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 .
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date. The foreign application must be examined for the question of sufficiency of the disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112 as well as to determine if there is a basis for the claims sought.
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Italian Patent Application No. 102024000004942, fails 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.
In particular, the disclosure of the prior-filed applications fail to provide sufficient written description for “depending on at least one parameter indicative of the tested user, and/or at least one specific functional age value or reference index calculated, and/or the overall functional age value or overall index calculated, generate a new training program or modify/confirm a preexisting training program” in claim 1, “said remote controller is further configured to remotely configure said at least one identified device on which said user has to perform said test belonging to the second test subgroup” in claim 7 and “the remote controller is further configured to remotely configure said at least one identified device on which said user has to perform said test belonging to the second test subgroup based on one or more of the anthropometric data calculated for the user or of one or more pre-recorded anthropometric data of the user” in claim 9, “configured to assess a current level of mobility of at least one body part of the user, and when the user is performing a second test that belongs to the first test subgroup and is configured to assess a current level of balance ability of the user; and wherein said remote controller is configured to calculate, on the basis of data processed on the basis of the captured second images and sent by the local controller, a specific functional age value and/or a reference index related to the current level of mobility of the user, and a respective specific functional age value and/or a reference index related to the current balance capability of the user” in claim 10, “a plurality of instructions designed to guide the user in performing a test of said plurality of tests that is configured to assess a level of cognitive ability of the user to be performed directly on the check-up station or on a device remote from the check-up station and operatively connectable to the remote controller, and wherein the remote controller is further configured to calculate, based on the test performed, a specific functional age value and/or a reference index related to the current level of cognitive capability of the user” in claim 11, “measuring means for… measuring at least one parameter indicative of the current body mass composition of said user” and “a measuring device for measuring at least one parameter indicative of the current body mass composition of said user” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, the specification of the prior-filed applications, at best, merely recites similar language as the claims without providing any substantive description for the claimed limitations identified above for the same reasons that the instant specification also fails as identified in the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) below for the same claim limitations.
Thus, claims 1-12 do not gain benefit of priority to Italian Patent Application No. 102024000004942. Therefore, claims 1-12 have an effective filing date of 04 March 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 04 March 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the box identifying that a full translation into the English language is checked for the foreign patent document, but, while pg. 4-5 are identified as where relevant passages appear, only the abstract of the foreign patent document is translated into the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. An English language translation of the Abstract is not considered an English translation meriting the checking of the English language translation box. While footnote 5 identifies that “Applicant is to place a check mark here if English language translation is attached”, this is with respect to the document itself. The Abstract is considered a concise explanation of relevance of the document which is distinctly different from a translation. See at least MPEP 609.04(a) Content Requirements for an Information Disclosure Statement, section (II) Legible Copies, which recites
“37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii) states that if a written English language translation of a non-English language document, or portion thereof, is within the possession, custody or control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c), a copy of the translation shall accompany the statement. Translations are not required to be filed unless they have been reduced to writing and are actually translations of what is contained in the non-English language information. If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiners in conducting searches.”
See also MPEP 609.04(a)(III) Concise Explanation of Relevance for Non-English Language Information which also at least more explicitly recites that “[e]ach information disclosure statement must further include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information listed that is not in the English language. The concise explanation may be either separate from the specification or part of the specification. If the concise explanation is part of the specification, the IDS listing should include the page(s) or line(s) numbers where the concise explanation is located in the specification” and that “[s]ubmission of an English language abstract of a reference, such as one generated by a foreign patent office, may fulfill the requirement for a concise explanation.” Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification repeatedly uses the terms “i.e.” and “e.g.” improperly leading to a lack of clarity regarding what is disclosed.
The specification recites multiple abbreviations. The first instance of an abbreviation should be accompanied by the fully written term. Non-limiting examples of where this does not occur include “2D”, “3D”, “RGB”, “RGB-D”, and “QR”. It is noted that more exist in the specification beyond those exampled here.
The specification recites the abbreviation for one-repetition max as “1-RM” and “1RM”. Uniformity is recommended to increase clarity.
Aspects of the formula recited in para. 92 are so blurry as to be illegible.
Appropriate correction is required.
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
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 10 are inconsistently formatted leading to a decrease in clarity. It is recommended to remove the hyphens inconsistently marking new limitations and begin (and properly indent) each new limitation on a new line in a claim.
Dependent claims 2-12 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus objected to under the same rationale.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
19/069,836
12,714,913
12,714,913
1
10
A system for assessing and improving the functional age and/or an overall index indicative of a current state of psycho-physical well-being of a user, comprising at least:
A system for assessing the functional age of a user, comprising:
a check-up station which comprises a local controller, at least one of a display and a loudspeaker, said check-up station being configured to allow the user to connect to the system either directly on the display itself or by means of an own portable electronic device;
a measurement station configured according to claim 1;
(Claim 1) A measurement station for assessing the functional age of a user, said measurement station comprising: at least one display and/or a loudspeaker; at least one controller configured to present, via said display and/or said loudspeaker, a plurality of instructions which guide a user to perform a method comprising: conducting a first test adapted to assess a current level of mobility of at least one part of the body of the user; conducting a second test designed to assess a current level of the balance ability of the user; using a camera configured to capture and send to the controller one or more images of the user when conducting said first and second tests: wherein said at least one controller is further configured to perform a method comprising:(a) schematizing the user's body with a structure consisting of segments that are connected to each other by reference nodes; (b)calculating a first functional age value based on the one or more images captured by comparing nodes extracted from the one or more images captured while performing the first test with said reference nodes, and a second functional age value based on the one or more images captured while performing the second test, and thereafter calculating an overall functional age value of the user at least based on said first and second functional age values or send said first and second calculated functional age values to a remote controller configured to calculate an overall functional age value of the user at least based on said first and second functional age values sent; and sending data related to said one or more images captured during the execution of the first test and the second test to a remote controller configured to calculate a first and a second functional age values based on the data related to the one or more images captured during the execution of the first and second tests, respectively, and an overall functional age value of the user at least based on said first and second calculated functional age values.
a remote controller suitable for being placed in communication with at least said check-up station and with one or more pre-selected physical exercise devices whose identifying data is prerecorded in at least one data recording unit accessible from the remote controller;
a remote controller suitable for being placed in communication with said measurement station; and
wherein at least one of said remote and local controllers is configured to present, via at least one of said display, portable electronic device, and loudspeaker, information and/or instructions suitable to guide a user in performing a plurality of tests distinct from each other, each of said tests having a predetermined temporal validity and being related to a physical or psychological domain of the user to be tested, said check-up station being configured to allow the execution of a first subset of tests of the plurality of tests, at least a second subset of tests of the plurality of tests being executable by means of one or more of said physical exercise devices;
and wherein the remote controller is further configured to:
wherein said remote controller is configured to:
receive in input from the measurement station data related to one or more images captured while performing a first test suitable for assessing a current level of mobility of at least one part of the body of the user, and a second test suitable for assessing a current level of the balance ability of the user;
calculate, on the basis of received data related to tests performed, a functional age value and/or a reference index specific to each domain whose corresponding test has been performed;
calculate a first and a second functional age values on the basis of said data related to the one or more images captured during the performance of the first and second tests, respectively, and an overall functional age value of the user at least on the basis of said calculated first and second functional age values.
calculate an overall functional age value and/or said overall index based on the functional age values and/or reference indexes calculated for the tests performed; and
depending on at least one parameter indicative of the tested user, and/or at least one specific functional age value or reference index calculated, and/or the overall functional age value or overall index calculated, generate a new training program or modify/confirm a pre-existing training program making it accessible to the user via at least one of the display and the portable electronic device.
(Claim 17) The system according to claim 10, wherein said remote controller is configured to set at least in part, and/or to present to the user, one or more training programs for said user based on at least one of said overall value of functional age, and/or said first, and/or second, and/or third, and/or fourth and/or fifth, and/or sixth values of functional age.
2
System according to claim 1, wherein the check-up station comprises said display, and wherein said remote controller is further configured to display on at least one of said display and portable electronic device the calculated functional age values and/or reference indexes for each tested domain and the overall functional age value and/or said overall index.
3
System according to claim 1, wherein said remote controller is further configured to:
check whether each test of the plurality of tests has been performed and is still temporally valid; and, if not,
invite the user to execute each test that has not been executed yet and/or repeat a temporally expired test.
4
System according to claim 1, wherein said remote controller is further configured to calculate an overall functional age value and/or said overall index based on and only when all tests of the plurality of tests to be performed have been performed and are temporally valid.
5
System according to claim 1, wherein, in response to the user's selection of a test to be performed belonging to the second subgroup of tests, the remote controller is further configured to:
send to the user, directly on at least one of said display, said loudspeaker, and said own portable electronic device, one or more instructions identifying at least one device among said one or more pre-selected physical exercise devices with which to perform said test belonging to the second test subgroup.
6
System according to claim 5, wherein said remote controller is further configured to send on at least one of said at least one identified device and portable electronic device one or more instructions designed to guide the user in performing said test belonging to the second test subgroup.
7
System according to claim 5, wherein said remote controller is further configured to remotely configure said at least one identified device on which said user has to perform said test belonging to the second test subgroup.
8
System according to claim 1,wherein said check-up station comprises said display, wherein at least one of said local controller and remote controller is configured to present, via at least one of said display, loudspeaker and said own portable electronic device, instructions to the user to assume one or more predetermined positions in front of said display, wherein the check- up station includes at least one camera configured to capture one or more first images of the user when the user assumes said one or more predetermined positions, wherein at least one of said local controller and remote controller is configured to calculate, based on the one or more first images captured, one or more anthropometric data of the user.
9
System according to claim 7, wherein the remote controller is further configured to remotely configure said at least one identified device on which said user has to perform said test belonging to the second test subgroup based on one or more of the anthropometric data calculated for the user or of one or more pre-recorded anthropometric data of the user.
10
10
System according to claim 1, wherein the check-up station further comprises at least one camera configured to capture one or more second images of the user when the user is performing a first test that belongs to the first test subgroup and is configured to assess a current level of mobility of at least one body part of the user, and when the user is performing a second test that belongs to the first test subgroup and is configured to assess a current level of balance ability of the user; and wherein said remote controller is configured to calculate, on the basis of data processed on the basis of the captured second images and sent by the local controller, a specific functional age value and/or a reference index related to the current level of mobility of the user, and a respective specific functional age value and/or a reference index related to the current balance capability of the user.
wherein said remote controller is configured to:
receive in input from the measurement station data related to one or more images captured while performing a first test suitable for assessing a current level of mobility of at least one part of the body of the user, and a second test suitable for assessing a current level of the balance ability of the user;
calculate a first and a second functional age values on the basis of said data related to the one or more images captured during the performance of the first and second tests, respectively, and an overall functional age value of the user at least on the basis of said calculated first and second functional age values.
11
11
System according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said local controller and remote controller is configured to present, via at least one of said display, loudspeaker, and said own portable electronic device, a plurality of instructions designed to guide the user in performing a test of said plurality of tests that is configured to assess a level of cognitive ability of the user to be performed directly on the check-up station or on a device remote from the check-up station and operatively connectable to the remote controller, and wherein the remote controller is further configured to calculate, based on the test performed, a specific functional age value and/or a reference index related to the current level of cognitive capability of the user.
The system according to claim 10, comprising:a first device which is adapted to be put in communication with and send to said remote controller data indicative of at least a third test performed or being performed by the user, said third test being adapted to assess a level of cognitive ability of said user; and wherein said remote controller is further configured to calculate a third functional age value on the basis of data indicative of the third test received from the first device and an overall functional age value of the user also on the basis of said third functional age value.
12
13
System according to claim 1, wherein the check-up station incorporates measuring means for or is connected to a measuring device for measuring at least one parameter indicative of the current body mass composition of said user, wherein at least one of said local controller and said remote controller is configured to present, through at least one of said display and loudspeaker, a plurality of instructions designed to guide the user in performing, through said measuring means or said measuring device, a test capable of calculating or measuring at least one parameter indicative of the current body mass composition of said user, and wherein said remote controller is further configured to calculate, based on the at least one calculated or measured parameter, a specific functional age value and/or a reference index related to the current body mass composition of the user.
The system according to claim 10, comprising:
a second device configured to measure at least a first parameter indicative of the body mass composition of said user;
and wherein said remote controller is configured to:
receive as input said first parameter, from said second device or from a device capable of communicating said first measured parameter; and
calculate a fourth value of functional age based on said first measured parameter, and an overall value of functional age of the user also based on said fourth value of functional age.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 10-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,714,913. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantively the same and directed to the same product. It is noted that the content of the presented instructions is merely printed matter, and does not patentably distinguish the claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“said remote controller is further configured to remotely configure said at least one identified device on which said user has to perform said test belonging to the second test subgroup” in claim 7.
“the remote controller is further configured to remotely configure said at least one identified device on which said user has to perform said test belonging to the second test subgroup based on one or more of the anthropometric data calculated for the user or of one or more pre-recorded anthropometric data of the user” in claim 9.
“measuring means for… measuring at least one parameter indicative of the current body mass composition of said user” in claim 12.
“a measuring device for measuring at least one parameter indicative of the current body mass composition of said user” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 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.
Clams 1-12 inconsistently use both terms “the” and “said”. This causes a lack of clarity regarding whether there is a change in meaning when using one term as opposed to the other. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the use of these terms are construed to have the same meaning. It is recommended to use only “the” or only “said”. Dependent claims 2-12 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said remote and local controllers" in line 10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Such language includes the embodiment of multiple remote controllers and/or multiple local controllers. However, there is only antecedent basis for a single remote controller and a single local controller. Dependent claims 2-12 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
The term “temporal validity” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “temporal validity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Dependent claims 2-12 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
The term “related to a physical or psychological domain” in “being related to a physical or psychological domain of the user to be tested” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “related to a physical or psychological domain” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, “a physical or psychological domain” is unbounded by the disclosure. Dependent claims 2-12 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
The term “temporally expired test” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “temporally expired test” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This is particularly problematic as a “test” can be any test as it is so broadly and generically recited to merely be limited by “being related to a physical or psychological domain of the user to be tested”.
Claim limitation “said remote controller is further configured to remotely configure said at least one identified device on which said user has to perform said test belonging to the second test subgroup” in claim 7 and “the remote controller is further configured to remotely configure said at least one identified device on which said user has to perform said test belonging to the second test subgroup based on one or more of the anthropometric data calculated for the user or of one or more pre-recorded anthropometric data of the user” in claim 9 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 78 and 108 of the specification which merely recite similar language as the claim but are silent regarding any actual description of the structure, calculations, steps, etc. necessary to perform the claimed functionality. Furthermore, and more importantly, the disclosure is silent regarding what configuring the at least one identified device entails for any “identified device” (i.e., “at least one device among one or more pre-selected physical exercise devices”). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claim 9 inherits the deficiencies of its respective parent claims, and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "based on one or more of the anthropometric data calculated for the user" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further regarding claim 9, the claim recites “based on one or more of the anthropometric data calculated for the user or of one or more pre-recorded anthropometric data of the user.” In particular, “based on one or more… of one or more pre-recorded anthropometric data of the user” is grammatically incorrect causing a lack of clarity regarding what the test belong to the second test subgroup is based on. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
Claim limitation “measuring means for… measuring at least one parameter indicative of the current body mass composition of said user” in claim 12 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 135-138 of the specification and Fig. 3. In particular, para. 136 of the specification recites that “such means or device may be of the impedance type, e.g. to measure muscle mass and/or lean mass”. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that even if an impedance type is used, there are multiple different analysis methods using impedance that vary greatly in their ability to perform accurate and reliable calculations. Additionally, the disclosure merely provides superfluous illustration and description of elements that may contact a user, but is silent regarding any actual description of the structure necessary to perform the claimed functionality. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a measuring device for measuring at least one parameter indicative of the current body mass composition of said user” in claim 12 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 135-137, 139, and 140 of the specification and Fig. 4. In particular, para. 136 of the specification recites that “such means or device may be of the impedance type, e.g. to measure muscle mass and/or lean mass”. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that even if an impedance type is used, there are multiple different analysis methods using impedance that vary greatly in their ability to perform accurate and reliable calculations. Additionally, the disclosure merely provides superfluous illustration and description of elements that may contact a user, but is silent regarding any actual description of the structure necessary to perform the claimed functionality. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “depending on at least one parameter indicative of the tested user, and/or at least one specific functional age value or reference index calculated, and/or the overall functional age value or overall index calculated, generate a new training program or modify/confirm a preexisting training program” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure merely recites that these steps are performed in results-based language without providing any meaningful descriptions of the steps, algorithms, calculations necessary for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 16 and 59-65 which merely recite similar language as the claim without any meaningful description regarding generating a new training program or modifying/confirming a preexisting training program, let alone depending on at least one parameter indicative of the tested user, and/or at least one specific functional age value or reference index calculated, and/or the overall functional age value or overall index calculated. Dependent claims 2-12 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “said remote controller is further configured to remotely configure said at least one identified device on which said user has to perform said test belonging to the second test subgroup” in claim 7 and “the remote controller is further configured to remotely configure said at least one identified device on which said user has to perform said test belonging to the second test subgroup based on one or more of the anthropometric data calculated for the user or of one or more pre-recorded anthropometric data of the user” in claim 9 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Thus, just as this this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claim 9 inherits the deficiencies of its respective parent claims, and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 10, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “configured to assess a current level of mobility of at least one body part of the user, and when the user is performing a second test that belongs to the first test subgroup and is configured to assess a current level of balance ability of the user; and wherein said remote controller is configured to calculate, on the basis of data processed on the basis of the captured second images and sent by the local controller, a specific functional age value and/or a reference index related to the current level of mobility of the user, and a respective specific functional age value and/or a reference index related to the current balance capability of the user” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure merely recites that these steps are performed in results-based language without providing any meaningful descriptions of the steps, algorithms, calculations necessary for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 45, 64, 112-123, 146, and 152 which merely recite similar language as the claim without any meaningful description of any balance test or analysis.
Regarding claim 11, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a plurality of instructions designed to guide the user in performing a test of said plurality of tests that is configured to assess a level of cognitive ability of the user to be performed directly on the check-up station or on a device remote from the check-up station and operatively connectable to the remote controller, and wherein the remote controller is further configured to calculate, based on the test performed, a specific functional age value and/or a reference index related to the current level of cognitive capability of the user” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure merely recites that these steps are performed in results-based language without providing any meaningful descriptions of the steps, algorithms, calculations necessary for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 46, 127-134, and 152 which merely recite similar language as the claim without any meaningful description of any cognitive test nor any analysis.
Regarding claim 12, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “measuring means for… measuring at least one parameter indicative of the current body mass composition of said user” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Thus, just as this this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI).
Further regarding claim 12, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “measuring device for measuring at least one parameter indicative of the current body mass composition of said user” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Thus, just as this this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI).
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 1-12 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 including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The claims are directed to a product which falls under the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
A system for assessing and improving the functional age and/or an overall index indicative of a current state of psycho-physical well-being of a user, comprising at least:
a check-up station which comprises a local controller, at least one of a display and a loudspeaker, said check-up station being configured to allow the user to connect to the system either directly on the display itself or by means of an own portable electronic device;
a remote controller suitable for being placed in communication with at least said check-up station and with one or more pre-selected physical exercise devices whose identifying data is prerecorded in at least one data recording unit accessible from the remote controller;
wherein at least one of said remote and local controllers is configured to present, via at least one of said display, portable electronic device, and loudspeaker, information and/or instructions suitable to guide a user in performing a plurality of tests distinct from each other, each of said tests having a predetermined temporal validity and being related to a physical or psychological domain of the user to be tested, said check-up station being configured to allow the execution of a first subset of tests of the plurality of tests, at least a second subset of tests of the plurality of tests being executable by means of one or more of said physical exercise devices;
and wherein the remote controller is further configured to:
calculate, on the basis of received data related to tests performed, a functional age value and/or a reference index specific to each domain whose corresponding test has been performed;
calculate an overall functional age value and/or said overall index based on the functional age values and/or reference indexes calculated for the tests performed; and
depending on at least one parameter indicative of the tested user, and/or at least one specific functional age value or reference index calculated, and/or the overall functional age value or overall index calculated, generate a new training program or modify/confirm a pre-existing training program making it accessible to the user via at least one of the display and the portable electronic device.
All of the foregoing underlined elements amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because it is managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as it is merely following rules or instructions by collecting information, analyzing the information, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis. They all also amount to the abstract idea grouping of mental processes as the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) – A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process.
The dependent claims amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: a system comprising at least a check-up station which comprises a local controller, at least one of a display and a loudspeaker, said check-up station being configured to allow the user to connect to the system either directly on the display itself or by means of an own portable electronic device, and a remote controller suitable for being placed in communication with at least said check-up station and with one or more pre-selected physical exercise devices whose identifying data is prerecorded in at least one data recording unit accessible from the remote controller (claim 1); the check-up station includes at least one camera (claims 8 and 10); a device (claim 11); the check-up station incorporates measuring means or is connected to a measuring device (claim 12). This is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed. See, for example, at least Fig. 1-4 which illustrate the components as stock images and non-descript black boxes in a conventional arrangement, and at least para. 25-64, 106-111, 129-140, 146, and 147 of the specification which identify that none of the elements are particular or necessary to implement the claimed process. The claims do not recite any limitations that improve the functionality of the computer system because the claimed steps are merely performing the steps of processing data but are not tied to improving any functionality of a computer system. In particular, the specification merely recites that unidentified “algorithms” and/or “modules” perform the claimed functions. See, for example, at least para. 25, 31, 41, 83, 115, and 121 of the specification. Thus, the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. Furthermore, the system is merely recited to be used, not improved. For instance, the camera, measuring means, and measuring device, as claimed and organized, merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea) while the remaining additional elements identified above merely indicate a field of use (i.e., use of a computer to implement the judicial exception). Regarding the one or more pre-selected physical exercise devices, the functionality associated with this element is claimed so broadly and so markedly insufficiently disclosed as to reasonably interpreted to include being performed by a human receiving instructions. Furthermore, the element itself is also so broadly and insufficiently disclosed as to be any physical exercise device such that it is not a particular device. Thus, the components, identified above, are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. None of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Again, this is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the drawings and specification as identified above. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the additional elements does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Additionally, the claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition nor do they apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Additionally, the claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition nor do they apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, based on all of the considered factors, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: YES).
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As addressed in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the systems and the process they perform do not require the use of a particular machine, nor do they result in the transformation of an article. Although the claims recite components (identified in Step 2A, Prong 2) for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., collecting, processing, transmitting/receiving, storing, outputting data). BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC (827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243-44 (2016)), Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed that indicates that Applicant believes the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. Thus, the computer components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. This is evidenced by the drawings and the specification as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. With respect to the communication device and the storage device, the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory, respectively, are well-understood, routine, and convention functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (which they are in the instant claims, as well as disclosed) and as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. Thus, the focus of the claimed invention is on the analysis of the collected data, which is itself at best merely an improvement within the abstract idea. See pg. 2-3 in SAP America Inc. v. lnvestpic, LLC (890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018) which proffered “[w]e may assume that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, but that is not enough for eligibility. Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations.” Furthermore, the steps are merely recited to be performed by, or using, the elements while the specification makes clear that the computerized system itself is ancillary to the claimed invention as identified above. This further identifies that none of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond, at best, generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shavit (US 2023/0089962).
Regarding claim 1, Shavit teaches a system for assessing and improving the functional age and/or an overall index indicative of a current state of psycho-physical well-being of a user (Shavit, Title, Training System and Methods for Designing, Monitoring and Providing Feedback of Training), comprising at least:
a check-up station which comprises a local controller, at least one of a display and a loudspeaker, said check-up station being configured to allow the user to connect to the system either directly on the display itself or by means of an own portable electronic device (Shavit, Fig. 2, I/O Subsystem 220);
a remote controller suitable for being placed in communication with at least said check-up station and with one or more pre-selected physical exercise devices whose identifying data is prerecorded in at least one data recording unit accessible from the remote controller (Shavit, Fig. 2, Logic Subsystem 215);
wherein at least one of said remote and local controllers is configured to present, via at least one of said display, portable electronic device, and loudspeaker, information and/or instructions suitable to guide a user in performing a plurality of tests distinct from each other, each of said tests having a predetermined temporal validity and being related to a physical or psychological domain of the user to be tested, said check-up station being configured to allow the execution of a first subset of tests of the plurality of tests, at least a second subset of tests of the plurality of tests being executable by means of one or more of said physical exercise devices (Shavit, Multiple examples exist throughout Shavit. One such example is found in para. 639 “To complete the session plan there is a need to establish the difficulty level for each one of the exercises. In this example, this is achieved in a difficulty level test or "strength test". This test can be done before building the session program or after.” Para. 640-652 then identify different subsets of tests for one repetition maximum (RM1).);
and wherein the remote controller is further configured to:
calculate, on the basis of received data related to tests performed, a functional age value and/or a reference index specific to each domain whose corresponding test has been performed (Shavit, para. 971, “example the entry can be age in years and for every age a limit is saved in the database, for example limit heart rate for every age. The table like data structure can have more dimensions, for example a 3 dimensional table shall contain an output for 3 entries. For example, a limit shall be extracted according to age, gender, and weight.” Para. 974, “At 3830 the system sets the starting difficulty level for the test. It can be set very similar to setting the limits and with similar calculation methods, for example extracting the initial difficulty level from a database according to user gender, age, experience level, height and weight.”);
calculate an overall functional age value and/or said overall index based on the functional age values and/or reference indexes calculated for the tests performed (Shavit, para. 910, “A formula may be applied to several inputs from the user such as age, gender, level of experience, height, weight, and the like giving a result index that may be used to select a predefined program.”); and
depending on at least one parameter indicative of the tested user, and/or at least one specific functional age value or reference index calculated, and/or the overall functional age value or overall index calculated, generate a new training program or modify/confirm a pre-existing training program making it accessible to the user via at least one of the display and the portable electronic device (Shavit, para. 910, “A formula may be applied to several inputs from the user such as age, gender, level of experience, height, weight, and the like giving a result index that may be used to select a predefined program.”).
Regarding claim 2, Shavit teaches System according to claim 1, wherein the check-up station comprises said display (Shavit, Fig. 2, Display/Output Device 224), and wherein said remote controller is further configured to display on at least one of said display and portable electronic device the calculated functional age values and/or reference indexes for each tested domain and the overall functional age value and/or said overall index (Shavit, para. 67, “The I/O subsystem 220 may be used to present a visual representation of data held by data-holding subsystem 214. The I/O subsystem 220 can include, but is not limited to, input and output devices 222 and 224, such as a display or displays, a keyboard, touch screen, and the like, that are driven by input and display controllers 226 and 228.”).
Regarding claim 3, Shavit teaches System according to claim 1, wherein said remote controller is further configured to:
check whether each test of the plurality of tests has been performed and is still temporally valid; and, if not,
invite the user to execute each test that has not been executed yet and/or repeat a temporally expired test (Shavit, para. 738, “If a certain number of sessions have passed without observed difficulty from the user, the system may re-test the rate of difficulty level change by increasing the rate again and continuing as detailed above.” A certain number of sessions having passed is a temporal marker.).
Regarding claim 4, Shavit teaches System according to claim 1, wherein said remote controller is further configured to calculate an overall functional age value and/or said overall index calculate an overall functional age value and/or said overall index based on and only when all tests of the plurality of tests to be performed have been performed and are temporally valid (Shavit, para. 822-823, “8. Completion of all the required steps and/or performing in the correct order in a routine… Completing of all steps in the right order can also be part of the performance level. It can also include measuring the speed of the routines performance or phases in the routines and comparing them to Data-Base of ‘correct’ speeds. Even the speed as is can be used as a performance measure.”).
Regarding claim 5, Shavit teaches System according to claim 1, wherein, in response to the user's selection of a test to be performed belonging to the second subgroup of tests, the remote controller is further configured to:
send to the user, directly on at least one of said display, said loudspeaker, and said own portable electronic device, one or more instructions identifying at least one device among said one or more pre-selected physical exercise devices with which to perform said test belonging to the second test subgroup (Shavit, para. 711, “To begin the training the system may review the session plan with the user by voice, video, and the like. It may instruct him to his first exercise and may even show him the way by means of voice, video, turning on lights leading to the exercise machine or training environment, hologram, a robot, a human coach and the like.”).
Regarding claim 6, Shavit teaches System according to claim 5, wherein said remote controller is further configured to send on at least one of said at least one identified device and portable electronic device one or more instructions designed to guide the user in performing said test belonging to the second test subgroup (Shavit, para. 704, “guiding the user to perform a step in the exercise”; para. 714, “A simple way to give motivation may be rendering the virtual coach guiding the user and doing the repetitions with him.”).
Regarding claim 7, Shavit teaches System according to claim 5, wherein said remote controller is further configured to remotely configure said at least one identified device on which said user has to perform said test belonging to the second test subgroup (Shavit, para. 76, “The configuration of the training equipment may include or further include adjusting the level of resistance or difficulty level to the trainee or to the trainee's training program.” Para. 976, “The system may configure itself, the training environment, or a connected exercise device for the test. For example, the system may configure the resistance in an exercise device communicating with it like the embodiments presented above in the first sections of this disclosure this or in the references. As another example, the system may set the speed and/or slope and/or time on a treadmill machine.”).
Regarding claim 8, Shavit teaches System according to claim 1, wherein said check-up station comprises said display (Shavit, Fig. 2, Display/Output Device 224), wherein at least one of said local controller and remote controller is configured to present, via at least one of said display, loudspeaker and said own portable electronic device, instructions to the user to assume one or more predetermined positions in front of said display, wherein the check-up station includes at least one camera configured to capture one or more first images of the user when the user assumes said one or more predetermined positions, wherein at least one of said local controller and remote controller is configured to calculate, based on the one or more first images captured, one or more anthropometric data of the user (Shavit, para. 393, “Capturing/Creating the first frame of body image and or skeleton mapping and or body mapping and alike, can be achieved by doing the capture in known posture and/or starting conditions. The subject/s may be prompted or asked to take a certain position and/or posture.”).
Regarding claim 9, Shavit teaches System according to claim 7, wherein the remote controller is further configured to remotely configure said at least one identified device on which said user has to perform said test belonging to the second test subgroup based on one or more of the anthropometric data calculated for the user or of one or more pre-recorded anthropometric data of the user (Shavit, para. 76, “The configuration of the training equipment may include or further include adjusting the level of resistance or difficulty level to the trainee or to the trainee's training program.”).
Regarding claim 10, Shavit teaches System according to claim 1, wherein the check-up station further comprises at least one camera configured to capture one or more second images of the user when the user is performing a first test that belongs to the first test subgroup and is configured to assess a current level of mobility of at least one body part of the user, and when the user is performing a second test that belongs to the first test subgroup and is configured to assess a current level of balance ability of the user; and wherein said remote controller is configured to calculate, on the basis of data processed on the basis of the captured second images and sent by the local controller, a specific functional age value and/or a reference index related to the current level of mobility of the user, and a respective specific functional age value and/or a reference index related to the current balance capability of the user (Shavit, para. 716, “Reports may include: distance traveled (for example in a cardio exercise), body measurements during the session such as blood pressure, temperature, or pulse (graph during the exercise, highs and lows, at interest points during the session, and the like), flexibility or range of movement in exercises, or a total grade of flexibility or movement range,… Each one of the reports may be a comparative report, comparing the results to previous sessions, to other trainees, to baseline levels and the like.”).
Regarding claim 11, Shavit teaches System according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said local controller and remote controller is configured to present, via at least one of said display, loudspeaker, and said own portable electronic device, a plurality of instructions designed to guide the user in performing a test of said plurality of tests that is configured to assess a level of cognitive ability of the user to be performed directly on the check-up station or on a device remote from the check-up station and operatively connectable to the remote controller, and wherein the remote controller is further configured to calculate, based on the test performed, a specific functional age value and/or a reference index related to the current level of cognitive capability of the user (Shavit, para. 924, “Other attributes may be the time it takes to perform the exercise measure for the level of fatigue (mental or physical or both) the exercise causes, measure for the level of effort (mental or physical or both) required to perform it,”).
Regarding claim 12, Shavit teaches System according to claim 1, wherein the check-up station incorporates measuring means for or is connected to a measuring device for measuring at least one parameter indicative of the current body mass composition of said user, wherein at least one of said local controller and said remote controller is configured to present, through at least one of said display and loudspeaker, a plurality of instructions designed to guide the user in performing, through said measuring means or said measuring device, a test capable of calculating or measuring at least one parameter indicative of the current body mass composition of said user, and wherein said remote controller is further configured to calculate, based on the at least one calculated or measured parameter, a specific functional age value and/or a reference index related to the current body mass composition of the user (Shavit, para. 316, “The wearable computing devices 190 may be configured to transfer or receive additional data such as the user's attributes like age, gender, height, weight, training history, experience level, and the like.” Para. 340, “Estimation of the user ability or attributes. This can be achieved in many ways. For example, the exercise mattress or the gym floor can obtain the trainee's weight and/or body fat percentage. Measurements of BMI and other attributes may be obtained optically in methods given in this disclosure or the references.” Para. 397, “Other sensors and measurements can be taken and also assist the 3D mapping such as measurements of weight, height, body fat percentage, circumference measurements of body parts (such as hips, bust, waist ... ), and alike.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kaleal (US 2016/0086500, US 9,652,992, US 2017/0206795, US 9,997,082, US 2018/0268726, US 11,107,579) discloses guiding a user during performance of a program or routine using a personalized avatar with intelligent fitness devices.
Abrahami et al. (US 2017/0039045) discloses a cognitive alteration system.
Mason et al. (US 2021/0350901 and US 11,942,205) discloses guiding a user during performance of a program or routine using a personalized avatar with intelligent fitness devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
