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 amendments filed 06/24/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1-20 have been examined as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “” in each of lines 2 and 5, has been both underlined and two” has been considered.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “” in line 4, has been both underlined and a” has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
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: “receive first data comprising information pertaining to motion of one or more pedals of the electromechanical machine…receive second data comprising information pertaining to one or more characteristics of the one or more users performing the treatment plan…identify one or more correlations between at least some of the first data and at least some of the second data; and generate, based on the one or more treatment plans and the one or more correlations, one or more motion profiles for an assembly of the electromechanical machine”. However, it is unclear what “an assembly” of the electromechanical machine is/referring to. In other words, it is unclear how the correlation between information pertaining to motion of the one or more pedals and information pertaining to one or more characteristics of the one or more user is used to generate one or more motion profile for another/unknown assembly of the electromechanical machine. Please note that although the specification describes that “the assembly may include a handlebar assembly, a row assembly, a pedal assembly, a climbable assembly, a step assembly, a paddle assembly, a brace assembly, a lift assembly, a push assembly, a balance assembly, or some combination thereof”, the specification does not describe or clarify that the correlation between information pertaining to motion of the one or more pedals and user’s information is identified and used to generate a motion profile for any of a handlebar assembly, a row assembly, a climbable assembly, a step assembly, a paddle assembly, a brace assembly, a lift assembly, a push assembly, a balance assembly, or some combination thereof. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been examined “as best understood”, whereby “an assembly” is considered to be pedal assembly of the electromechanical machine, according to ¶ [0191] of the original specification which states that Fig. 16 illustrates a method 1600 to determine, based on identified correlations between pedal motion and use impact, pedal motion profiles. The same also applies to claims 8 and 15. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of dependency on claim 1, claim 8 or claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 19 recites at least one step or instruction for observation, evaluation, and/or judgement of information pertaining to motion parameters of one or more users using an electromechanical machine, and information pertaining to characteristics of the one or more users, evaluating those information, providing a motion profile for an assembly of the electromechanical machine for the one or more users, and using mathematical relations to implement the motion profile, which are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG and a mathematical concept under the 2019 PEG.
A detailed evaluation of the claims has been shown below. Please note that the underlined portions show the abstract idea, the bolded portions show additional elements, and the statement within the parenthesis clarify the specific abstract idea of the specific limitation. Although the detailed evaluation has been shown for claims 1-3, and 5, the same evaluation also applies to claims 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 19.
Specifically, the claims recite:
1. A computer-implemented system comprising:
an electromechanical machine comprising two or more motors mounted to a body and spaced apart from each other, and a first set of cables, each coupled to a respective one of the motors; and
a processing device communicatively coupled to the two or more motors, wherein the processing device executes instructions implementing a control system to:
receive first data comprising information pertaining to motion of one or more pedals of the electromechanical machine, wherein the motion is associated with one or more users performing one or more treatment plans (i.e., visually observing and/or mentally noting the pedaling motion of one or more users; involves observation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
receive second data comprising information pertaining to one or more characteristics of the one or more users performing the treatment plan, wherein the characteristics comprise performance information, measurement information, personal information, or some combination thereof (i.e., visually observing and/or mentally noting physiological characteristics of the one or more users or; involves observation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
identify one or more correlations between at least some of the first data and at least some of the second data (i.e., mentally or using a pen and paper, evaluate the observed/noted data and determine a correlation/relationship between them; involves evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG); and
generate, based on the one or more treatment plans and the one or more correlations, one or more motion profiles for an assembly of the electromechanical machine (i.e., mentally create a motion profile for the one or more users and using a pen and paper draw/write/present the motion profile created mentally; involves opinion, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
2. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to:
receive a prescribed treatment plan for a user (i.e., via looking through an exercise book or hearing from a trainer/physician; involves observation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and
select, based on the prescribed treatment plan, a motion profile from the one or more motion profiles to be performed by the user, wherein the motion profile is configured to provide a desired result (i.e., by mentally selecting a motion profile for the user from the previously mentally created motion profiles and based on the exercise from the exercise book or trainer/physician; involves evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG).
3. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to 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 a motion profile of the one or more motion profiles to one or more coordinates in a domain (i.e., mentally and/or with a pen and paper, use mathematical relations/calculations to perform such transformation function; involves evaluation and judgement which are grouped a mental processes under 2019 PEG and involves mathematical relations/calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept under the 2019 PEG).
5. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the one or more correlations pertain to one or more results achieved with respect to a threshold achievement level measured in relation to the one or more characteristics (i.e., visually observing and mentally determining whether the user completed exercise or degree of recovery that was achieved; involves evaluation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-3, 5, 9-10, 12, 16-17 and 19 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 (and dependent claims 2-3, 5, 9-10, 12, 16-17 and 19) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 8 and 15), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: an electrical machine comprising two or more motors, a first set of cables, each coupled to a respective one of the motors, one or more pedal and an assembly, and a processing device executing instructions, are generically recited computer elements or conventional exercise devices or their parts, in the rejected claims, which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 (and dependent claims 2-3, 5, 9-10, 12, 16-17 and 19) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and mathematical concepts) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a processing device, as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 (and dependent claims 2-3, 5, 9-10, 12, 16-17 and 19) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 (and dependent claims 2-3, 5, 9-10, 12, 16-17 and 19) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 19 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: an electrical machine comprising two or more motors, a first set of cables, each coupled to a respective one of the motors, one or more pedal and an assembly, and a processing device executing instructions.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components or are conventional exercise devices and their components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks in various exercise areas. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
For instance, Suzuki (US 2001/0036883A1), in ¶ [0004]-[0007] and [0014], provides description regarding Fig. 14 being a diagram illustrating the configuration of a conventional exercise therapy device in JPH11169484 (corresponding to Japanese Patent Application No. 9-345619), comprising one or more pedals, two motors (a load motor and an assist motor) mounted on a body and spaced apart from each other (see Figures of JPH11169484), a first set of cables (belts 204 and 206), each coupled to one of the motors, an assembly (pedal assembly), a processing device (computer 212) and control unit (213), communicatively coupled to the two motors (a copy of JPH11169484 along with its translation have been provided with this Office Action for applicant’s reference). As such, the electromechanical machine comprising two motors mounted on a body and spaced apparat from each other, a first set of cables, each coupled to a respective one of the motors, an assembly (a pedal assembly), and one or more pedals, and a processing device communicatively coupled to the two motors, are generically claimed computer elements and are conventional exercise machine and their parts.
Additionally, in light of Applicant’s specification, ¶ [0166]-[0169], the claimed term a processing device executing instructions is reasonably construed as a generic computing devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processing device. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in various claims amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, evaluate, generate data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the limitations of claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 19 are directed to applying an abstract idea (as identified above) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 19 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 (and dependent claims 2-3, 5, 9-10, 12, 16-17 and 19) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 19 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 19 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 19 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
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 1-2, 5-9, 12-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hacking et al. (US 2020/0289889 A1) in view of Bond et al. (US 5,421,798).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Hacking teaches a computer-implemented system/a method/a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, causing a processing device to/comprising:
an electromechanical machine (104) comprising two or more motors (122) mounted to a body (Figs. 1-2, 6 and 8, ¶ [45], [59], the electromechanical device 104 may include at least one or more motor controllers 120, and one or more electric motors 122), and a cable (i.e. timing belt 808), each coupled to a respective one of the motors (Fig. 8, ¶ [124], timing belt 808 is coupled to a motor 122); and
a processing device (i.e. 102, 116, ¶ [60], [69]) communicatively coupled to the two or more motors (¶ [50]-[61], [77], the electromechanical device 104 may include at least one or more motor controllers 120, and one or more electric motors 122. The motor controller 120 may be operatively coupled to the electric motor and configured to provide commands to the electric motor 122 to control operation of the electric motor 122. The motor controller 120 may include any suitable microcontroller including a circuit board having one or more processing devices, one or more memory devices, one or more network interface cards, etc. The motor controller 120 may provide control signals or commands to drive the electric motor 122. The computing device 102 may be communicatively connected to the electromechanical device 104 with the network interface card on the motor controller 120. The computing device may transmit commands to the motor controller 120 to control the electric motor 122. The network interface card of the motor controller 120 may receive the commands and transmit the commands to the electric motor 122 to drive the electric motor 122. In this way, the computing device 102, is operatively coupled to the electric motor 122. As such, in a case where the electromechanical device 104 includes more than one electric motor 122, the computing device 102/processing device, would communicatively be coupled to all the electric motors 122), wherein the processing device executes instructions implementing a control system to:
receive/receiving first data comprising information pertaining to motion of one or more pedals (110, Figs. 1-2 and 6) of the electromechanical machine, wherein the motion is associated with one or more users performing one or more treatment plans (¶ [45]-[47], [52], [58], [69], [70], [86], the monitoring devices may include a goniometer configured to measure range of motion of a body part and the monitoring devices may also include force sensors disposed in the pedals and configured to measure the force exerted by the user on the pedals. The control system may receive the information from the monitoring devices, aggregate the information, make determinations using the information, and/or transmit the information to a cloud-based computing system for storage. The cloud-based computing system may maintain the information related to each user. Various statistics are measured (and presented) such as speed, revolutions per minute, positions of pedals, ranges of motion);
receive/receiving second data comprising information pertaining to one or more characteristics of the one or more users performing the treatment plan, wherein the characteristics comprise performance information, measurement information, personal information, or some combination thereof (¶ [46], [52], [58], [69]-[70], [84], the servers 128 (of cloud-based computing system 116) may store profiles for each of the users that use the electromechanical device 104. The profiles may include information about the users, such as respective treatment plans, the affected body parts, any procedures the users had performed on the affected body parts, health, age, race, measure data from the goniometer, measured data from the wristband and the pedals, user input received at the user portal, etc.);
identify/identifying one or more correlations between at least some of the first data and at least some of the second data (¶ [70], the training engine 130 may train the one or more machine learning models 132. The training engine 130 may use a base data set of patient characteristics, treatment plans followed by the patient, and results of the treatment plan followed by the patients. The results may include information indicating whether a given treatment plan led to full recovery of the affected body part, partial recovery of the affected body part, or lack of recovery of the affected body part, and the degree to which such recovery was achieved. The one or more machine learning models may refer to model artifacts that are created by the training engine using training data that includes training inputs and corresponding target outputs. The training engine may find patterns in the training data that map the training input to the target output and generate the machine learning models that capture these patterns); and
generate/generating, based on the one or more treatment plans and the one or more correlations, one or more motion profiles for an assembly of the electromechanical machine (¶ [48]-[50], [69]-[70], [84], [102], a treatment plan may include various sessions including a set of pedaling session, a set of joint extension sessions, a set of flex session, etc. Each of the sessions may specify various operating parameters including operating mode of the electromechanical machine, target ranges of motion the body parts are to attain, positions of the pedals, information relating to a target angle of extension at the joint, a target angle of flex at the joint, etc. The operating modes include: passive mode, active-assist mode, resistive mode, and an active mode, wherein each mode further specifies operating parameters including position for the pedal, a speed at which to control the motor, an amount of resistive force the motor is to apply to the pedals, etc. The training engine 130 is capable of generating one or more machine learning models 132 which may be trained to generate treatment plans for the patient/user. Applicant’s own original specification, in ¶ [0040], recites: “As used herein, the term "motion profile" may refer to a specification of movement of a portion of an electromechanical machine. The specification may describe a shape (e.g., circular, elliptical, rectangular, square, oval, any geometrical shape, etc.) of a movement path for the portion to follow. The motion profile may specify which portion is to move, when the portion is to move, how the portion is to move (e.g., which components cause the movement of the portion), etc. The motion profile may specify various operating parameters of the portion of the electromechanical machine, such as a range of motion, a speed, an acceleration, an amount of resistive force to provide, and the like. The motion profile may specify various coordinates in an n-dimensional domain, where the coordinates represent points through which the portion is to move during operation”. Similar to applicant’s, as shown above, Hacking also teaches specifying a target range of motion of the pedals or joints of the user, position of the pedals, an amount of resistive force to provide, a speed, target angle of extension and flex of a joint, etc., all of which define the motion profiles of the pedal assembly of Hacking (which would describe a shape of movement paths formed by movement of the pedal assembly)).
Hacking is silent about the two or more motors mounted spaced apart from each other and a first set of cables, each coupled to a respective one of the motors.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Bond teaches a computer-implemented system comprising: an electromechanical machine comprising two or more motors (80, 82) mounted to a body/frame (30) and spaced apart from each other (Figs. 1 and 4), a firs set of cables (60 and 62 and/or 77 and 78), each coupled to a respective one of the motors (Figs. 1 and 4, col. 6 lines 3-39), and one or more pedals (40,42, Fig. 1), and a processing device (computer 220, Fig. 9) communicatively coupled to the two or more motors (Fig. 9, col. 7 lines 30-52).
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 Hacking’s invention such that the two or more motors are mounted spaced apart from each other on the body and the electromechanical machine comprises a first set of cables, each coupled to a respective one of the motors as taught by Bond in order to provide for a more efficient, precise and independent control of the movement of the pedals while providing stability for the machine during use.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Hacking in view of Bond teaches wherein the processing device is further configured to/the method further comprising: receive/receiving a prescribed treatment plan for a user (Hacking: ¶ [48]-[51]); and select/selecting, based on the prescribed treatment plan, a motion profile from the one or more motion profiles to be performed by the user, wherein the motion profile is configured to provide a desired result (Hacking: ¶ [48]-[51], [70], [84]).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Hacking in view of Bond teaches wherein the one or more correlations pertain to one or more results achieved with respect to a threshold achievement level measured in relation to the one or more characteristics (Hacking: ¶ [70]).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Hacking in view of Bond teaches wherein the processing device is further configured to control the two 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 (Hacking: ¶ [47], [59], [85]; Bond: Fig. 9, col. 6 lines 3-39 and col. 7 lines 30-52, the processing device/computer controls the two or more motors).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Hacking in view of Bond teaches wherein the processing device is further configured to use a machine learning model trained to control one or more spools of the first set of cables, one or more speeds of the two or more motors, one or more resistances provided by the two or more motors, one or more ranges of motion of a carriage and the assembly, or some combination thereof (Hacking: ¶ [103]-[107], [108]-[111]; Bond: Fig. 9, col. 6 lines 3-39 and col. 7 lines 30-52).
Claims 3-4, 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hacking in view of Bond as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US 2017/0361165 A1).
Hacking in view of Bond teaches that the electromagnetic device can be used to perform exercises with the hands or the feet (Hacking: ¶ [45]). Hacking is silent about wherein the processing device is further configured to 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 a motion profile of the one or more motion profiles to one or more coordinates in a domain, wherein the processing device is further configured to control, using the desired virtual apparatus model, the two or more motors of the electromechanical machine.
Regarding claims 3-4, 10-11 and 17-18, Miller 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/stepper motor) mounted to a body (Fig. 1), and a cable (as part of the transmission device, ¶ [64], [77], the transmission can be cable drive transmission or other transmissions can be employed such as gear trains or belt drives); 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: generate/generating, based on received data, a motion profile for an assembly (i.e. 8, Fig. 1, ¶ [63]) of the electromechanical machine (Figs. 13A-14B, 29-31, ¶ [64]-[68], [70]-[76], [88]-[93], [96]-[98], [103]-[109], [117]-[119], [122], [126]-[130], [135], [165]), execute/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 a motion profile of the one or more motion profiles 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]), wherein the processing device is further configured to/the method further comprising control/controlling, 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], Please note that upon modification of Hacking’s invention in view of Bond with features of Miller, the processing device would control, using the desired virtual apparatus mode, the two or more motors of the electromechanical machine).
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 Hacking’s invention in view of Bond wherein the processing device is further configured to execute/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 a motion profile of the one or more motion profiles to one or more coordinates in a domain, wherein the processing device is further configured to control, using the desired virtual apparatus model, the motors of the electromechanical machine as taught by Miller in order to provide for a more precise control of the device, accommodate rehabilitation of different users with different injuries and rehabilitation needs/goals, and to further enable users perform sport specific rehabilitations using the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments have either been found not persuasive or moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Response to arguments regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) stating:
“ Claims 1, 8, and 15 were rejected for "an assembly" as lacking antecedent basis. This ground is respectfully traversed.
A patent is invalid for indefiniteness only if its claims, read in light of the specification and prosecution history, fail to inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 909-10, 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). Definiteness is evaluated from the perspective of one skilled in the relevant art at the time the patent was filed, reading the claims in light of the specification and prosecution history. Id. The standard mandates clarity while recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable. Id.
Each independent claim introduces "an assembly" with the indefinite article, which is the grammatically correct form for a term that is first introduced in that claim. The specification at ¶¶[0128], [0176], and [0274] expressly defines "assembly" as including a handlebar assembly, a row assembly, a pedal assembly, a climbable assembly, a step assembly, a paddle assembly, a brace assembly, a lift assembly, a push assembly, a balance assembly, or a combination thereof. This definition is used consistently throughout the specification and claims. One skilled in the art, reading the claims in light of the specification's express and broad definition of "assembly," would understand with reasonable certainty what is claimed. Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 909-10. The Office Action's reading of "assembly" as limited to a pedal assembly is narrower than the specification warrants and does not reflect the understanding of one skilled in the art. No amendment is necessary or appropriate to address this ground. Reconsideration and withdrawal of this ground are respectfully requested”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. Although claims 1, 8 and 15 are interpreted in light of the specification, the recited claim limitation in each of these claims, fails to inform one of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. Applicant’s cited paragraphs of the specification, state that “the assembly may include a handlebar assembly, a row assembly, a pedal assembly, a climbable assembly, a step assembly, a paddle assembly, a brace assembly, a lift assembly, a push assembly, a balance assembly, or some combination thereof”. However, none of the cited paragraphs or any other paragraphs of the original specification describe or clarify that the correlation between information pertaining to motion of the one or more pedals and user’s information is identified and used to generate a motion profile for any of a handlebar assembly, a row assembly, a lift assembly, a balance assembly, etc. On the other hand, the original specification, in ¶ [0191] states that Fig. 16 illustrates a method 1600 to determine, based on identified correlations between pedal motion and use impact, pedal motion profiles. As such, it is still unclear how the correlation between information pertaining to motion of the one or more pedals and information pertaining to one or more characteristics of the one or more user is used to generate one or more motion profiles for an assembly (other than the pedal assembly which is supported in the specification) of the electromechanical machine. As such, for the purposes of examination, the claim has been examined “as best understood”, whereby “an assembly” is considered to be pedal assembly. Applicant is respectfully requested to provide further clarification regarding how the correlation between information pertaining to motion of the one or more pedals and information pertaining to one or more characteristics of the one or more user is used to generate one or more motion profiles for an assembly (other than the pedal assembly) including a handlebar assembly, a row assembly, a climbable assembly, a step assembly, a paddle assembly, a brace assembly, a lift assembly, a push assembly, a balance assembly, or some combination thereof. As such, this rejection still stands.
Response to arguments regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Step 2A, Prong One
In response to applicant’s arguments stating:
“The Office Action characterizes the claimed limitations as mental processes - specifically as "visually observing and/or mentally noting" pedaling motion and user characteristics, mentally evaluating and generating observations, and mentally creating a motion profile and drawing or writing it on paper. The Office Action further characterizes the transformation function limitation of claims 3, 10, and 17 as a mathematical concept. Applicant respectfully submits each of these characterizations to be in error.
First, "receive first data comprising information pertaining to motion of one or more pedals of the electromechanical machine" is not a step that could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. This limitation requires receipt by a processing device of structured, machine-generated motion data produced by the motors of a physical electromechanical system and transmitted electronically to that processing device. No cognitive act could substitute for the electromechanical generation and electronic transmission of that data. This step is physically impossible to perform in the human mind.
Second, the same is true of "receive second data comprising information pertaining to one or more characteristics of the one or more users performing the treatment plan." The claim recites receipt by a processing device of structured data comprising performance information, measurement information, personal information, or some combination thereof. The act of receiving structured machine data transmitted to a processing device could not be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. A person cannot mentally replicate the electronic receipt of structured data by a processing device.
Third, "identify one or more correlations between at least some of the first data and at least some of the second data" is likewise not a mental process. The Office Action characterizes this step as mentally evaluating observed data and determining a relationship between them. Applicant respectfully submits this characterization to be in error. The claimed step does not operate on humanly observed impressions - it operates on structured machine-generated data transmitted to and processed by a processing device operating in conjunction with a physical electromechanical machine. The identification of correlations in that context is an operation of the processing device on machine-generated data, not a cognitive evaluation that could be performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Fourth, "generate, based on the one or more treatment plans and the one or more correlations, one or more motion profiles for an assembly of the electromechanical machine" is not a mental process. The Office Action characterizes this step as mentally creating a motion profile and drawing or writing it on paper. Applicant respectfully submits this characterization to be in error. The claimed step is not the mental conception of a profile or the drawing of a sketch - it is the generation of machine-executable motion profiles for the physical assembly of a specific electromechanical machine comprising two or more motors. A sketch on paper is not a motion profile for an electromechanical assembly. The Office Action's own characterization acknowledges that the profile must be drawn, written, or presented on paper, but the claim expressly ties the generated profiles to the physical assembly of the electromechanical machine. That connection to a specific physical machine cannot be replicated mentally or on paper. The generation of profiles that govern the physical configuration and operation of a multi-motor assembly is physically impossible to perform in the human mind.
Fifth, the transformation function limitation of claims 3, 10, and 17 - "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 a motion profile of the one or more motion profiles to one or more coordinates in a domain" - is not a mathematical concept within the meaning of the 2019 Revised Guidance. The mathematical concept category is limited to mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). A disembodied mathematical formula or relationship standing alone may constitute a mathematical concept, but the transformation function of claims 3, 10, and 17 is not disembodied. It is executed by a processing device to implement a desired virtual apparatus model using the electromechanical machine, and it maps a motion profile to coordinates in a domain for the purpose of controlling the physical motors of that machine. The specification confirms that the transformation function produces coordinates that define the physical movement of the carriage and assembly of the electromechanical machine, and that the processing device uses the virtual apparatus model to control the motors. See [0133]- [0136]. The transformation function is thus inseparable from the physical machine it controls and produces a concrete physical result - the controlled movement of a multi-motor cable-driven electromechanical assembly. A mathematical formula that governs the physical operation of a specific machine is not an abstract mathematical concept any more than the equation in Diamond v. Diehr, which the Supreme Court held patent eligible precisely because it was used in a process designed to solve a technological problem in conventional industry practice. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (2014) (citing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178)”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings.
With respect to Applicant’s First argued point above, stating that “receive first data comprising information pertaining to motion of one or more pedals of the electromechanical machine” is not a step that could be performed mentally or with pen and paper, and that this limitations requires receipt by a processing device of structured, machine-generated motion data produced by the motors of a physical electromechanical system and transmitted electronically to that processing device, and that no cognitive act could substitute for the electromechanical generation and electronic transmission of that data, the Examiner would like to mention that the claimed limitation does not include any recitation regarding machine-generated motion data produced by the motors of a physical electromechanical system. As such, applicant is arguing narrower than claimed. Furthermore, but for the processing device, which is considered an additional element, such “receive…” step can be performed mentally through visually observing and/or mentally noting the pedaling motion of one or more users, which involves observation and is grouped under mental processes under 2019 PEG.
With respect to applicant’s Second argued point above, stating that the same is true of “receive second data comprising information pertaining to one or more characteristics of the one or more users performing the treatment plan”, that the claim recites receipt by a processing device of structured data comprising performance information, measurement information, personal information, or some combination thereof, and that the act of receiving structured machine data transmitted to a processing device could not be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, a person cannot mentally replicate the electronic receipt of structured data by a processing device, the Examiner would like to mention that the argued claimed limitation does not include recitation of transmission of any such structured data. As such, applicant is arguing narrower than claimed. Furthermore, according to the claim limitation, the characteristics comprise performance information, measurement information, personal information, or some combination thereof. Therefore, but for the processing device which is considered an additional element, the one or more characteristics of the one or more users can include personal information such as gender, age, height, etc., which can be received through visual observation and therefore, such step can be performed mentally.
With respect to applicant’s Third argued point above, stating that the claimed step of “identify one or more correlations between at least some of the first data and at least some of the second data” does not operate on humanly observed impressions – it operates on structured machine-generated data transmitted to and processing by a processing device operating in conjunction with a physical electromechanical machine, and that the identification of correlations in that context is an operation of the processing device on machine-generated data, not cognitive evaluation that could be performed mentally or with pen and paper, the Examiner would like to mention that the argued claim limitation does not include any recitation regarding machine-generated data and such machine-generated data being transmitted to the processing device. As such, applicant is arguing narrower than claimed. Similar to previous limitations, but for the processing device which is considered an additional element, the recited step of “identify one or more correlations between at least some of the first data and at least some of the second data”, involves evaluating the observed first and second data (i.e., through comparison) and making judgement to determine a correlation/relationship between them and such step can be performed mentally or using pen and paper. Please note that correlation essentially is a process involving comparison between various inputs and their outputs. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: • a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”.
With respect to applicant’s Fourth argued point above, stating that “generate, based on the one or more treatment plans and the one or more correlations, one or more motion profiles for an assembly of the electromechanical machine” is not a mental process, that the claimed step is not the mental conception of a profile or the drawing of a sketch, it is the generation of machine-executable motion profiles for the physical assembly of a specific electromechanical machine comprising two or more motors, and that the claim expressly ties the generated profiles to the physical assembly of the electromechanical machine, the generation of profiles that govern the physical configuration and operation of a multi-motor assembly is physically impossible to perform in the human mind, the Examiner would like to mention the followings. Similar to the previous claim limitations, this limitation or any of the previous limitations, does not include any recitation regarding generation of machine-executable motion profiles for the physical assembly, nor does this limitation or previous ones expressly ties the generated profiles to the physical assembly, as the claim simply recites one or more motion profile is generated “for an assembly” of the electromechanical machine (please note that this limitations fails to recite what such “an assembly” of the electromechanical machine is), and this limitation and the previous ones, lack any recitation of the generation of profiles governing the physical configuration and operation of a multi-motor assembly. In fact, nowhere in the independent claims, anything has been cited regarding “an assembly” being connected to the “two or more motors”, or the multi-motor assembly being configured to operate/being controlled according to the generated one or more motion profiles to move such “an assembly” of the electromechanical machine. As such, applicant is still arguing narrower than claimed. However, the recited limitation “generate, based on the one or more treatment plans and the one or more correlations, one or more motion profiles for an assembly of the electromechanical machine, involves mentally and using pen and paper creating and drawing a motion profile, which involves opinion which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG, and can be performed mentally, whereby such motion profiles can be for an assembly of the electromechanical machine.
With respect to applicant’s Fifth argued point above, stating that the transformation function limitation of claims 3, 10 and 17, is not a mathematical concept as it is not a disembodied mathematical formula or relationship standing alone, it is executed by a processing device to implement a desired virtual apparatus model using the electromechanical machine, and it maps a motion profile to coordinates in a domain for the purpose of controlling the physical motors of that machine, that the specification confirms that the transformation function produces coordinates that define the physical movement of the carriage and assembly of the electromechanical machine, and that the processing device uses the virtual apparatus model to control the motors, thus, the transformation function is inseparable from the physical machine it controls and produces a concrete physical result, the controlled movement of a multi-motor cable-driven electromechanical assembly, the Examiner would like to mention the followings. Nowhere in any of claims 3, 10 and 17, has applicant recited any limitations regarding mapping a motion profile to coordinates in a domain and controlling the physical motors of that machine according to such, or that the transformation function controls the physical machine and produces the controlled movement of a multi-motor cable-driven electromechanical assembly, or produces coordinates that define the physical movement of the carriage and assembly of the electromechanical machine or the processing device uses the virtual apparatus model to control the motors. As such, applicant is arguing narrower than claimed. Please note that implementing such desired virtual apparatus model also appears to be done by the processing device, which is considered an additional element. In addition, “to implement, using the electromechanical machine”, at best, implies “in order to implement, using the electromechanical machine”, and the actual implementing step by the electromechanical machine has not been recited in these claims. Also note that the “electromechanical machine” is also considered an additional element (see above for details). Furthermore, the argued limitations of claims 3, 10 and 17, do involve both mathematical relations and mental processes, since such transformation function (which involves mathematical relations) can be performed/executed mentally or via pen and paper as it involves evaluation and judgement. According to ¶ [0133] of the original specification: “The transformation function may refer to a mathematical function that modifies another mathematical function to cause a graph associated with other mathematical function to be modified”. Therefore, the claim does involve mathematical relations which is mapping a motion profile to one or more coordinates in a domain.
In response to applicant’s arguments stating:
“Independently of the foregoing, claim 1 recites additional structural detail that further confirms the claim as a whole is directed to a sufficiently specific mechanical invention rather than an abstract idea. In addition to the two or more motors and processing device common to all three independent claims, claim 1 recites a first set of cables, each coupled to a respective one of the motors. This cable-and-motor coupling is a specific physical architecture that defines both the mechanical structure of the machine and the means by which the control system operates - the cables transmit the mechanical forces generated by the motors to move the pedal assembly through the prescribed motion profiles. The Office Action disregards the cables entirely in its abstract idea analysis. Under PowerBlock, structural elements of this kind cannot be read out of the step one analysis merely because they are physical rather than computational. PowerBlock, slip op. at 10-11. Considered in their entirety, the motors, cables, and processing device of claim 1 constitute a concrete, specific mechanical and computational architecture that is directed to a sufficiently specific mechanical invention”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. Nowhere in claim 1, any limitation regarding the cable-and-motor coupling being the means by which the control system operates, or the cables transmit the mechanical forces generated by the motors to move the pedal assembly through the prescribed motion profiles. Other than the limitation reciting the processing device communicatively coupled to the motors, the claim lacks limitations regarding the processing device controlling the motors based on the motion profile generated. Also, other than the first set of cables being coupled to the motors, no other limitations regarding the first set of cables have been claimed. The claims also do not recite any limitations regarding “an assembly” being connected to the motors or the first set of cables. The specification does not specify the motors or the cables being of any specific type. There is no limitation regarding the abstract idea/process performed by the processing device being used in controlling the motors of the electromechanical machine.
In response to applicant’s arguments stating:
“Further, the claimed steps are not analogous to any of the examples of abstract ideas listed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), which include tracking financial transactions, filtering content, and rules for playing games - all of which correspond to instructions simply relayed to and performed by a human. The claims here, by contrast, require a processing device operating in conjunction with a specific physical electromechanical machine and are not instructions relayed to or performed by a human. Nor is this a case where the claimed process merely automates a prior manual methodology in the same way that methodology was previously performed. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held that claims were not directed to an abstract idea where the claimed computer-implemented process operated differently from the prior manual process - the computer employed a distinct process to automate a task, rather than simply performing the same steps faster. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. The same is true here. The Office Action's mental process characterization depends on analogizing each claimed limitation to a human performing a superficially similar task manually - observing, noting, evaluating, sketching. But the claimed operations do not perform the same process as a human performing those tasks. Receiving structured, machine-generated motion data transmitted electronically to a processing device is a fundamentally different process from a human visually observing pedaling motion, regardless of any superficial functional similarity in outcome. The claimed process is thus distinct from any human analog in the same way the McRO claims were distinct from the prior manual animation process”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. As mentioned above, the claims involve mental processes as well as mathematical concepts which are abstract ideas. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), under A. Mathematical Relationships, part (iv) of Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim, states: “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlation, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721”. Similarly, execution of a transformation function to implement a desired virtual apparatus model, wherein, to implement the desired virtual apparatus model, the transformation function maps a motion profile of the one or more motion profiles to one or more coordinates in a domain, takes data, manipulates data using transformation function (which may be a mathematical function according to the specification), and organizes that information into new from (i.e., one or more coordinates in a domain) and therefore, is an abstract idea as it is describing a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations.
As stated previously receiving structure, machine-generated motion data transmitted electronically to a processing device, are not recited in the claims and therefore, applicant is arguing narrower than claimed.
In response to applicant’s arguments stating:
“Considered as a whole, claims 1, 8, and 15 are each directed to a concrete, machine-implemented invention involving an electromechanical machine comprising two or more motors and a processing device executing an integrated control system that receives machine-generated motion data and generates motion profiles governing the physical assembly of the machine. Claim 1 further recites the specific structural details of that machine - including two or more motors mounted to a body and spaced apart from each other, and a first set of cables each coupled to a respective motor - reinforcing that the claim as a whole is directed to a sufficiently specific mechanical invention. The Office Action impermissibly abstracts away these specific machine components and characterizes the claims at a purely functional, result-oriented level, which is precisely the approach that PowerBlock rejected in the directly analogous context of automated exercise equipment. PowerBlock, slip op. at 10-11. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further define the operation of the same physical system and are not directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons.
Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-20 are not directed to an abstract idea and are therefore patent eligible under § 101 without need for further analysis.”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar to above, receiving, by a processing device, machine-generated motion data and generating motion profiles governing the physical assembly of the machine are not recited in any of claims 1, 8 or 15. Applicant is arguing narrower than claimed. With respect to applicant’s argued “specific machine”, referring to the electromechanical machine comprising two or more motors mounted to a body and spaced apart from each other, and a first set of cables, each coupled to a respective one of the motors, recited in claim 1, such “specific machine” has not been tied to the abstract idea, and the electromechanical machine having two or more motors mounted to a body and spaced apart from each other and a first set of cables, each coupled to a respective one of the motors, are considered additional elements and they do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine effect a transformation or apply or use he abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technical environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Even if considering that the recited electromechanical machine is a particular machine, the processing device, as an additional element, does not apply the above identified abstract idea with, or by use of, such particular machine. The claims lack any limitations connecting the abstract idea (steps performed by the processing device) to the electromechanical machine in a meaningful way. Contrary to applicant’s assertion, the claims do not recite such control of the motors and the cables by the processing device, based on the one or more generated motion profiles, to affect the motion of the assembly of the electromechanical machine. The claims lack any limitations regarding whether the motors and/or cables are connected to “an assembly” or not.
Additionally, applicant is reminded that claims 1-20 have not been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Rather, claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 19 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong Two
With respect to applicant’s note regarding the inconsistency in the previous language used in the Office Action for Prong Two analysis, referring to “independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 (and their respective dependent claims)”, the Examiner would like to thank the applicant for noting the inconsistency. Such inconsistency has been corrected.
In response to applicant’s arguments stating:
“The Prong Two analysis is respectfully submitted to be procedurally deficient. The Office Action characterizes the physical machine elements as "incidental or token additions" that do not alter how the process steps are performed - a characterization that conflates the Step 2B well- understood, routine, and conventional inquiry with the Prong Two analysis. MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I) expressly excludes that inquiry from Prong Two, and additional elements that represent well- understood, routine, and conventional activity may nonetheless integrate a recited judicial exception into a practical application. Ex parte Martineau, Appeal No. 2026-000138. Applicant respectfully submits that the Prong Two analysis is not consistent with Office guidance on this basis.
On the merits, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application through specific additional elements that are integral to the claimed invention. Each of claims 1, 8, and 15 recites an electromechanical machine comprising two or more motors as a necessary component of the claimed invention. Claim 1 further recites the specific structural details of that machine - including the motor mounting arrangement, cable coupling, and assembly - making clear that the particular machine is not a generic computer but a specific physical apparatus with defined structure. MPEP § 2106.05(b). For a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed. SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010). That standard is satisfied here. It is the machine's motors that generate the motion data received as first data, and it is the machine's assembly for which motion profiles are generated and implemented. Without the specific electromechanical machine, none of the claimed inventions can function. The output of the claimed inventions is not mere information - it is control over the physical configuration and operation of a specific electromechanical machine implementing a motion profile tailored to a user's treatment plan and physical characteristics. This constitutes an improvement to the technological field of controlling the operation of electromechanical machines, which is expressly a recognized basis for practical application integration. MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II)”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. As stated previously, the independent claims 1, 8 and 15, do not recite any limitation that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, since no connection is established between the abstract idea and the electromechanical machine being affected/controlled by such abstract idea. The mere recitation of the electromechanical machine comprising two motors mounted to a body spaced apart from each other, a first set of cables, each coupled to a respective one of the motors, one or more pedals and an assembly for which motion profile is generated, does not mean that either the electromechanical machine is performing the recited functions (abstract idea) or that the results of such function have any effect on the electromechanical machine. As stated above by applicant, “For a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed”. However, the electromechanical machine having the recited components, in the claim does not play a significant part in permitting the claimed method/steps/functions to be performed. Applicant’s assertion that such standard is satisfied in the claims, and stating: “It is the machine's motors that generate the motion data received as first data, and it is the machine's assembly for which motion profiles are generated and implemented. Without the specific electromechanical machine, none of the claimed inventions can function. The output of the claimed inventions is not mere information - it is control over the physical configuration and operation of a specific electromechanical machine implementing a motion profile tailored to a user's treatment plan and physical characteristics. This constitutes an improvement to the technological field of controlling the operation of electromechanical machines, which is expressly a recognized basis for practical application integration”, is incorrect. Nowhere in the rejected claims, has applicant recited that the two or more motors generate motion data received as first data, nowhere in the rejected claims has applicant recited any limitations regarding the output (of the claimed invention) is control over the physical configuration and operation of the specific electromechanical machine implementing a motion profile tailored to a user’s treatment plan and physical characteristics, and nowhere in the rejected claims has applicant recited any limitations regarding controlling the operation of the electromechanical machine. None of the independent claims include any limitations regarding where the first data and/or the second data are received from or how they are obtained in the first place, or any limitations regarding what the next step is after one or more motion profiles for an assembly of the electromechanical machine are generated. As such, applicant is still arguing narrower than claimed.
In response to applicant’s arguments stating:
“The analytical framework of McRO further supports the practical application determination here. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held that claims are not directed to an abstract idea where they focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology, as opposed to a result or effect that merely invokes generic processes and machinery. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. Although McRO resolved the eligibility question at step one without reaching step two, the underlying principle applies with equal force to the Prong Two inquiry: claims that are focused on a specific means of achieving a technological improvement, rather than on the result of that improvement in the abstract, integrate any recited exception into a practical application. The claims here do not cover every conceivable way of generating motion profiles for rehabilitation treatment. They require the specific physical architecture of the electromechanical machine, the specific cable-and-motor coupling, and the specific processing device executing an integrated control system that receives machine-generated pedal motion data, identifies correlations between that data and user characteristics, and generates motion profiles that govern the physical configuration and operation of the machine's assembly. That is precisely the kind of specific means - as opposed to a claimed result - that McRO recognized as directed to a patentable technological improvement rather than an abstract idea, and it is the kind of specific means that integrates any recited exception into a practical application under Prong Two”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. The rejected claims are not focused on specific means of achieving a technological improvement, they do not require the specific physical architecture of the electromechanical machine with the specific cable-and motor coupling, and they do not recite any limitation regarding receiving “machine-generated” pedal motion data and the motion profiles generated governing the physical configuration and operation of the electromechanical machine’s assembly. Applicant is arguing narrower than claimed. Furthermore, the specification does not describe the processing device being a specific type of processing device. Applicant’s arguments are narrower than claimed.
In response to applicant’s arguments stating:
“The Office Action's reliance on Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), is misplaced. In Affinity Labs, the claims were directed to delivering regional broadcast content to out-of-region customers via a cellular telephone, with no improvement to any underlying technology and no description in the specification of how the claimed invention produced a technical improvement. Here, by contrast, the specification expressly identifies the technical problems the claimed invention addresses - including the technical challenges of determining treatment plans from a multitude of patient characteristics, controlling an exercise apparatus from a location remote from the patient, and monitoring and adapting machine operation in real time during a telemedicine session. See [0042]-[0044]. The claims address these problems through a specific integrated technical architecture, not through the abstract delivery of information”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to applicant’s assertions, the rejected claims do not recite any limitations regarding controlling an exercise apparatus from a location remote from the patient, or monitoring and adapting the machine operation in real time during a telemedicine session. Applicant’s arguments are narrower than claimed.
Step 2B
In response to applicant’s arguments stating:
“The Office Action does not identify any of the four required bases for concluding that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. It cites no statement in the specification characterizing the electromechanical machine, its motors, its cable assemblies, or the processing device's integrated control system as well-known or routine. It cites no court decision or publication establishing that the particular combination of components recited in the claims is widely prevalent in the relevant field. It takes no official notice. The Office Action's conclusion that the physical machine elements add nothing beyond generic computer implementation is therefore respectfully submitted to be without the factual foundation that Berkheimer requires.
The Office Action invokes the Berkheimer Memo, citing page (III)(A)(1) for the proposition that the specification's omission of specialized programming or algorithms effectively admits that the claimed hardware is conventional and performs well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Applicant respectfully submits that this reliance is misplaced. The Berkheimer Memo does not establish that an omission of specialized programming description satisfies any of the four required bases for a well-understood, routine, and conventional finding. The Berkheimer Memo instead establishes those four bases as the exclusive means by which such a finding may be made, and the Office Action satisfies none of them. Selectively invoking the Berkheimer Memo while declining to satisfy its requirements is not consistent with Office guidance. The PTAB has reversed16 § 101 rejections on precisely this basis. Ex parte Martineau, Appeal No. 2026-000138 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2026).
The additional elements here are not generic. Each of claims 1, 8, and 15 recites an electromechanical machine comprising two or more motors and a processing device executing an integrated control system to generate individualized motion profiles - a specific, integrated combination of physical and computational components. Claim I further recites a first set of cables each coupled to a respective motor, adding additional physical structure that reinforces the nongeneric character of the claimed machine. This combination of physical machine components and integrated control logic constitutes a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement such that whether it amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea raises at minimum a genuine issue of material fact that precludes a finding of ineligibility. Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1370. The mere fact that components may be disclosed in prior art does not establish that they are well understood, routine, and conventional. Id at 1369. The recited structural elements are required to execute the limitations of the claims and are inseparable from them.
Taken as a whole, the claims constitute an improvement to the technological field of controlling the operation of electromechanical machines through integrated treatment-plan-based motion profile generation, and the additional elements amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05.
Applicant respectfully submits that the additional elements of claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, and 19, considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea, and that the§ 101 rejection should therefore be withdrawn in its entirety”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. As provided above, Suzuki (US 2001/0036883A1), in ¶ [0004]-[0007] and [0014], provides description regarding Fig. 14 being a diagram illustrating the configuration of a conventional exercise therapy device in JPH11169484 (corresponding to Japanese Patent Application No. 9-345619), comprising one or more pedals, two motors (a load motor and an assist motor) mounted on a body and spaced apart from each other (see Figures of JPH11169484), a first set of cables (belts 204 and 206), each coupled to one of the motors, an assembly (pedal assembly), a processing device (computer 212) and control unit (213), communicatively coupled to the two motors (a copy of JPH11169484 along with its translation have been provided with this Office Action for applicant’s reference). As such, the electromechanical machine comprising two motors mounted on a body and spaced apparat from each other, a first set of cables, each coupled to a respective one of the motors, an assembly (a pedal assembly), and one or more pedals, and a processing device communicatively coupled to the two motors, as the additional elements, are generic computer elements and conventional exercise machines and their parts. Furthermore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. As stated previously, the claims do not recite any limitations whereby the identified abstract idea affects/controls/governs the operation of the electromechanical machine. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more. That is, neither the general computer element (a processing device) nor any other additional elements (electromechanical machine and is recited components) add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra solution activity.
As a result, Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 19 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Response to arguments regarding Prior Art Rejections
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding Hacking stating:
“Hacking' s operational disclosure is uniformly directed to a single electric motor.
Embodiments described and illustrated in Hacking employ a single electric motor 122. Paragraph [0124] describes the drive sub-assembly as containing a single electric motor 122, a small molded pulley secured to that motor, a timing belt, and a large molded pulley - a single-motor drive system. Hacking does not appear to disclose two or more motors mounted to a body and spaced apart from each other, and a reference does not anticipate a claim merely by including generic "one or more" language if no embodiment of the reference actually embodies the claimed structure. In re Bond, 910 F.2d at 832.
Hacking also describes stepper motors within the pedal arm assemblies at paragraph [0121]. Those stepper motors drive lead-screws to adjust the radial position of the pedals. They are positional adjustment mechanisms and are not drive motors - they are not mounted to the body as drive motors and are not coupled to a first set of cables.
The Office Action maps the timing belt 808 of Hacking to "a first set of cables, each coupled to a respective one of the motors." The timing belt described in paragraph [0124] of Hacking is a single mechanical transmission element connecting the single electric motor to the crank mechanism through two pulleys within the drive sub-assembly. It is not a set of cables each coupled to a respective one of two or more motors, because there is only one motor and the timing belt is an internal transmission element within that single-motor drive assembly”,
the Examiner would like to mention the followings. Hacking in ¶ [59] teaches the electromechanical device 104 may include at least one or more motor controllers 120, and one or more electric motors 122. As such, Hacking does specifically teach that the electromechanical device may include more than one electric motors 122. However, Hacking teaches a cable/timing belt being coupled to one electric motor (see above for details). Hacking has not been relied upon for teaching the two or more motors being mounted spaced apart from each other and a first set of cables, each coupled to a respective one of the motors. Rather, Bond has been used to teach such limitations (see above for details). Furthermore, regarding applicant’s arguments stating that Hacking’s stepper motors are not drive motors, the Examiner would like to mention that nowhere in any of the claims have applicant recited the motors being drive motors. As such, applicant is arguing narrower than claimed. Furthermore, Hacking in ¶ [59] states that the motor controller 120 may provide control signals or commands to drive the electric motor 122, and that the electric motor 122 may be powered to drive one or more radially-adjustable couplings 124. As such, although not claimed, it appears that the electric motor(s) 122 of Hacking are drive motors.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding limitations of claim 8 reciting: “generating, based on the one or more treatment plans and the one or more correlations, one or more motion profiles for an assembly of the electromechanical machine”, and stating:
“The specification of the present application defines "motion profile" as a specification of movement of a portion of the electromechanical machine, describing a shape - such as circular, elliptical, rectangular, square, oval, or any geometrical shape - of a movement path for the portion to follow, specifying coordinates in an n-dimensional domain through which the portion is to move during operation. Specification paragraph [0040]. A motion profile is thus a geometric movement specification for the assembly and carriage of the electromechanical machine, implemented through a transformation function that maps the profile to coordinates in an n-dimensional coordinate space.
The Office Action maps the output of Hacking's training engine to the "one or more motion profiles" limitation, relying on paragraph [0070] of Hacking. Paragraph [0070] describes a training engine that generates machine learning models trained to produce treatment plans for patients. As described in paragraphs [0048]-[0050] of Hacking, a treatment plan comprises a set of pedaling sessions, joint extension sessions, flex sessions, and walking sessions, each specifying operational modes, time durations, target heartrates, and target forces. A treatment plan in Hacking is a clinical protocol specifying how and when a user is to operate the device. It is not a geometric movement specification describing a movement path shape and coordinate positions for an assembly to follow.
Because Hacking does not disclose "generating, based on the one or more treatment plans and the one or more correlations, one or more motion profiles for an assembly of the electromechanical machine" as required by claim 8, Hacking does not anticipate claim 8. Claims 9, 12, 13, and 14 depend from claim 8 and incorporate this limitation, and are therefore not anticipated by Hacking for the same reason”,
the Examiner would like to mention the followings. Hacking in various paragraphs including: ¶ [48]-[50], [69]-[70], [84], [102], teaches a treatment plan may include various sessions including a set of pedaling session, a set of joint extension sessions, a set of flex session, etc. Each of the sessions may specify various operating parameters including operating mode of the electromechanical machine, target ranges of motion the body parts are to attain, positions of the pedals, information relating to a target angle of extension at the joint, a target angle of flex at the joint, etc. The operating modes include: passive mode, active-assist mode, resistive mode, and an active mode, wherein each mode further specifies operating parameters including position for the pedal, a speed at which to control the motor, an amount of resistive force the motor is to apply to the pedals, etc. The training engine 130 is capable of generating one or more machine learning models 132 which may be trained to generate treatment plans for the patient/user. Applicant’s own original specification, in ¶ [0040], recites: “As used herein, the term "motion profile" may refer to a specification of movement of a portion of an electromechanical machine. The specification may describe a shape (e.g., circular, elliptical, rectangular, square, oval, any geometrical shape, etc.) of a movement path for the portion to follow. The motion profile may specify which portion is to move, when the portion is to move, how the portion is to move (e.g., which components cause the movement of the portion), etc. The motion profile may specify various operating parameters of the portion of the electromechanical machine, such as a range of motion, a speed, an acceleration, an amount of resistive force to provide, and the like. The motion profile may specify various coordinates in an n-dimensional domain, where the coordinates represent points through which the portion is to move during operation”. Similar to applicant’s, as shown above, Hacking also teaches specifying a target range of motion of the pedals or joints of the user, position of the pedals, an amount of resistive force to provide, a speed, target angle of extension and flex of a joint, etc., all of which define the motion profiles of the pedal assembly of Hacking (which would describe a shape of movement paths formed by movement of the pedal assembly).
Applicant’s similar arguments (to that of claims 1 and 8) regarding independent claim 15, are moot in view of the above provided explanation.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Yang are moot, as Yang has not been relied upon as a reference in the above Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Miller failing to cure the deficiencies of Hacking, specifically teaching the limitations of “generating, based on the one or more treatment plans and the one or more correlations, one or more motion profiles for an assembly of the electromechanical machine”, are moot in view of the above provided explanation regarding this limitation.
In response to applicant’s further arguments stating:
“Additionally, the Office Action maps Miller's brakes Bl, B2, and B3 to the "one or more motors" limitation. Paragraph [0064] of Miller describes these as magnetic particle brakes coupled to the rotary and linear joints of the exercise apparatus by cable drive transmissions. Miller's primary architecture is a passive resistance device in which braking elements resist user-initiated movement rather than driving it. Even accepting that paragraph [0064] of Miller identifies motors as one possible alternative to the primary brake architecture, neither Hacking nor Miller discloses two or more motors mounted to a body and spaced apart from each other driving an assembly via a first set of cables. The combination of Hacking and Miller as proposed does not supply that specific architecture and therefore does not arrive at the subject matter of claims 3, 10, and 17 on this ground independently.”,
the Examiner would like to mention the followings. Nowhere in claims 3, 10 or 17, applicant has recited any limitations regarding the two or more motors being driving motors or “the two or more motors driving an assembly via a first set of cables”. As such, applicant is arguing narrower than claimed. Furthermore, Miller has not been relied upon for teaching two or more motors and a first set of cables, each coupled to a respective one of the motors. Rather, such limitations are taught by Hacking in view of Bond (see above for details).
In response to applicant’s arguments stating:
“Applicant respectfully submits that the motivation to combine offered in the Office Action is insufficient. The stated rationale - that one of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Hacking and Miller in order to provide more precise control of the device, accommodate rehabilitation of different users with different injuries and rehabilitation needs, and enable sport specific rehabilitations - is a result-oriented rationale that identifies only the desired outcome of the combination rather than any specific teaching, suggestion, or reason found in either reference that would have directed a skilled artisan toward the particular combination claimed. A proper motivation to combine must be supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning, not merely a post-hoc identification of benefits that the claimed invention happens to provide. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Miller's passive upper-body brake-resistance apparatus with Hacking's motor-driven lower-extremity rehabilitation device, given the fundamental architectural and functional differences between the two systems. Neither Hacking nor Miller teaches or suggests combining a correlation driven motion profile generation system with a coordinate-mapping transformation function of the kind claimed, and the Office Action identifies no specific disclosure in either reference that would have prompted such a combination. Applicant respectfully submits that the proposed combination is the product of impermissible hindsight reconstruction guided by the claims themselves, and that the § 103 rejection is not supported by a prima facie case of obviousness.”,
the Examiner would like to mention the followings. 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, such motivation is in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the Office Action specifically states that Hacking teaches that the electromagnetic device can be used to perform exercises with the hands or the feet (¶ [45]). Also Hacking teaches various modes of operation including passive mode, resistive mode, etc. As such, Hacking’s device may be used for exercising the upper-extremity/body in different modes of operation.
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 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
Prosecution Insights