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 .
Status Of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments filed on 05/07/2026.
Claims 1, 9, 11 and 13 were amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 obviousness-type 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 Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,955,222.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant pending application omits certain steps of claims 1-26 in the 11,955,222 patent. Therefore, claims 1-20 are prima facie obvious of claims 1-26 because it would have been obvious to omit certain steps with the motivation of providing systems and methods for implementing and modifying treatment plan(s) based on generated probabilit(ies) related to the health of the user.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,224,052.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant pending application omits certain steps of claims 1-24 in the 12,224,052 patent. Therefore, claims 1-20 are prima facie obvious of claims 1-24 because it would have been obvious to omit certain steps with the motivation of providing systems and methods for implementing and modifying treatment plan(s) based on generated probabilit(ies) related to the health of the user.
The most remarkable prior art of record is as follows:
Purdie: U.S. Patent U.S. 10,475,537 B2
McNutt: U.S. Patent U.S. 11,495,355 B2
Kutzko: U.S. Patent U.S. 10,991,463 B2
McNair: U.S. Patent U.S. 11,527,326 B2
Van Der Koijk: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2018/0052962 A1
Beene et al., “AI and Care Delivery: Emerging Opportunities For Artificial Intelligence To Transform How Care Is Delivered,” Nov 2019, American Hospital Association, pp. 1-12
Jeong et al.: “Computer-assisted upper extremity training using interactive biking exercise (iBikE) platform,” September 2012, pp. 1-5, 34th Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS
Response To Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
In the remarks, Applicant asserts that (1) Regarding amended limitations of independent claims 1 and 13, it is unclear which portions of the claims of the ‘222 and ‘052 patents would show that the amended elements are obvious, “wherein the treatment plan corresponds to use of one or more physical components of the electromechanical machine by the user …, generate one or more control instructions based on the treatment plan, and by transmitting the one or more control instructions to the electromechanical machine, cause a change to an operation of the one or more physical components of the electromechanical machine”.
In response to applicant’s arguments (1) as listed above, the examiner respectfully disagrees. With regard to the amended elements recited above, the portions of the claims of the ‘222 and ‘052 patents that would show that the amended elements are obvious are the elements that disclose “a treatment apparatus configured to implement the treatment plan while the treatment apparatus is being manipulated by the user, control, based on the treatment plan, the treatment apparatus” (‘052 patent) and “treatment apparatus that implements the one or more exercises of the treatment plan while the treatment apparatus is being manipulated by the user, treatment apparatus includes an electromechanical machine controlled, responsive to the one or more processing devices, by the computer-implemented system“ (‘222 patent). As such, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joy Chng whose telephone number is 571.270.7897. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday and every other Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, JASON DUNHAM can be reached on 571.272.8109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Joy Chng/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights