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 on 10/31/2025. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 19-20 have been examined as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “machine, generate” in line 8, needs to be changed to “machine; generate”, the phrase “goals of a user” in line 9, needs to be changed to “goals of the user”, and the term “and” in line 11, needs to be removed. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “machine, generating” in line 3, needs to be changed to “machine; generating”, the phrase “goals of a user” in line 4, needs to be changed to “goals of the user”, and the term “and” in line 6 needs to be removed. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “machine, generate” in line 4, needs to be changed to “machine; generate”, the phrase “goals of a user” in line 5, needs to be changed to “goals of the user”, and the term “and” in line 7 needs to be removed. Appropriate corrections are 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 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17 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 reasons. Claim 1 recites: “a first set of one or more cables”. Applicant has not provided any specific definition regarding “a first set of one or more cables” in the original specification. The term “set”, according to a dictionary definition (i.e., merriam-webster.com) means: a number of things of the same kind that belong or are used together, a collection of elements and especially mathematical ones (such as numbers or points), etc. Similar definition has been provided by other dictionaries as well, whereby the term “set” refers to a group/number of elements. Therefore, the term “set” requires at least two of whichever element it is referring (i.e. set of cables= at least two cables). As such, it is unclear what is meant by a first set of one or more cables. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claim 1.
Claim 8 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 8 recites: “A method comprising: receiving data comprising a treatment plan including one or more prescribed exercises for a user to perform using an electromechanical machine, generating…a virtual apparatus model of the electromechanical machine…generating…a motion profile; and controlling, using the motion profile, one or more motors”. The claim, as currently presented, lacks any limitation that provides a connection between the one or more motors and the electromechanical machine. In other words, it is unclear whether the one or more motors are part of the electromechanical machine or separate from it. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claims 9-10 and 12-13 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 8.
Claim 15 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 15 recites: “receive data comprising a treatment plan including one or more prescribed exercises for a user to perform using an electromechanical machine, generate…a virtual apparatus model of the electromechanical machine…generate…a motion profile; and control, using the motion profile, one or more motors”. The claim, as currently presented, lacks any limitation that provides a connection between the one or more motors and the electromechanical machine. In other words, it is unclear whether the one or more motors are part of the electromechanical machine or separate from it. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claims 16-17 and 19-20 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 15.
Note to Applicant:
With respect to each of claims 1 and 15, for the purposes of clarity, applicant is highly advised to amend the formatting of each of these claims, as follows:
“…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;
generate, using a treatment machine description language and based on one or more desired goals of a user, a virtual apparatus model of the electromechanical machine, wherein the virtual apparatus model is generated by a trained machine learning model;
generate, using the virtual apparatus model and the data, a motion profile; and
control, using the motion profile, the one or more motors”.
With respect to claim 8, for the purposes of clarity, applicant is highly advised to amend the formatting of this claim, as follows:
“A method comprising:
receiving data comprising a treatment plan including one or more prescribed exercises for a user to perform using an electromechanical machine;
generating, using a treatment machine description language and based on one or more desired goals of a user, a virtual apparatus model of the electromechanical machine, wherein the virtual apparatus model is generated by a trained machine learning model;
generating, using the virtual apparatus model and the data, a motion profile; and
controlling, using the motion profile, one or more motors”.
Applicant is further advised to amend Claims 8 and 15, to include language regarding various parts of the electromechanical machine and their connections to each other and a processing device to better clarify and distinguish the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered. Although, the amendments have overcome some of previously recited rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), such amendments either have not fully overcome the previously recited rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and/or have introduced further indefiniteness (see above for details).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 8 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claims 1 and 15, the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach or render obvious a computer-implemented system, with all the structural components and functional limitations, comprising: an electromechanical machine comprising one or more motors mounted to a body, and a first set of one or more cables, each cable of the first set of the one or more cables coupled to a respective one of the one or more motors; and a processing device communicatively coupled to the one or more motors, wherein the processing device executes instructions implementing a control system to/a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, causes a processing device to: receive data comprising a treatment plan including one or more prescribed exercises for a user to perform using the electromechanical machine; generate, using a treatment machine description language and based on one or more desired goals of a user, a virtual apparatus model of the electromechanical machine, wherein the virtual apparatus model is generated by a trained machine learning model; generate, using the virtual apparatus model and the data, a motion profile; and control, using the motion profile, the one or more motors.
With respect to claim 8, the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach or render obvious a method, with all the structural components and functional limitations, comprising: receiving data comprising a treatment plan including one or more prescribed exercises for a user to perform using an electromechanical machine [having one or more motors, each coupled to a corresponding cable]; generating, [by a processing device communicatively coupled to the one or more motors] using a treatment machine description language and based on one or more desired goals of a user, a virtual apparatus model of the electromechanical machine, wherein the virtual apparatus model is generated by a trained machine learning model; generating, using the virtual apparatus model and the data, a motion profile; and controlling, using the motion profile, the one or more motors.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571)272- 4966. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784