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 1, 10, 16, 18, and 19 have been amended by applicant. Claims 6-8 have been cancelled by applicant. Claims 22-24 are newly added by applicant.
Claims 1-24 remain rejected.
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 1-3, 5, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kautz (U.S. Patent No. US8950256B2), in view of Kenyon (PG Patent Publication No. US2011/0077125A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kautz shows an exercise device for haptic simulation (Kautz, “the stationary bicycle 10 is used as a fitting apparatus to determine an optimal bicycle size. The stationary bicycle 10 is used with the controller system 50 to gather performance information associated with bicycle size. The use of actuators 24, 27, 31 and/or 34 enables a dynamic fitting. More specifically, the controller system 50 may direct a plurality of incremental changes to have the rider try various adjusted positions while not interrupting his/her pedaling”, col. 7, lines 4-11; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the dynamic fitting of stationary bicycle 10 of Kautz shows haptic simulation), comprising: a frame (Kautz, frame 12, col. 3, line 66) ; a contact point (Kautz, seat 16, col. 3, line 67) supported by the frame (Kautz, “The frame supports the various user interface components of the bicycle 10, namely the crankset 14, the seat 16 and the handlebar 18”, col. 4, lines 3-5) and configured to allow user contact with the exercise device during use of the exercise device (Kautz, “The seat 16 supports the user of the bicycle 10 in a riding position”, col. 4, lines 15-16), the contact point comprising a seat of the exercise device (Kautz, seat 16), handlebars of the exercise device, or a tread belt of the exercise device; a first actuator (Kautz, actuator 27, col. 4, line 41) coupled with the contact point and configured to displace the contact point relative to the frame with a first range of motion and a first rate of motion (Kautz, “A seat tube 25 is connected to the carriage 23 and in an embodiment is in a perpendicular relation therewith. A seat post support 26 is telescopically engaged into the seat tube 25, so as to form another prismatic joint. As the seat post of the seat 16 is locked to the seat post support 26, the seat is displaceable in translation along the Y-axis. The prismatic joint formed by the seat tube 25 and the seat post support 26 is actuated by actuator 27”, col. 4, lines 34-46; The actuator 27 of Kautz must have a range of motion and a rate of motion in order to displace the seat); and a second actuator (Kautz, actuator 24, col. 4, line 33) different from the first actuator (Kautz, see FIG. 1 below) and coupled with the contact point and configured to displace the contact point relative to the frame (Kautz, “A rail 22 is supported by the support beam 20. In an embodiment, the rail 22 is generally parallel to the ground. A carriage 23 is slidingly mounted onto the support beam 20, so as to form a prismatic joint therewith (i.e., translational one-DOF joint). As it is supported by the carriage 23, the seat 16 is displaceable in translation along the X-axis. The prismatic joint formed by the rail 22 and the carriage 23 is actuated by actuator 24”, col. 4, lines 26-33), wherein the second actuator is configured to displace the contact point relative to the frame with a second range of motion different than the first range of motion of the first actuator, with a second rate of motion different from the first rate of motion of the first actuator, or both (Kautz; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the actuator 27 of Kautz shows a first range of motion different than that of a second range of motion for the actuator 24 of Kautz as actuator 27 moves along the X-axis and actuator 24 moves along the Y-axis as cited above. In light of the functional language of the claim, the actuator 27 is able to have a first rate of motion different than that of a second rate of motion for the actuator 24).
PNG
media_image1.png
313
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kautz
Kautz fails to explicitly show the first range of motion being between 10 millimeters (mm) and 80 mm and the first rate of motion of between 100 mm per second (mm/s) and 750 mm/s.
However, Kenyon, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the first range of motion between 10 millimeters (mm) and 80 mm (Kenyon, “The basic concept is to use a fixed frame and saddle position, with a telescoping "seat tube" attached to a pivot point located directly beneath the rider's contact point on the saddle. This innovative feature… will allow constant seat tube angle while adjusting saddle height (distance from saddle to bottom bracket, approx range 60-90 cm”, paragraph 0012; Kenyon also discloses “The device of this embodiment is designated as 10, and includes a frame 12 on which a rider 20 sits when using the machine. The rider 20 sits as he normally would on a bicycle, utilizing the saddle 14 which is attached to the frame 12 via a saddle mount 16. Adjacent to the saddle mount 16 is a seat tube 18 which has a first end 22 and a second end 24. At the first end of the seat tube 22, the seat tube 22 is attached to the frame 12 at a pivot 26” (Kenyon, paragraph 0022). The claimed invention discloses a first range of motion between 10 mm and 80 mm, whereas Kenyon discloses a change in saddle height from 60 cm to 90 cm. Therefore, Kenyon discloses a range of motion between the different saddle heights of 0 cm to 30 cm, or rather 0 mm to 300 mm. The first range of motion of the claimed invention of 10 mm to 80 mm falls within the range of 0 mm to 300 mm which is disclosed by Kenyon. Therefore, Kenyon teaches the first range of motion being between 10 mm and 80 mm).
PNG
media_image2.png
371
393
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kenyon
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 displacement of first actuator taught by Kautz to have the first range specifically between 10 mm and 80 mm as Kenyon discloses the same overall feature as that of Kautz with comparable components. Moreover, Kenyon simply specifies a range that Kautz fails to provide. This modification is obvious as the range provided by Kenyon overlaps with the range provided by the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Kautz, in view of Kenyon, teaches the exercise device of claim 1, wherein the first actuator is connected to the frame and to the contact point and is positioned between the frame and the contact point (Kautz, “The frame 12 has a support beam 20 by which it is connected to the base 11… A rail 22 is supported by the support beam 20… A carriage 23 is slidingly mounted onto the support beam 20, so as to form a prismatic joint therewith (i.e., translational one-DOF joint)… A seat tube 25 is connected to the carriage 23 and in an embodiment is in a perpendicular relation therewith. A seat post support 26 is telescopically engaged into the seat tube 25, so as to form another prismatic joint. As the seat post of the seat 16 is locked to the seat post support 26, the seat is displaceable in translation along the Y-axis. The prismatic joint formed by the seat tube 25 and the seat post support 26 is actuated by actuator 27”, col. 4, line 29 to col. 4, line 41; The actuator 27 of Kautz is connected with and positioned between the frame 12 and the seat 16 via the carriage 23, the rail 22, the seat tube 25, and the seat post support 26).
Regarding claim 3, Kautz, in view of Kenyon, teaches the exercise device of claim 1, wherein the first actuator is an electromagnetic actuator (Kautz, “Although the actuators 24, 27, 31 and 34 are preferably electrically powered linear actuators, it is contemplated to use either stepper motors or manual actuation as well”, col. 4, lines 35-37; The stepper motor of Kautz shows the first actuator of the claimed invention being an electromagnetic actuator as stepper motors are a type of electromagnetic actuators).
Regarding claim 5, Kautz, in view of Kenyon, teaches the exercise device of claim 1, wherein the first actuator is a mechanical actuator (Kautz, “Although the actuators 24, 27, 31 and 34 are preferably electrically powered linear actuators, it is contemplated to use either stepper motors or manual actuation as well”, col. 4, lines 35-37; The mechanical actuation of Kautz shows the first actuator of the claimed invention being a mechanical actuator).
Regarding claim 21, Kautz, in view of Kenyon, teaches exercise device of claim 1, wherein the second actuator is configured to displace the contact point relative to the frame with the second range of motion different than the first range of motion of the first actuator and the second rate of motion different from the first rate of motion of the first actuator (Kautz; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the actuator 27 of Kautz shows a first range of motion different than that of a second range of motion for the actuator 24 of Kautz as actuator 27 moves along the X-axis and actuator 24 moves along the Y-axis as cited above. In light of the functional language of the claim, the actuator 27 is able to have a first rate of motion different than that of a second rate of motion for the actuator 24).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kautz (U.S. Patent No. US8950256B2), in view of Kenyon (PG Patent Publication No. US2011/0077125A1, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Watterson (PG Patent Publication No. US2011/0172059A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kautz, in view of Kenyon, teaches the exercise device of claim 1.
Kautz, in view of Kenyon, fails to teach the first actuator is a fluid piston actuator.
However, Watterson teaches the first actuator is a fluid piston actuator (Watterson, “In other embodiments, extension mechanism 122 may include a rod and piston assembly. For instance, a pneumatic or hydraulic actuator may be used to adjust the length of extension mechanism 122 and thus the vertical pitch of upright support structure 92”, paragraph 0077; The pneumatic actuator of Watterson teaches the fluid piston actuator 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 actuator 27 of Kautz to specifically being the pneumatic actuator of Watterson, as noted above in claim in claim 3, Kautz already discloses various types of actuators.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kautz (U.S. Patent No. US8950256B2), in view of Kenyon (PG Patent Publication No. US2011/0077125A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kautz shows a method of haptic simulation for an exercise device (Kautz, “The stationary bicycle 10 is used with the controller system 50 to gather performance information associated with bicycle size. The use of actuators 24, 27, 31 and/or 34 enables a dynamic fitting. More specifically, the controller system 50 may direct a plurality of incremental changes to have the rider try various adjusted positions while not interrupting his/her pedaling”, col. 7, lines 5-11 and “a method 100 for adjusting a stationary bicycle, such as the stationary bicycle 10 of FIGS. 1 to 4, for instance used in combination with the stationary bicycle control system as described in FIGS. 1 to 5”, col. 7, lines 64-67); In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the dynamic fitting of stationary bicycle 10 of Kautz shows haptic simulation), the method comprising: obtaining simulation data for a workout routine performed on the exercise device (Kautz, “Various sensors are provided in order to measure the performance of the rider on the stationary bicycle 10… The bicycle controller system 50 has a bicycle controller 51 that is a processing unit (PC, microprocessor, or the like). The bicycle controller 51 receives data from the power sensor 40, the cadence sensor 41 and the other sensors 42. A position commander 52 is connected to the bicycle controller 51, and is in association with the actuators 24, 27, 31 and 34. More specifically, the actuation of the actuators 24, 27, 31 and 34 is controlled by the commander 52. A position calculator 53 is connected to the position commander 52 and determines the position of the seat 16 and the handlebar 18 in the X-Y coordinate system illustrated in FIGS. 1 to 3”, col. 5, lines 9-54; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the determined position of the seat in the X-Y coordinate system of Kautz shows the simulation data of the claimed invention); displaying video information of the simulation data on a display (Kautz, “The user interface 56 is typically a monitor with touch keys or a keyboard, through which the user interface 56 is commanded and information is entered (e.g., rider identification)”, col. 6, lines 22-25 and “FIG. 21 depicts a screen image 850 that is also referred to as the Fitting Control screen. Inputs and/or changes made to the Fitting Control screen 850 are received by the bicycle controller 51 of the bicycle controller system 50 (see FIG. 5), which in turn provides control signals to the position commander 52, which in turn provides control signals to actuate the actuators 24, 27, 31, 34, which in turn move the seat and handlebars along XY axes according to the fitting parameters entered on the Fitting Control screen 850. The left side of the Fitting Control screen 850 provides graphical control for adjusting the DFU 10, herein referred to as the Control Section, while the right side of the Fitting Control screen 850 provides video recording and tracking of the athlete on the DFU, herein referred to as the Video Section. This video can be analyzed to measure key joint angles of the athlete, such as leg extension and hip angle, and can be done either in a static or dynamic fashion. Further, every time the fitter selects the "Capture Fit" button (discussed further below), the software collects the SX, SY, HX, and HY coordinates, along with a still image of that athlete represented by stick FIG. 856 in that position. Multiple positions can be stored and reviewed at a later time, with the associated image always being shown in the captured fit window”, col. 14, lines 4-26; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the video of Kautz shows the video information of the claimed invention); actuating a first actuator of the exercise device (Kautz, actuator 27) that is coupled with a contact point of the exercise device (Kautz, “A seat tube 25 is connected to the carriage 23 and in an embodiment is in a perpendicular relation therewith. A seat post support 26 is telescopically engaged into the seat tube 25, so as to form another prismatic joint. As the seat post of the seat 16 is locked to the seat post support 26, the seat is displaceable in translation along the Y-axis. The prismatic joint formed by the seat tube 25 and the seat post support 26 is actuated by actuator 27”, col. 4, lines 34-46; The seat 16 of Kautz shows the contact point of the claimed invention) and a second actuator of the exercise device (Kautz, actuator 24) that is coupled with the contact point (Kautz, “A rail 22 is supported by the support beam 20. In an embodiment, the rail 22 is generally parallel to the ground. A carriage 23 is slidingly mounted onto the support beam 20, so as to form a prismatic joint therewith (i.e., translational one-DOF joint). As it is supported by the carriage 23, the seat 16 is displaceable in translation along the X-axis. The prismatic joint formed by the rail 22 and the carriage 23 is actuated by actuator 24”, col. 4, lines 26-33) based on the simulation data, the second actuator different from the first actuator (Kautz, see FIG. 1 above in claim 1); moving the contact point of the exercise device relative to a frame of the exercise device with the first actuator , the contact point comprising a seat of the exercise device (Kautz, seat 16), handlebars of the exercise device, or a tread belt of the exercise device; and moving the contact point of the exercise device relative to the frame of the exercise device with the second actuators (Kautz, “A graphical indication of how well the best fit frame determination compares to the optimal frame determination is provided by graphic 854, which in an embodiment is also color coordinated such that a "green" color indicates a "best fit" scenario, a "blue" color indicates a "good" fit scenario, and an "orange" color indicates a "just okay" fit scenario. In an embodiment, the color indication of graphic 854 may be replaced with a non-color indication, such as the graphic 854 having a "solid" line being synonymous with the graphic 854 being "green" in color, the graphic 854 having a "dashed" line being synonymous with the graphic 854 being "blue" in color, and the graphic 854 having a "dotted" line being synonymous with the graphic 854 being "orange" in color. In another embodiment, the graphic 854 may include both color and line weight as a visual indicator of the fit scenario. Once the fit is determined to be acceptable, the "Capture Fit" button is selected, which stores the fit information in database 200 and initiates method 500 to determine the best-fit bicycle for the person being fitted. If multiple positions have been stored using the "Capture Fit" button the fitter has the ability to use the "Go To" button on the captured fits to toggle between the various positions, with the DFU moving all axes simultaneously to move to the saved position. This allows the person being fitted to feel the difference from one position to another in real time with no need to stop pedaling or dismount the DFU”, col. 14, lines 43-67) wherein the second actuator is configured to displace the contact point relative to the frame with a second range of motion different than the first range of motion of the first actuator, with a second rate of motion different from the first rate of motion of the first actuator, or both (Kautz; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the actuator 27 of Kautz shows a first range of motion different than that of a second range of motion for the actuator 24 of Kautz as actuator 27 moves along the X-axis and actuator 24 moves along the Y-axis as cited above. In light of the functional language of the claim, the actuator 27 is able to have a first rate of motion different than that of a second rate of motion for the actuator 24).
Kautz fails to explicitly show the first range of motion being between 10 millimeters (mm) and 80 mm and a first rate of motion of between 100 millimeters per second (mm/s) and 750 mm/s.
However, Kenyon, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the first range of motion between 10 millimeters (mm) and 80 mm (Kenyon, “The basic concept is to use a fixed frame and saddle position, with a telescoping "seat tube" attached to a pivot point located directly beneath the rider's contact point on the saddle. This innovative feature… will allow constant seat tube angle while adjusting saddle height (distance from saddle to bottom bracket, approx range 60-90 cm”, paragraph 0012; Kenyon also discloses “The device of this embodiment is designated as 10, and includes a frame 12 on which a rider 20 sits when using the machine. The rider 20 sits as he normally would on a bicycle, utilizing the saddle 14 which is attached to the frame 12 via a saddle mount 16. Adjacent to the saddle mount 16 is a seat tube 18 which has a first end 22 and a second end 24. At the first end of the seat tube 22, the seat tube 22 is attached to the frame 12 at a pivot 26” (Kenyon, paragraph 0022). The claimed invention discloses a first range of motion between 10 mm and 80 mm, whereas Kenyon discloses a change in saddle height from 60 cm to 90 cm. Therefore, Kenyon discloses a range of motion between the different saddle heights of 0 cm to 30 cm, or rather 0 mm to 300 mm. The first range of motion of the claimed invention of 10 mm to 80 mm falls within the range of 0 mm to 300 mm which is disclosed by Kenyon. Therefore, Kenyon teaches the first range of motion being between 10 mm and 80 mm).
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 displacement of first actuator taught by Kautz to have the first range specifically between 10 mm and 80 mm as Kenyon discloses the same overall feature as that of Kautz with comparable components. Moreover, Kenyon simply specifies a range that Kautz fails to provide. This modification is obvious as the range provided by Kenyon overlaps with the range provided by the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Kautz, in view of Kenyon, teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the simulation data includes haptic information (Kautz; As noted above in claim 19, the dynamic fitting of stationary bicycle 10 of Kautz shows haptic simulation. Therefore, the haptic information is the various XY coordinated applied to the seat of Kautz that allow the user to test a variety of settings while continuously pedaling).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kautz (U.S. Patent No. US8950256B2), in view of Kenyon (PG Patent Publication No. US2011/0077125A1), as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Watterson (PG Patent Publication No. US2011/0172059A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kautz, in view of Kenyon, teaches the method of claim 10.
Kautz fails to explicitly show the display is integrated with the exercise device.
However, Watterson, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the display is integrated with the exercise device (Watterson, “an integral display or console may be included with exercise cycle 312, or exercise cycle 312 may be configured to use a removable display. In one embodiment, exercise cycle 312 may include a connection for a laptop or other computing device that can act as the user console, while providing automated and dynamic control of operating parameters of exercise cycle 312”, paragraph 0128).
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 user interface 56 of Kautz to specifically be integrated with, the frame 12 of Kautz as Kautz already discloses “the user interface 56 displays actuator controls, for the manual control of the actuation of the actuators 24, 27, 31 and 34. It is considered to provide a touch-screen with icons represent available directions of displacement for the seat 16 and the handlebar 18” and “More specifically, the controller system 50 may direct a plurality of incremental changes to have the rider try various adjusted positions while not interrupting his/her pedaling.” Therefore, it would be obvious for the user interface be within reach of the user to allow the seat to change without interrupting the pedaling of the user, making this modification obvious. Furthermore, Kautz simply fails to position the user interface with respect to the stationary bicycle 10, making this modification by Watterson obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Kautz, in view of Kenyon, teaches the method of claim 10.
Kautz, in view of Kenyon, fail to explicitly teach the simulation data includes surface profile haptic information, and wherein the first actuator and the second actuator move the contact point to simulate a surface in the video information.
However, Watterson teaches surface profile haptic information (Watterson, topographical data, paragraph 0103), and wherein the first actuator and the second actuator move the contact point to simulate a surface in the video information (Watterson, “In order to generate exercise programming as described above, a website or workout generator may access one or more types of data. Some types of data that may be used to generate the above described exercise programming include maps, topographical data, video or image data, audio data, and the like. Map data allows the user to create a route through a real world environment which will be simulated on the exercise cycle… An exercise program generator can access one or more of these databases to retrieve information and data regarding the real world route that is to be simulated on an exercise cycle. With this data, the program generator can generate the control signals that control one or more of the operating parameters of the exercise cycle, such as the incline and/or tilt of the cycle, to simulate the terrain of the real world route”, paragraphs 0100-0103).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have also included topographical data provided by Watterson in order to more accurately find the proper fit frame based on the type of exercise the user wishes to perform with the stationary bicycle of Kautz as it is well known in the art for exercise bicycles to simulate real world terrain for more productive workouts.
Regarding claim 14, Kautz, in view of Kenyon, teaches the method of claim 10.
Kautz, in view of Kenyon, fail to teach he simulation data includes global positioning system (GPS) information, the method further comprising: tilting the frame based on the GPS information.
However, Watterson teaches the simulation data includes global positioning system (GPS) information (Watterson, “routes, paths, courses, location information”, paragraph 0081, and “While the exercise programming has been described above in connection with various specific examples of locations where a bicycle ride can be simulated”, paragraph 0097), the method further comprising: tilting the frame based on the GPS information (Watterson, “Similarly, a synchronizing control signals with display programming may also use information from the retrieved topographical or map data, such as distances between locations on the real world route, changes in elevation between locations on the real world route, directional changes along the real world route, and the like. For example, the synchronization algorithm may correlate a display signal with a particular image at a location where there is a change in the topographical data, such where a particular elevation change begins or ends”, paragraph 0113, and “As seen in FIG. 7, upright support structure 392 can be connected to support base 390 by pivot 324. Pivot 324 allows upright support structure 392 to tilt side-to-side as described herein. Pivot 324 can include a ball-and-socket connection… extension mechanism 322 includes two linear extenders 323 a, 323 b coupled between support base 390 and support member 394. More particularly, a first end of each of linear extenders 323 a, 323 b can be pivotally coupled to support member 394 while a second end pivotally couples to support base 390. Linear extenders 323a, 323b can be controlled independently so as to tilt support member 394 to one side or the other, thereby determining the tilt of upright support structure 392… More particularly, in FIG. 7, in which a right turn is simulated, linear extender 323 b, which is on the exterior side of the simulated right turn, has a length that is greater than linear extender 323 a which is on the interior side of the simulated turn”, paragraphs 0124-0126).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have also included routes, path, courses, and location information, as well as, the extension mechanism 322 and pivot 324 by Watterson in order to more accurately find the proper fit frame based on the type of exercise the user wishes to perform with the stationary bicycle of Kautz as it is well known in the art for exercise bicycles to simulate real world terrain for more productive workouts.
Regarding claim 15, Kautz, in view of Kenyon, teaches the method of claim 10.
Kautz, in view of Kenyon, fail to teach further comprising: determining haptic information from the video information of the simulation data.
However, Watterson discloses in paragraph 0123-0126, “In FIGS. 7 and 8, an additional or alternative aspect is illustrated. In particular, in the illustrated embodiment, the stationary exercise cycle 312 permits the horizontal tilting of an upright support structure 392 relative to the floor or other surface upon which exercise cycle 312 rests… Tilting upright support structure 392 to the side as illustrated in FIG. 8 enables a user to simulate making a right turn on a bicycle. Although a tilt to only one side is illustrated, it will be appreciated that a similar configuration may be obtained and the exercise cycle 312 may tilt an opposite direction as well. Thus, right and left turns can be replicated by the lateral tilting ability of upright support structure 392. Thus, exercise cycle 312 is able to more closely simulate a typical outdoor bicycle ride… As seen in FIG. 7, upright support structure 392 can be connected to support base 390 by pivot 324. Pivot 324 allows upright support structure 392 to tilt side-to-side as described herein. Pivot 324 can include a ball-and-socket connection… extension mechanism 322 includes two linear extenders 323 a, 323 b coupled between support base 390 and support member 394. More particularly, a first end of each of linear extenders 323 a, 323 b can be pivotally coupled to support member 394 while a second end pivotally couples to support base 390”. Watterson continues to disclose in paragraph 0129, “Once a connection has been established with server-side interface 414 and the user has indicated that he/she would like to create exercise programming, the user may define a remote, real world exercise route by entering a starting point, an ending point, and/or one or more intermediate points.”
Watterson teaches determining haptic information from the video information of the simulation data (Watterson, “Display programming, such as maps, still images, or moving images, can be synchronized with control signals that adjust the operating parameters of an exercise cycle”, paragraph 0094, and “extension mechanism 322, or another assembly, controls the tilting of upright support structure 392 and may be considered a means for varying a pitch of at least a portion of a bicycle frame relative to a support surface, and in response to obtained real-world exercise route information”, paragraph 0125).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have also included display programming, as well as, the extension mechanism 322 and pivot 324 by Watterson in order to more accurately find the proper fit frame based on the type of exercise the user wishes to perform with the stationary bicycle of Kautz as it is well known in the art for exercise bicycles to simulate real world terrain for more productive workouts.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kautz (U.S. Patent No. US8950256B2), in view of Kenyon (PG Patent Publication No. US2011/0077125A1), and Watterson (PG Patent Publication No. US2011/0172059A1), as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Fisher (PG Patent Publication No. US2010/0022354A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kautz, in view of Kenyon, and Watterson, teaches the method of claim 15.
Kautz, in view of Kenyon, and Watterson fail to teach, determining the haptic information comprises: detecting a simulated object in the video information of the simulation data; and determining a movement of the simulated object in the video information.
However, Fisher, from the same field of endeavor, teaches detecting a simulated object in video information of the simulation data (Fisher, “the image of the virtual environment on the screen of the display unit 900 as it is seen by the primary virtual body. In this embodiment, the user perceives him or her as riding a virtual bicycle whose handle bars 901 are visible in the image”, paragraph 0092, FIG. 9) and determining a movement of the simulated object in the video information (Fisher, “The steering of a virtual body within the virtual environment can be determined from the angle formed between the handle bar 302A and the initial position 305A. In addition, the steering can be determined based on the movement of both of the handle bars 302A and 302B. The movement may be quantified by the displacement of the handle bars from their respective initial positions”, paragraph 0051).
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 controller system 50 for the modified method to include the handle bars of Fisher in the video as Kautz already discloses height-adjustable handlebars. Moreover, Watterson discloses “Synchronizing the control signals and the display programming allows a user to view the real world environment at about the same time the user encounters operating parameters that simulate the viewed real world environment and terrain” (Watterson, paragraph 0094). Therefore, this modification is obvious as Fisher further enhances the real-world experience.
Regarding claim 18, Kautz, in view of Kenyon, Watterson, and Fisher, teaches the method of claim 16.
Kautz, in view of Kenyon, and Watterson, fail to teach determining the movement of the simulated object comprises: measuring a speed of the simulated object toward a viewpoint of the video information.
However, Fisher teaches determining the movement of the simulated object comprises: measuring a speed of the simulated object toward a viewpoint of the video information (Fisher, “Cadence and the current gear number can be used to determine the bicycle speed measured in miles per hour or any other suitable speed units. The speed can be computed in the virtual environment. The position of the primary virtual bicycle in the virtual landscape determines the slope against which the bicycle is moving (when pedals are rotating)”, paragraph 0095).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included this step in the modified method of Kautz as both Watterson and Fisher disclose the same purpose of providing a virtual real-world experience in real time, and Fisher enhances the method of doing so.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kautz (U.S. Patent No. US8950256B2), in view of Kenyon (PG Patent Publication No. US2011/0077125A1) and Watterson (PG Patent Publication No. US2011/0172059A1), as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Andrus (U.S. Patent No. US5,888,172).
Regarding claim 16, Kautz, in view of Kenyon, and Watterson, teaches the method of claim 15.
Kautz, in view of Kenyon, and Watterson fail to teach, determining the haptic information comprises: detecting a simulated object in the video information of the simulation data; and determining a movement of the simulated object in the video information.
However, Andrus, from the same field of endeavor, teaches detecting a simulated object in video information of the simulation data and determining a movement of the simulated object in the video information (Andrus, “The particular game illustrated in FIG. 14 is a bicycle road race where a road 318a-318d and associated terrain 320a-320b is projected forward from the user who, for the purpose of the game, is riding a bicycle 322”, col. 22, lines 39-42; The user riding bicycle 322 of Andrus teaches the simulated object of the claimed invention) and determining a movement of the simulated object in the video information (Andrus, “By the same token, when the resistance program 300 results in a decrease in user resistance, as shown for instance at a point 330 in the program 300, the apparent horizon 326d in the screen 308 can be moved downwardly. This will provide the user with the visual impression that he is riding down hill”, col. 23, lines 7-12; The position of the user on bicycle 322 of Andrus teaches the determination of the movement of the simulated object 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 controller system 50 for the modified method to include the user on the bicycle with respect to a horizon, as taught by Andrus as Watterson discloses “Synchronizing the control signals and the display programming allows a user to view the real world environment at about the same time the user encounters operating parameters that simulate the viewed real world environment and terrain” (Watterson, paragraph 0094). Therefore, this modification is obvious as Andrus further enhances the real-world experience.
Regarding claim 17, Kautz, in view of Kenyon, Watterson, and Andrus, teaches the method of claim 16.
Kautz, in view of Kenyon, and Watterson, fail to teach wherein detecting the simulated object comprises: detecting one or more edges of the simulated object relative to a horizon.
Andrus teaches wherein detecting the simulated object comprises: detecting one or more edges of the simulated object relative to a horizon (Andrus, “To provide realism and visual feedback, when the resistance level is increased from a base level, for example, during a warm-up period 323 to a plateau resistance level 324, the video game will generate a screen such as the screens 318b and 318c that visually suggests to the user that riding the bicycle will require a greater effort. One method of accomplishing this effect is to move a horizon line 326a in the screen 302 from a base level upwardly to a position 326b in screen 304 so as to give the user the visual impression that he is riding up hill. Using different visual effects to indicate increased riding effort is desirable when there is a relatively long period of increase resistance as in the case of the plateau portion 324 of the program 300” (Andrus, col. 22, lines 50-65).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the use of a horizon, taught by Andrus to accurately adjust the virtual object in the video. As the horizon line of Andrus provides a reference point to provide a real-world environment in real time, it would have been obvious to modify Watterson as Watterson provided a general method to simulate an outdoor exercise experience. Furthermore, this modification is obvious as Watterson and Andrus disclose the same function and purpose.
Claims 19-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kautz (U.S. Patent No. US8950256B2), in view of Kenyon (PG Patent Publication No. US2011/0077125A1), and further in view of Watterson (PG Patent Publication No. US2011/0172059A1).
Regarding claim 19, Kautz shows a system for haptic simulation with an exercise device (Kautz, “The stationary bicycle 10 is used with the controller system 50 to gather performance information associated with bicycle size. The use of actuators 24, 27, 31 and/or 34 enables a dynamic fitting. More specifically, the controller system 50 may direct a plurality of incremental changes to have the rider try various adjusted positions while not interrupting his/her pedaling”, col. 7, lines 5-11; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the dynamic fitting of stationary bicycle 10 of Kautz shows haptic simulation), the system comprising: a frame (Kautz, frame 12); a contact point (Kautz, seat 16) supported by the frame (Kautz, “The frame supports the various user interface components of the bicycle 10, namely the crankset 14, the seat 16 and the handlebar 18”) and configured to allow user contact with the exercise device during use of the exercise device (Kautz, “The seat 16 supports the user of the bicycle 10 in a riding position”, col. 4, lines 15-16), the contact point comprising a seat of the exercise device (Kautz, seat 16), handlebars of the exercise device, or a tread belt of the exercise device; a first actuator (Kautz, actuator 27) coupled with the contact point and configured to displace the contact point relative to the frame with a first range of motion and a first rate of motion (Kautz, “A seat tube 25 is connected to the carriage 23 and in an embodiment is in a perpendicular relation therewith. A seat post support 26 is telescopically engaged into the seat tube 25, so as to form another prismatic joint. As the seat post of the seat 16 is locked to the seat post support 26, the seat is displaceable in translation along the Y-axis. The prismatic joint formed by the seat tube 25 and the seat post support 26 is actuated by actuator 27”, col. 4, lines 34-46; The actuator 27 of Kautz must have a range of motion and a rate of motion in order to displace the seat); a second actuator (Kautz, actuator 24) different from the first actuator (Kautz, see FIG. 1 above in claim 1) and coupled with the contact point and configured to displace the contact point relative to the frame (Kautz, “A rail 22 is supported by the support beam 20. In an embodiment, the rail 22 is generally parallel to the ground. A carriage 23 is slidingly mounted onto the support beam 20, so as to form a prismatic joint therewith (i.e., translational one-DOF joint). As it is supported by the carriage 23, the seat 16 is displaceable in translation along the X-axis. The prismatic joint formed by the rail 22 and the carriage 23 is actuated by actuator 24”), wherein the second actuator is configured to displace the contact point relative to the frame with a second range of motion different than the first range of motion of the first actuator, with a second rate of motion different from the first rate of motion of the first actuator, or both (Kautz; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the actuator 27 of Kautz shows a first range of motion different than that of a second range of motion for the actuator 24 of Kautz as actuator 27 moves along the X-axis and actuator 24 moves along the Y-axis as cited above. In light of the functional language of the claim, the actuator 27 is able to have a first rate of motion different than that of a second rate of motion for the actuator 24); a display (Kautz, “The user interface 56 is typically a monitor with touch keys or a keyboard, through which the user interface 56 is commanded and information is entered (e.g., rider identification)”, col. 6, lines 22-25); and a computing device in data communication with the first actuator, the second actuator, and the display (Kautz, “A user interface 56 is connected to the bicycle controller 51. The user interface 56 is typically a monitor with touch keys or a keyboard, through which the user interface 56 is commanded and information is entered (e.g., rider identification). In an embodiment, the user interface 56 displays actuator controls, for the manual control of the actuation of the actuators 24, 27, 31 and 34. It is considered to provide a touch-screen with icons represent available directions of displacement for the seat 16 and the handlebar 18”, col. 6, lines 21-29; The bicycle controller 51 of Kautz shows the computing device of the claimed invention).
Kautz fails to explicitly show the first range of motion of between 10 millimeters (mm) and 80 mm and the first rate of motion of between 100 mm per second (mm/s) and 750 mm/s.
However, Kenyon, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the first range of motion between 10 millimeters (mm) and 80 mm (Kenyon, “The basic concept is to use a fixed frame and saddle position, with a telescoping "seat tube" attached to a pivot point located directly beneath the rider's contact point on the saddle. This innovative feature… will allow constant seat tube angle while adjusting saddle height (distance from saddle to bottom bracket, approx range 60-90 cm”, paragraph 0012; Kenyon also discloses “The device of this embodiment is designated as 10, and includes a frame 12 on which a rider 20 sits when using the machine. The rider 20 sits as he normally would on a bicycle, utilizing the saddle 14 which is attached to the frame 12 via a saddle mount 16. Adjacent to the saddle mount 16 is a seat tube 18 which has a first end 22 and a second end 24. At the first end of the seat tube 22, the seat tube 22 is attached to the frame 12 at a pivot 26” (Kenyon, paragraph 0022). The claimed invention discloses a first range of motion between 10 mm and 80 mm, whereas Kenyon discloses a change in saddle height from 60 cm to 90 cm. Therefore, Kenyon discloses a range of motion between the different saddle heights of 0 cm to 30 cm, or rather 0 mm to 300 mm. The first range of motion of the claimed invention of 10 mm to 80 mm falls within the range of 0 mm to 300 mm which is disclosed by Kenyon. Therefore, Kenyon teaches the first range of motion being between 10 mm and 80 mm).
PNG
media_image2.png
371
393
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kenyon
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 displacement of first actuator taught by Kautz to have the first range specifically between 10 mm and 80 mm as Kenyon discloses the same overall feature as that of Kautz with comparable components. Moreover, Kenyon simply specifies a range that Kautz fails to provide. This modification is obvious as the range provided by Kenyon overlaps with the range provided by the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.05.
Moreover, Watterson, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the display being supported by the frame (Watterson, “an integral display or console may be included with exercise cycle 312, or exercise cycle 312 may be configured to use a removable display. In one embodiment, exercise cycle 312 may include a connection for a laptop or other computing device that can act as the user console, while providing automated and dynamic control of operating parameters of exercise cycle 312”, paragraph 0128).
PNG
media_image3.png
658
438
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Watterson
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 user interface 56 of Kautz to specifically be integrated with, and thereby supported by, the frame 12 of Kautz as Kautz already discloses “the user interface 56 displays actuator controls, for the manual control of the actuation of the actuators 24, 27, 31 and 34. It is considered to provide a touch-screen with icons represent available directions of displacement for the seat 16 and the handlebar 18” and “More specifically, the controller system 50 may direct a plurality of incremental changes to have the rider try various adjusted positions while not interrupting his/her pedaling.” Therefore, it would be obvious for the user interface be within reach of the user to allow the seat to change without interrupting the pedaling of the user, making this modification obvious. Furthermore, Kautz simply fails to position the user interface with respect to the stationary bicycle 10, making this modification by Watterson obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Kautz, in view of Kenyon and Watterson, teaches the system of claim 19, wherein the computing device comprises: a processor (Kautz, “The bicycle controller system 50 has a bicycle controller 51 that is a processing unit (PC, microprocessor, or the like)”, col. 5, lines 44-45); and a hardware storage device having instructions stored thereon (Kautz, “The present invention may also be embodied in the form of a computer program product having computer program code containing instructions embodied in tangible media, such as floppy diskettes, CD-ROMs, hard drives, USB (universal serial bus) drives, or any other computer readable storage medium, such as random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM), or flash memory, for example, wherein, when the computer program code is loaded into and executed by a computer, the computer becomes an apparatus for practicing the invention”, col. 17, lines 5-16) that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to: obtain simulation data for a workout routine performed on the exercise device (Kautz, “Various sensors are provided in order to measure the performance of the rider on the stationary bicycle 10… The bicycle controller system 50 has a bicycle controller 51 that is a processing unit (PC, microprocessor, or the like). The bicycle controller 51 receives data from the power sensor 40, the cadence sensor 41 and the other sensors 42. A position commander 52 is connected to the bicycle controller 51, and is in association with the actuators 24, 27, 31 and 34. More specifically, the actuation of the actuators 24, 27, 31 and 34 is controlled by the commander 52. A position calculator 53 is connected to the position commander 52 and determines the position of the seat 16 and the handlebar 18 in the X-Y coordinate system illustrated in FIGS. 1 to 3”, col. 5, lines 9-54; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the determined position of the seat in the X-Y coordinate system of Kautz shows the simulation data of the claimed invention); display video information of the simulation data on the display (Kautz, “FIG. 21 depicts a screen image 850 that is also referred to as the Fitting Control screen. Inputs and/or changes made to the Fitting Control screen 850 are received by the bicycle controller 51 of the bicycle controller system 50 (see FIG. 5), which in turn provides control signals to the position commander 52, which in turn provides control signals to actuate the actuators 24, 27, 31, 34, which in turn move the seat and handlebars along XY axes according to the fitting parameters entered on the Fitting Control screen 850. The left side of the Fitting Control screen 850 provides graphical control for adjusting the DFU 10, herein referred to as the Control Section, while the right side of the Fitting Control screen 850 provides video recording and tracking of the athlete on the DFU, herein referred to as the Video Section. This video can be analyzed to measure key joint angles of the athlete, such as leg extension and hip angle, and can be done either in a static or dynamic fashion. Further, every time the fitter selects the "Capture Fit" button (discussed further below), the software collects the SX, SY, HX, and HY coordinates, along with a still image of that athlete represented by stick FIG. 856 in that position. Multiple positions can be stored and reviewed at a later time, with the associated image always being shown in the captured fit window”, col. 14, lines 4-26; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the video of Kautz shows the video information of the claimed invention); actuate the first actuator of the exercise device and the second actuator of the exercise device based on the simulation data; and move the contact point of the exercise device relative to the frame of the exercise device with the first actuator and the second actuator (Kautz, “A graphical indication of how well the best fit frame determination compares to the optimal frame determination is provided by graphic 854, which in an embodiment is also color coordinated such that a "green" color indicates a "best fit" scenario, a "blue" color indicates a "good" fit scenario, and an "orange" color indicates a "just okay" fit scenario. In an embodiment, the color indication of graphic 854 may be replaced with a non-color indication, such as the graphic 854 having a "solid" line being synonymous with the graphic 854 being "green" in color, the graphic 854 having a "dashed" line being synonymous with the graphic 854 being "blue" in color, and the graphic 854 having a "dotted" line being synonymous with the graphic 854 being "orange" in color. In another embodiment, the graphic 854 may include both color and line weight as a visual indicator of the fit scenario. Once the fit is determined to be acceptable, the "Capture Fit" button is selected, which stores the fit information in database 200 and initiates method 500 to determine the best-fit bicycle for the person being fitted. If multiple positions have been stored using the "Capture Fit" button the fitter has the ability to use the "Go To" button on the captured fits to toggle between the various positions, with the DFU moving all axes simultaneously to move to the saved position. This allows the person being fitted to feel the difference from one position to another in real time with no need to stop pedaling or dismount the DFU”, col. 14, lines 43-67).
Regarding claim 22, Kautz, in view of Kenyon and Watterson, teaches the system of claim 20, wherein the simulation data includes haptic information (Kautz; As noted above in claim 19, the dynamic fitting of stationary bicycle 10 of Kautz shows haptic simulation. Therefore, the haptic information is the various XY coordinated applied to the seat of Kautz that allow the user to test a variety of settings while continuously pedaling).
Regarding claim 23, Kautz, in view of Kenyon and Watterson, teaches the system of claim 20, Watterson teaches wherein the display is integrated with the exercise device (Watterson, “an integral display or console may be included with exercise cycle 312, or exercise cycle 312 may be configured to use a removable display. In one embodiment, exercise cycle 312 may include a connection for a laptop or other computing device that can act as the user console, while providing automated and dynamic control of operating parameters of exercise cycle 312”; In light of the modification in claim 19 by Watterson, Kautz, in view of Watterson teaches the display of the claimed invention being integrated with the exercise device. See motivation to combine references above).
Regarding claim 24, Kautz, in view of Kenyon and Watterson, teaches the system of claim 20.
Kautz, in view of Kenyon, fails to show the simulation data includes surface profile haptic information, and wherein the first actuator and the second actuator move the contact point to simulate a surface in the video information.
However, Watterson teaches surface profile haptic information (Watterson, topographical data, paragraph 0103), and wherein the first actuator and the second actuator move the contact point to simulate a surface in the video information (Watterson, “In order to generate exercise programming as described above, a website or workout generator may access one or more types of data. Some types of data that may be used to generate the above described exercise programming include maps, topographical data, video or image data, audio data, and the like. Map data allows the user to create a route through a real world environment which will be simulated on the exercise cycle… An exercise program generator can access one or more of these databases to retrieve information and data regarding the real world route that is to be simulated on an exercise cycle. With this data, the program generator can generate the control signals that control one or more of the operating parameters of the exercise cycle, such as the incline and/or tilt of the cycle, to simulate the terrain of the real world route”, paragraphs 0100-0103).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have also included topographical data provided by Watterson in order to more accurately find the proper fit frame based on the type of exercise the user wishes to perform with the stationary bicycle of Kautz as it is well known in the art for exercise bicycles to simulate real world terrain for more productive workouts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts “The Office Action appears to allege that the linear extenders 323a, 323b of Watterson '059 can be construed as "a first actuator" and "a second actuator" of previously-presented independent claim 1. However, the Office Action has not shown that Watterson '059 teaches or suggests "a first actuator coupled with the contact point" and "a second actuator different from the first actuator and coupled with the contact point," as recited in amended independent claim 1. Specifically, amended independent claim 1 specifies that "the contact point compris[es] a seat of the exercise device, handlebars of the exercise device, or a tread belt of the exercise device," where each of "the first actuator" and "the second actuator" are "coupled with the contact point." Therefore, the Office Action has not shown that Watterson '059's description of "linear extenders 323a, 3 23b coupled between support base 390 and support member 394" (id.) teaches or suggests "a first actuator coupled with the contact point" and "a second actuator different from the first actuator and coupled with the contact point," where "the contact point compris[es] a seat of the exercise device, handlebars of the exercise device, or a tread belt of the exercise device," as recited in amended independent claim 1”.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on Kautz (U.S. Patent No. US8950256B2) to teach the limitations in question by applicant.
Applicant continues to assert “amended independent claim 1 is allowable over Watterson '059, Kenyon, Hein, Brunner, Watterson '361, Fisher, and Andrus. Amended independent claims 10 and 19 recite similar features and are likewise allowable for at least the same reasons… Dependent claims 1-5, 11-18, 20, and 21 each depend from one of amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19 and are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons that amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are allowable. Moreover, dependent claims 1-5, 11-18, 20, and 21 include additional features that have not been shown to be taught nor suggested by Watterson '059, Kenyon, Hein, Brunner, Watterson '361, Fisher, and Andrus, alone or in any combination… New claims 22-24 recite features similar to dependent claims 11-13 and are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons that dependent claims 11-13 are allowable. Further, new claims 22-24 depend from amended independent claim 19 and are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons that amended independent claim 19 is allowable”.
This argument is not persuasive. The independent claims 1, 10, and 19 remain rejected, see 103 rejections above. The corresponding dependent claims remain rejected, and the newly added claims are also rejected, see 103 rejections above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and newly amended limitation, "wherein the second actuator is configured to displace the contact point relative to the frame with a second range of motion different than the range of motion of the first actuator, a second rate of motion different from the rate of motion of the first actuator, or both" have been considered but are moot because the examiner does not rely on Watterson to teach this limitation, but rather Kautz, in view of Kenyon and
Applicant asserts “Second, in the rejection of previously-presented dependent claim 21, which has been incorporated into amended independent claim 1, the Office Action alleges that Watterson '059 is relevant to "wherein the second actuator is configured to displace the contact point relative to the frame with a second range of motion different than the range of motion of the first actuator, a second rate of motion different from the rate of motion of the first actuator, or both." See Office Action pp. 9 and 10 (citing Watterson '059 [0126]). In particular, the Office Action alleges that Watterson '059's description that "in the illustrated embodiment, linear extender 323a and linear extender 323b have different lengths," (Watterson '059 [0126]) teaches or suggests "wherein the second actuator is configured to displace the contact point relative to the frame with a second range of motion different than the range of motion of the first actuator," as recited in previously-presented dependent claim 21. Applicant respectfully disagrees”.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on Kautz, in view of Kenyon, to teach the limitations in question by applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang (US20090233767A1) discloses in the Abstract, “The fitness cycle of the present invention is equipped with a DC motor along with a control circuit, enabling the users to drive the trampling set via the DC motor. Multiple speeds can be adjusted via a control device to generate a steering effect.”. Huang continues to disclose two different actuators for adjusting the position of the seat in paragraph 0030, “Said seating unit 4 is equipped with a mobile unit 40, a lifting unit 41 and a chair seat 42. The mobile unit 40 is composed of a slide device 43 and a mobile motor 44. The mobile motor 44 is adapted onto the front end of the carriage 1, and also provided with a shifting axle 45 mated with the slide device 43. The lifting unit 41 is coupled with the mobile unit 40, and also provided with a support frame 46, a guide device 47 and a lifting motor 48. The support frame 46 is fastened onto the slide device 43, and the guide device 47 is mounted onto the support frame 46. The lifting motor 48 is mounted onto the slide device 43, and also provided with a lifting shaft 49. The chair seat 42 is coupled with the lifting unit 41. The back of the chair seat 42 is coupled with the guide device 47 of lifting unit 41, and the bottom of the chair seat 42 coupled with the lifting shaft 49 of lifting motor 48.” Huang fails to disclose any virtual reality feature as well as specific ranges for ranges of motion and rates of motion.
PNG
media_image4.png
505
680
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Huang
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 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
Prosecution Insights