DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed 5/5/2026; claims 2 - 21 are pending; claim 1 has been cancelled.
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 2 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention a statutory category of invention?
Claims 2, 13 and 20 are directed to a method or system of unweighted treatment management (Step 1, Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea?
The limitation of steps: … providing a user's information, the information comprising at least two of the following characteristics: age, weight, gender, location, desired result, current medical condition, height, lift access requirements, therapist access requirements, therapy history, past workout information, desired diagnostic assessment, and user type, wherein user type comprises at least one of an athlete, a casual user, a rehabilitation user, and a chronic user; analyzing, using a processor of the differential air pressure (DAP) unweighting system, the user's information based, at least in part, on aggregate information in a database comprising other users' characteristics and associated past workout session data including duration, speed, incline, and unweighting level provided to the other users by a pressure bag of the other users' DAP unweighting systems used during workouts; and generating, using the processor, a suggested workout routine including duration, speed, incline, and unweighting level provided by a pressure bag of the DAP unweighting system to be used during a workout based on the comparing of the user's information to the other users' information as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (claims 13 and 20). The claimed method akin to mental process of observations, evaluations, and judgements of a therapist. The mere nominal recitation of a processor performing these steps does not take the claim limitation outside of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process (Step 2A, Prong 1: yes).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Per the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, if a claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception, a claim is not "directed to" a judicial exception. Alternatively, a claim that does not integrate a recited judicial exception into a practical application is directed to the exception. Evaluating whether a claim integrates an abstract idea into a practical application is performed by a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea, and b) evaluating those additional elements individual and in combination to determine whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. Exemplary considerations indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have or has not been integrated into a practical application are set forth in the 2019 PEG
With respect to the instant claims, Claims 1, 13 and 20 recite the additional elements of: a processor, an unweighted system, a user interface, a processor. Claims 11 – 12 and 18 – 19 recite: a differential air pressure system and a non-differential air pressure system. It is particularly noted that the use of processor "as a tool" to perform an abstract method and steps for a user interface that only amount to extra solution activity (input and output interface) are indicated in the 2019 PEG as examples that an additional element has not been integrated into a practical application. Even in combination, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits, such as an improvement to a computing system, on practicing the abstract idea (STEP 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1, 13 and 20 recite the additional elements of: a processor, an unweighted system, a user interface, a processor. Claims 11 – 12 and 18 – 19 recite: a differential air pressure system and a non-differential air pressure system set forth above for Step 2A, Prong 2. Regarding these limitations: Applicant's specification describes these features "… The exemplary computer system 600 may comprise an exemplary client or server computer system. Computer system 600 comprises a communication mechanism or bus 611 for communicating information, and a processor 612 coupled with bus 611 for processing information. Processor 612 may in some variations be a microprocessor, but is not limited to a microprocessor” in the Applicant’s specification, para. [0269]). There is no indication in the Specification that Applicants have achieved an advancement or improvement in computer for prescribing exercise based on user characteristics. Dependent claims 3 – 12, 14 – 19 and 21 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims through their dependencies and do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claims to more than the claimed abstract idea, and are thus rejected for the same reasons.
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.
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.
Claims 2 - 11, 13 - 18, 20 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson (US 2015/0181314 A1 supported by provisional application 61/920286) in view of Whalen et al. (US 2011/0098615 A1).
Re claims 2, 13, 20:
Swanson teaches 2. A method of treatment management (Swanson, Abstract), comprising:
providing a user's information, the information comprising at least two of the following characteristics: age, weight, gender, location, desired result, current medical condition, height, lift access requirements, therapist access requirements, therapy history, past workout information, desired diagnostic assessment, and user type, wherein user type comprises at least one of an athlete, a casual user, a rehabilitation user, and a chronic user (Swanson, [0038]; [0090]; [0118]; [0132]);
analyzing, using a processor, the user's information based, at least in part, on aggregate information in a database comprising other users' characteristics and associated past workout session data including duration, speed, incline used during workout (Swanson, [0071], “Systems and methods according to at least some examples of this invention also may be used to provide and/or suggest workouts for users (e.g., pre-programmed workouts, optionally taking into account various factors, such as user age, height, weight, fitness level, gender, past performance, goals, etc.)”; [0090], “historical data relating to a user's recorded workout history in general, a user's workout history for that particular activity type, or other features of a user's preferences or history (such as typical overall workout elapsed time, elapsed distance, typical speed, typical incline or resistance settings, weight, age, weight loss/gain, etc.)”; [0100], “As a workout routine proceeds in this example system and method, the electronic device 508 receives speed, distance, and timing information and compares this information to past workout data for the user relating to his/her personal bests”; [0134]); and
generating, using the processor, a suggested workout routine including duration, speed, incline, to be used during a workout based on the comparing of the user's information to the other users' information (Swanson, [0060], “workout information downloaded from a workout routine stored in or available through the portable equipment may be used to control various features of the workout, such as: weight machine settings, resistance settings, incline (or hill level) settings, target distance (or other overall time length or duration) settings, target calorie burn (or other physiological based parameter) settings, treadmill speed or incline settings, etc”; [0071], “provide and/or suggest workouts for users (e.g., pre-programmed workouts, optionally taking into account various factors, such as user age, height, weight, fitness level, gender, past performance, goals, etc.). Such workouts may be designed by fitness experts, e.g., for individual users, for general categories or groups of users, etc … the downloaded workout may provide a wide variety of information to the user, such as: real time workout parameter feedback (e.g., speed, distance covered, stair-stepping, elliptical, or other rate information, calories burned, elapsed time, etc.) … real-time comparison information to previous workouts or to a user's "personal best;" etc.)”; [0090], “historical data relating to a user's recorded workout history in general, a user's workout history for that particular activity type, or other features of a user's preferences or history (such as typical overall workout elapsed time, elapsed distance, typical speed, typical incline or resistance settings, weight, age, weight loss/gain, etc.”).
Swanson teaches 13. An treatment system (Swanson, Abstract), comprising:
an system; a user interface configured to enable identification of a user to the system (Swanson, [0032] – [0033]); and a processor comprising computer readable instructions for:
receiving a user's information, based on the identification of the user, the user's information comprising at least two of the following characteristics: age, weight, gender, location, desired result, current medical condition, height, lift access requirements, therapist access requirements, therapy history, past workout information, desired diagnostic assessment, and user type, wherein user type comprises at least one of an athlete, a casual user, a rehabilitation user, and a chronic user (Swanson, [0038]; [0090]; [0118]; [0132])
analyzing the user's information based, at least in part, on aggregate information in a database comprising other users' characteristics and associated past workout session data including duration, speed, incline during workouts (Swanson, [0071], “Systems and methods according to at least some examples of this invention also may be used to provide and/or suggest workouts for users (e.g., pre-programmed workouts, optionally taking into account various factors, such as user age, height, weight, fitness level, gender, past performance, goals, etc.)”; [0090], “historical data relating to a user's recorded workout history in general, a user's workout history for that particular activity type, or other features of a user's preferences or history (such as typical overall workout elapsed time, elapsed distance, typical speed, typical incline or resistance settings, weight, age, weight loss/gain, etc.)”; [0100], “As a workout routine proceeds in this example system and method, the electronic device 508 receives speed, distance, and timing information and compares this information to past workout data for the user relating to his/her personal bests”; [0134]); and
generating a suggested workout routine including duration, speed, incline to be used during a workout based on the comparing of the user's information to the other users' information (Swanson, [0060], “workout information downloaded from a workout routine stored in or available through the portable equipment may be used to control various features of the workout, such as: weight machine settings, resistance settings, incline (or hill level) settings, target distance (or other overall time length or duration) settings, target calorie burn (or other physiological based parameter) settings, treadmill speed or incline settings, etc”; [0071], “provide and/or suggest workouts for users (e.g., pre-programmed workouts, optionally taking into account various factors, such as user age, height, weight, fitness level, gender, past performance, goals, etc.). Such workouts may be designed by fitness experts, e.g., for individual users, for general categories or groups of users, etc … the downloaded workout may provide a wide variety of information to the user, such as: real time workout parameter feedback (e.g., speed, distance covered, stair-stepping, elliptical, or other rate information, calories burned, elapsed time, etc.) … real-time comparison information to previous workouts or to a user's "personal best;" etc.)”; [0090], “historical data relating to a user's recorded workout history in general, a user's workout history for that particular activity type, or other features of a user's preferences or history (such as typical overall workout elapsed time, elapsed distance, typical speed, typical incline or resistance settings, weight, age, weight loss/gain, etc.”).
20. An treatment system (Swanson, Abstract), comprising:
an system (Swanson, Abstract);
a user interface configured to enable identification of a user to the system (Swanson, [0063]); and
a processor comprising instructions for:
downloading a workout routing to the system, the workout routine comprising a desired duration, speed, incline (Swanson, [0060], “workout information downloaded from a workout routine stored in or available through the portable equipment may be used to control various features of the workout, such as: weight machine settings, resistance settings, incline (or hill level) settings, target distance (or other overall time length or duration) settings, target calorie burn (or other physiological based parameter) settings, treadmill speed or incline settings, etc”; [0071], “provide and/or suggest workouts for users (e.g., pre-programmed workouts, optionally taking into account various factors, such as user age, height, weight, fitness level, gender, past performance, goals, etc.). Such workouts may be designed by fitness experts, e.g., for individual users, for general categories or groups of users, etc … the downloaded workout may provide a wide variety of information to the user, such as: real time workout parameter feedback (e.g., speed, distance covered, stair-stepping, elliptical, or other rate information, calories burned, elapsed time, etc.) … real-time comparison information to previous workouts or to a user's "personal best;" etc.)”; [0090], “historical data relating to a user's recorded workout history in general, a user's workout history for that particular activity type, or other features of a user's preferences or history (such as typical overall workout elapsed time, elapsed distance, typical speed, typical incline or resistance settings, weight, age, weight loss/gain, etc.”); and
recording performance data from the workout routine in the system (Swanson, [0067]; [0090]; [0016]).
Swanson does not explicitly disclose an unweighted treatment system/method.
Whalen et al. (US 2011/0098615 A1) teaches various differential air pressure systems and components for differential air pressure systems (Whalen, Abstract). Whalen further teaches the DAP unweighting system; for example:
1. A method of unweighted treatment management with a differential air pressure unweighting system (Whalen, Abstract, “differential air pressure systems”; [0013], “wherein the height adjustable frame capable of supporting a user's body weight in the event of a trip or a fall”), comprising:
providing a user's information, the information comprising at least two of the following characteristics: age, weight, gender, location, desired result, current medical condition, height, lift access requirements, therapist access requirements, therapy history, past workout information, desired diagnostic assessment, and user type, wherein user type comprises at least one of an athlete, a casual user, a rehabilitation user, and a chronic user (Whalen, [0065], “user’s weight”; [0074], “the height of individual”; [0095], “The data storage may be used to store past performance data and/or personal records”; );
analyzing, using a processor of the differential air pressure (DAP) unweighting system, the user's information based, at least in part, on aggregate information in a database comprising other users' characteristics and associated past workout session data … provided to the other users by a pressure bag of the other users' DAP unweighting systems used during workouts (Whalen, [0085], “the exercise machine 112 may include a treadmill with speed or inclination adjusted by the processor 122 based on the pressure sensed inside the chamber 102”; [0238], “compare his patient's progress versus statistics of healing from people with similar injuries or conditions. This type of data collection for a single individual or across groups of individual can enable further refinement of workouts to assist in the healing process”); and
generating, using the processor, … provided by a pressure bag of the DAP unweighting system to be used during a workout based on the comparing of the user's information to the other users' information (Whalen, [0235], “By expanding this to record calibrations over a period of multiple workouts, weight loss of the user can be obtained. The weight loss can then affect other workout metrics such as speed, incline, etc. A composite of these metrics can give tangible feedback about the progress the user is making and make suggestions for workout adjustments to help the user more aggressively lose weight, regain mobility, improve cardiovascular fitness, etc.”; [0238], “compare his patient's progress versus statistics of healing from people with similar injuries or conditions. This type of data collection for a single individual or across groups of individual can enable further refinement of workouts to assist in the healing process”).
13. A differential air pressure unweighting treatment system (Whalen, Abstract, “differential air pressure systems”; [0013], “wherein the height adjustable frame capable of supporting a user's body weight in the event of a trip or a fall”), comprising:
a differential air pressure (DAP) unweighting system (Whalen, Abstract, “differential air pressure systems”; [0013], “wherein the height adjustable frame capable of supporting a user's body weight in the event of a trip or a fall”);
a user interface configured to enable identification of a user to the system (Whalen, [0089], “The data storage may also be able to log and record the performance and activities of the individual 101 as well as store any calibration data so that the individual 101, trainer, therapist or the like need not perform that the calibration process for every use of the differential air pressure system”); and
a processor of the DAP unweighting system comprising computer readable instructions (Whalen, Abstract, “differential air pressure systems”; [0013], “wherein the height adjustable frame capable of supporting a user's body weight in the event of a trip or a fall”) for:
receiving a user's information, based on the identification of the user, the user's information comprising at least two of the following characteristics: age, weight, gender, location, desired result, current medical condition, height, lift access requirements, therapist access requirements, therapy history, past workout information, desired diagnostic assessment, and user type, wherein user type comprises at least one of an athlete, a casual user, a rehabilitation user, and a chronic user (Whalen, [0065], “user’s weight”; [0074], “the height of individual”; [0095], “The data storage may be used to store past performance data and/or personal records”);
analyzing the user's information based, at least in part, on aggregate information in a database comprising other users' characteristics and associated past workout session data … provided by a pressure bag of the DAP unweighting system used during workouts (Whalen, [0085], “the exercise machine 112 may include a treadmill with speed or inclination adjusted by the processor 122 based on the pressure sensed inside the chamber 102”; [0238], “compare his patient's progress versus statistics of healing from people with similar injuries or conditions. This type of data collection for a single individual or across groups of individual can enable further refinement of workouts to assist in the healing process”); and
generating … unweighting level to be used during a workout based on the comparing of the user's information to the other users' information (Whalen, [0235], “By expanding this to record calibrations over a period of multiple workouts, weight loss of the user can be obtained. The weight loss can then affect other workout metrics such as speed, incline, etc. A composite of these metrics can give tangible feedback about the progress the user is making and make suggestions for workout adjustments to help the user more aggressively lose weight, regain mobility, improve cardiovascular fitness, etc.”; [0238], “compare his patient's progress versus statistics of healing from people with similar injuries or conditions. This type of data collection for a single individual or across groups of individual can enable further refinement of workouts to assist in the healing process”).
20. A differential air pressure unweighting treatment system (Whalen, Abstract, “differential air pressure systems”; [0013], “wherein the height adjustable frame capable of supporting a user's body weight in the event of a trip or a fall”), comprising:
a DAP unweighting system (Whalen, Abstract, “differential air pressure systems”; [0013], “wherein the height adjustable frame capable of supporting a user's body weight in the event of a trip or a fall”);
a user interface configured to enable identification of a user to the system (Whalen, [0065], “user’s weight”; [0074], “the height of individual”; [0095], “The data storage may be used to store past performance data and/or personal records”); and
a processor of the DAP unweighting system Whalen, Abstract, “differential air pressure systems”), comprising instructions for:
… a workout routine to the unweighted system, the workout routine … level of unweighting provided by a pressure bag of the DAP unweighting system (Whalen, [0085], “the exercise machine 112 may include a treadmill with speed or inclination adjusted by the processor 122 based on the pressure sensed inside the chamber 102”; [0238], “compare his patient's progress versus statistics of healing from people with similar injuries or conditions. This type of data collection for a single individual or across groups of individual can enable further refinement of workouts to assist in the healing process”); and
recording performance data from the workout routine in the DAP unweighting system (Whalen, [0235], “By expanding this to record calibrations over a period of multiple workouts, weight loss of the user can be obtained. The weight loss can then affect other workout metrics such as speed, incline, etc. A composite of these metrics can give tangible feedback about the progress the user is making and make suggestions for workout adjustments to help the user more aggressively lose weight, regain mobility, improve cardiovascular fitness, etc.”; [0238], “compare his patient's progress versus statistics of healing from people with similar injuries or conditions. This type of data collection for a single individual or across groups of individual can enable further refinement of workouts to assist in the healing process”).
Therefore, in view of Whalen, 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 method/system described in Swanson, by providing the body-supporting system (unweighted) as taught by Whalen, since the height adjustable frame capable of supporting a user's body weight in the event of a trip or a fall and the unweighted system can support frail users such as elderly patients or users with neuromuscular disorders (Whalen, [0013] and [0175]). In view of Whalen, 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 method/system described in Swanson, by providing the DAP system as taught by Whalen, since DAP system can treat obesity, cardiac disease, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, or Down Syndrome (Whalen, Abstract; [0235]).
Re claims 3, 14:
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the analyzing includes matching the user's information to other users' characteristics. 14. The unweighted treatment system of claim 13, wherein the computer readable instructions for analyzing further include computer readable instructions for matching the user's information to other users' characteristics (Swanson, [0070], “Systems and methods according to at least
some examples of this invention further may allow users to compare their workout routines, data, and/or fitness level to other information, such as: their own stored workouts; stored workouts of other users of remote system 704 (optionally workouts of specific individuals, such as friends, workout partners, etc.; users of the same or similar size, weight, age, gender, fitness level, etc.; etc.);”; [0082]).
Re claims 4, 15:
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the therapy history includes therapy history on an unweighted system. 15. The unweighted treatment system of claim 13, wherein the therapy history includes therapy history on an unweighted system (Whalen, [0088], “The data storage may also be used to store past performance data and personal records for different protocols and the system 100 could allow the individual 101 to run against previous performance data or personal records”; [0089], “The data storage may also be able to log and record the performance and activities of the individual 101”; [0236]).
Re claims 5, 16:
5. The method of claim 2, wherein the therapy history includes at least one of a prescribed therapy history, an actual therapy history, and a therapy history using other equipment. 16. The unweighted treatment system of claim 13, wherein the therapy history includes at least one of a prescribed therapy history, an actual therapy history, and a therapy history using other equipment (Swanson, [0066]; [0082]; [0090]; [0100]).
Re claims 6, 17:
6. The method of claim 2, further comprising downloading the generated suggested workout routine to a selected unweighted system. 17. The unweighted treatment system of claim 13, wherein the computer readable instructions further include instructions for downloading the generated suggested workout routine to a selected unweighted system (Swanson, [0060], “workout information downloaded from a workout routine stored in or available through the portable equipment may be used to control various features of the workout”; [0085], “Plural workout routines, optionally user mixed workout routines, stored and downloaded workout routines”).
Re claim 7:
7. The method of claim 2, wherein generating the suggested workout routine is based on a medical guideline (Swanson, [0130], “The workout programs may be designed by third parties (e.g., coach, nutritionist, trainer, physician, etc.)”; Whalen, [0235], “metrics can give tangible feedback about the progress the user is making and make suggestions for workout adjustments to help the user more aggressively lose weight, regain mobility, improve cardiovascular fitness, etc.”; ).
Re claim 8:
8. The method of claim 2, further comprising sending the suggested workout routine to a medical professional or an insurance provider for approval (Swanson, [0130], “The workout programs may be designed by third parties (e.g., coach, nutritionist, trainer, physician, etc.)”).
Re claim 9:
9. The method of claim 2, further comprising providing a list of unweighted systems appropriate for the suggested workout routine (Swanson, [0056], “for example: training machines commonly found in a gym, such as treadmills, spinning machines, elliptical training machines, stationary bicycles, stair climbing machines, cross-country ski simulating machines, weight lifting machines, rowing machines, etc.”; [0080]; [0087], “wherein a "part" constitutes a specific type of workout activity, such as: warm-up, walking, running, biking, rowing, use of exercise equipment or gym machines (such as treadmills, stair-stepping machines, elliptical machines, exercise bicycles, rowing machines, cross-country ski simulators, etc.), weight lifting (free weights or gym machines), yoga, dance, aerobics, martial arts, team sports, cool-down, etc. In this example system and user interface, any combination of activities may be included in a workout routine without departing from this invention”).
Re claim 10:
10. The method of claim 2, wherein generating the suggested workout routine comprises generating a workout routine for equipment other than an unweighted system (Swanson, [0056], “for example: training machines commonly found in a gym, such as treadmills, spinning machines, elliptical training machines, stationary bicycles, stair climbing machines, cross-country ski simulating machines, weight lifting machines, rowing machines, etc.”; [0080]).
Re claims 11, 18, 21:
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the unweighted system includes a differential air pressure system (Whalen, Abstract). 18. The unweighted treatment system of claim 13, wherein the unweighted treatment system includes a differential air pressure system (Whalen, Abstract). 21. The DAP unweighted unweighting treatment system of claim 20, wherein the DAP unweighted unweighting system includes a differential air pressure system (Whalen, Abstract).
Claims 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson and Whalen as applied to claims 10 or 13 above, and further in view of Edelman (US 2010/0137765 A1).
Re claims 12 and 19:
The combination of Swanson and Whalen does not explicitly disclose non-DAP system. Edelman teaches a spinal column brace system which includes a rigid support, an interchangeable therapy pad, and a front panel (Edelman, Abstract). Edelman further teaches 12. The method of claim 10 … includes a non-differential air pressure system. 19. The unweighted treatment system of claim 13 … includes a non-differential air pressure system (Edelman, [0015], “The pump may cause either constant or dynamic pressure within the thermal exchange bladder, depending upon whether steady compression or pulsating compression is desired on the therapy site”). Therefore, in view of Edelman, 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 method/system described in Swanson, by providing the constant pressure system as taught by Edelman, since the pump may cause either constant or dynamic pressure within the thermal exchange bladder, depending upon whether steady compression or pulsating compression is desired on the therapy site (Edelman, [0015]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
The treatment of a patient using a differential air pressure (DAP) unweighting system can be based on a multitude of characteristics. Indeed the number of characteristics may provide more variables than can be easily and quickly processed by the human mind. The claims here solve this problem by analyzing, using a processor of the DAP unweighting system, a database comparing other user's characteristics with the patient's characteristics and then generating a suggested workout routine based on the comparison. Further, the suggested workout routine is also displayed for the user on a display of the DAP unweighting system.
The examiner submits that a human such as a doctor / therapist / fitness trainer has been known to compare a patient’s characteristic with other patients’ conditions and past treatment experience to suggest an appropriate treatment. MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment. [T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or post-solution activity-such as identifying a relevant audience, a category of use, field of use, or technological environment. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The claimed method and system merely manipulate "user’s information" and “other users’ information” to “generate a suggested workout routing” which is simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Applicant argues:
The Office Action characterizes the claims as allegedly being directed to an abstract idea that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. This characterization oversimplifies the claims and ignores their technical focus. Instead, the claims are directed to a concrete technological solution. The claims are directed to a specific, practical improvement in patient care through differential air pressure unweighting systems … Thus, the recited steps cannot be performed mentally or with pen and paper and are therefore not directed to a mental process. Rather, the claims recite a specialized and technological solution to a clinical and computational problem unique to DAP treatment systems.
The examiner submits that there is nothing technical about prescribing a treatment by comparing user’s condition with other users’ conditions. Furthermore, the that the additional elements of an “a processor”, “a differential air pressure (DAP) unweighting system” merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (i.e., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Id.; see also MPEP § 2106.05(f) (i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception). In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App’x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit.”).
Applicant argues:
The recited order combination produces a new and useful capability that addresses a technological problem in a non-conventional way, which amount to significant more than the purported abstract idea (mental process). Accordingly, the claims are patent-eligible under Alice Step Two.
Applicant’s processor and DAP unweighting system are themselves entirely conventional and used (by DAP unweighting system) in a conventional way. Appending purely conventional steps to an abstract idea does not supply a sufficiently inventive concept. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357, Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294, 1298. Although the analyzing step involves tangible components (a DAP), the components are conventional and used in a conventional manner. See Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300 ("[S]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality" cannot make abstract ideas patentable.).
Applicant argues:
Hidler does not teach or suggest "analyzing ... information in a database comprising ... [an] unweighting level provided to the other users by a pressure bag of the other users' DAP unweighting systems," or "generating ... a suggested workout routine ... including an amount of body weight support provided by a pressure bag of the DAP unweighting system," as recited in the instant claims. As an initial matter, the system of Hidler uses ropes or cables and not a pressure bag as claimed. Further, Hidler does not analyze unweighting levels provided by other pressure bags of other DAP systems. Swanson does not cure the deficiencies of Hidler. Since Swanson and Hidler, whether considered alone or in combination, fail to disclose at least the above-recited features of Applicant's claims,
The newly cited reference Whalen et al. (US 2011/0098615 A1) teaches the feature “unweighted treatment management with a differential air pressure unweighting system”.
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 JACK YIP whose telephone number is (571)270-5048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/JACK YIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights