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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/17/2023 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. However, the IDS submitted on 11/17/2023 includes 13 IDS forms containing 1002 cited references, hundreds of which are immaterial to the patentability of applicant' s invention and appear to have not been reviewed for relevance to the instant application prior to submission. The voluminous immaterial contents of the IDS submitted on 11/17/2023 has overburdened the examiner and prevented a complete and thorough review of each of the cited references from being conducted. Accordingly, to the extent possible, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. In order to efficiently utilize the limited examination time afforded to all applicants, the Office requires all future information disclosure statements filed by this applicant' s representative to be constrained to include only those references which are material to the patentability of applicant' s invention. Refer to 37 CFR 1.56, “Duty to disclose information material to patentability,” and MPEP § 2001.05, “Materiality under 37 CFR 1.56(b),” to ensure that only references which are material to patentability are cited in an information disclosure statement.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “and assembly” in line 5 needs to be changed to “and the assembly”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “and assembly” in line 4 needs to be changed to “and the assembly”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 1, recites: “an electromechanical machine comprising one 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”. However, it is unclear how, in an electromechanical machine with “one motor”, the “one motor” is spaced from each other or other (non-existing) motors. It is unclear, how each cable of the first set of cables would be coupled to a respective one of the motors, when the electromechanical machine has one motor. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been examined “as best understood”, whereby the electromechanical machine has one motor and one or more of the cables of a first set of cables are coupled to the one motor. Furthermore, Claim 1 recites: “receive first data comprising information pertaining to motion of on 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. The same also applies to claims 8 and 15. 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. 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 3 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 3 recites: “wherein, to implement the desired virtual apparatus model, the transformation function maps the motion profile to one or more coordinates in a domain”. However, it is unclear whether or not “the motion profile” is referring to “the one or more motion profiles”. Please note that claim 3, as currently presented, depends upon claim 1. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claim 4 is 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 3.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the carriage" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 10 recites: “wherein, to implement the desired virtual apparatus model, the transformation function maps the motion profile to one or more coordinates in a domain”. However, it is unclear whether or not “the motion profile” is referring to “the one or more motion profiles”. Please note that claim 10, as currently presented, depends upon claim 8. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claim 11 is 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 10.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the carriage" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 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 17 recites: “wherein, to implement the desired virtual apparatus model, the transformation function maps the motion profile to one or more coordinates in a domain”. However, it is unclear whether or not “the motion profile” is referring to “the one or more motion profiles”. Please note that claim 17, as currently presented, depends upon claim 15. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claim 18 is 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 17.
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, 7-10, 12, 14-17 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, 7-10, 12, 14-17 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, 5 and 7, the same evaluation also applies to claims 8-10, 12, 14-17 and 19.
Specifically, the claims recite:
1. A computer-implemented system comprising:
an electromechanical machine comprising one 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 one 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 method 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 method 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);
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 the motion profile 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 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).
7. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, 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 one or more motors, one or more resistances provided by the one or more motors, one or more ranges of motion of the carriage and assembly, or some combination thereof.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-3, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, 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 their respective dependent Claims) 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 one or more motors, a first set of cables, each coupled to a respective one of the motors, one or more pedal and an assembly, spool and carriage, and a processing device executing instructions, are generically recited computer elements or conventional exercise devices or their parts, in independent claims and their respective dependent 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 their respective dependent claims) 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 their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17 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 one or more motors, a first set of cables, each coupled to a respective one of the motors, one or more pedal and an assembly, spool and carriage, and a processing device executing instructions.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components or are conventional exercise device or 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.
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, 7-10, 12, 14-17 and 19 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process and mathematical concept) 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, 7-10, 12, 14-17 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 their dependent claims) 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, 7-10, 12, 14-17 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, 7-10, 12, 14-17 and 19 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 9-10, 13-17, 21-24 and 26-31 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hacking et al. (US 2020/0289889 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, (claims 1, 8 and 15 “as best understood) Hacking discloses 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 one or more motors (122) mounted to a body and spaced apart from each other (Figs. 1-2, 6 and 8, ¶ [45], [59]), and a first set of cables/a cable (i.e. timing belt 808), each coupled to a respective one of the motors (Fig. 8, ¶ [124]); and
a processing device (i.e. 102, 116, ¶ [60], [69]) communicatively coupled to the one or more motors (¶ [60]-[61], [77]), 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 patters); 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]).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Hacking discloses wherein the processing device is further configured to/the method further comprising: receive/receiving a prescribed treatment plan for a user (¶ [48]-[51]); 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 (¶ [48]-[51], [70], [84]).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Hacking discloses 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 (¶ [70]).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Hacking discloses wherein the processing device is further configured to control the one or more motors to operate in a plurality of modes comprising an active mode, an active-assist mode, an assisted mode, a passive mode, or some combination thereof (¶ [47], [85]).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Hacking discloses 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 one or more motors, one or more resistances provided by the one or more motors, one or more ranges of motion of the carriage and assembly, or some combination thereof (¶ [103]-[107], [108]-[111]).
Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2018/0133089 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, (claims 1, 8 and 15 “as best understood”) Yang discloses 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 comprising one or more motors (6) mounted to a body (frame 1, Fig. 1) and spaced apart from each other, and a first set of cables/a cable (i.e. chains 4 and 5), each coupled to a respective one of the motors (Fig. 1, ¶ [63]); and
a processing device communicatively coupled to the one or more motors (Fig. 7, the processing device of the mobile terminal and the data-processing cloud terminal) , 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 (8) of the electromechanical machine (Figs. 1 and 6), wherein the motion is associated with one or more users performing one or more treatment plans (¶ [34], [67], [70]-[71], [73], [93], [96], [99], [102], the sensing unit collects exercise data generated when a training object (i.e. user) takes exercise. The exercise data include the foot sole loading data, the lower limb exercise frequency, the exercise duration, the physiological information data and the foot motion trajectory of the training object. The pressure sensor of the pedal 8 monitors the foot sole loading of the training object for measuring the size of the support the pedal gives the training object/user, the location information sensor monitors the moving trajectory of the pedal, thereby monitoring the foot motion trajectory and exercise frequency of the training object/user. The rehabilitation evaluating unit stores therein foot motion trajectories and exercise frequencies obtained through scientific computation. The sensing unit also includes a velocity sensor for measuring directional variation in the movement of the pedal and use such measurement to determine exercise mileage of the training object);
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 (¶ [25], [34], [67], [70]-[71], [73], [96], [99], [102], the personal information data including at least the age, body height and body weight of the training object, the sensing unit collects the body weight, the blood pressure, the heartbeat, the temperature and other relevant data of the training object);
identify/identifying one or more correlations between at least some of the first data and at least some of the second data (¶ [24]-[25], [34], [67]-[68], [90]-[91], [98]-[100], [102], using machine learning or the like to realize personalized training update. The data processing could terminal keeps rehabilitation training statuses of different training objects, after rehabilitation training data are collected from a large group of people, machine learning algorithm is performed on the rehabilitation training data of all training objects, and cluster analysis is carried out, wherein similarity measurement on which the clustering is based is determined using variables such as body height, body weight, age, training amount, and percentage of force exerted in every training session. By clustering people with similarity, accurate personalized rehabilitation training programs may be formulated for different training objects); 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 (¶ [90]-[91], [97]-[100], [102]).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Yang discloses wherein the processing device is further configured to/the method further comprising: receive/receiving a prescribed treatment plan for a user 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 (¶ [91], [98]-[100], [102).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-4, 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hacking as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US 2017/0361165 A1).
Hacking teaches that the electromagnetic device can be used to perform exercises with the hands or the feet (¶ [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 the motion profile to one or more coordinates in a domain, wherein the processing device is further configured to control, using the desired virtual apparatus model, the one 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/step motor) mounted to a body (Fig. 1) and spaced apart from each other, and a first set of cables (as part of the transmission device, ¶ [64], [77]); and a processing device (computer 110, ¶ [3], [64]) communicatively coupled (via 111) to the one or more motors (¶ [64]), wherein the processing device executes instructions implementing a control system/causes the processing device to: 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 the motion profile to one or more coordinates in a domain (Figs. 13A-14B, abstract, ¶ [66]-[68], [71]-[75], [77]-[84], [88]-[93], [96]-[98], [103]-[109], [113], [117]-[119], [121]-[123], [126]-[130], [162]), 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]).
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 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 the motion profile to one or more coordinates in a domain, wherein the processing device is further configured to control, using the desired virtual apparatus model, the one or more 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.
Conclusion
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