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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Claims 16 and 25 have been amended by applicant.
In light of applicant amendments, the examiner withdraws the 112b rejections. The cancellation of the limitations corresponding to the ‘at least one measuring device’ broadens the scope of the claims.
However, upon reconsideration of the allowability of the claims, the examiner rejects independent claim 16 and 25, see 103 rejections below. This is a second action Non-Final Rejection. Claims 16-21, 24-27, and 30 are rejected. Claims 22-23 and 28-29 are each objected to for being dependent on a rejected independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 16, 17, 20-21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puerschel (PG Patent Publication No. US2014/0106936A1), in view of Fuchs (PG Patent Publication No. US2019/0358483A1).
Regarding claim 16, Puerschel shows a stationary exercise device (stationary training bicycle, paragraph 0034) comprising a driving assembly (pedal crank mechanism 2, paragraph 0034) with a driving wheel (see annotated figure below) rotating around a driving axle (belt pulley 6, paragraph 0034; see Figure 1, while the driving axle is not shown it is well known that a pulley includes a wheel and an axle); a first crank and a second crank (see annotated figure below) each connected to the driving wheel (see annotated FIG. 1 below); two pedals (two pedals 3, paragraph 0034), each pedal connected to one of the cranks (see annotated FIG. 1 below); a flywheel (flywheel 5, paragraph 0034) connected to the driving assembly by at least one gear mechanism (belt 4, paragraph 0034; The specification of the claimed invention discloses “A flywheel 14 is connected to the driving assembly 2 by at least one gear mechanism 12. In the present invention the gear mechanism 12 is a drive belt. Therefore, Puerschel shows the at least one gear mechanism of the claimed invention as Puerschel also discloses “The pedal crank mechanism 2 is coupled via a belt 4 to a flywheel 5” Puerschel, paragraph 0034); a brake assembly (braking device 8, paragraph 0035) configured to apply a braking force to the flywheel (“the farther away the magnet 9 is positioned from the flywheel 5, the lower its braking action, the closer it is to the flywheel 5 and therefore the smaller S is, the greater the braking action”, paragraph 0035); a detection device (measuring device 10, paragraph 0036) configured to measure several time intervals, in each of which the flywheel is displaced at a predetermined angle (“Since only one element, i.e., for example, only one magnetic element is provided, the time which passes between two successive signals is consequently exactly the time which the flywheel has required for this one revolution (for example, if two elements are provided offset by precisely 180.degree. on the flywheel, a time interval between two signals would thus correspond to half of one revolution, from which the speed may readily be in turn calculated). This measured time is synonymous with the actual speed”, paragraph 0023; the predetermined angle is shown with the 180 degrees), detect time differences between at least two of the several time intervals (“the time which passes between two successive signals is consequently exactly the time which the flywheel has required for this one revolution”, paragraph 0073), and detect zero crossings corresponding to each predetermined angle (“a measuring device is used which only comprises an element arranged on the flywheel, for example, a magnetic element, and a stationary measuring device, i.e., a suitable sensor, for example, a Hall sensor”, paragraph 0023; Hall sensors are capable of detecting AC signals that produce AC power waves from which zero-crossings are able to be detected) and a control device (computing device 13, paragraph 0040) configured to determine, through dependence of the time differences between at least two of the several time intervals (“The computing device 13 ascertains the power values in normal operation on the basis of the provided speed, detected via the measuring device 10, and of course, also on the basis of the provided training duration or the time, for which the corresponding speed is ridden”, paragraph 0040), a torque at the driving wheel (power values, paragraph 0040; torque is being determined Puerschel as Puerschell also discloses “By way of the physical relationship of the rotational work according to Wrot=(Jw2)/2 with the rotational power, which is ascertained as Prot=Wrot/t, where Prot=rotational power and t=time, the reference training bicycle can now be completely surveyed and calibrated by means of a reference test stand” (Puerschel, paragraph 0048).
It is well known in the art that rotational power corresponds to the torque applied by the user to pedals. While Puerschel does not explicitly disclose ‘torque’, Puerschel also discloses “the pedal crank mechanism 2 is coupled via a belt 4 to a flywheel 5. Since the belt pulley 6 provided on the pedal crank mechanism 2 is substantially larger than the belt pulley 7 on the flywheel 5, a transmission is consequently provided” (Puerschel, paragraph 0034). There is a correlation between the belt pulley 7 and the belt pulley 6, and moreover, the belt pulley 6 is connected to the pedal crank mechanism which is directly engaged by the user with the pedals and cranks. Therefore, Puerschel shows utilizing the computing device to determine the torque at belt pulley 6 as it is in direct engagement with the user and, “Power values, which the training person must apply at a given braking device setting and a given speed to drive the flywheel, are incorporated in the calibration table for defined speed values and defined braking device settings, or assigned to the calibration table, wherein the computing device automatically ascertains the power as a function of the given braking device setting and speed on the basis of the stored power values”, paragraph 0021).
PNG
media_image1.png
335
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Puerschel
Puerschel fails to specifically show wherein the determined torque is used to determine a balance between a right leg and a left leg.
However, Fuchs, from the same field of endeavor, discloses “the user trajectory modeler 34 analyzes the pedaling-torque-time-history of this specific user in order to derive at least a reference trajectory that is user-specific” (paragraph 0140), and “For example, the user trajectory modeler 34 may analyze the waveform by determining average value, amplitude in relation to the average, Fourier coefficients, without limitation. Based on the waveform analysis, it is determined if the waveform is sinusoidal, more triangular, or comprises any asymmetry, to derive the user-defined reference trajectory. In some embodiments, the time sequence of the pedaling movements is analyzed to determine repeating patterns or irregularities and differences between left and right leg” (paragraph 0141). Therefore, in the broadest reasonable interpretation, the repeating patterns or irregularities and difference between the right and left leg have been considered to be determining the balance between a right and left leg. Further, the repeating patterns or irregularities and difference between the right and left leg analyzed by the pedaling-torque-time-history of this specific user in order to derive at least a reference trajectory that is user-specific teaches the determined torque.
PNG
media_image2.png
475
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fuchs
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stationary training bicycle of Puerschel to include the determined torque is used to determine a balance between a right leg and a left leg as Puerschel already discloses “I.e., it can finally be ascertained solely via a comparison of the actual rundown time to the reference rundown time to what extent the braking behavior of the mass-produced training bicycle corresponds to that of the reference training bicycle, or in which direction a difference is provided and in which direction an adaptation must be performed. This adaptation then has the result that a correct power ascertainment corresponding to the real behavior is possible. This is because if the real actual braking resistance or the real braking behavior, respectively, is known and is tracked via the correction toward the actual setting, the ascertainment of the power values can also be based on the real braking resistance or the real actual setting, respectively” (Puerschel, paragraph 0012). The ‘correct power ascertainment’ is in reference to the balance between both legs, and it is well known in the art that balance is important to prevent imbalances, which results in injuries.
Regarding claim 17, Puerschel, in view of Fuchs, teaches the stationary exercise device according to claim 16, wherein the control device is further configured to correlate the determined torque at the driving wheel or the value dependent on the torque at the driving wheel to the first crank or the second crank (Puerschel, “The measuring device 10 (or the computing device 13, depending on which one has the corresponding processor) continuously detects the speed of the flywheel 5 and calculates the corresponding pedal crank speed via this, since the transmission ration between the pedal crank mechanism 2 and flywheel 5 is indeed known thereto”, paragraph 0065) dependent on the position of the first crank and the second crank (Fuchs, “the control unit 30 receives information on the operation of the pedals 11 via the first power electronics 14 from a first sensor unit 40. Such information – which may also be used by the first power electronics 14 – may in particular comprise… angular position of the crank 12… Quantities pertaining to the position of the crank 12 may be determined by the first sensor unit 40”). See motivation to combine references above in claim 16.
Regarding claim 20, Puerschel, in view of Fuchs, teaches the stationary exercise device (Puerschel, stationary training bicycle) according to claim 16, including the brake assembly (Puerschel, braking device 8).
Puerschel fails to show a generator for electrical power generation and an eddy current magnetic resistance
However, Fuchs teaches a generator (Fuchs, electric generator 13, paragraph 0116) for electrical power generation (Fuchs, “for generating electrical power from muscle power of a user with at least one pedal and an electric generator”, Abstract) and an eddy current magnetic resistance (Puerschel, eddy current braking effect, paragraph 0035).
It would have been obvious for one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the generator of Fuchs with the braking device of Puerschel as Fuchs discloses “it is conceivable that the generator is coupled to a drive motor, which in turn is coupled to the flywheel” (Fuchs, paragraph 0091) and Puerschel also discloses “The farther away the magnet 9 is positioned from the flywheel 5, the lower its braking action, the closer it is to the flywheel 5 and therefore the smaller S is the greater braking action” (Puerschel, paragraph 0035). Therefore, it would be obvious to couple the electric generator of Fuchs with the flywheel of Puerschel. Furthermore, this modification is obvious in order to determine “the input torque… by measuring the current form the generator 13” (Fuchs, paragraph 0117) and to “[generate] electrical power from muscle power” (Fuchs, Abstract).
Regarding claim 21, Puerschel, in view of Fuchs, teaches the stationary exercise device (Puerschel, stationary training bicycle) according to claim 20. Puerschel shows a brake assembly having an eddy current magnetic resistance. Fuchs teaches the generator, as discussed in claim 20 above.
Fuchs also teaches the generator is further configured to produce a current (Fuchs, “the torque is determined indirectly by measuring the electric current produced in the generator”, paragraph 0056), which is used to detect the time intervals (Fuchs, “the torque as a function of time”) in each of which the flywheel is displaced at the predetermined angle (Fuchs, “the generator is coupled to a drive motor, which in turn is coupled to a flywheel”, paragraph 0091).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake assembly of Puerschel to include the generator for electric power generation as Puerschel already discloses the use of eddy current magnetic resistance and Fuchs discloses the need to “generate electrical power from muscle power of a user” (Fuchs, Abstract). It is well known in the art to utilize mechanical energy to produce electrical energy for electrical components of an exercise device.
Regarding claim 24, Puerschel, in view of Fuchs, teaches the stationary exercise device according to claim 16, wherein the control device is further configured to preset the torque of the brake assembly (Puerschel, “As described, the training person has the possibility of adjusting the braking device in a defined manner, therefore thus intentionally changing the braking resistance. This can either be performed in that the braking action is variable in defined steps, preferably in at least 10 steps, between a maximum braking action and no braking action. Proceeding from a setting without any braking action, 10 steps 1-10 are provided, which the training person can select, wherein the maximum braking action would be provided at step 10”, paragraph 0015), wherein the torque at the driving wheel or a value dependent on the torque at the driving wheel is determined dependent from the time intervals, the time differences between at least two of the time intervals and the torque of the brake assembly (Puerschel, “The computing device 13 ascertains the power values in normal operation on the basis of the provided speed, detected via the measuring device 10, and of course, also on the basis of the provided training duration or the time, for which the corresponding speed is ridden”).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puerschel (PG Patent Publication No. US2014/0106936A1), in view of Fuchs (PG Patent Publication No. US2019/0358483A1), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Bacanovic (Austria Patent Publication No. AT505617B1).
Regarding claim 18, Puerschel, in view of Fuchs, teaches the stationary exercise device according to claim 17, including a display (Puerschel, display device 14, paragraph 0065), the first crank and the second crank.
Puerschel and Fuchs fail to teach the torque at the driving wheel or the value dependent on the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the first crank and the torque at the driving wheel or the value dependent on the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the second crank is shown, so that the difference between the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the first crank and the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the second crank can be seen.
However, Bacanovic, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the torque at the driving wheel or the value dependent on the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the first crank and the torque at the driving wheel or the value dependent on the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the second wheel (Bacanovic, “It is an object of the present invention to provide an exercise device in which a measurement of the applied force/torque force is possible to split to the left/right movements”, page 2) is shown, so that the difference between the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the first crank and the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the second crank can be seen (Bacanovic, “On the computer system 40, the analysis of the measured data and graphical representation on the screen is carried out by means of ergometric software, for example: Calculation and representation of the pedal torque, force as a function of foot position”, page 5). The measured data of Bacanovic is considered to include the measurement of the applied force/torque force of the left/right movements as the measurement of the applied force/torque is measured data. Therefore, the measurement of the applied force/torque force of the left/right movements teaches the driving wheel correlated with the first crank and the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the second crank of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display device of stationary training bicycle of Puerschel to specifically include the presentation of the difference between the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the first crank and the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the second crank, taught by Bacanovic, as Puerschel already discloses “Information about the instantaneous power to be produced can be then given to the training person via a computing device having associated display device, typically a sufficiently large display screen, i.e., a power display is output in watts on the display device” (Puerschel, paragrpah 0002). It would be obvious to specify display further specifics regarding a user’s performance. It would also be obvious to differentiate the torque corresponding to the first crank and the torque corresponding to the second crank in order to “compare the two foot powers (balance)” (Bacanovic, page 5). It is well known in the art to determine if a user has any imbalances in order to prevent injuries and improve form.
Regarding claim 19, Puerschel, in view of Fuchs and Bacanovic, teaches the stationary exercise device according to claim 17.
Puerschel and Fuchs fails to teach the control device is further configured to determine the percentage of the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the first crank related to total torque at the driving wheel and/or the percentage of the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the second crank related to total torque at the driving wheel.
However, Bacanovic teaches the control device is further configured to determine the percentage of the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the first crank related to total torque at the driving wheel and/or the percentage of the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the second crank related to total torque at the driving wheel (Bacanovic, “balance between left and right foot (in%)”, page 5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing device of Puerschel to determine the percentage of torque, as taught by Bacanovic, as Bacanovic discloses the same overall function of the use of a magnet, as that of Puerschel, to determine the position of the first and second cranks “The magnets are arranged with respect to their angular position to the respectively associated sensors with respect to the position of the pedals 16 so that a signal pulse of a sensor 31 is given in each case when the force change from the left to the right pedal or vice versa. As can be seen in FIGS. 8 and 9, in the position shown at 0 ° (right pedal vertically upwards), one magnet is just in position with the sensor assigned to it, while the other magnet is located exactly opposite the sensor assigned to it. This allows a division of the measurement and separate assignment to the left or right foot, and a right / left evaluation of each performed by a foot force and power, and a comparison of the two foot powers (balance)” (Bacanovic, page 5). This modification is obvious as it is well known in the art to determine if a user has any imbalances in order to prevent injuries and improve form.
Claims 25, 26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puerschel (PG Patent Publication No. US2014/0106936A1), in view of Fuchs (PG Patent Publication No. US2019/0358483A1).
Regarding claim 25, Puerschel shows a method (method, claim 8) for measuring a torque at the driving wheel or a value dependent on the torque at the driving wheel (power values, paragraph 0040; torque is being determined Puerschel as Puerschell also discloses “By way of the physical relationship of the rotational work according to Wrot=(Jw2)/2 with the rotational power, which is ascertained as Prot=Wrot/t, where Prot=rotational power and t=time, the reference training bicycle can now be completely surveyed and calibrated by means of a reference test stand” (Puerschel, paragraph 0048). It is well known in the art that rotational power corresponds to the torque applied by the user to pedals. While Puerschel does not explicitly disclose ‘torque’, Puerschel also discloses “the pedal crank mechanism 2 is coupled via a belt 4 to a flywheel 5. Since the belt pulley 6 provided on the pedal crank mechanism 2 is substantially larger than the belt pulley 7 on the flywheel 5, a transmission is consequently provided” (Puerschel, paragraph 0034). There is a correlation between the belt pulley 7 and the belt pulley 6, and moreover, the belt pulley 6 is connected to the pedal crank mechanism which is directly engaged by the user with the pedals and cranks. Therefore, Puerschel shows utilizing the computing device to determine the torque at belt pulley 6, and consequently the driving wheel, as it is in direct engagement with the user and, “Power values, which the training person must apply at a given braking device setting and a given speed to drive the flywheel, are incorporated in the calibration table for defined speed values and defined braking device settings, or assigned to the calibration table, wherein the computing device automatically ascertains the power as a function of the given braking device setting and speed on the basis of the stored power values”, paragraph 0021) of an exercise device (stationary training bicycle, paragraph 0034) comprising a driving assembly (pedal crank mechanism 2, paragraph 0034) with a driving wheel (see annotated figure below) rotating around a driving axle (belt pulley 6, paragraph 0034; see Figure 1, while the driving axle is not shown it is well known that a pulley includes a wheel and an axle), a first crank and a second crank (see annotated figure below) each connected to the driving wheel (see annotated FIG. 1 below) and two pedals (two pedals 3, paragraph 0034), each pedal connected to one of the cranks (see annotated FIG. 1 below), a flywheel (flywheel 5, paragraph 0034) connected to the driving assembly by at least one gear mechanism (belt 4, paragraph 0034; The specification of the claimed invention discloses “A flywheel 14 is connected to the driving assembly 2 by at least one gear mechanism 12. In the present invention the gear mechanism 12 is a drive belt. Therefore, Puerschel shows the at least one gear mechanism of the claimed invention as Puerschel also discloses “The pedal crank mechanism 2 is coupled via a belt 4 to a flywheel 5” Puerschel, paragraph 0034), a brake assembly (braking device 8, paragraph 0035) for applying a braking force to the flywheel (“the farther away the magnet 9 is positioned from the flywheel 5, the lower its braking action, the closer it is to the flywheel 5 and therefore the smaller S is, the greater the braking action”, paragraph 0035), and the method comprises: detecting, by a detection device (measuring device 10, paragraph 0036), several time intervals, wherein in each of the several time intervals the flywheel is displaced at a predetermined angle (“Since only one element, i.e., for example, only one magnetic element is provided, the time which passes between two successive signals is consequently exactly the time which the flywheel has required for this one revolution (for example, if two elements are provided offset by precisely 180.degree. on the flywheel, a time interval between two signals would thus correspond to half of one revolution, from which the speed may readily be in turn calculated). This measured time is synonymous with the actual speed”, paragraph 0023; The predetermined angle is shown with the 180 degrees); detecting, by the detection device, zero crossings corresponding to each predetermined angle (“a measuring device is used which only comprises an element arranged on the flywheel, for example, a magnetic element, and a stationary measuring device, i.e., a suitable sensor, for example, a Hall sensor”, paragraph 0023; Hall sensors are capable of detecting AC signals that produce AC power waves from which zero-crossings are able to be detected); determining the time differences between at least two of the several time intervals (“the time which passes between two successive signals is consequently exactly the time which the flywheel has required for this one revolution”, paragraph 0073); and determining in dependence of the time differences between the at least two of the several time intervals a torque at the driving wheel (“The computing device 13 ascertains the power values in normal operation on the basis of the provided speed, detected via the measuring device 10, and of course, also on the basis of the provided training duration or the time, for which the corresponding speed is ridden”, paragraph 0040).
PNG
media_image1.png
335
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Puerschel
Puerschel fails to specifically show wherein the determined torque is used to determine a balance between a right leg and a left leg.
However, Fuchs, from the same field of endeavor, discloses “the user trajectory modeler 34 analyzes the pedaling-torque-time-history of this specific user in order to derive at least a reference trajectory that is user-specific” (paragraph 0140), and “For example, the user trajectory modeler 34 may analyze the waveform by determining average value, amplitude in relation to the average, Fourier coefficients, without limitation. Based on the waveform analysis, it is determined if the waveform is sinusoidal, more triangular, or comprises any asymmetry, to derive the user-defined reference trajectory. In some embodiments, the time sequence of the pedaling movements is analyzed to determine repeating patterns or irregularities and differences between left and right leg” (paragraph 0141). Therefore, in the broadest reasonable interpretation, the repeating patterns or irregularities and difference between the right and left leg have been considered to be determining the balance between a right and left leg. Further, the repeating patterns or irregularities and difference between the right and left leg analyzed by the pedaling-torque-time-history of this specific user in order to derive at least a reference trajectory that is user-specific teaches the determined torque.
PNG
media_image2.png
475
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fuchs
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stationary training bicycle of Puerschel to include the determined torque is used to determine a balance between a right leg and a left leg as Puerschel already discloses “I.e., it can finally be ascertained solely via a comparison of the actual rundown time to the reference rundown time to what extent the braking behavior of the mass-produced training bicycle corresponds to that of the reference training bicycle, or in which direction a difference is provided and in which direction an adaptation must be performed. This adaptation then has the result that a correct power ascertainment corresponding to the real behavior is possible. This is because if the real actual braking resistance or the real braking behavior, respectively, is known and is tracked via the correction toward the actual setting, the ascertainment of the power values can also be based on the real braking resistance or the real actual setting, respectively” (Puerschel, paragraph 0012). The ‘correct power ascertainment’ is in reference to the balance between both legs, and it is well known in the art that balance is important to prevent imbalances, which results in injuries.
Regarding claim 26, Puerschel, in view of Fuchs, teaches the method according to claim 25, further comprising: correlating the determined torque at the driving wheel or the value dependent on the torque at the driving wheel to the first crank or the second crank (Puerschel, “The measuring device 10 (or the computing device 13, depending on which one has the corresponding processor) continuously detects the speed of the flywheel 5 and calculates the corresponding pedal crank speed via this, since the transmission ration between the pedal crank mechanism 2 and flywheel 5 is indeed known thereto”, paragraph 0065) dependent on the position of the first crank and the second crank (Fuchs, “the control unit 30 receives information on the operation of the pedals 11 via the first power electronics 14 from a first sensor unit 40. Such information – which may also be used by the first power electronics 14 – may in particular comprise… angular position of the crank 12… Quantities pertaining to the position of the crank 12 may be determined by the first sensor unit 40”). See motivation to combine references above in claim 25.
Regarding claim 30, Puerschel, in view of Fuchs, teaches the method according to one of the claim 25, further comprising: presetting the torque of the brake assembly (Puerschel, “As described, the training person has the possibility of adjusting the braking device in a defined manner, therefore thus intentionally changing the braking resistance. This can either be performed in that the braking action is variable in defined steps, preferably in at least 10 steps, between a maximum braking action and no braking action. Proceeding from a setting without any braking action, 10 steps 1-10 are provided, which the training person can select, wherein the maximum braking action would be provided at step 10”, paragraph 0015); and determining the torque at the driving wheel or a value dependent on the torque at the driving wheel from the time differences between at least two of the several time intervals and the torque of the brake assembly (Puerschel, “The computing device 13 ascertains the power values in normal operation on the basis of the provided speed, detected via the measuring device 10, and of course, also on the basis of the provided training duration or the time, for which the corresponding speed is ridden”).
Claims 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puerschel (PG Patent Publication No. US2014/0106936A1), in view of Fuchs (PG Patent Publication No. US2019/0358483A1), as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Bacanovic (Austria Patent Publication No. AT505617B1).
Regarding claim 27, Puerschel, in view of Fuchs, teaches the method according to claim 25, including the driving wheel, the first crank, and the second crank.
Puerschel and Fuchs fail to teach showing the torque at the driving wheel or the value dependent on the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the first crank and the torque at the driving wheel or the value dependent on the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the second wheel on a display, so that the difference between the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the first crank and the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the second wheel can be seen.
However, Bacanovic, from the same field of endeavor, teaches showing the torque at the driving wheel or the value dependent on the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the first crank and the torque at the driving wheel or the value dependent on the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the second wheel (Bacanovic, “It is an object of the present invention to provide an exercise device in which a measurement of the applied force/torque force is possible to split to the left/right movements”, page 2) is shown, so that the difference between the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the first crank and the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the second crank can be seen (Bacanovic, “On the computer system 40, the analysis of the measured data and graphical representation on the screen is carried out by means of ergometric software”, page 5). The measured data of Bacanovic is considered to include the measurement of the applied force/torque force of the left/right movements as the measurement of the applied force/torque is measured data. Therefore, the measurement of the applied force/torque force of the left/right movements teaches the driving wheel correlated with the first crank and the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the second crank of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display device of stationary training bicycle of Puerschel to specifically include the presentation of the difference between the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the first crank and the torque at the driving wheel correlated with the second crank, taught by Bacanovic, as Puerschel already discloses “Information about the instantaneous power to be produced can be then given to the training person via a computing device having associated display device, typically a sufficiently large display screen, i.e., a power display is output in watts on the display device” (Puerschel, paragrpah 0002). It would be obvious to specify display further specifics regarding a user’s performance. It would also be obvious to differentiate the torque corresponding to the first crank and the torque corresponding to the second crank in order to “compare the two foot powers (balance)” (Bacanovic, page 5). It is well known in the art to determine if a user has any imbalances in order to prevent injuries and improve form.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23 and 28-29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art teach or make obvious the combinations of limitations required by dependent claim 22, more specifically, the stationary exercise device according to claim 20, wherein the generator is further configured to use magnets and a set of coils to produces a n-phase AC power, and the detection device is further configured to determine time intervals between the detected zero crossings.
Claim 23 is dependent on claim 22, and therefore also considered allowable subject matter due to its dependency.
The closest prior art of record, Puerschel (US2014/0106936A1) and Fuchs (US2019/0358483A1), discloses the stationary exercise device according to claim 20, including the detection device, the flywheel and the generator, wherein the detection device is further configured to determine time intervals between the detected zero crossings, but fails to disclose, the generator being further configured to use magnets and a set of coils to produces a n-phase AC power.
There is no evidence from the prior art why someone skilled in the art would have anticipated the generator of Fuchs to specifically include magnets and coils to produce n-phase AC power without hindsight of the claimed invention.
None of the prior art teach or make obvious the combinations of limitations required by dependent claim 28, more specifically, the method according to claim 25, further comprising: producing, with a generator, a n-phase AC power, determining the time intervals between the detected zero crossings.
The closest prior art of record, Puerschel (US2014/0106936A1) and Fuchs (US2019/0358483A1), discloses the method according to claim 25, including the generator, and determining the time intervals between the detected zero crossings, but fails to disclose, producing, with the generator, a n-phase AC power.
There is no evidence from the prior art why someone skilled in the art would have anticipated the generator of Fuchs to specifically produce n-phase AC power without hindsight of the claimed invention.
None of the prior art teach or make obvious the combinations of limitations required by dependent claim 29, more specifically, the method according to claim 25, further comprising: producing a rectangular wave when the zero crossing of one of the phases is detected; and capturing the time of the rising edge of each pulse in order to determine the time intervals between the edges of each pulse.
The closest prior art of record, Puerschel (US2014/0106936A1), discloses, the method according to claim 25, but fails to disclose, producing a rectangular wave when the zero crossing of one of the phases is detected; and capturing the time of the rising edge of each pulse in order to determine the time intervals between the edges of each pulse.
There is no evidence from the prior art why someone skilled in the art would have anticipated the production of rectangular wave and the capture of the time of the rising edge of each pulse.
Response to Arguments
Upon reconsideration of the allowability of the claims, independent claims 16 and 25 remain rejected with Puerschel, in view of Fuchs. The measuring device of Puerschel includes a magnetic element and a suitable sensor, for example a Hall sensor, which is able to detect zero crossings corresponding to each predetermined angle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J NICOLE LOBERIZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4741. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5:30pm.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4966. 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.
/JACQUELINE N L LOBERIZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/LOAN B JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3784