Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status Of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 08/13/2025.
In a preliminary amendment, claims 1-3 were canceled, and claims 4-23 were added.
Claims 4-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 4-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 4-23: Step 1
Claims 4-16 are drawn to a computer-implemented system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claim 17-22 is drawn to a computer-implemented method, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claim 23 is drawn to a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Claims 4-23: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 4 recites receiving, a first treatment plan designed to treat a health issue related to an invasive surgery of a user, (wherein the first treatment plan comprises at least two exercise sessions that, based on the health issue related to the invasive surgery of the user, enable the user to perform an exercise at different exertion levels); controlling, based on the first treatment plan, the electromechanical machine in order to implement the at least two exercise sessions that, based on the health issue related to the invasive surgery of the user, instructing the user to perform the exercise at the different exertion levels; and receiving a second treatment plan generated by one or more machine learning models, wherein the second treatment plan modifies at least one exertion level, wherein one of more types of the health issue related to the invasive surgery are grouped into a plurality of surgery groups and the one or more machine learning models generate the second treatment plan based on one or more of the plurality of surgery groups including the health issue related to the invasive surgery of the user. Claims 17 and 23 recite similar limitations.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing personal behavior by manually following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. But for the recitation of generic computer components, these limitations encompass a user receiving, a first treatment plan designed to treat a health issue related to an invasive surgery of a user, (wherein the first treatment plan comprises at least two exercise sessions that, based on the health issue related to the invasive surgery of the user, enable the user to perform an exercise at different exertion levels), controlling, based on the first treatment plan, the electromechanical machine in order to implement the at least two exercise sessions that, based on the health issue related to the invasive surgery of the user, instructing the user to perform the exercise at the different exertion levels, and receiving a second treatment plan generated by one or more machine learning models, wherein the second treatment plan modifies at least one exertion level, wherein one of more types of the health issue related to the invasive surgery are grouped into a plurality of surgery groups and the one or more machine learning models generate the second treatment plan based on one or more of the plurality of surgery groups including the health issue related to the invasive surgery of the user. These steps could be carried out manually by a user following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Claims 17 and 23 recite similar limitations.
Claims 5-16 and 18-22 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Claims 5 and 18 further define receiving data and types of data. Claim 6 further defines transmitting data to a second device. Claim 7 further defines various types of data. Claims 8 and 19 further define health issue related to the invasive surgery. Claims 9 and 20 further define second treatment plan comprises a modified parameter and types of modified parameters. Claims 10 and 21 further define modification of the at least one exertion level. Claims 11 and 22 further define generate the second treatment plan by predicting exercises. Claim 12 further defines the first treatment plan is generated based on attribute data. Claim 13 further defines wherein the health issue related to the invasive surgery. Claim 14 further defines generate the second treatment plan based on at least one pain level on a numerical pain scale reported by the user. Claim 15 further defines the at least one pain level. Claim 16 further defines the first treatment plan is designed to prepare the user for a planned invasive surgery. Therefore, these claims are similarly drawn to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 4-23: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas along with insignificant, extra-solution data gathering activity, and adding limitations similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. Claim 4 recites the additional elements that the computer-implemented system comprises one or more processing devices, and the user using the electromechanical machine. Claim 14 recites additional elements of a processing device performing the method steps, and the user using the electromechanical machine. Claim 23 recites A tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processing device to execute the instructions.
Claims 4-23, directly or indirectly, recite the following generic computer components: “computer-implemented system,” “computer-implemented method” and “tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processing device to execute the instructions” which are similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. The written description discloses that the recited computer components encompass generic components including “Processing device 1102 represents one or more general-purpose processing devices such as a microprocessor, central processing unit, or the like“ (see at least Paragraph [0166]), “The term “computer-readable storage medium” shall also be taken to include any medium that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying a set of instructions for execution by the machine and that cause the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies of the present disclosure“ (see at least Paragraph [0169]), and “The method 1400 may be performed by processing logic that may include hardware (circuitry, dedicated logic, etc.), software, or a combination of both. The method 1400 and/or each of their individual functions, subroutines, or operations may be performed by one or more processors of a computing device (e.g., the computing device 1200 of FIG. 12 and/or the patient interface 50 of FIG. 1) implementing the method 1400. The method 1400 may be implemented as computer instructions stored on a memory device and executable by the one or more processors“ (see at least Paragraph [0182]). Although the additional elements limits the identified judicial exceptions, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05 (h). As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claims 4-23: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). As explained above, the generic computer components and machine learning are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception.
Receiving and transmitting data over a network (i.e. receiving and communicating data or signals) has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of a general-purpose computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result has also been found to be insufficient to show an improvement to technology, (see MPEP 2106.05(a) and TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48).
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, the high-level recitation of an output of results also fails to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 4-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,955,220.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 4-23 of the instant pending application omit certain steps of claims 1-30 in the 11,955,220 patent. Therefore, claims 4-23 are prima facie obvious of claims 1-30 in the 11,955,220 patent, because it would have been obvious to omit certain steps with the motivation for providing systems and methods for using AI/ML and telemedicine for invasive surgical treatment to determine a cardiac treatment plan that uses an electromechanical machine.
Claims 4-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,537,088.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 4-23 of the instant pending application omit certain steps of claims 1-20 in the 12,537,088 patent. Therefore, claims 4-23 are prima facie obvious of claims 1-20 in the 12,537,088 patent, because it would have been obvious to omit certain steps with the motivation for providing systems and methods for using AI/ML and telemedicine for invasive surgical treatment to determine a cardiac treatment plan that uses an electromechanical machine.
The most remarkable prior art of record is as follows:
Jayalath: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2020/0151595 A1
Moturu: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2017/0004260 A1
Ridgel: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2016/0166881 A1
Kang: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2019/0066832 A1
Tuyl: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2018/0240552 A1
Denison: WIPO Publication WO 2019/143940 A1
Ishraque et al.: “Artificial Intelligences-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation Therapy Exercise Recommendation System,” 2018 IEEE MIT Undergraduate Research Technology Conference (URTC), Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1109/URTC45901.2018.8437568
Alcaraz et al., “Machine Learning as Digital Therapy Assessment for Mobile Gait Rehabilitation,” 2018 IEEE 28th International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing (MLSP), Aalborg, Denmark, 2018, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/MLSP.2018.8517005
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joy Chng whose telephone number is 571.270.7897. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, JASON DUNHAM can be reached on 571.272.8109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Joy Chng/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights