DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the filed on 4/15/2024.
Claims 1-20 currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 12/17/2025, 11/10/2025, 9/25/2025, 7/18/2025, 5/22/2025, 2/27/2025, 12/24/2024, 10/15/2024, 7/18/2024 and 6/25/2024 have been considered. Initialed copies of Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed applications (application 16/856,985, filed 4/23/2020) under 35 U.S.C. 110(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), or under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Improper Dependent Claims
Claims 12-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 12-16 depend from Claim 13. Dependency from claim 13 appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Basis for Nonstatutory 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Rejection, Nonstatutory Double Patenting – No Secondary Reference
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11/107,591. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the conflicting claims (i.e. “transmitting a signal to the treatment apparatus…,” etc. versus “outputting, by the machine learning model, a control instruction…,” etc.) are minor and not distinguishing the overall appearance of one over the other.
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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0003]) that exercise and rehabilitation devices are used to facilitate exercise, strength training and/or rehabilitation of users. So a need exists to organize these human interactions by/through adjusting excercise based on artificial intelligence using the steps of “generating machine learning models, outputting control instructions, determining satisfaction of trigger conditions, transmitting control instructions, executing control instructions, presenting control instructions and explanations,” etc. Applicant’s system/method/computer readable medium is therefore a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 17 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “adjusting excercise based on artificial intelligence,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0004]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, system/method/computer readable medium for performing the steps of “generating machine learning models, outputting control instructions, determining satisfaction of trigger conditions, transmitting control instructions, executing control instructions, presenting control instructions and explanations,” etc., that is “adjusting excercise based on artificial intelligence,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. computing devices, user interfaces, excercise machines, load cells, networks, cloud-based computing systems, processing devices, main memory, static memory, speakers, memory devices, video displays, input devices, netowrk interfaces (Applicant’s Specification [0119]-[0131], [0246]-[0251]), etc.) to perform steps of “generating machine learning models, outputting control instructions, determining satisfaction of trigger conditions, transmitting control instructions, executing control instructions, presenting control instructions and explanations,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 1-20 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements (i.e. computing devices, user interfaces, excercise machines, load cells, networks, cloud-based computing systems, processing devices, main memory, static memory, speakers, memory devices, video displays, input devices, netowrk interfaces, etc.) are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept (Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. computing devices, user interfaces, excercise machines, load cells, networks, cloud-based computing systems, processing devices, main memory, static memory, speakers, memory devices, video displays, input devices, netowrk interfaces, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0119]-[0131], [0246]-[0251], Applicant’s specification describes generic computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “computing devices, user interfaces, excercise machines, load cells, networks, cloud-based computing systems, processing devices, main memory, static memory, speakers, memory devices, video displays, input devices, netowrk interfaces,” etc. to perform the functions of “generating machine learning models, outputting control instructions, determining satisfaction of trigger conditions, transmitting control instructions, executing control instructions, presenting control instructions and explanations,” etc. The recited “computing devices, user interfaces, excercise machines, load cells, networks, cloud-based computing systems, processing devices, main memory, static memory, speakers, memory devices, video displays, input devices, netowrk interfaces,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, or improves any other technology, or improves a technical field, or provides a technical improvement to a technical problem. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1-20 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claim(s) 1, 11 and 17.
Prior Art
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO-892 and include:
Tran (US 2015/0359467) discloses a mobile system for a user includes a telephone having one or more sensors to capture fitness data or vital sign data, the telephone having a wireless transceiver coupled to the processor to communicate fitness or vital sign data over a personal area network; and a processor coupled to the personal area network to process the fitness or vital sign data.
Lee et al. (US 2019/0009136) disclose a system for providing a personalized exercise guide comprising a wearable device for measuring bio-signals of users using sensors, and for transmitting to an electronic device bio-signals; and the electronic device for receiving wearable devices measured bio-signals, and for calculating a required quantity of exercise based on the obtained body data of the user and a preset goal.
Capecci et al. 2016 (Reference U) disclose an exercises assessment method based on the extraction of motion features determined by clinicians. Five different rehabilitation exercises are modeled using a HSMM (Hidden Semi-Markov Model) to provide an assessment score. The scores are compared with those obtained using the Dynamic Time Warping to discriminate which, between these two methods, best correlates doctors and physiotherapists’ evaluation. Results show that HSMM can be used to evaluate exercise performances and give a feedback to physiotherapists and patients about exercise execution.
Céspedes et al. 2020 (Reference V) disclose a Socially Assistive Robot (SAR) that is integrated into a neurorehabilitation programs as a collaborator agent to promote patient engagement and performance during the therapy. A short-term study presents the effects comparing the social robot condition and control condition with a group of four neurological patients using repeated measurement design. As a remarkable result, patients improved thoracic 18.44% and cervical 32.23% posture on average with SAR assistance. This study demonstrated the feasibility of the integration of a social robot as a complement of gait rehabilitation programs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a-5:00p.
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, ROBERT W. MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683