a user’s movement in that they should walk faster or slower).
Volosin does not specifically disclose employing an explainable Artificial Intelligence (AI) model.
Kaliraman teaches the use of an explainable Artificial Intelligence (AI) model (see paragraph 0075, employing transparent/explainable AI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Volosin with the teachings of Kaliraman to have employed an explainable AI model because it would have resulted in the predictable result of receiving a prediction and recommendation with an explanation on how the recommendation was created which gives transparent to the decision making (Kaliraman: see [0075]).
With respect to claim 2, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Volosin further discloses wherein the customized workout plan is at least one of: automatically created and created by a physiotherapist (see paragraph 0125-0128, a physician created cardiac rehabilitation plan; and see paragraph 0079, cardiac rehabilitation plan can be automatically generated if adjusted are needed).
With respect to claim 3, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Volosin further discloses wherein the customized workout plan includes one or more tasks along with specific attributes and parameters for performing the one or more tasks (see Fig. 7D and see paragraph 0114-0124, the workout plan includes several tasks that list the time duration and the target pace, speed and weight for each task).
With respect to claim 4, all limitations of claim 3 apply in which Volosin further discloses wherein the one or more tasks are associated with at least one of: sequential instructions to perform physical exercises and virtual objects for provisioning physiotherapy (see Fig. 7D and see paragraph 0114-0124, the workout plan includes sequential instructions to perform each exercise).
With respect to claim 5, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Volosin further discloses wherein the data collection module is communicatively coupled to at least one of: one or more sensors and a camera to receive the metrics and movement data of the user while implementing the customized workout plan by processing the received one or more inputs (see paragraph 0090 and Fig. 1, sensing electrode interface #112 includes various sensors that receives data from user and it is connected to processor #118 which is connected to data storage #104).
With respect to claim 6, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Volosin further discloses wherein the metrics and movement data include at least one of: speed, reaction time, angle, distance, stability, jerk, range of motion, flexibility, balance, strength, muscle power, and degree of flexion (see paragraph 0153-0156, processor can receive patient data from wearable medical device prior to, during and post exercise including ECG information and motion information; and see paragraph 0307, motion information includes pace/speed information; and see paragraph 0178, motion information can include distance covered during exercise).
With respect to claim 7, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Volosin further discloses wherein the one or more standard clinical features are related to required posture and movement from the user for implementing the customized workout plan (see paragraph 0153-0156, processor can receive patient data from wearable medical device prior to, during and post exercise including ECG information and motion information as required movement is notated by physician as mentioned in [0117] as being a target speed), and the one or more clinical features are related to actual posture and movement of the user while implementing the customized workout plan (see paragraph 0153-0156, processor can receive patient data from wearable medical device prior to, during and post exercise including ECG information and motion information as required movement is notated by physician as mentioned in [0117] as being a target speed and [0307] notes that the motion information collected during the exercise includes pace/speed information).
With respect to claim 8, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Volosin further discloses wherein the customized workout plan is rendered in a virtual environment and includes one or more virtual objects to facilitate interaction with the user to make the rehabilitation session immersive (see paragraph 0110-0119, a user interface screen #625 is provided to create and render a plan to a user for rehabilitation where the use of a user interface screen makes it a virtual environment and the toggle for changing the metrics as seen in Fig. 7D are the virtual objects that makes the session immersive; and see paragraph 0090 and Fig. 1, user interface #108 is connected to processor #118).
With respect to claim 9, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Volosin further discloses wherein the progress and performance analysis module creates a report based on the results of the comparison and sends the report to at least one of: the user and a physiotherapist of the user (see paragraph 0092, one or more reports are sent for review to patient’s healthcare provider (physician) to monitor patient progress during the cardiac rehabilitation exercise).
With respect to claim 11, Volosin discloses a method for conducting interactive rehabilitation sessions with continuous monitoring (see paragraph 0071, system, techniques and devices for individualized cardiac rehabilitation plan), the method comprising:
receiving, via a user device, one or more inputs from a user in response to one or more questions associated with ailments and requirements pertaining to the user (see paragraph 0071, device receives via a user interface patient feedback responses to questions associated with pre workout, post workout, surveys and indications of exertion; and see paragraph 0090 and Fig. 1; and see paragraph 0005, processor receives input via user interface);
creating and rendering a customized workout plan to the user for initiating the rehabilitation session (see paragraph 0110-0119, a user interface screen #625 is provided to create and render a plan to a user for rehabilitation; and see paragraph 0090 and Fig. 1, user interface #108 is connected to processor #118), wherein the customized workout plan is created based on the received one or more inputs and includes one or more standard clinical features (see paragraph 0125-0128, a physician selected cardiac rehabilitation plan will utilize several parameters such as those see in Table 4 which include shortness of breath, chest pain, fatigue, heart rate and average sleep rate and where shortness of breath, chest pain and fatigue are asked as pre-exercise questions to the user; and see paragraph 0149, pre-exercise questions);
receiving metrics and movement data of the user while implementing the customized workout plan during the rehabilitation session (see paragraph 0153-0156, processor can receive patient data from wearable medical device prior to, during and post exercise including ECG information and motion information; and see paragraph 0090 and Fig. 1, data storage #104 is connected to processor #118);
extracting one or more clinical features based on the received metrics and movement data of the user by at least one of: coordinating, smoothing, normalization, dimensionality reduction, temporal correlation, windowing, and feature extraction (see paragraph 0153-0158, patient data include ECG data information and motion data information where the data received via sensors #710 can be digitized and processed through a digital signal processing unit #720 and frequency selection filters and circuits can operate to isolate frequency ranges of interest to indicate a condition; and see paragraph 0316, adequate signal quality is assessed);
comparing the extracted one or more clinical features with the standard one or more clinical features to determine if there are deviations (see paragraph 0306, processor can compare monitored patient information which includes ECG heart rate and motion information to threshold information for the activity); and
providing one or more dynamic feedbacks to the user in real-time based on the determined deviations (see paragraph 0291 and Table 14: the display can show patient notifications on a user interface; for example the display can show user in real time “work harder” if heart rate is below a threshold, “good pace” if heart rate is within a threshold range and “slow down” if heart rate is above a threshold”), wherein the one or more dynamic feedbacks are associated with correction of at least one of: posture and movement to overcome the determined deviation (see paragraph 0291, the display shows patient notifications to correct a user’s movement in that they should walk faster or slower)..
Volosin does not specifically disclose employing an explainable Artificial Intelligence (AI) model.
Kaliraman teaches the use of an explainable Artificial Intelligence (AI) model (see paragraph 0075, employing transparent/explainable AI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Volosin with the teachings of Kaliraman to have employed an explainable AI model because it would have resulted in the predictable result of receiving a prediction and recommendation with an explanation on how the recommendation was created which gives transparent to the decision making (Kaliraman: see [0075]).
With respect to claim 12, all limitations of claim 11 apply in which Volosin further discloses wherein the customized workout plan is at least one of: automatically created and created by a physiotherapist (see paragraph 0125-0128, a physician created cardiac rehabilitation plan; and see paragraph 0079, cardiac rehabilitation plan can be automatically generated if adjusted are needed).
With respect to claim 13, all limitations of claim 11 apply in which Volosin further discloses wherein the customized workout plan includes one or more tasks along with specific attributes and parameters for performing the one or more tasks (see Fig. 7D and see paragraph 0114-0124, the workout plan includes several tasks that list the time duration and the target pace, speed and weight for each task).
With respect to claim 14, all limitations of claim 13 apply in which Volosin further discloses wherein the one or more tasks are associated with at least one of: sequential instructions to perform physical exercises and virtual objects for provisioning physiotherapy (see Fig. 7D and see paragraph 0114-0124, the workout plan includes sequential instructions to perform each exercise).
With respect to claim 15, all limitations of claim 11 apply in which Volosin further discloses wherein the data collection module is communicatively coupled to at least one of: one or more sensors and a camera to receive the metrics and movement data of the user while implementing the customized workout plan by processing the received one or more inputs (see paragraph 0090 and Fig. 1, sensing electrode interface #112 includes various sensors that receives data from user and it is connected to processor #118 which is connected to data storage #104).
With respect to claim 16, all limitations of claim 11 apply in which Volosin further discloses wherein the metrics and movement data include at least one of: speed, reaction time, angle, distance, stability, jerk, range of motion, flexibility, balance, strength, muscle power, and degree of flexion (see paragraph 0153-0156, processor can receive patient data from wearable medical device prior to, during and post exercise including ECG information and motion information; and see paragraph 0307, motion information includes pace/speed information; and see paragraph 0178, motion information can include distance covered during exercise).
With respect to claim 17, all limitations of claim 11 apply in which Volosin further discloses wherein the one or more standard clinical features are related to required posture and movement from the user for implementing the customized workout plan (see paragraph 0153-0156, processor can receive patient data from wearable medical device prior to, during and post exercise including ECG information and motion information as required movement is notated by physician as mentioned in [0117] as being a target speed), and the one or more clinical features are related to actual posture and movement of the user while implementing the customized workout plan (see paragraph 0153-0156, processor can receive patient data from wearable medical device prior to, during and post exercise including ECG information and motion information as required movement is notated by physician as mentioned in [0117] as being a target speed and [0307] notes that the motion information collected during the exercise includes pace/speed information).
With respect to claim 18, all limitations of claim 11 apply in which Volosin further discloses wherein the customized workout plan is rendered in a virtual environment and includes one or more virtual objects to facilitate interaction with the user to make the rehabilitation session immersive (see paragraph 0110-0119, a user interface screen #625 is provided to create and render a plan to a user for rehabilitation where the use of a user interface screen makes it a virtual environment and the toggle for changing the metrics as seen in Fig. 7D are the virtual objects that makes the session immersive; and see paragraph 0090 and Fig. 1, user interface #108 is connected to processor #118).
With respect to claim 19, all limitations of claim 11 apply in which Volosin further discloses wherein the progress and performance analysis module creates a report based on the results of the comparison and sends the report to at least one of: the user and a physiotherapist of the user (see paragraph 0092, one or more reports are sent for review to patient’s healthcare provider (physician) to monitor patient progress during the cardiac rehabilitation exercise).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volosin in view of Kaliraman as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Killin (US 20070118406 A1).
With respect to claim 10, all limitations of claim 9 apply in which Volosin further discloses a sandbox to facilitate the physiotherapist to create a new custom exercise with customized constraints to modify the workout plan of the user (see paragraph 0186, physician is able to update and adjust the cardiac rehabilitation plan without changing the current plan because of a sandbox environment as the processor needs to wait until physician approves the changes or adjustments) by adding at least one of: body point of interest, relevant angles, and necessary metrics for tracking recovery progress of the user in the rehabilitation session (see paragraph 0186, metrics that have to be updated include the predetermined criteria for measuring activity/motion data).
Volosin and Kaliraman do not specifically teach that physiotherapist uploads a video performing a new custom exercise.
Killin teaches uploading videos that show performing exercise (see paragraph 0012, care plan include exercises that are presented using video delivered to a user to perform anytime and anywhere).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Volosin and Kaliraman with the teachings of Killin to have uploaded videos because it would have resulted in the predictable result of allowing a user to visual exercise without the need for face to face interface with a healthcare provider (Killin: see [0032]).
With respect to claim 20, all limitations of claim 19 apply in which Volosin further discloses a sandbox to facilitate the physiotherapist to create a new custom exercise with customized constraints to modify the workout plan of the user (see paragraph 0186, physician is able to update and adjust the cardiac rehabilitation plan without changing the current plan because of a sandbox environment as the processor needs to wait until physician approves the changes or adjustments) by adding at least one of: body point of interest, relevant angles, and necessary metrics for tracking recovery progress of the user in the rehabilitation session (see paragraph 0186, metrics that have to be updated include the predetermined criteria for measuring activity/motion data).
Volosin and Kaliraman do not specifically teach that physiotherapist uploads a video performing a new custom exercise.
Killin teaches uploading videos that show performing exercise (see paragraph 0012, care plan include exercises that are presented using video delivered to a user to perform anytime and anywhere).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Volosin and Kaliraman with the teachings of Killin to have uploaded videos because it would have resulted in the predictable result of allowing a user to visual exercise without the need for face to face interface with a healthcare provider (Killin: see [0032]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIDHI PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2379. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays 9AM-5PM.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/N.N.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791