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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 12, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action for the 18/667001 application is in response to the communications filed January 12, 2026.
Claims 1, 5, 9 and 10 were amended January 12, 2026.
Claim 2 was cancelled January 12, 2026.
Claims 1 and 5-10 are currently pending and considered below.
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 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: The claim recites subject matter within a statutory category as a machine.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which Prong 1 determines whether a claim recites a judicial exception. Prong 2 determines if the additional limitations of the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. If the additional elements of the claim fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim contains subject matter that recites an abstract idea, with the steps of rehabilitation support comprising: acquire patient information relating to a target patient, the patient information including information of at least one reference time point; acquire related data of another patient similar to the patient information, the related data including training achievement data of rehabilitation, a transition of a recovery evaluation index, and information of reference time point corresponding to the reference time point of the target patient; receive a user selection of the reference time point from a group including an onset date, a hospitalization date in an acute period, and a hospitalization date in a recovery period; apply the same selected reference time point to both the target patient and the other patient; create a training plan of the target patient based on the related data of the other patient by aligning time-series data of the target patient and the other patient with respect to the selected reference time point; a graph showing the training plan of the target patient and a graph showing the related data of the other patient in an overlapping manner, the graph showing the training plan comprises a horizontal axis, which represents time, and one or more vertical axes, which each represent a type of the training achievement data and a recovery evaluation index, and the graph showing the training plan is-includes a stacked bar graph for the type of the training achievement data and a line graph for the recovery evaluation index, and comprises one or more vertical lines indicating an expected discharge date, an end date of a short term goal, or an end date of a long term goal, wherein each bar of the stacked bar graph indicates an amount of training time for each training item of the target patient, and the recovery evaluation index includes: a first recovery evaluation index for evaluating an action that the target patient actually performs in daily life for a specific exercise, and a second recovery evaluation index for evaluating an action that the target patient is actually capable of performing. These steps, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation recite:
certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices including: hedging; insurance; mitigating risk; etc., commercial or legal interactions including: agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; etc., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including: social activities; teaching; following rules or instructions; etc.) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The identified abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon identified above, in the context of this claim, encompasses a certain method of organizing human activity, namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This is because each of the limitations of the abstract idea recites a list of rules or instructions that a human person can follow in the course of their personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers at least the recited methods of organizing human activity above, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f), such as:
“A…system”, “processor programmed to” and “automatically”, which corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Paragraphs [0045]-[0050] describes that the hardware that implements the abstract idea amounts to nothing more than a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, 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.
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“display, on a display” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Accordingly, this claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“display, on a display” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 5,
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 5 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“acquire a disease name, a training achievement, a recovery evaluation index, a date of onset, and a hospitalization date relating to the target patient” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the processor is programmed to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 6,
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 6 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“acquire the related data of the other patient to which the transition of the recovery evaluation index of the target patient is similar by machine learning.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the processor is programmed to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 7,
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 7 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“create the training plan of the target patient based on the related data of the other patient to which the transition of the recovery evaluation index of the target patient is similar.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the processor is programmed to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 8,
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 8 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the training plan includes at least one of a scheduled end date, a short term goal date, a long term goal date, training items to be completed by an end of training, and a predicted amount of time required for each of the training items of the training plan.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim 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. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 9,
Claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 10,
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1 and 5-10 contain subject matter that is free of prior art.
The Examiner has conducted a thorough search of the prior art and could not find a single reference, or combination of references with adequate rationale to combine, to teach the limitation of “the graph showing the training plan includes a stacked bar graph for the type of the training achievement data and a line graph for the recovery evaluation index”. The closest prior art that the Examiner was able to find was:
Mason (US 2022/0415469) which teaches a graph showing a training plan that includes a line graph for a recovery evaluation index as seen in paragraph [0163] and Figure 12 of Mason. This teaching is however deficient in teaching a bar graph also included in the graph.
Mason et al. (US 2021/0138304; herein referred to as Mason 2) which teaches a training interface that presents to the user a plurality of screens in which a user is able to track their ability to bend their knees in tandem with the pain they experience while doing so. Figures 23 and 24 of Mason 2 describe a line graph and a bar graph respectively. However, these graphs are not included in the same graph as claimed. There does not appear to be an obvious rationale to combine these interfaces in the reference, so it would be reasonable to conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have only combined these graphs to arrive at the solution in the claims by using the Applicant’s disclosure as a roadmap, resulting in impermissible hindsight reasoning.
As it can be seen, the prior art does not teach this limitation as claimed, either alone or in combination. Accordingly, claims 1 and 5-10 contain subject matter free of prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 12, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that claim 1 does not govern the actions of human beings, but are rather directed to functions that must be performed by a computer and cannot be performed by human behavior alone. Specifically, the Applicant refers to "create a training plan of the target patient based on the related data of the other patient by automatically aligning time-series data of the target patient and the other patient with respect to the selected reference time point," and "display, on a display, a graph showing the training plan of the target patient and a graph showing the related data of the other patient in an overlapping manner, the graph showing the training plan comprises a horizontal axis, which represents time, and one or more vertical axes, which each represent a type of the training achievement data and a recovery evaluation index, and the graph showing the training plan includes a stacked bar graph for the type of the training achievement data and a line graph for the recovery evaluation index, and comprises one or more vertical lines indicating an expected discharge date, an end date of a short term goal, or an end date of a long term goal..." as limitations illustrative of this point.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While these limitations as claimed require a computer, this does not preclude an abstract idea from being recited by them. In fact, the only elements in these limitations that require a computer are “automatically” and “display on a display”. The rest of these argued limitations are functions that humans are more than capable of performing without intervening technology. The claim merely takes these human behaviors and then applies them to a computer environment or uses a computer in a manner that is insignificant and provides a post-solution function. Accordingly, these limitations do not establish a patent eligible invention.
The Applicant further argues that the pending claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem. Specifically, the as-filed specification describes the technical problem as “it is difficult to use the data of the past when the training plan of the hospitalized patient is created” at paragraph [0021].
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. The Applicant has failed to identify a problem with technology in their establishment of a technical solution to a technical problem. Regardless of what technical solution may be present in the claims, if that solution does not address a technical problem, it is not a technical improvement. The inability to or difficulty of comparing data sets with each other is not a technical problem as described by the as-filed specification. At its most fundamental form, data is information and inherently abstract. Problems with comparing data is therefore an problem with factors that are outside of technology. If this were a problem with data formats that technology uses, then this would be a different discussion. However, the as-filed specification is silent in this regard. The problem is described as with data itself. Accordingly, the Applicant has failed to establish an improvement to technology.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 are persuasive for the reasons indicated above. The rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A NEWTON whose telephone number is (313)446-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM (EST).
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, PETER H. CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/CHAD A NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681