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 the Claims
The status of the claims as of the response filed 8/14/2026 is as follows: Claims 1, 9, and 14 are currently amended. Claims 2-8, 10-13, and 15-20 are original. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
Double Patenting Rejections
A terminal disclaimer has been filed on 8/14/2026 and approved on 8/25/2026, thus obviating the double patenting rejections over US Patent 12230381.
Rejection Under 35 USC 101
The claims have been amended but the 35 USC 101 rejections for claims 1-20 are upheld.
Rejection Under 35 USC 103
The amendments made to the claims introduce limitations that are not fully addressed in the previous office action, and thus the corresponding 35 USC 103 rejections are withdrawn. However, Examiner will consider the amended claims in light of an updated prior art search and address their patentability with respect to prior art below.
Response to Arguments
Rejection Under 35 USC 101
On pages 13-14 of the response filed 8/14/2026 Applicant argues that the instant claims are similar to those found eligible in Core Wireless, at least because they provide an improved user interface for devices with reduced screen sizes as described in [1168] of the specification. Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the instant claims are analogous to those found eligible in Core Wireless. The claims in Core Wireless recited a specific improvement over prior systems; specifically, Core Wireless identified an improvement to an interface to address the problems of existing interfaces of devices with small screens as described in the specification of the patent in Core Wireless. In contrast, the specification in the instant application does not describe any specific deficiencies of prior art system interfaces, instead merely broadly asserting that the arrangement of the data “may enhance the healthcare professional’s experiencing using the computing device” and “may be beneficial, especially on computing devices with a reduced screen size.” There is no explanation of why the arrangement of data provides any specific benefit, nor any technical improvements that are afforded by arranging the data in any particular configuration – Examiner notes that improving a healthcare professional’s experience by highlighting certain information important to review is not a technical improvement to a computing device, interface, or any other technical field, because it describes the abstract function of assigning priorities to different types of data so that they may be visually emphasized by importance or relevance and merely implements this abstract function in a computing environment. Examiner further notes that the improvement in Core Wireless was not merely the display of specific data in a particular arrangement, but the overall improvement to small screen user interfaces that the combination of elements (e.g. specifying a particular manner in which a summary window must be accessed, requiring the application summary window to list a limited set of data, and requiring that the device applications exist in a particular state) provided. Applicant has not supplied evidence of such a technical, interface-driven improvement being provided by the instant claims, and merely asserts that the display of data enables an improved user experience.
On page 14 Applicant argues that “the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because they generally recite gathering measurements while users perform treatment plans on respective electromechanical machines and concurrently displaying the measurements based on priorities for different users in different respective portions of the display” and “include an improvement to the technical field of providing an interface that implements a specific format of displaying the measurement information as the measurement information is gathered from the electromechanical machines.” Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees that collecting, prioritizing, and visualizing different measurement information types from users performing rehabilitation treatment plans integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or provides an improvement to a technology or other technical field. These steps are broadly part of the abstract idea itself, and the implementation of the data prioritization and arrangement steps in a computational environment amounts to instructions to “apply” these abstract functions in a digitized and/or automated environment, as explained in more detail below. Additionally, the claims do not amount to an improvement in any technical aspects of providing an interface (as explained above), instead merely providing electronic/digital implementation of the otherwise-abstract functions of prioritizing and arranging different data types.
For the reasons outlined above, the 35 USC 101 rejections are upheld for claims 1-20.
Rejection Under 35 USC 103
On pages 10-12 Applicant argues various deficiencies of the Mason, Chen, and Sadeghzadeh references with respect to the newly-amended subject matter. Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, and are found persuasive; Examiner agrees that the claims as presently amended contain subject matter free from prior art.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/17/2026 is in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is considered by the Examiner.
Priority
This application’s status as a continuation of 18/227,425 and corresponding claim of priority to provisional patent application 63/407,049 and other continuation-in-part dependencies is acknowledged.
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. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of many of the prior-filed applications, including provisional application no. 63/407,049 as well as parent utility patent application nos. 174/736,891, 17/379,542, 17/146,705, 17/021,895, and corresponding provisional application nos. 63/113,484 and 62/910,232, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The unsupported subject matter includes:
“execute a measurement information model configured to assign, for each of the plurality of users and based on the types of rehabilitation being performed by each of the plurality of users, different priorities to respective types of measurement information contained in the selected measurement information by assigning weights to or ranking the respective types of measurement information, wherein the assigning or the ranking is based on relevance to the specific type of rehabilitation being performed by a respective user” as in claims 1 and 14;
The listed parent utility applications and their respective ‘484 and ‘232 provisional applications make no mention of assigning priorities to selected measurement data for any reason, nor of enabling the concurrent display of selected measurement information for a plurality of users in accordance with respective assigned priorities. Provisional application ‘049 discusses determining a condition of a user which may be used as a basis for identifying a subgroup representing different partitions of characteristics to present on a display, and arranging graphical elements associated with the subgroup based on a priority of the subgroup (see [0629]-[0631]). Para. [0725] further describes determining a prioritized order of users to initiate a monitored session based on one or more characteristics of the user. However, these disclosures do not adequately support assignment of different priorities to respective types of measurement information for different users based on the relevance of each information type to the types of rehabilitation being performed by each of the plurality of users as in the instant claims, instead showing how data for a single user may be prioritized based on an identified condition (not a type of rehabilitation), and how users may be prioritized for contacting via a monitored rehabilitation session (but not how different types of measurement information are assigned priorities for the different users).
“a measurement information model, and wherein the measurement information model is configured to (i) receive measurement information for respective characteristics of each of the plurality of users and (ii) generate, for each of the plurality of users, the selected measurement information by at least one of assigning weights to the measurement information, ranking the measurement information, and filtering the measurement information” as in claims 4 and 17;
The listed parent provisional and utility applications make no mention of a measurement information model, nor of generating selected measurement information by assigning weights, ranking, and/or filtering the measurement information.
Because this subject matter is not fully supported by the disclosures of the listed applications, claims 1, 4, 14, and 17 are not entitled to the benefit of the filing dates of these earlier applications. However, this subject matter does appear to be fully supported by the disclosure of parent application 18/227,425 (now US patent no. 11230381); see at least paras. [1150], [1156]-[1162], & [1168]-[1170] for the identified subject matter of claims 1 and 14; and paras. [1146]-[1147] for the measurement information model of claims 4 and 17. Accordingly, claims 1, 4, 14, and 17, as well as the claims depending therefrom, will be considered to have the effective filing date of the ‘425 application: 7/28/2023.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
In the instant case, claims 1-13 are directed to a system (i.e. a machine) and claims 14-20 are directed to a method (i.e. a process). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent claims 1 and 14 recite steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g. managing personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people. Specifically, claim 1 (as representative) recites:
an interface comprising a display configured to concurrently display, while each of a plurality of users performs one or more exercises of a respective treatment plan by manipulating a respective electromechanical machine, interface presentation data pertaining to each of the plurality of users, wherein concurrently displaying the interface presentation data includes concurrently displaying the interface presentation data in different assigned portions of the display such that, for different users at a same time, the interface presentation data is concurrently displayed in the different assigned portions of the display; and
one or more processing devices configured to:
receive selected measurement information associated with performance, by each of the plurality of users, of the one or more exercises of the respective treatment plans using the respective electromechanical machines;
execute a measurement information model configured to assign, for each of the plurality of users and based on the types of rehabilitation being performed by each of the plurality of users, different priorities to respective types of measurement information contained in the selected measurement information by assigning weights to or ranking the respective types of measurement information, wherein the assigning or the ranking is based on relevance to the specific type of rehabilitation being performed by a respective user;
enable the interface to concurrently present, in the different assigned portions of the display, interface presentation data for each of the plurality of users, wherein each of the different assigned portions comprise a graphical element that presents, based on a respective assigned priority of the selected measurement information, the selected measurement information in a position within the respective assigned portion of the display.
But for the recitation of generic computer components like an interface comprising a display and one or more processing devices, the italicized functions, when considered as a whole, describe an operation for data collection, prioritization, and presentation that could be achieved by a human actor such as a clinician managing their personal behavior and/or interactions with others. For example, a physical therapist could oversee and interact with a plurality of patients performing various types of rehabilitative therapy via electromechanical exercise machines to solicit and receive measurement information related to the patients’ performance of their respective rehabilitative therapy plans (e.g. patient-provided heartrate measurements, estimations of exertion level, reported number of reps or sets performed, descriptions of current pain levels, etc.) and execute a measurement information model (e.g. a checklist, decision tree, or some other type of informational model) to assign priorities to different types of the measurement information based on the relevance of each type of information to the type of rehab being performed (e.g. emphasizing heartrate and distance run for a patient pursuing endurance/ cardiological rehabilitation, emphasizing number of reps/sets and amount of exertion for a patient pursuing strength building rehabilitation like post-ACL reconstruction to rebuild leg muscle strength, emphasizing range of motion measurements and amount of pain for a patient engaging in flexibility rehabilitation, etc.). The physical therapist could then arrange/organize the layout of the measurement data for different patients (e.g. on a sheet of paper) such that data from different patients is concurrently presented but separated in the layout and measurement types are organized within each patient’s portion of the layout according to the assigned priorities (e.g. listing a highest-priority measurement type in the center of the patient’s portion so that the eye is drawn there first, or making the size, color, or other features of the text/graphics more severe for certain measurements). Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity. Claim 14 recites substantially similar subject matter as claim 1 and is also found to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-20 inherit the limitations that recite an abstract idea from their dependence on claims 1 and 14, respectively, and thus these claims also recite an abstract idea under the Step 2A – Prong 1 analysis. In addition, claims 2, 4-10, 15, and 17-20 recite additional limitations that further describe the abstract idea identified in the independent claims.
Specifically, claims 2 and 15 specify that the measurement information is at ECG information and/or pain intensity, each of which are types of information that a physical therapist could observe and/or solicit from a patient performing a rehab plan.
Claims 4 and 17 recite executing a measurement information model that receives measurement information for respective characteristics of each of the plurality of users and generates the selected measurement information for each of the plurality of users by assigning weights, ranking, and/or filtering the measurement information. These limitations describe determinations and judgements that a physical therapist could make using their medical expertise to identify the most important data types for each patient, as well as mathematical concepts like assigning weights to measurement information.
Claims 5 and 18 recite executing a health condition model that generates the interface presentation data based on the selected measurement information and one or more health conditions of the plurality of users, which a physical therapist could achieve by using their medical expertise to think about any health conditions or diagnoses that each patient has when making determinations about what data should be visually presented and highlighted for each patient.
Claims 6 and 19 recite receiving user information indicating health conditions associated with each user and generating the interface presentation data based on the health conditions, which a physical therapist could achieve via their medical expertise as explained for similar claims 5 and 18 above.
Claims 7 and 20 specify that at least one type of selected measurement information for one user is different from other users, which a physical therapist could accomplish by picking out at least one unique data type for a given patient.
Claim 8 specifies that the interface presentation data includes at least two types of selected measurement information that are displayed in different positions of the respective user-specific portions of the display for different users. A physical therapist could achieve these functions by incorporating at least two types of measurements into the respective layout portions of each patient when arranging the data.
Claim 9 describes each respective portion of the display as including a row assigned to each user with a highest priority measurement being displayed in a largest, central display area of the row and lower priority information being displayed in another position within the row. A physical therapist could incorporate this design choice when visually arranging the data into the layout.
Claim 10 specifies different types of the selected measurement information, each of which are types of data that a physical therapist would be capable of observing/soliciting from a patient and arranging in a visual layout.
However, recitation of an abstract idea is not the end of the analysis. Each of the claims must be analyzed for additional elements that indicate the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application to determine whether the claim is considered to be “directed to” an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claims 1 and 14 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of claims 1 and 14 include an interface comprising a display that is configured to concurrently display the arranged data, and one or more processing devices configured to perform the information receipt and assignment functions. These additional elements, when considered in the context of each claim as a whole, merely serve to automate data collection, prioritization, and presentation operations that could occur by and among human actors (as described above), and thus amount to instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). For example, a physical therapist can oversee and interact with a plurality of patients to solicit treatment plan performance data, assign priorities to the data, and visually arrange the data according to the plurality of patients and their respective data priorities, and the use of a processing device and an interface device with a display merely automates and/or digitizes these otherwise-abstract functions such that they occur in a digital/computing environment. Accordingly, claims 1 and 14 as a whole are each directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application.
The judicial exception recited in dependent claims 2-13 and 15-20 is also not integrated into a practical application under a similar analysis as above. The functions of claims 2, 4-10, 15, and 17-20 are performed with the same additional elements introduced in the independent claims, without introducing any new additional elements of their own, and accordingly also amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea with these same additional elements. Claims 3 and 16 specify that the one or more processing devices are configured to receive video feeds from respective computing devices associated with the plurality of users and enable the interface to present the video feeds in the respective portions of the display; claims 11 and 12 similarly specify features related to establishing telemedicine sessions and enabling display of video feeds. These additional elements merely digitize interactions that could otherwise occur between human actors (e.g. face-to-face interaction between a physical therapist and at least two patients) such that they occur in a digitized telemedicine environment. These features also merely nominally tie the invention to the field of telemedicine at a high level without providing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 13 specifies that the one or more processing devices are configured to control a refresh rate of the graphical element, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity because it nominally describes a feature of the interface display without describing how it is connected to any other features of the invention (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements of claims 1-20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an interface display and one or more processors amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As evidence of the generic nature of the above recited additional elements, Examiner notes Fig. 11 & paras. [0188]-[0193], where the computing infrastructure is described in terms of known example components like “one or more general-purpose processing devices” and existing video displays like LCD, LED, OLED, quantum LED, CRT, and other devices. These disclosures do not indicate that the elements of the invention are particular machines, and instead provide generic examples of computer processing and display hardware that may be utilized to implement the invention.
The additional elements of claims 3, 11-12, and 16 directed to establishing telemedicine sessions and enabling display of video feeds on the display nominally tie the invention to the field of telemedicine, as explained above. No improvements to the underlying network communication or video session architecture are being made, and these high-level features are merely invoked as means with which to digitize otherwise abstract interactions between human actors. Receiving or transmitting data over a network is recognized as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activity, as outlined in MPEP 2106005(d)(II). Examiner further notes that establishing multi-user video sessions via a processing device enabling concurrent display of multiple video feeds is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by at least Mason et al. (US 20210134428 A1) Figs. 7-10, [0002], & [0134]; Foley et al. (US 20210225485 A1) [0058]-[0059] & [0071]; and Chen et al. (US 20180078182 A1) [0057] & [0096]. Accordingly, these features do not provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself.
Controlling the refresh rate of a graphical element as in claim 13 amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as explained above. Examiner further notes that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of computerized displays to control the refresh rate of graphically displayed elements via a processor, as evidenced by at least the “Computer displays” section of the “Refresh rate” Wikipedia article (reference U on the accompanying PTO-892).
Analyzing these additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the elements individually; the overall effect of the interface display, processor device, and video session capabilities in combination is to digitize and/or automate a data collection, prioritization, and presentation operation that could otherwise be achieved as a certain method of organizing human activity. Examiner notes that this combination of additional elements is also well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by at least at least Mason Figs. 7-10 & 18, [0002], [0134], & [0173]-[0176]; Foley [0037], [0058]-[0059], [0063], & [0071]; and Chen Fig. 1A, [0042]-[0044], [0049], [0057], & [0096]. Thus, when considered as a whole and in combination, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Subject Matter Free from Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of subject matter free from prior art:
The prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, each and every feature of the independent claims. In particular, the prior art fails to teach execution of a measurement information model that assigns different priorities to respective types of measurement information for each of a plurality of users based on the types of rehabilitation being performed by each of the users by specifically assigning weights to or ranking the respective types of measurement information based on relevance to the specific type of rehabilitation, and enabling the presentation of measurement information in different assigned portions of a display based on a respective assigned priority of the selected measurement information. Upon completion of an updated prior art search, Examiner submits that the closest related art includes:
- Mason et al. (US 20210134428 A1), showing a system that can concurrently collect and display characteristic data and other user-specific subsets of data in respective portions of a display layout assigned to different users operating electromechanical treatment devices, but failing to disclose using a model to assign different priorities to each measurement type based on type of rehabilitation being performed by assigning weights to or ranking the types of measurements based on relevance to the specific type of rehabilitation so that each measurement is displayed based on the respective assigned priorities.
- Chen et al. (US 20180078182 A1), showing a system for selecting and prioritizing certain user measurements for display based on their preset or user-configured relevance to a given type of workout and presenting the prioritized measurements in various respective positions within a patient-specific layout to visually emphasize the prioritized measurements, but failing to explicitly disclose using a model to assign the different priorities by assigning weights to or ranking the types of measurements.
- Kim et al. (US 20170239525 A1), showing a system that can set and store priorities of sensor data streams based on a performed exercise type, but failing to explicitly disclose using a model to assign the different priorities and enabling concurrent display of the sensor measurements in respective portions of a display based on the assigned priorities.
- Guday et al. (US 7292956 B1), showing a system that can assign priorities to different physiological data streams so that they may be sorted for storage or presentation to a user, but failing to explicitly disclose application in the rehabilitation treatment context and assigning the priorities based on a rehabilitation type of each user.
Though many aspects of the independent claims are disclosed in the prior art, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disparate features into the invention of the instant claims. Accordingly, the prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious all the features of the independent claims and they are found to recite subject matter free from prior art, as are the claims depending therefrom.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN A HRANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-1679. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 ET.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/KAREN A HRANEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights