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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 8/17/26 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11071597. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim(s) are generally broader than the claims in the parent application. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214, USPQ 761, 766, and 767 (CCPA) (The court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrower species claims in an issued patent) ; In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622, and 623 (CCPA 1970) (Generic application claims specifying “meat” is obvious double patenting of narrow patent claims specifying “pork”).
Claim 1-13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11950861. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim(s) are generally broader than the claims in the parent application. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214, USPQ 761, 766, and 767 (CCPA) (The court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrower species claims in an issued patent) ; In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622, and 623 (CCPA 1970) (Generic application claims specifying “meat” is obvious double patenting of narrow patent claims specifying “pork”).
Claim 1-13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12616529. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim(s) are generally broader than the claims in the parent application. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214, USPQ 761, 766, and 767 (CCPA) (The court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrower species claims in an issued patent) ; In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622, and 623 (CCPA 1970) (Generic application claims specifying “meat” is obvious double patenting of narrow patent claims specifying “pork”).
Claim 1-13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12029940. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim(s) are generally broader than the claims in the parent application. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214, USPQ 761, 766, and 767 (CCPA) (The court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrower species claims in an issued patent) ; In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622, and 623 (CCPA 1970) (Generic application claims specifying “meat” is obvious double patenting of narrow patent claims specifying “pork”).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0035674 to Volosin, supplied by applicant.
1. A computer-implemented system, comprising:
a patient interface comprising an output device, the output device configured to communicate information to a patient regarding the patient's performance of a treatment plan for the patient, the treatment plan comprising a rehabilitation regimen for a body part (Abstract, claims 1-25, Figs. 1-16, paragraphs 90-351);
an assistant interface remote from the patient interface and configured to transmit, via a network connection, a telemedicine signal to the patient interface (Abstract, claims 1-25, Figs. 1-16, paragraphs 90-351);
wherein the telemedicine signal comprises an apparatus control signal for changing an operating parameter of an electromechanical machine, wherein to effect a change to the operating parameter of the electromechanical machine, the telemedicine signal is configured to comprise a control signal from the assistant interface (Abstract, claims 1-25, Figs. 17A-17D, paragraphs 117, 121, 132, 136, 352-365).
2. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, further comprising the electromechanical machine configured to be used by the patient to perform the rehabilitation regimen upon the body part (Abstract, claims 1-25, Figs. 17A-17D, paragraphs 117, 121, 132, 136, 352-365).
3. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the telemedicine signal comprises an audio signal, an audiovisual signal, a visual signal, a haptic signal, or an environmental change signal that include a feed from the assistant interface, and the feed is configured to be presented by the output device of the patient interface (Abstract, claims 1-25, Figs. 17A-17D, paragraphs 117, 121, 132, 136, 352-365).
4. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the telemedicine signal is generated from a prerecorded source, and the telemedicine signal is configured to be presented by the output device of the patient interface (Abstract, claims 1-25, Figs. 17A-17D, paragraphs 117, 121, 132, 136, 352-365).
5. The computer-implemented system of claim 2, wherein the patient interface is configured to transmit an apparatus monitor signal to the assistant interface, and the apparatus monitor signal includes status information related to the electromechanical machine (Abstract, claims 1-25, Figs. 1-16, paragraphs 90-351).
6. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the electromechanical machine is a cycling machine (Abstract, claims 1-25, Figs. 17A-17D, paragraphs 117, 121, 132, 136, 352-365).
7. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the patient interface is configured to provide two-way audio communication, two-way audiovisual communication, two-way visual communication, two-way haptic communication, two-way environmental communication with a person using the assistant interface, or two-way communication using on each side of the communication one of the foregoing means, where the means on one side and the means on the other side are different (Abstract, claims 1-25, Figs. 1-16, paragraphs 90-351).
8. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the patient interface includes a control such that the patient is enabled to use the assistant interface to initiate a telemedicine session (Abstract, claims 1-25, Figs. 1-16, paragraphs 90-351).
9. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the patient interface is configured to present one or more questions and to receive one or more answers to the one or more questions; and wherein predetermined answers to the one or more questions are configured to enable a telemedicine session to be initiated, wherein the telemedicine session uses the assistant interface (Abstract, claims 1-25, Figs. 1-16, paragraphs 90-351).
10. The computer-implemented system of claim 2, wherein a predetermined characteristic of the electromechanical machine causes the patient interface to initiate a telemedicine session, wherein the telemedicine session uses the assistant interface (Abstract, claims 1-25, Figs. 17A-17D, paragraphs 117, 121, 132, 136, 352-365).
11. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, further comprising a clinician interface, wherein such interface includes a protocol management display presenting controls for modifying a treatment protocol within the treatment plan; and wherein the assistant interface is presented on a device shared with the clinician interface (Abstract, claims 1-25, Figs. 1-16, paragraphs 90-351).
12. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, further comprising a server computer configured to store data related to at least one of the treatment plan or the patient; and wherein the assistant interface is configured to be in communication with a server for receiving the data related to the one of the treatment plan or the patient (Abstract, claims 1-25, Figs. 1-16, paragraphs 90-351).
13. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the body part comprises at least one of a joint, a bone, a ligament, a tendon, or a muscle group (Abstract, claims 1-25, Figs. 1-16, paragraphs 90-351).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3754. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm, M-F.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/Sean Shechtman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights