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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
This application is a divisional of prior filed US nonprovisional application 16/676,069, filed on 11/06/2019, and claims the benefit of prior filed US provisional application 62/816,503, filed on 03/11/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2024, 12/23/2024, 02/27/2025, 05/22/2025, 07/22/2025, 09/19/2025, 11/11/2025, and 12/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner. Due to the large number of references cited, only a cursory review has been performed.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 26, “provide” should read ---providing---
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2 covers a system having a control system that, responsive to a second trigger condition occurring, measures revolutions per time period of one or more radially-adjustable couplings and when the measured revolutions per time period satisfy a threshold condition, cause the electric motor to drive the one or more radially adjustable couplings (claim 1), wherein the threshold condition comprises a predetermined angle of the range of motion of a body part (claim 2). The specification discloses enough information for one of ordinary skill in the art to make a system where the measured revolutions per time period satisfy a revolutions per time period threshold (par. [0062]) to change the operation of the electric motor or a system where a measured range of motion of a body part satisfy a range of motion threshold condition (par. [0111]) to change the angle. The specification does not provide direction on how to obtain a system where the threshold condition for the measured revolutions per time period comprises a predetermined angle of the range of motion of a body part. At the time of filing, the state of the art shows either controlling an electric motor based on measured revolutions per time period satisfying a revolutions per time period threshold or changing an angle of range of motion of a body part based on measured angles satisfying a predetermined angle threshold condition. Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of claim 2. Thus, claim 2 is not enabled by the disclosure.
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.
Claims 1-16 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 recites “a control system comprising one or more processing devices” in line 15. It is unclear if these one or more processing devices are equivalent to the previously recited “one or more processing devices operatively coupled to the monitoring device” of line 5. If the limitations are materially different, the Office suggests amending the claim language to clearly differentiate the processing devices. Any changes to claim 1 should be similarly reflected throughout the claims. Claims 2-16 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “the one or more processing devices” in lines 5-6. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the one or more processing devices coupled to the monitoring device or the one or more processing devices of the control system.
Claim 5 recites “the one or more processing devices” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the one or more processing devices coupled to the monitoring device or the one or more processing devices of the control system.
Claim 6 recites “the one or more processing devices” in line 1. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the one or more processing devices coupled to the monitoring device or the one or more processing devices of the control system.
Claim 6 recites “responsive to determining that the value exceeds a target value of the vital sign, to rotate the one or more radially-adjustable couplings, control the electric motor to reduce the resistance provided” in lines 5-7. It is unclear what is meant by the italicized portion of the limitation. Specifically, it is unclear if the one or more processing devices are rotating the one or more radially-adjustable couplings to control the electric motor, or if the one or more processing devices are rotating the one or more radially-adjustable couplings and controlling the electric motor separately.
Claim 7 recites “the one or more processing devices” in line 2. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the one or more processing devices coupled to the monitoring device or the one or more processing devices of the control system.
Claim 9 recites “the one or more processing devices” in line 1. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the one or more processing devices coupled to the monitoring device or the one or more processing devices of the control system.
Claim 10 recites “the one or more processing devices” in line 1. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the one or more processing devices coupled to the monitoring device or the one or more processing devices of the control system.
Claim 11 recites “the one or more processing devices” in line 1. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the one or more processing devices coupled to the monitoring device or the one or more processing devices of the control system.
Claim 11 recites “one or more pedals” in line 3. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the previously recited one or more pedals of claim 1 or a materially new one or more pedals.
Claim 11 recites “an electric motor” in line 9. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the previously recited electric motor of claim 1 or a materially new electric motor.
Claim 12 recites “the one or more processing devices” in line 1. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the one or more processing devices coupled to the monitoring device or the one or more processing devices of the control system. Claims 13-14 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 12.
Claim 12 recites “one or more pedals” in line 3. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the previously recited one or more pedals of claim 1 or a materially new one or more pedals. Claims 13-14 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 12.
Claim 13 recites “the one or more processing devices” in line 1. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the one or more processing devices coupled to the monitoring device or the one or more processing devices of the control system.
Claim 14 recites “the one or more processing devices” in line 1. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the one or more processing devices coupled to the monitoring device or the one or more processing devices of the control system.
Claim 16 recites “a pedal” in line 2. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to one of the previously recited one or more pedals of claim 1 or a materially new pedal.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gomberg et al. (US Pub. 2018/0071572).
Regarding independent claim 1, Gomberg et al. discloses a system for rehabilitation, comprising:
a monitoring device (patient sensors 24 and computer processor 22) comprising a memory device storing instructions and a network interface card (wireless, par. 24, “It will be further appreciated that data associated with the output of the sensors 24 may be stored and utilized in monitoring the patient and collecting data about the patient and the exercise and rehabilitation of the patient” and par. 24, “The computer processor 22 is . . . programmable to enable desired actions to be taken” indicating storage of instructions), wherein the monitoring device is configured to detect information from a body part of a user (via sensors 24, see par. 24);
one or more processing devices operatively coupled to the monitoring device (processing components of computer processor 22), wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to execute the instructions to:
receive configuration information specified in a treatment plan for rehabilitating the body part of the user (par. 24, “The computer processor 22 is able to wirelessly receive signals from the sensors 24, and is programmable to enable desired actions to be taken in response to the signals received from the sensors 24” where being “programmable” indicates the processing device is configured to receive configuration information for rehabilitation);
receive the information from the monitoring device (from patient sensors 24, see par. 24); and
transmit the configuration information and the information to a computing device controlling an electromechanical device, via the network interface card (device 10 with electric motor 12; paragraph 24, “The computer processor 22 may be programmed to sound alarms, increase or decrease the force output of the motor, and the like based on the combination of inputs from the sensors. It will be further appreciated that data associated with the output of the sensors 24 may be stored and utilized in monitoring the patient and collecting data about the patient and the exercise and rehabilitation of the patient”);
one or more pedals (14a) rotatably coupled to one or more radially-adjustable couplings (wheel 14 with spaced apart and elongated slots 14b, see par. 17);
an electric motor (12) coupled to the one or more pedals via the one or more radially-adjustable couplings (via clutch 18, see par. 18 and Fig. 1B); and
a control system comprising one or more processing devices operatively coupled to the electric motor (via computer processor 22, see par. 24), wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to:
responsive to a first trigger condition occurring, independently drive the one or more radially-adjustable couplings to control the electric motor to operate in a passive mode (see par. 20, “The motor and the clutch are operable to:(1) apply the force output of the motor to rotate the rotary member at a first motor rotational rate without application of any muscle force by a patient”, par. 22, “the device 10 may be operated to apply rotational force from the motor to the rotary member when in a patient selected continuous passive motion (CPM) mode without requiring use of muscle power” and see par. 24);
responsive to a second trigger condition occurring:
measure revolutions per time period of the one or more radially-adjustable couplings; and
when the measured revolutions per time period satisfy a threshold condition, cause the electric motor to drive the one or more radially-adjustable couplings to operate the electric motor in an active-assisted mode (see par. 21, “When the patient applies muscle force, the motor and the clutch may be operated to (a) maintain the rate of rotation the rotary member the same as when the patient is not applying muscle force, with the amount the force output of the motor being decreased in an amount corresponding to the amount of muscle force applied by the patient, or enable the rate of rotation of the rotary member to increase corresponding to the amount of muscle force applied by the patient” where the threshold condition is any rate of rotation less than the desired maintained rate of rotation, and see par. 24); and
responsive to a third trigger condition occurring, to control the electric motor to operate in a resistive mode, provide resistance to rotation of the one or more radially-adjustable couplings (see par. 22, “the device 10 may be operated to . . . apply rotational resistance from the motor to the wheel when in a patient selected exercise mode to resist muscle powered rotation of the wheel with the amount of resistance being selectable by the patient, such that the motor functions in the nature of a generator” and see par. 24).
PNG
media_image1.png
537
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Gomberg et al. further discloses wherein, during an exercise session based on the treatment plan for the user operating the electromechanical device (i.e., programmed actions responsive to signals from patient sensors 24, see par. 24), the electric motor operates for respective periods of time in each of the passive mode, the active-assisted mode, and the resistive mode (see pars. 20-24, where a period of time can be zero).
Regarding claim 5, Gomberg et al. further discloses wherein, while operating in the passive mode, the one or more processing devices (via computer processor 22) are configured to control the electric motor to independently drive the one or more radially-adjustable couplings at a controlled speed specified in the treatment plan for the user operating the electromechanical device (i.e., programmed actions responsive to signals from patient sensors 24, see par. 24; see par. 20 and 22 for description of passive mode).
Regarding claim 7, Gomberg et al. further discloses wherein, to cause a second computing device to present the information on a user interface of a clinical portal, the one or more processing devices (via computer processor 22) are further configured to transmit, via the network interface card (i.e., wireless), the information to the second computing device (par. 25, “For example, data such as pedal revolutions, time of use, pedaling speed, and any other data from other sensors may be tracked via the computer processor and transmitted wirelessly to a data server from which they are uploaded to the patient's medical records” and par. 26, “a physician and/or physical therapist can monitor their patient's use remotely, ensuring the patient is using the device for the duration and frequency directed. The physician or therapist can also be notified in the event a patient is failing to use the device, and contact the patient to follow up via a billable telemedicine video or phone call.”).
Regarding claim 8, Gomberg et al. further discloses wherein the transmitting the information to the computing device causes the computing device to present a range of motion of the body part in a graphical animation of the body part moving in real-time (par. 24, “For example, one of the sensors 24 is shown on the knee of the patient. This sensor may be a range of motion sensor” and par. 25, “For example, data such as pedal revolutions, time of use, pedaling speed, and any other data from other sensors may be tracked via the computer processor and transmitted wirelessly to a data server from which they are uploaded to the patient's medical records. The data can also be pushed to the patient's smartphone where a mobile application tracks and displays the patient's activity, including a graph of usage and progress over time” indicating real-time graphical animation of movement of a body part of the user, such as the knee).
Regarding claim 9, Gomberg et al. further discloses wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to:
present, on a user interface, a graphical animation of the body part as the user operates the electromechanical device, wherein the graphical animation includes a plurality of measurements (see par. 25);
store a lowest value or a highest value of the plurality of measurements as a statistic for an exercise session, wherein a plurality of statistics is stored for a plurality of exercise sessions specified by the treatment plan (par. 24, “It will be further appreciated that data associated with the output of the sensors 24 may be stored and utilized in monitoring the patient and collecting data about the patient and the exercise and rehabilitation of the patient.”); and
present progress via a graphical element presenting the plurality of statistics on the user interface of the plurality of exercise sessions throughout the treatment plan (par. 25, “a graph of usage and progress over time”).
Regarding claim 16, Gomberg et al. further discloses wherein the monitoring device is a goniometer coupled to the user (paragraph 24, lines 8-9, “For example, one of the sensors 24 is shown on the knee of the patient. This sensor may be a range of motion sensor.”), a wristband coupled to the user, or a force sensor coupled to a pedal of the electromechanical device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomberg et al. (US Pub. 2018/0071572) and further in view of Sivaraj (US 9,737,761).
Regarding claim 6, Gomberg et al. teaches wherein the one or more processing devices (via computer processor 22) are further configured to:
receive, from the monitoring device, a value of a vital sign of the user as the user operates the electromechanical device (par. 24, “Another sensor is shown on the chest area. This may be a heart rate sensor”).
Gomberg et al. fails to teach responsive to determining that the value exceeds a target value of the vital sign, to rotate the one or more radially-adjustable couplings, control the electric motor to reduce the resistance provided.
Sivaraj, in the same field of endeavor with regards to systems for rehabilitation, teaches one or more processing devices configured to: receive, from a monitoring device (heart rate monitor 165), a value of a vital sign of the user as the user operates an electromechanical device (col. 7 lines 1-7 and col. 7 lines 22-25, “During a fitness test and resting intervals, the heart rate monitor 165 provides heart rate information to the fitness testing computer for use in tracking and calculating performance metrics”); and responsive to determining that the value exceeds a target value of the vital sign, to rotate one or more couplings, control the electric motor to reduce the resistance provided (col. 22 lines 7-14, “If the maximum heart rate during the session exceeds a set threshold that could . . . (ii) trigger an automatic reduction in the resistance of the exercise bike so as to prevent the user from cycling vigorously”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gomberg et al. to include wherein the one or more processing devices responsive to determining that the value exceeds a target value of the vital sign, to rotate the one or more radially-adjustable couplings, control the electric motor to reduce the resistance provided, as is similarly taught by Sivaraj, for the purpose of preventing the user from overexerting themselves during an exercise session, thereby preventing injury to the user.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomberg et al. (US Pub. 2018/0071572) and further in view of Shahriari et al. (US Pub. 2019/0167988).
Regarding claim 11, Gomberg et al. further teaches wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to receive, from the monitoring device, a range of motion of a knee of the user (paragraph 24, line 8-9, “one of the sensors 24 is shown on the knee of the patient. This sensor may be a range of motion sensor”) and a variety of data points from the one or more sensors (paragraph 24, lines 14-20, “The computer processor 22 may be programmed to sound alarms, increase or decrease the force output of the motor, and the like based on the combination of inputs from the sensors. It will be further appreciated that data associated with the output of the sensors 24 may be stored and utilized in monitoring the patient and collecting data about the patient and the exercise and rehabilitation of the patient” and paragraph 25, lines 1-3, “data such as pedal revolutions, time of use, pedaling speed, and any other data from other sensors may be tracked via the computer processor”).
Gomberg et al. fails to teach wherein the one or more processing device are configured to: receive, from the monitoring device, a number of steps taken by the user over a certain time period; determine if the number of steps satisfies a step threshold of the treatment plan for the user; and present, on a user interface, the number of steps taken by the user and an indication of whether the number of steps satisfies the step threshold.
Shahriari et al. teaches an analogous monitoring device (brace system 550, Fig. 8) and a processing device configured to wirelessly collect and record data from the monitoring device (see paragraphs 108-109, Figs. 11-12), the data comprising a user’s compliance to exercise routines (paragraph 109 lines 1-6 “In some embodiments, the wireless collection can include wireless collection of compliance data. For example, in some embodiments, brace system data comprising a user's compliance to certain daily movements and/or one or more physiotherapy or exercise routines can be wirelessly monitored and recorded”), wherein the data includes a number of steps taken by the user over a certain time period (i.e., number of movements of the knee), the processor determines if the number of steps satisfies a step threshold of a treatment plan for the user and presents, on a user interface, the number of steps taken by the user and an indication of whether the number of steps satisfies the step threshold (via sensors 565; paragraph 87 for description of collection of data from brace system 550 and paragraph 89 for description of processing, calculating, and presentation of collected data to evaluate patient compliance with movement requirements; see also paragraph 105 lines 28-35, “the brace system or controller includes software that performs a data collection and pre-filtering algorithm that stores data onto storage media only after some of the desired conditions have been met (e.g. the user is wearing the brace and movement is occurring above/below a desired threshold, or ROM data is captured only when user is vertical, or in periodic time points throughout the day such as once per minute or during user awake hours, etc.)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensors of the monitoring device of Gomberg et al. to track a user’s steps, as is similarly taught by Shahriari et al., for the purpose of allowing a physician or therapist to monitor the user’s compliance with movement goals and rehabilitation programs as needed (see paragraphs 89 and 105 of Shahriari et al.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomberg et al. (US Pub. 2018/0071572) and further in view of Fuchs et al. (US. 7,156,780).
Regarding claim 12, Gomberg et al. fails to teach wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to: receive, from one or more force sensors operatively coupled to the one or more pedals of the electromechanical device, one or more measurements of force exerted by the user during an exercise session on the one or more pedals; based on the one or more measurements of force, determine whether the user has disengaged from the electromechanical device; and responsive to determining that the user has disengaged from the electromechanical device, lock an electric motor to stop the one or more pedals from moving.
Fuchs teaches an analogous system for rehabilitation comprising an electromechanical device (Col. 2 lines 28-34, “FIG. 1 depicts an electric drive system according to the invention 1 for vehicles and/or stationary training apparatus with a foot pedal 5 as a muscle-power driven drive unit and a generator 6 mechanically connected with the foot pedal as well as with an electric transmission 4 from the generator 6 to an electric consumer 10 and/or to a drive motor 11 as well as with an electric control system 20”) comprising a processing device (control program 21 of electric control system 20) configured to receive, from one or more force sensors operatively coupled to one or more pedals of the electromechanical device (Col. 3 lines 3-7, “Sensors and measurement transducers 37, e.g., on the foot pedal 5, on the generator 6, on the motor 11 and on the drive wheel 19 as well as on further components of the drive systems are connected with the control system 20 and serve to monitor and control the operation”), one or more measurements of force exerted by the user during an exercise session on the one or more pedals; based on the one or more measurements of force, determine whether the user has disengaged from the electromechanical device; and responsive to determining that the user has disengaged from the electromechanical device, lock an electric motor (generator 6) to stop the one or more pedals from moving (Col. 7 lines 16-22, “As a further safety element, e.g., for eccentric training, a characteristic Er, Ev can be controlled in such a manner, that the driving movement of the pedal generator is immediately stopped, in order to prevent injuries, if the user slips off the pedal, resp., if his muscle-powered braking is suddenly interrupted. To achieve this, a suitable sensor 37 is utilised, which detects the change in force.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electromechanical device of Gomberg et al. to include one or more force sensors connected to the one or more pedals such that the processing device is configured to detect when a user has disengaged with the electromechanical device and lock the motor from moving the one or more pedals, as is similarly taught by Fuchs, for the purpose of preventing injury to the user should the user slip off of the one or more pedals while operating the electromechanical device (Col. 7 lines 16-22 cited above).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomberg et al. (US Pub. 2018/0071572) and further in view of Wu (US 9,283,434).
Regarding claim 12, Gomberg et al. teaches wherein the one or more processing device are configured to receive “any other data from other sensors” and graphically display the data on a user interface (paragraph 25 lines 1-3, “data such as pedal revolutions, time of use, pedaling speed, and any other data from other sensors may be tracked via the computer processor” and lines 5-8, “The data can also be pushed to the patient's smartphone where a mobile application tracks and displays the patient's activity, including a graph of usage and progress over time”), but fails to teach wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to: receive, from one or more force sensors operatively coupled to one or more pedals of the electromechanical device, one or more measurements of force exerted by the user on the one or more pedals during an exercise session; and present, on a separate graphical element of the user interface, while the user engages the one or more pedals during the exercise session, the respective one or more measurements of force on each of the one or more pedals.
Wu teaches an analogous system for rehabilitation comprising an electromechanical device (fitness bike 1) having one or more pedals (12) and one or more processing devices (control unit 2), wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to receive, from one or more force sensors (121, 122) operatively coupled to the one or more pedals (12) of the electromechanical device (1), one or more measurements of force exerted by a user on the one or more pedals during an exercise session (Col. 4 lines 11-22, “the front force sensor 121 detects a pedaling force at a forefoot position to generate an electric signal, and the rear force sensor 122 detects a force at the rear of each pedal 12 to generate another electric signal, and the front force sensor 121 and the rear force sensor 122 transmit the measured electric signals to a control unit 2 and the control unit 2 converts the electric signals into pedaling force values, and the control unit 2 further calculates whether a difference value of the pedaling forces detected by the front force sensor 121 and the rear force sensor 122 is equal to a corresponding predetermined difference value”); and present, on a separate respective graphical element of a user interface, while the user engages the one or more pedals during the exercise session, the respective one or more measurements of force on each of the one or more pedals (Col. 4 lines 23-28, “If the difference value of the pedaling forces detected by the front force sensor 121 and the rear force sensor 122 is not equal to a corresponding predetermined difference value, then a message will be prompted to show that the stepping motion at an exerciser's feet is incorrect and further corrects the exerciser's stepping motion”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electromechanical device of Gomberg et al. to include one or more force sensors operatively connected to one or more pedals such that the one or more processing devices is configured to receive one or more measurements of force and present to a user on a graphical element of a user interface the one or more measurements of force on each of the one or more pedals, as is similarly taught by Wu, for the purpose of allowing the user to receive a visual prompt when a force of the user’s feet on the one or more pedals is incorrect to allow the user to correct his or her pedaling motion to properly perform exercises thereon (Wu Col. 4 lines 23-28).
Regarding claim 13¸ Gomberg et al. as modified by Wu further teaches wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to present a first notification on the user interface when the one or more measurements of force satisfy a pressure threshold and present a second notification on the user interface when the one or more measurements do not satisfy the pressure threshold (as modified by Wu, see Wu Fig. 4 flowchart showing variety of prompts to be displayed based on calculation of differences between measured forces).
Regarding claim 14, Gomberg et al. as modified by Wu further teaches wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to provide an indicator to the user based on the one or more measurements of force, wherein the indicator comprises at least one of (1) providing haptic feedback in the one or more pedals, one or more handles, or a seat, (2) providing visual feedback on the user interface, (3) providing audio feedback via an audio subsystem of the electromechanical device, and (4) illuminating a warning light on the electromechanical device (as modified by Wu, see Wu Fig. 4 flowchart showing variety of prompts to be displayed based on calculation of differences between measured forces; also Gomberg par. 24 lines 14-17, “As will be appreciated, a number of different sensors may be utilized. The computer processor 22 may be programmed to sound alarms, increase or decrease the force output of the motor, and the like based on the combination of inputs from the sensors”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomberg et al. (US Pub. 2018/0071572) and further in view of Boyette et al. (US 8,864,628).
Regarding claim 15, Gomberg et al. does not teach wherein the configuration information is received from a server that received the configuration information presented on the computing device from a clinical portal.
Boyette et al. teaches an analogous system for rehabilitation (rehabilitation device 1) wherein configuration information is received from a server that received the configuration information presented on a computing device from a clinical portal (Col. 6 lines 26-37, “Additionally, the rehabilitation device 1 shall have a microprocessor/display unit 20 which has been programmed with algorithms that control the rehabilitation process. These are manifested in the Analysis, Control, and Reporting Software (ACRS). This software enables the rehab units to communicate with an offsite central data server. It also provides for communications to originate from the server and be displayed on the microprocessor/display unit 20. This can, in turn, provide various functionality including downloading patient configuration parameters, and sending patient data to the database for instant analysis at third party locations such a physical therapist/rehabilitation or physician's office” and lines 45-51, “From the clinician side, the functionality is substantially similar, however, it also provides for the ability to customize the microprocessor/display unit 20 operation for each individual patient through various control parameters. Equally as important, the software provides administrative protocols for manipulation of certain data or certain algorithms”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for rehabilitation of Gomberg et al. such that the configuration information is received from a server that received the configuration information from a clinical portal, as is similarly taught by Boyette et al., for the purpose of allowing a therapist or physician to control, customize and monitor the user’s rehabilitation program remotely (Boyette et al. Col. 6 lines 26-37 and lines 45-51 cited above).
Examiner’s Comment
No prior art rejection has been made with respect to claim 2, as claim 2 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of enablement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome 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 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:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a system for rehabilitation in combination with all of the structural and functional limitations, and further comprising wherein the first trigger condition, the second trigger condition, and the third trigger condition are set based on the treatment plan, wherein the treatment plan is generated based on input related to at least one of a procedure the user underwent or an attribute of the user by one or more machine learning models trained to output the treatment plan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rummerfield (US Pub. 2006/0247095) teaches a system for rehabilitation including a control system comprising one or more processing devices operatively coupled to an electric motor, wherein the one or more processing devices are responsive to a first trigger, a second trigger, and a third trigger to adjust operation of an electromechanical device (par. 17). Rummerfield can be used in an alternate prior art rejection of at least independent claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN FISK whose telephone number is (571)272-1042. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM M-F (Central).
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.
/KATHLEEN M FISK/Examiner, Art Unit 3784