Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/400,414

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING ELLIPTICAL MACHINE TO PERFORM CARDIOVASCULAR REHABILITATION

Final Rejection §103§DP
Filed
Dec 29, 2023
Examiner
GILLIGAN, CHRISTOPHER L
Art Unit
3683
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Rom Technologies Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
278 granted / 486 resolved
+5.2% vs TC avg
Strong +40% interview lift
Without
With
+39.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
518
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
§103
36.5%
-3.5% vs TC avg
§102
12.0%
-28.0% vs TC avg
§112
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 486 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Response to Amendment In the amendment filed 11/05/2025, the following has occurred: claims 1, 8, 16, and 24 have been amended. Now, claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-20, 22-28, and 30 remain pending. Based on the amendments to the claims in the instant application, and the amendments and withdrawal of claims in co-pending application 18/132,134, the previous double patenting rejections are withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-20, 22-28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte, US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0078149 in view of Jayalath, US Patent Application Publication No.2020/0151595 and Giannelli, US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0129301 and further in view of Moturu, US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0000422. As per claim 1, Fonte teaches system, comprising: an elliptical machine configured to be manipulated by a user while the user performs a treatment plan (see paragraph 0059; sensors that monitor user can include exercise equipment, including ellipticals; paragraph 0052; user has a current exercise regimen); one or more sensors (see paragraph 0059; sensors that monitor user can include exercise equipment); a display (see paragraph 0036; a display for user input and output); and a processing device (see paragraph 0006; processor configured to carry out the steps) configured to: receive, from the one or more sensors while the user performs the treatment plan, one or more measurements associated with the user (see paragraph 0006; receives sensor data of user’s blood flow metrics and physiological characteristics), determine, via one or more machine learning models, one or more content items to present to the user, wherein the determining is based on the one or more measurements and one or more characteristics of the user (see paragraph 0039; machine learning is used to analyze sensor metrics and user activity data; paragraph 0084; trained machine learning models), and display, on the display while the user performs the treatment plan, the one or more content items, wherein the one or more content items comprise at least information related to a state of the user, and wherein one or more content items comprise pre-recorded content or interactive content, and wherein the state of the user is associated with the one or more measurements or the one or more characteristics (see paragraph 0040; based on the analysis, reminder or alert is provided to the user to reminder the user to perform various activities). Fonte does not explicitly teach control, based on the one or more content items and using the one or more trained machine learning models, one or more operating parameters of the elliptical machine by transmitting one or more control instructions to the elliptical machine. Jayalath teaches control, based on one or more content items and using one or more trained machine learning models, one or more operating parameters of an elliptical machine by transmitting one or more control instructions to the elliptical machine (see paragraph 0018; connected exercise equipment, including elliptical, receives control instructions based on outputs of other system components to automatically adjust equipment settings in relation to a training goal (outputs of other system components and training goal may be considered one or more content items); paragraph 0062; describing the use of a trained machine learning model). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to incorporate the control and transmitting of the instructions for operating the elliptical of Fonte with the motivation of providing users with personalized exercise treatments (see paragraph 0003 of Jayalath). Fonte and Jayalath doe not explicitly teach the controlled parameters are for ranges of motion of one or more foot support members to cause the one or more foot support members to move along a slot of a crank member of the elliptical machine. Giannelli teaches an adjustable elliptical machine with adjustable ranges of motion of one or more foot support members to cause the one or more foot support members to move along a slot of a crank member of the elliptical machine (see paragraph 0194; elliptical training device with foot supports movably engaged with the frame linkage and crank; paragraph 0198; controlling the range of motion of foot supports). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to control these elements of an elliptical machine as disclosed in Fonte and Jayalath with the motivation of improving user exercises through foot support adjustment (see paragraph 0003 of Giannelli). Fonte, Jayalath, and Giannelli does not explicitly teach the processing device is configured to initiate a telemedicine session, while the user performs the treatment plan, wherein the telemedicine session comprises the processing device communicatively coupled to a processing device associated with a healthcare professional. Moturu teaches a processing device is configured to initiate a telemedicine session, while a user performs a treatment plan, wherein the telemedicine session comprises the processing device communicatively coupled to a processing device associated with a healthcare professional (see paragraphs 0020 and 0103; a patient engages in therapeutic interventions, which may be provided through telemedicine notifications, and the interventions may be communicatively coupling to a health professional mobile computing device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to initiate telemedicine between a provider and patient during exercise machine use in the system of Fonte, Jayalath, and Giannelli with the motivation of improving the health of patients, particularly in the cardiovascular health field (see paragraphs 0020-0021 of Moturu). As per claim 2, Fonte, Jayalath, Giannelli, and Moturu teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Fonte further teaches the one or more content items pertain to at least one selected from the group consisting of a cardiac rehabilitation, an oncologic rehabilitation, a cardio- oncologic rehabilitation, a rehabilitation from pathologies related to a prostate gland, male or female urogenital tract or male or female sexual reproduction, including pathologies related to a breast, a pulmonary rehabilitation, a bariatric rehabilitation, and a neurologic rehabilitation (see paragraph 0020; e.g. cardiac treatments). As per claim 3, Fonte, Jayalath, Giannelli, and Moturu teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Fonte further teaches the processing device is further configured to: modify one or more risk factors of the user by presenting the one or more content items (see paragraph 0072; provides a user with risk information related to analysis of user data). As per claim 4, Fonte, Jayalath, Giannelli, and Moturu teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Fonte further teaches the processing device is further configured to: receive, from one or more peripheral devices, input from the user, wherein the input from the user comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a request to view more details related to the information, a request to receive different information, a request to receive related or complementary information, and a request to stop presentation of the information (see paragraphs 0066-0067; a user may access and view information related to the information provided as output of the analysis). As per claim 6, Fonte, Jayalath, Giannelli, and Moturu teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Fonte further teaches based on a use of the elliptical machine by the user, the processing device is further configured to modify, in real-time or near real-time, a playback of the one or more content items (see paragraph 0066; as the user progresses with treatment, updated reports are generated for display). As per claim 7, Fonte, Jayalath, Giannelli, and Moturu teaches the system of claim 3 as described above. Fonte further teaches the risk factors comprise modifiable risk factors relating to at least one of cholesterol levels, blood pressure levels, stress levels, diabetes levels, or some combination thereof (see paragraph 0072; provides a user with risk information related to analysis of user data, including cholesterol, blood pressure, stress, glucose levels – paragraphs 0073-0074). Claims 8-11, 13-20, 22-28, and 30 recite substantially similar system, method, and medium limitations to system claims 1-4 and 6-7 and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ray, US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0028896, discloses video communication with a user while the user is using an elliptical machine. Bissonnette, US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0376327, discloses providing a user with feedback related to use of an exercise machine during a telemedicine session with a medical professional. 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 C. Luke Gilligan whose telephone number is (571)272-6770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 - 5:00. 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, Robert Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. 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. C. Luke Gilligan Primary Examiner Art Unit 3683 /CHRISTOPHER L GILLIGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 29, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 28, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Aug 01, 2024
Response Filed
Aug 08, 2024
Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Feb 13, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Oct 01, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 01, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 05, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12555657
MEDICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, RECORDING MEDIUM, MEDICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, AND MEDICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12525325
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DATA REFERENCE LINKS TO MAINTAIN DATA VALIDATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12518857
MULTI-SITE CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12499428
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A HEALTH CARE E-COMMERCE MARKETPLACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12488323
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A HEALTH CARE E-COMMERCE MARKETPLACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
57%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+39.5%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 486 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month