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
The following Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 10/14/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1-20 have been examined a set forth below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “handlebar assembly”, “row assembly”, “climbable assembly”, “step assembly”, “paddle assembly”, “brace assembly”, “lift assembly”, “push assembly”, “balance assembly”, in claim 11, must be shown or the features canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “first set of cables” in line 12, needs to be changed to “first set of one or more cables”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “first set of cables” in line 3, needs to be changed to “first set of one or more cables”, and the phrase “and assembly” in line 5 needs to be changed to “and the assembly”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “and assembly” in line 4 needs to be changed to “and the assembly”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 1 recites: “a first set of one or more cables”. Applicant has not provided any specific definition regarding “a first set of one or more cables” in the original specification. The term “set”, according to a dictionary definition (i.e., merriam-webster.com) means: a number of things of the same kind that belong or are used together, a collection of elements and especially mathematical ones (such as numbers or points), etc. Similar definition has been provided by other dictionaries as well, whereby the term “set” refers to a group/number of elements. Therefore, the term “set” requires at least two of whichever element it is referring (i.e. set of cables= at least two cables). As such, it is unclear what is meant by a first set of one or more cables. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claims 2-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 4 recites: “wherein the processing deice is further configured to generate, using an artificial intelligence engine, a machine learning model trained to generate the motion profile for the assembly”, while claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends, recites: “generate, based on the data, via execution of one or more machine learning models, a motion profile for an assembly of the electromechanical machine”. However, it is unclear whether “a machine leaning model” recited in claim 4, is part of the one or more machine learning models or different from such. For the purposes of examination, this claim has been examined “as best understood”, whereby “a machine learning model” recited in claim 4 is part of the one or more machine learning models” recited in claim 1. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 6 recites: “use a machine learning model trained to control one or more spools of the first set of cables…”, while claim 1, upon which claim 6 depends, recites: “generate, based on the data, via execution of one or more machine learning models, a motion profile for an assembly of the electromechanical machine”. However, it is unclear whether “a machine leaning model” recited in claim 6, is part of the one or more machine learning models or different from such. For the purposes of examination, this claim has been examined “as best understood”, whereby “a machine learning model” recited in claim 6 is part of the one or more machine learning models” recited in claim 1. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 20, as currently presented, has the status identifier of “(Original)”. However, this claim, as currently presented, is dependent on a non-existing claim 39, while original claim 20 was dependent on claim 19. As such, it is unclear whether Applicant intended to have the dependency of claim 20 changed or not. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. For the purposes of examination, claim 20 has been considered to be dependent upon claim 19.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 12-14 and 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 11-14, 17 and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/475,463 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed towards similar computer-implemented systems, methods and tangible, non-transitory computer-readable instructions. Table below shows the mapping of the claims of the current application with those of copending Application No. 18/475,463.
Claims of Current Application
Claims of copending Application No. 18/475,463
12. A method comprising: receiving data comprising a treatment plan including one or more prescribed exercises for a user to perform using an electromechanical machine; generating, based on the data, a motion profile for an assembly of the electromechanical machine, wherein the assembly is coupled to a carriage to enable movement along a length of an arm, wherein the carriage is coupled to each cable of a first set of cables; executing a transformation function to implement a desired virtual apparatus model using the electromechanical machine, wherein, to implement the desired virtual apparatus model, the transformation function maps the motion profile to one or more coordinates in a domain; and controlling, using the desired virtual apparatus model, one or more motors of the electromechanical machine.
18. The method of claim 12, wherein the motion profile comprises a line or a geometrical shape.
19. A tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processing device to: receive data comprising a treatment plan including one or more prescribed exercises for a user to perform using an electromechanical machine; generate, based on the data, a motion profile for an assembly of the electromechanical machine, wherein the assembly is coupled to a carriage to enable movement along a length of an arm, wherein the carriage is coupled to each cable of a first set of cables; execute a transformation function to implement a desired virtual apparatus model using the electromechanical machine, wherein, to implement the desired virtual apparatus model, the transformation function maps the motion profile to one or more coordinates in a domain; and control, using the desired virtual apparatus model, one or more motors of the electromechanical machine.
9. A method comprising: receiving data comprising a treatment plan, wherein the treatment plan includes one or more prescribed exercises for a user to perform using an electromechanical machine; generating, based on the data and certain criteria, a motion profile for an assembly of the electromechanical machine, wherein the motion profile comprises a movement shape of one or more portions of the electromechanical machine; executing a transformation function to implement, using the electromechanical machine, a desired virtual apparatus model, wherein, to implement the desired virtual apparatus model, the transformation function maps the motion profile to one or more coordinates in a domain; and controlling, using the desired virtual apparatus model, the one or more motors of the electromechanical machine.
11. The method of claim 9, wherein the assembly is coupled to a carriage to enable movement along a length of an arm, wherein the carriage is coupled to each cable of the first set of cables.
14. The method of claim 9, wherein the movement shape comprises a line or a geometrical shape.
17. A tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processing device to: receive data comprising a treatment plan, wherein the treatment plan includes one or more prescribed exercises for a user to perform using an electromechanical machine; generate, based on the data and certain criteria, a motion profile for an assembly of the electromechanical machine, wherein the motion profile comprises a movement shape of one or more portions of the electromechanical machine; execute a transformation function to implement, using the electromechanical machine, a desired virtual apparatus model, wherein, to implement the desired virtual apparatus model, the transformation function maps the motion profile to one or more coordinates in a domain; and control, using the desired virtual apparatus model, the one or more motors of the electromechanical machine.
19. The computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the assembly is coupled to a carriage to enable movement along a length of an arm, wherein the carriage is coupled to each cable of the first set of cables.
13. The method of claim 12, further comprising controlling the one or more motors to operate in a plurality of modes comprising an active mode, an active-assist mode, an assisted mode, a passive mode, or some combination thereof.
20. The computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the processing device is further to control the one or more motors to operate in a plurality of modes comprising an active mode, an active-assist mode, an assisted mode, a passive mode, or some combination thereof.
12. The method of claim 9, further comprising controlling the one or more motors to operate in a plurality of modes comprising an active mode, an active-assist mode, an assisted mode, a passive mode, or some combination thereof.
20. The computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the processing device is further configured to control the one or more motors to operate in a plurality of modes comprising an active mode, an active-assist mode, an assisted mode, a passive mode, or some combination thereof.
14. The method of claim 12, wherein, using the electromechanical machine by controlling the one or more motors based on the motion profile, the plurality of modes, or some combination thereof, the method further comprises enabling performing at least one of the one or more prescribed exercises.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein, by using the electromechanical machine in order to control the one or more motors based on the motion profile, the plurality of modes, or some combination thereof, the method further comprises enabling performing at least one of the one or more prescribed exercises.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 2017/0361165 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Miller ‘165”) in view of Miller et al. (US 5,755,645, hereinafter referred to as “Miller ‘645”).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 19, Miller ‘165 teaches a computer-implemented system (¶ [3])/a method (¶ [10])/a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions (¶ [11]), comprising:
an electromechanical machine comprising one or more motors (i.e., B3, ¶ [64], the brake B3 is a magnetic particle brake, but can be of any other type including motor/step motor) mounted to a body (Fig. 1), and a first set of one or more cables (as part of the transmission device, ¶ [64], [77]); and
a processing device (computer 110, ¶ [3], [64]) communicatively coupled (via 111) to the one or more motors (¶ [64]), wherein the processing device executes instructions implementing a control system/causes the processing device to:
receive data comprising a treatment plan including one or more prescribed exercises for a user to perform using the electromechanical machine (Figs. 29-31, ¶ [71], [165]);
generate, based on the data, via execution of one or more machine learning models, a motion profile for an assembly (i.e. 8, Fig. 1, ¶ [63]) of the electromechanical machine (Figs. 13A-14B, 29-31, ¶ [4], [64]-[68], [70]-[76], [88]-[93], [96]-[98], [103]-[109], [117]-[119], [122], [126]-[130], [135], [167]-[168]), wherein the assembly is coupled to a carriage (i.e., 18) to enable movement along a length of an arm (i.e., 16, ¶ [63]);
execute a transformation function to implement a desired virtual apparatus model using the electromechanical machine, wherein, to implement the desired virtual apparatus model, the transformation function maps the motion profile to one or more coordinates in a domain (Figs. 13A-14B, abstract, ¶ [66]-[68], [71]-[75], [77]-[84], [88]-[93], [96]-[98], [103]-[109], [113], [117]-[119], [121]-[123], [126]-[130], [162]); and
control, using the desired virtual apparatus model, the one or more motors of the electromechanical machine (Figs. 13B and 14B, ¶ [64], [90]-[93], [96], [126]-[130]).
Miller ‘165 teaches that the brake B3 is a magnetic particle brake, but can be of any other type including motor/step motor (see ¶ [64]). Miller ‘165 is silent about each cable of the first set of one or more cables being coupled to a respective one of the one or more brakes/motors, and wherein the carriage is coupled to each cable of the first set of cables.
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 19, Miller ‘645 teaches a computer-implemented system comprising: an electromechanical machine comprising: one or more brakes (i.e. B3, col. 3, lines 1-3) mounted to a body (Figs. 1-2, indirectly mounted); a first set of one or more cables (i.e. 27), each cable of the first set of one or more cables coupled to a respective one of the one or more of the brakes (Figs. 5, col. 4 line 61 – col. 5 line 12); an assembly (i.e., 8), wherein the assembly is coupled to a carriage (i.e., 18) to enable movement along a length of an arm (i.e., 16), and wherein the carriage is coupled to each cable of the first set of cables (Fig. 5, col. 4 line 61 – col. 5 line 12, please note that upon modification of Miller ‘165 with features of Miller ‘645, each cable would be coupled to the motor/brake).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Miller ‘165 wherein each cable of the first set of one or more cables being coupled to a respective one of the brakes/motors, and wherein the carriage is coupled to each cable of the first set of cables as taught by Miller ‘465 in order to provide for a smooth transmission of the load/resistance to the user.
Regarding claims 2, 13 and 20, Miller ‘165 in view of Miller ‘645 teaches wherein the processing device is further configured to control the one or more motors to operate in a plurality of modes comprising an active mode, an active-assist mode, an assisted mode, a passive mode, or some combination thereof (Miller ‘165: ¶ [68], [101]).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Miller ‘165 in view of Miller ‘645 teaches wherein, using the electromechanical machine by controlling, based on the motion profile, the one or more motors, the plurality of modes, or some combination thereof, the processing device is further configured to enable/enabling performing at least one of the one or more prescribed exercises (Miller ‘165: Figs. 29-31, ¶ [64], [68], [90]-[91], [93], [101]).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, (claim 4 “as best understood”) Miller ‘165 in view of Miller ‘645 teaches wherein the processing device is further configured to generate/generating, using an artificial intelligence engine, a machine learning model trained to generate the motion profile for the assembly (Miller ‘165: ¶ [4], [167]-[168]).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Miller ‘165 in view of Miller ‘645 teaches wherein the processing device is disposed in a computing device separate from the electromechanical machine, or the processing device is disposed in the electromechanical machine (Miller ‘165: ¶ [169]).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, (claim 6 “as best understood”) Miller ‘165 in view of Miller ‘645 teaches wherein the processing device is further configured to: use/using a machine learning model trained to control one or more spools of the first set of cables, one or more speeds of the one or more motors, one or more resistances provided by the one or more motors, one or more ranges of motion of the carriage and assembly, or some combination thereof (Miller ‘165: ¶ [4], [167]-[168], control one or more resistances provided by the one or more motors through providing various recommendations).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Miller ‘165 in view of Miller ‘645 teaches wherein the motion profile comprises a line or a geometrical shape (Miller ‘165: Figs. 3-4, 29-30).
Regarding claim 11, Miller ‘165 in view of Miller ‘645 teaches wherein the assembly comprises a handlebar assembly (Miller ‘165: ¶ [63]; Miller ‘645: Figs. 3 and 12), a row assembly, a pedal assembly, a climbable assembly, a step assembly, a paddle assembly, a brace assembly (Miller ‘165: ¶ [69]), a lift assembly, a push assembly, or a balance assembly.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller ‘165 and Miller ‘645 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shavit (US 2017/0368413 A1).
Regarding claims 8-9, Miller ‘165 in view of Miller ‘645 teaches the computer-implemented system further comprising: a headset configured to present to the user virtual reality (Miller ‘165: ¶ [69], virtual reality glasses are configured to present virtual reality), a display configured to present, based on a prescribed exercise of the one or more prescribed exercises, various information (Miller ‘165: 809, Figs. 29-32, ¶ [69], [165], [169], please note that a headset is also considered a display).
Miller ‘165 in view of Miller ‘645 is silent about the headset being configured to present, based on a prescribed exercise of the one or more prescribed exercises, a virtual reality element, wherein the virtual reality element displays to the user a visual modification comprising an appearance of the electromechanical machine, the display being configured to present, based on a prescribed exercise of the one or more prescribed exercises, an augmented reality element that modifies on the display an appearance of the electromechanical machine.
Regarding claims 8-9, Shavit teaches a computer-implemented system comprising: a headset configured to present to the user, based on a prescribed exercise of the one or more prescribed exercises, a virtual reality element, wherein the virtual reality element displays to the user a visual modification comprising an appearance of the electromechanical machine, a display configured to present, based on a prescribed exercise of the one or more prescribed exercises, an augmented reality element that modifies on the display an appearance of the electromechanical machine (¶ [60], [337], [1085], [1116], [1118]-[1123]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Miller ‘165 in view of Miller ‘645 such that the headset configured to present to the user, based on a prescribed exercise of the one or more prescribed exercises, a virtual reality element, wherein the virtual reality element displays to the user a visual modification comprising an appearance of the electromechanical machine, a display configured to present, based on a prescribed exercise of the one or more prescribed exercises, an augmented reality element that modifies on the display an appearance of the electromechanical machine as taught by Shavit in order to provide the user with a more immersive and realistic experience, reduce boredom and motivate the user to exercise.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller ‘165 and Miller ‘645 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of XU (CN 203829257 U, the cited portion of this document are with respect to the translation of this document previously provided).
Regarding claim 10, Miller ‘165 in view of Miller ‘645 teaches the assembly being rotatably coupled to the carriage (Miller ‘165: ¶ [63]).
Although Miller ‘165 in view of Miller ‘645 teaches that the limb interface (8) can be any type of interface/attachment (¶ [63], [69]), Miller ‘165 in view of Miller ‘645 is silent about the assembly being a pedal assembly
Regarding claim 10, XU teaches an electromechanical machine comprising an assembly, wherein the assembly comprises a pedal assembly and the pedal assembly is rotatably coupled to a carriage (pg. 4, line 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Miller ‘165 in view of Miller ‘645 wherein the assembly comprises a pedal assembly and the pedal assembly is rotatably coupled to the carriage as taught by XU in order to enable a user perform various leg/foot exercises for leg/foot rehabilitation purposes or specific sports.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1, 12 and 19 stating:
“As discussed and agreed in the interview, the present amendments to claim 1 are not anticipated or obvious in view of the proposed combination of Miller '165 and Miller '645, even assuming that a reason to combine these references exists (which Applicant does not concede).
As amended, claim 1 recites in part:
generate, based on the data, via execution of one or more machine learning models, a motion profile for an assembly of the electromechanical machine, wherein the assembly is coupled to a carriage to enable movement along a length of an arm, wherein the carriage is coupled to each cable of the first set of cables;
(Emphasis added.)
Relative to the above amendments, Applicant notes that Miller '165 only briefly discusses machine learning at para. [0167], but not with the details and specifics recited above. Meanwhile, Miller '645 does not appear to discuss machine learning aspects at all. Accordingly, as agreed in the interview, these cited references do not teach or suggest all elements of amended claim 1. Independent claims 12 and 19, while not identical in scope to claim 1, have been similarly amended herein, and Applicant submits these claims likewise are patentably distinct from the cited references.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the present Section 103 rejections”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. In response to applicant’s assertion: “As discussed and agreed in the interview, the present amendments to claim 1 are not anticipated or obvious in view of the proposed combination of Miller '165 and Miller '645, even assuming that a reason to combine these references exists (which Applicant does not concede)”, the Examiner would like to mention and clarify that NO interview was conducted for current application in which the Examiner agreed with the presented amendments to claim 1. Applicant is referring to an interview that was conducted for another application (18/475,463), which presented proposed amendments different from those presented in claim 1 of the current application.
In response to applicant’s further assertion: “Relative to the above amendments, Applicant notes that Miller '165 only briefly discusses machine learning at para. [0167], but not with the details and specifics recited above”, the Examiner would like to mention that claim 1, as currently presented does not discuss any (specific) details regarding the one or more machine learning. As for the pertinent limitations of claim 1 reciting: “generate, based on the data, via execution of one or more machine learning models, a motion profile for an assembly of the electromechanical machine…”, the Examiner would like to refer the application to at least ¶ [167]-[168] of Miller ‘165 which recites:
“ Performance data can be aggregated from several users and stored on a network such that analysis can be performed across several users. For example, the health of a population as a whole can be determined. In another example, users can be stratified based on demographics and can view comparisons of their performance to that of their peers. Peer data may be useful in, for example, detecting an injury or weakness of the user, and a training plan can be adjusted accordingly. Also, recommended exercise sessions and regimens for a given user can be further refined based on the progress or outcomes of others with similar training prescriptions. For example, machine learning algorithms can be incorporated on a cloud-based system to review stored performance data of several users. From such data, the system may determine that power increases are most efficiently achieved for most users by training at 90% of the MVC with two sets of four repetitions each, rather than at 80% of the MVC with one set of ten repetitions. The personalized training protocols of others can be automatically updated with 90% MVC resistances and revised exercise sessions.
A processer can be configured to aggregate trajectory and performance data generated by users, providing the ability to learn from individual user and aggregate user behavior. The system can thus automatically assess user performance, and the quality of a user's training, exercise, and recovery movements and overall programs without the need for direct human intervention or supervision. The system is further able to provide suggestions for correcting a user movement, providing recommendations for correcting or improving the user movement, and/or suggest or automatically generate personalized training and recovery programs to address a user's needs, such as overcoming a particular weakness”.
As such, Miller ‘165 does teach the control system to generate, based on the data (comprising a treatment plan including one or more prescribed exercises for a user), via execution of one or more machine learning models, a motion profile for an assembly of the electromechanical machine. As stated above and previously, Miller ‘165 teaches that the brake B3 is a magnetic particle brake, but can be of any other type including motor/step motor (see ¶ [64]). Miller ‘165 is silent about each cable of the first set of cables being coupled to a respective one of the brakes/motors, and wherein the carriage is coupled to each cable of the first set of cables. However, such limitations are taught by Miller ‘645 (see above for details), and it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Miller ‘165 with feature of Miller ‘645 in order to provide for a smooth transmission of the load/resistance to the user.
In response to applicant’s further assertion: “independent claims 12 and 19, while not identical in scope to claim 1, have been similarly amended herein, and Applicant submits these claims likewise are patentably distinct from the cited references”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention that neither claim 12 nor claim 19, have been similarly amended. Claims 12 and 19, do NOT include the same amendments that are presented in claim 1. As such, applicant is arguing narrower than claimed.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine Miller ‘165 with Miller ‘645 is found in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 pm.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571)272- 4966. 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.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784