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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for priority as a continuation of U.S. application no. 16/169,171 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,369,830) filed 24 October 2018 and Applicant’s claim for priority to provisional application no. 62/577,190 filed 26 October 2017.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 09 January 2023 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 11,369,830 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-11 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made by original presentation. Claims 9-11 were withdrawn from consideration in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 23 October 2025. Applicant did not include arguments in traversal of the restriction.
Response to Amendment
Replacement drawing sheets for Figure 3 and 4 were received on 14 January 2026 and have NOT been approved by the Office. See below.
The specification objections have not been obviated in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 14 January 2026. See below.
The claim objections have been obviated in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 14 January 2026.
The rejections of claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have not been fully obviated in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 14 January 2026. See below.
Claims 9-11 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being draw to a nonelected species. Claims 1-5 have been canceled.
Claims 6-11 are still pending. Claims 6-8 are examined on the merits as follows.
Drawings
Replacement drawing sheets for Figures 3-4 were received on 14 January 2026. These drawings are unacceptable. Figures 3 and 4 include new matter not previously disclosed or shown in the original disclosure. In particular, the new reference numeral 41 for the “exit point” introduces new matter not previously disclosed. The exit pulley 52 was not described as an exit point for the flexible element. Furthermore, an exit point is understood to be a point at which the flexible element exits something. The flexible element engaging the pulley at multiple points is not considered an “exit point.” The drawings have not been entered and as such, the objection regarding the “flexible element exit point” is reproduced below.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“a flexible element exit point mounted on at least one spring-loaded support arm” in claim 6.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“at least one spring-loaded support arm” in claim 6 lacks antecedent basis in the specification.
“a flexible element distance sensor” in claim 8 lacks antecedent basis in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a flexible element exit point mounted on at least one spring-loaded support arm” in line 4. This limitation was not properly described in the original disclosure and is considered new matter. The original disclosure does not describe where an exit point is mounted on the spring-loaded support arm. Applicant points to paragraphs [0027-0029] as providing support for this limitation, but the Office respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0027] simply recites “it may be desirable to have the opening or exit point for the user engageable end of a flexible element (e.g. rope, cable, line or the like) 42 at some distance (i.e. three feet) 44 off of the ground or other horizontal support surface,” but does not describe wherein this exit point is mounted on the support arm. Instead, the specification describes an “exit pulley 52” mounted to the arm. An “exit point” is understood to be the point at which the flexible element is exiting something. The exit pulley is not an exit point as claimed. The flexible element is simply engaging the exit pulley. It is not exiting a structure at the exit pulley. Furthermore, the exit pulley contacts the flexible element at multiple points, not just one.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a flexible element distance sensor configured to detect movement of said flexible element” in lines 9-10. This limitation was not properly described in the original disclosure and is considered new matter. Applicant points to paragraph [0034] as providing support for this limitation, but the Office respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0034] recites “a distance measuring device such as a rotary encoder mounted at the spool measures the distance of rope payout,” but does not describe wherein a distance sensor detects “movement of said flexible element” as claimed. The distance measuring device recited in the specification measures distance of rope payout, but the distance sensor recited in the claims detects movement. The distance sensor as claimed is not supported by recitation of the distance measuring device in the original disclosure.
Claim 8 further recites the limitation “a current controller configured to reduce current to said second motor in response to said flexible element distance sensor detecting a predetermined movement of said flexible element” in lines 11-13. This limitation was not properly described in the original disclosure and is considered new matter. Applicant points to paragraph [0032] as providing support for this limitation, but the Office respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0032] describes a “force sensing device … used to detect force exerted on the flexible element” and recites “when the force sensing device 84 senses more than the minimum threshold, current to the recoil motor 78 is reduced via current controller (mechanism) 85.” Paragraph [0032] also describes “a movement sensor 86 is provided which detects movement of the flexible element 42” and recites “when no movement is detected for a period of time, e.g.30 seconds, current to the recoil motor 78 is reduced.” This paragraph nor the rest of the disclosure describes wherein the current controller reduces current to the motor in response to the “flexible element distance sensor detecting a predetermined movement of said flexible element” as claimed. The current controller is described as reducing current to the motor in response to either the “force sensing device” or the “movement sensor,” not to the distance sensor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Orady et al. (US 2019/0099652, hereinafter Orady).
Regarding claim 6, Orady teaches an exercise apparatus (exercise machine 1000) comprising:
a flexible element (cable 500) having a user-engageable end (Fig. 1B);
a flexible element spool (spool 202) mounted on a driveshaft (shaft 210) for rotation (Figs. 2B, 12A);
a flexible element exit point mounted on at least one spring-loaded support arm (arm 700) (Fig. 1B shows wherein the cable 500 exits at a point at the end of the arm 700. Figs. 7A-7B show wherein the arm 700 is “spring-loaded” in as much as Applicant has described in that a compression spring 733 is loaded within the arm 700.), said at least one spring-loaded support arm coupled to a base of the exercise apparatus wherein said at least one spring-loaded support arm moves independently of said base in response to a variable force applied to said flexible element (Fig. 7B shows arm 700 in an unlocked state wherein the arm would move independently of the base in response to a movement of the cable 500.).
Regarding claim 7, Orady teaches the exercise apparatus as defined in claim 6 further comprising a pivot mechanism configured to rotate said at least one spring-loaded support arm between at least a first position and a second position relative to said base (Figs. 7A, 7B show the pivot mechanism of the arm 700 in a locked and unlocked state wherein the arm 700 can be rotated and then locked in place. Para. [0174]: “With arm (702) thus disengaged, the user is free to pivot arm (702) up or down around hole (451). To lock arm (702) to a new vertically pivoted position, the user returns lever (732) to the flat position of FIG. 7A.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objections, Applicant argues that the objection regarding the “flexible element exit point” has been addressed in the amended drawings. The Office respectfully disagrees. The amended drawings include new matter not previously disclosed and are not approved for entry. In particular, the amendment to include the “exit point 41” at exit pulley 52 introduces new matter. The original disclosure did not describe the exit pulley as being an “exit point” for the flexible element nor would it be understood that way. An exit point is understood to be a point at which the flexible element exits the support arm. The flexible element engaging the pulley at multiple points is not understood to be “exit point.”
Applicant argues that the distance measuring device 87 is shown in amended Figure 6 filed 21 January 2025. The Office agrees and withdraws this drawing objection.
Regarding the specification objections, Applicant argues that paragraph [0028] provides proper antecedent basis for the claim term “spring-loaded support arm” and that paragraph [0034] provides proper antecedent basis for the claim term “a flexible element distance sensor.” The Office respectfully disagrees. These claim terms are not found in the specification and thus do not have proper antecedent basis in the specification.
Regarding the claim objections, Applicant’s amendments have obviated the objections.
Regarding the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Applicant argues that paragraphs [0027]-[0029] provide support for the limitation of “a flexible element exit point mounted on at least one spring-loaded support arm.” The Office respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0027] simply recites “it may be desirable to have the opening or exit point for the user engageable end of a flexible element (e.g. rope, cable, line or the like) 42 at some distance (i.e. three feet) 44 off of the ground or other horizontal support surface,” but does not describe wherein this exit point is mounted on the support arm. Instead, the specification describes an “exit pulley 52” mounted to the arm. An “exit point” is understood to be the point at which the flexible element is exiting something. The exit pulley is not an exit point as claimed. The flexible element is simply engaging the exit pulley. It is not exiting a structure at the exit pulley. Furthermore, the exit pulley contacts the flexible element at multiple points, not just one. The Office agrees that the arms 54 are “spring-loaded support arms,” particularly in view of the definition provided by Collins Dictionary which defines “spring-loaded” as “kept normally in a certain position by a spring” (see https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/spring-loaded).
Regarding the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the Office withdraws the rejection regarding the “pivot mechanism.” Applicant points to paragraphs [0028]-[0029] as describing the pivot mechanism and Figures 3 and 4 as showing depicting the same.
Regarding the rejections of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Applicant argues that paragraph [0034] provides support for a “a flexible element distance sensor configured to detect movement of said flexible element.” The Office respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0034] recites “a distance measuring device such as a rotary encoder mounted at the spool measures the distance of rope payout,” but does not describe wherein a distance sensor detects “movement of said flexible element” as claimed. The distance measuring device recited in the specification measures distance of rope payout, but the distance sensor recited in the claims detects movement. The distance sensor as claimed is not supported by recitation of the distance measuring device in the original disclosure.
Applicant further argues that paragraph [0032] provides support for “a current controller configured to reduce current to said second motor in response to said flexible element distance sensor detecting a predetermined movement of said flexible element.” The Office respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0032] describes a “force sensing device … used to detect force exerted on the flexible element” and recites “when the force sensing device 84 senses more than the minimum threshold, current to the recoil motor 78 is reduced via current controller (mechanism) 85.” Paragraph [0032] also describes “a movement sensor 86 is provided which detects movement of the flexible element 42” and recites “when no movement is detected for a period of time, e.g.30 seconds, current to the recoil motor 78 is reduced.” This paragraph nor the rest of the disclosure describes wherein the current controller reduces current to the motor in response to the “flexible element distance sensor detecting a predetermined movement of said flexible element” as claimed. The current controller is described as reducing current to the motor in response to either the “force sensing device” or the “movement sensor,” not to the distance sensor.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections, Applicant argues that “Orady does not disclose a spring-loaded support arm that moves in response to variable force applied to a flexible element. Nor does it disclose a pivot mechanism configured to rotate the arm between defined positions relative to the base,” but does not give specific arguments as to why. The Office respectfully disagrees. The arms 700 of Orady are “spring-loaded” in as much as described by Applicant in that a compression spring 733 is loaded within the arm. And in view of the definition of “spring-loaded” by Collins Dictionary, the arm 700 is “kept normally in a certain position by a spring.” Furthermore, paragraph [0174] of Orady discusses wherein the arm pivots between positions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Catrina Letterman whose telephone number is (303)297-4297. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday, 8am - 5pm MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/C.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights