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 12/19/2023 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. However, the IDS submitted on 12/19/2023 includes 14 IDS forms containing 1115 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 12/19/2023 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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “determining” in line 20, needs to be changed to “determine”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “determining” in line 14, needs to be changed to “determine”. 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 1-14 and 19-20 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. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claims 2-7 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 recites the limitation "the electromechanical machine" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend this limitation to recite: “an electromechanical machine”, in order to overcome this rejection.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the one or more motors" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first set of cables" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the one or more motors" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the one or more motors" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first set of cables" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note to Applicant:
Applicant is advised to include claim language that clearly establishes a connection between the assembly, the first set of cables and the one or more motors for further clarification.
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 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18 and 20 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 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18 and 20 recites at least one step or instruction for observation, evaluation, judgement and/or opinion of information pertaining to data comprising treatment plan for a user to perform using an electromechanical machine, a motion profile of an assembly of the electromechanical machine, one or more components of the electromechanical machine and at least one missing component for performing a prescribed exercise to achieve the motion profile and further using mathematical relations to implement the motion profile and/or managing interactions between people to purchase the at least one missing component, which are grouped as mental processes, mathematical concept and certain methods of organizing human activity 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 1-4, and 6, the same evaluation also applies to claims 8-11, 13, 15-18 and 20.
Specifically, the claims recite:
1. A computer-implemented system comprising:
an electromechanical machine comprising one or more motors mounted to a body an i 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 data comprising a treatment plan including one or more prescribed exercises for a user to perform using the electromechanical machine (i.e., visually observing a treatment plan with one or more prescribed exercises written on a piece of paper; involves observation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
generate, based on the data, a motion profile for an assembly of the electromechanical machine (i.e., mentally or using a pen and paper, create a motion profile for the user; involves evaluation and opinion which are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG);
determine, based on a prescribed exercise of the one or more prescribed exercises, one or more components to include to enable the user to perform, using the electromechanical machine, the prescribed exercise (i.e., observing and mentally determining one or more components/equipment needed for the user to perform a prescribed exercise; involves observation and judgement, which are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG);
validate, based on the one or more components and configuration information pertaining to the electromechanical machine, whether the motion profile associated with the prescribed exercise is achievable with respect to a threshold achievement level (i.e., visually observing the electromechanical machine and its components and mentally determining whether the components would allow achievement of the motion profile; involves observation and evaluation, which are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG);
responsive to determining that the motion profile associated with the prescribed exercise is unachievable with respect to the threshold achievement level, determining, based on the one or more components and the configuration information, at least one missing component needed to achieve, with respect to the threshold achievement level, the motion profile for the prescribed exercise (i.e., in response to the evaluation, mentally determine what component is required but missing; involves judgement, 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 generate and output an electromechanical machine configuration file, wherein the electromechanical machine configuration file includes information pertaining to the at least one missing component (i.e., writing with a pen on a paper all the components included in the electromechanical machine and any information pertaining to such components; involves evaluation, judgement and opinion, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
3. The computer-implemented system of claim 2, wherein the processing device is further configured to transmit a recommendation to a computing device, wherein the recommendation is associated with a payment system that enables purchasing the at least one missing component (i.e., writing with a pen on a paper or verbally announcing the at least one missing component required to be purchased and can be purchased via cash or check; involves managing interactions between people, which is grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG).
4. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein, responsive to determining the motion profile associated with the prescribed exercise is achievable with respect to the threshold achievement level, execute a transformation function to implement a desired virtual apparatus model configured to implement, by using the electromechanical machine, the motion profile, 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 using pen and paper performing calculations/mapping the motion profile to one or more coordinates in a domain, to implement a desired virtual apparatus model to implement the motion profile).
6. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the assembly is coupled to a carriage to enable movement along a length of an arm, wherein the carriage is coupled to each cable of the first set of cables.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-4, 6, 9-11, 13, 16-18 and 20 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 electromechanical machine comprising one or more motors, a first set of cables, each coupled to a respective one of the motors, an assembly coupled to a carriage, an arm, a processing device executing instructions and a computing device are generically recited computer elements or conventional exercise devices and 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 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18 and 20 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 electromechanical machine comprising one or more motors, a first set of cables, each coupled to a respective one of the motors, an assembly coupled to a carriage, an arm, a processing device executing instructions and a computing device.
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.
Additionally, in light of Applicant’s specification, ¶ [0164]-[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 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18 and 20 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 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18 and 20 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 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18 and 20 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 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18 and 20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18 and 20 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 12, 14 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claims 5, 12 and 19, the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach or render obvious a computer-implemented system as detailed in claims 1 and 4, a method as detailed in claims 8 and 11 and a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by a processing device as detailed in claims 15 and 18 and further wherein the processing device controls, using the desired virtual apparatus model, the one or more motors of the electromechanical machine.
With respect to claims 7 and 14, the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach or render obvious a computer-implemented system as detailed in claim 1, a method as detailed in claim 8 and a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by a processing device as detailed in claim 15 and further wherein the processing device is 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.
Please see attached PTO-892 for a list of pertinent prior art references.
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