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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/31/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the listed information of item #59, #62 and #98 of “U.S.PATENT APPLICATION PUBLICATIONS” do not match. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. 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).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 7, 12 – 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte et al. US 2018/0078149 (hereinafter Fonte) in view of Besta et al. US 2016/0007885 (hereinafter Basta).
Regarding claim 1, Fonte teaches: a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from one or more of an electromechanical machine, a sensor, and a computing device, data associated with a user that uses the electromechanical machine to perform a treatment plan ([0059] - - receive data from sensors, exercise equipment);
based on one or more correlations of one or more indicators included in the data ([0041] - - correlate events/symptoms with activity data), generating, using an artificial intelligence engine ([0039] - - using machine learning), a unique data signature associated with a life-threatening event of the user ([0039] - - using machine learning to predict events, thus the machine learning model is a unique data signature; events including ischemia which is a life-threatening event), wherein the unique data signature is generated when the one or more indicators satisfy a respective urgent threshold level ([0084] - - train machine learning model when user reports ischemia; reporting ischemia is an urgent threshold level) and the one or more indicators comprise a pain measurement ([0041] - - user reports check pain) and a measurement of revolutions per minute ([0059] - - receive data from exercise equipment, e.g. treadmill; One of ordinary skill in the art would know data from treadmill would include rpm & etc.) ; and
based on the unique data signature associated with the one or more life-threatening events, performing one or more preventative actions ([0064] - - medical devices may dispense medication or initiate an alert).
But Fonte does not explicitly teach:
generating, using the artificial intelligence engine, a modified treatment plan, wherein the modified treatment plan modifies an operating parameter associated with a physical portion of the electromechanical machine, and (ii) controlling, using the modified treatment plan, the electromechanical machine.
However, Basta teaches:
generating, using the artificial intelligence engine, a modified treatment plan, wherein the modified treatment plan modifies an operating parameter associated with a physical portion of the electromechanical machine, and (ii) controlling, using the modified treatment plan, the electromechanical machine ([0103] - - using artificial intelligence; [0185] – when a user reports pain, the system may recommend a greater degree of unweighting, or different unweighting technique; unweighting is a parameter [0011] - - controlled unweighting system).
Fonte and Basta are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to medical system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Fonte, and incorporating modifying treatment plan and controlling electromechanical machine, as taught by Basta.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve managing patient recovery, as suggested by Basta ([0042]).
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Fonte and Basta teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Fonte further teaches: the preventative actions are urgent ([0064] - - medical devices may dispense medication or initiate an alert; user is experiencing a stroke, thus dispensing medication or initiating alert is urgent).
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fonte and Basta teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Fonte further teaches: the one or more preventative actions comprise: transmitting one or more messages to or through one or more emergency service systems ([0064] - - initiating alert), controlling operation of the electromechanical machine, transmitting one or more messages to the computing device ([0064] - - prompting the user to respond on a user interface), initiating a telehealth session between the computing device and a second computing device, or some combination thereof.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Fonte and Basta teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Basta teaches: the one or more preventative actions comprise: generating, using the artificial intelligence engine, a modified treatment plan that modifies a parameter or activity associated with at least one of the pain measurement and the measurement of revolutions per minute, and controlling, while the user uses the electromechanical machine and using the modified treatment plan, the electromechanical machine ([0103] - - using artificial intelligence; [0185] – when a user reports pain, the system may recommend a greater degree of unweighting, or different unweighting technique; [0011] - - controlled unweighting system ).
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Fonte and Basta teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Fonte further teaches: the one or more life-threatening events comprise deep vein thrombosis, heart attack, a heart arrhythmia of the user, an atrial fibrillation of the user, tachycardia, bradycardia, supraventricular tachycardia, congestive heart failure, heart valve disease, arteriosclerosis, atherosclerosis, pericardial disease, pericarditis, myocardial disease, myocarditis, cardiomyopathy, congenital heart disease,, stroke, cardiac arrest, hyperventilation, panic attack, kidney stones, or some combination thereof ([0084] - - ischemia; [0111] - - heart attack, stroke; [0113] - - ischemic stroke).
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Fonte and Basta teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Fonte further teaches: the computing device transmits, using an input peripheral of the computing device, the pain measurement that has been input by the user ([0041] - - user record chest pain via the blood flow monitoring system).
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Fonte and Basta teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Fonte further teaches: the artificial intelligence engine uses one or more trained computer-implemented models to generate the unique data signature associated with the one or more life-threatening events ([0084] - - train machine learning model associate with ischemia).
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claims 8, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte et al. US 2018/0078149 (hereinafter Fonte) in view of Besta et al. US 2016/0007885 (hereinafter Basta) and further in view of Kang et al. US 2019/0066832 (hereinafter Kang).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Fonte and Basta teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Fonte and Basta does not explicitly teach: the pain measurement comprises pain after a final session of the treatment plan, average pain after all of one or more sessions of the treatment plan, or some combination thereof.
However, Kang teaches: the pain measurement comprises pain after a final session of the treatment plan, average pain after all of one or more sessions of the treatment plan, or some combination thereof ([0041] - - after a physical therapy session is completed, the patient enters post-exercise pain level).
Fonte, Basta and Kang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to medical system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Fonte and Basta, and incorporating pain after a final session, as taught by Kang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve managing patient recovery, as suggested by Kang ([0042]).
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claims 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte et al. US 2018/0078149 (hereinafter Fonte) in view of Besta et al. US 2016/0007885 (hereinafter Basta) and further in view of MANASSE et al. US 2021/0383008 (hereinafter MANASSE).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Fonte and Basta teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Fonte and Basta does not explicitly teach: converting a format of the data to a standardized or canonical format and generating training data from the converted data, wherein the training data is used to train one or more computer-implemented models executed by the artificial intelligence engine.
However, MANASSE teaches: converting a format of the data to a standardized or canonical format and generating training data from the converted data, wherein the training data is used to train one or more computer-implemented models executed by the artificial intelligence engine ([0075] - - converting data into canonical forms suitable for feeding data to the machine learning model).
Fonte, Basta and MANASSE are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to training machine learning model.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Fonte and Basta, and incorporating converting data to canonical format, as taught by MANASSE.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to expressing the data in a mathematical form that is suitable to be fed to the machine learning model, as suggested by MANASSE ([0075]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte et al. US 2018/0078149 (hereinafter Fonte) in view of Besta et al. US 2016/0007885 (hereinafter Basta) and further in view of Briel et al. US 2021/0236903 (hereinafter Briel).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Fonte and Basta teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Fonte does not explicitly teach: the measurement of revolutions per minute comprises an average revolutions per minute of one or more sessions of the treatment plan.
However, Briel teaches: the measurement of revolutions per minute comprises an average revolutions per minute of one or more sessions of the treatment plan. ([0115] - - average rpm of one session).
Fonte, Basta and Briel are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to exercising using a treadmill.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Fonte and Basta, and incorporating average rpm of one session, as taught by Briel.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide feedback of the results, as suggested by Briel ([0017]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte et al. US 2018/0078149 (hereinafter Fonte) in view of Besta et al. US 2016/0007885 (hereinafter Basta) and further in view of PULITZER et al. US 2020/0152339 (hereinafter PULITZER).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Fonte and Basta teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Fonte further teaches: based on the unique data signature associated with the life-threatening event of the user, contact the doctor ([0064] - - medical device may initiate an alert to the user’s doctor if a user is detected experiencing a stroke, [0040] - - provide notification through messaging; [0056] - - blood flow monitoring system alert a medical professional if a user’s blood flow simulation outputs blood flow metrics fall within a predetermined range; [0084] - - using trained model for computing blood flow metrics; the model is the unique data signature)
But the combination of Fonte and Basta does not explicitly teach: contact a doctor comprising initiating a telehealth session between the computing device and a second computing device.
However, PULITZER teaches: initiating a telehealth session between the computing device and a second computing device ([0183] - - a telemedicine session is initiated between a telemedicine provider and a patient).
Fonte, Basta and PULITZER are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to medical system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Fonte and Basta, and incorporating a telehealth session, as taught by PULITZER.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to automatically initiate telehealth session for critical issues, as suggested by PULITZER ([0095]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights