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 1-5, 15, 17-19, 21-23, 25, 31, 33, and 35-36 have been amended by applicant.
In light of the amendments made by applicant, the drawing objection, the claim objection, and the 112b rejections are withdrawn by the examiner.
Claims 1-3, 7, 15, 17-19, 33, and 35 remain rejected. Claims 4-5, 21-23, 25, 31 and 36 are considered allowable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamnik (International Publication WO2013006145A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kamnik shows a system for providing real-time performance feedback on a rowing machine (Kamnik, “system 1 for training a motion technique in sports, preferably rowing, or in rehabilitation of persons in order to restore and maintain capabilities of motion and functionality comprises a device 2 for performing a motion, preferably rowing”, page 4), the rowing machine comprising a load unit (1), coupled to a support track (6) (Kamnik, “a rowing simulator comprises a sliding seat 11 fastened to the frame of the device and a handle 12 similar to an oar handle, said handle 12 being fastened to a rotating disk that creates resistance similar to that of the water, and a support 13 similar to a foot stretcher”, page 4; The rotating disk of Kamnik shows the load unit of the claimed invention, and the sliding seat fastened to the frame shows the track of the claimed invention) a seat (5) (Kamnik, sliding seat 11) coupled to the support track configured to support a rower (Kamnik, “a sliding seat 11 fastened to the frame of the device”), a handle (3) coupled to the load unit arranged to move relative to the load unit by a pulling action on the handle (Kamnik, “said handle 12 being fastened to a rotating disk that creates resistance similar to that of the water”), and a foot stretcher (4) coupled to the support track arranged to receive a pushing action thereon (Kamnik, “a support 13 similar to a foot stretcher”, page 4, see FIG. 1), the system comprising: a first sensor configured to measure a first parameter indicative of the pulling action on the handle (Kamnik, “Measurements and data on the movement of the handle 12 in the device 2 or boat are provided by a movement sensor 7 arranged on a rotating disk”, page 4; The pulling action caused by the hands of the user with the handle causes the user engage the rotating disk. Therefore, the movement of the rotating disk would be indicative of the user pulling on the handle); a second sensor (12; 17; 21) configured to measure a second parameter indicative of a velocity of movement of an element of the rowing machine caused by the pushing action received by the foot stretcher (Kamnik, “The handle 12 is provided with the inertial sensor 9 for measuring the movement of the handle in space with sizes, such as translation and orientation with angular velocity and acceleration in space”, page 4; The pushing action caused by the legs of the user on the foot stretcher causes the user to pull back on the handle. Therefore, the movement of the handle would be indicative and caused in part by the user pushing against the foot stretcher); and a data processing unit, DPU, (Kamnik, “Measurements from the sensors are transmitted to a processing unit 3 in a wireless or another known way depending on the basic configuration of the system. The processing unit 3 is optionally a laptop or a central processing unit that comprises known units needed for its functioning, such as input/output units, memory, power supply assembly and the like. The unit gathers, stores and processes data and allows continuous access to and insight into the current values of data”, page 5) configured to determine a relationship between the pulling action on the handle and the pushing action received by the foot stretcher based on the first parameter and the second parameter (Kamnik; The velocity of the handle is related to the push exerted on the foot stretcher by the nature of the rowing exercise, the processor is configured to take the data from the first and second sensor and relay the information to the user).
PNG
media_image1.png
587
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kamnik
Regarding claim 2, Kamnik shows the system of claim 1, wherein the handle is coupled to the load unit by means of a first chain or a first cable (2) (Kamnik, “said handle 12 being fastened to a rotating disk that creates resistance similar to that of the water”, see FIG. 1), and wherein the first sensor is coupled to the first chain or the first cable (Kamnik, see FIG. 1) and configured to measure as the first parameter a tension applied to the first chain or the first cable when the handle is pulled to determine a pulling force (Kamnik, “The handle 12 is provided with the inertial sensor 9 for measuring the movement of the handle in space with sizes, such as translation and orientation with angular velocity and acceleration in space”).
PNG
media_image2.png
587
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kamnik
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamnik (International Publication WO2013006145A1).
Regarding claim 15, Kamnik shows a computer-implemented method of providing real-time performance feedback on a rowing machine (Kamnik, “The processing unit, optionally a laptop or a central processing unit, converts the acquired information on size and application points of forces in legs and arms exerted on the user in a certain time, information on trajectories of movement of the user or his body parts into biomechanical parameters of rowing technique, like the length of a stroke, duration of each phase of a stroke, rhythm, trajectory of handle movement, posture of the user and performed work… The current and target values of biomechanical parameters of rowing are transmitted to the user as a visual and/or audio and/or vibrotactile information and/or as a information transmitted by electric stimulation”, pages 3-4), the rowing machine comprising a load unit coupled to a support track (Kamnik, “a rowing simulator comprises a sliding seat 11 fastened to the frame of the device and a handle 12 similar to an oar handle, said handle 12 being fastened to a rotating disk that creates resistance similar to that of the water, and a support 13 similar to a foot stretcher”, page 4; The rotating disk of Kamnik shows the load unit of the claimed invention, and the sliding seat fastened to the frame shows the track of the claimed invention), a seat (Kamnik, sliding seat 11) coupled to the support track for configured to support a rower (Kamnik, “a sliding seat 11 fastened to the frame of the device”), a handle coupled to the load unit arranged to move relative to the load unit by a pulling action on the handle (Kamnik, “said handle 12 being fastened to a rotating disk that creates resistance similar to that of the water”), and a foot stretcher coupled to the support track arranged to receive a pushing action thereon (Kamnik, “a support 13 similar to a foot stretcher”, page 4, see FIG. 1), the method comprising: measuring a first parameter indicative of the pulling action on the handle (Kamnik, “Measurements and data on the movement of the handle 12 in the device 2 or boat are provided by a movement sensor 7 arranged on a rotating disk”, page 4; The pulling action caused by the hands of the user with the handle causes the user engage the rotating disk. Therefore, the movement of the rotating disk would be indicative of the user pulling on the handle); measuring a second parameter indicative of a velocity of movement of an element of the rowing machine caused by the pushing action received by the foot stretcher (Kamnik, “The handle 12 is provided with the inertial sensor 9 for measuring the movement of the handle in space with sizes, such as translation and orientation with angular velocity and acceleration in space”, page 4; The pushing action caused by the legs of the user on the foot stretcher causes the user to pull back on the handle. Therefore, the movement of the handle would be indicative and caused in part by the user pushing against the foot stretcher); and determining in real time a relationship between the pulling action on the handle and the pushing action received by the foot stretcher based on the first parameter and the second parameter (Kamnik; The velocity of the handle is related to the push exerted on the foot stretcher by the nature of the rowing exercise, the processor is configured to take the data from the first and second sensor and relay the information to the user).
PNG
media_image1.png
587
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kamnik
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamnik (International Publication WO2013006145A1).
Regarding claim 33, Kamnik shows a rowing machine comprising a load unit (1) coupled to a support track (6) (Kamnik, “a rowing simulator comprises a sliding seat 11 fastened to the frame of the device and a handle 12 similar to an oar handle, said handle 12 being fastened to a rotating disk that creates resistance similar to that of the water, and a support 13 similar to a foot stretcher”, page 4; The rotating disk of Kamnik shows the load unit of the claimed invention, and the sliding seat fastened to the frame shows the track of the claimed invention), a seat (5) (Kamnik, sliding seat 11) coupled to the support track for configured to support a rower (Kamnik, “a sliding seat 11 fastened to the frame of the device”), a handle (3) coupled to the load unit arranged to move relative to the load unit by a pulling action on the handle (Kamnik, “said handle 12 being fastened to a rotating disk that creates resistance similar to that of the water”), a foot stretcher (4) coupled to the support track arranged to receive a pushing action thereon (Kamnik, “a support 13 similar to a foot stretcher”, page 4, see FIG. 1), and a system for providing real-time performance feedback on the rowing machine (Kamnik, “system 1 for training a motion technique in sports, preferably rowing, or in rehabilitation of persons in order to restore and maintain capabilities of motion and functionality comprises a device 2 for performing a motion, preferably rowing”, page 4), wherein the system comprises: a first sensor configured to measure a first parameter indicative of the pulling action on the handle (Kamnik, “Measurements and data on the movement of the handle 12 in the device 2 or boat are provided by a movement sensor 7 arranged on a rotating disk”, page 4; The pulling action caused by the hands of the user with the handle causes the user engage the rotating disk. Therefore, the movement of the rotating disk would be indicative of the user pulling on the handle); a second sensor (12; 17; 21) configured to measure a second parameter indicative of a velocity of movement of an element of the rowing machine caused by the pushing action received by the foot stretcher (Kamnik, “The handle 12 is provided with the inertial sensor 9 for measuring the movement of the handle in space with sizes, such as translation and orientation with angular velocity and acceleration in space”, page 4; The pushing action caused by the legs of the user on the foot stretcher causes the user to pull back on the handle. Therefore, the movement of the handle would be indicative and caused in part by the user pushing against the foot stretcher); and a data processing unit, DPU (Kamnik, “Measurements from the sensors are transmitted to a processing unit 3 in a wireless or another known way depending on the basic configuration of the system. The processing unit 3 is optionally a laptop or a central processing unit that comprises known units needed for its functioning, such as input/output units, memory, power supply assembly and the like. The unit gathers, stores and processes data and allows continuous access to and insight into the current values of data”, page 5), configured to determine a relationship between the pulling action on the handle and the pushing action received by the foot stretcher based on the first parameter and the second parameter (Kamnik; The velocity of the handle is related to the push exerted on the foot stretcher by the nature of the rowing exercise, the processor is configured to take the data from the first and second sensor and relay the information to the user).
PNG
media_image1.png
587
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kamnik
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamnik (International Publication WO2013006145A1), in view of Hoover (U.S. Patent No. 9,968,822B2).
Regarding claim 3, Kamnik shows the system of claim 1, including the support track (6) and the second sensor (12).
Kamnik fails to explicitly show the support track (6) is mounted and arranged to slide relative to the floor, wherein the second sensor (12) is configured to measure as the second parameter a velocity of movement of the rowing machine relative to the floor.
However, Hoover, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the support track (6) is mounted and arranged to slide relative to the floor (Hoover, “The seat track 35 is disposed on a carriage 37 which is itself moveable relative to a base 39 of the device. Preferably the carriage slides on its own track 40. The carriage is movable via a drive mechanism D, which can be any suitable mechanism such as a motor or hydraulic piston”, col. 2, lines 48-52; The carriage of Hoover is comparable to the support track of the claimed invention, and track of Hoover allows the carriage to slide relative to the floor). Hoover also discloses in col. 2, line 66- col. 3, line 14, “The controller should be programmed to cause a recovery from the simulation by moving the carriage in the posterior direction. The velocity of the carriage in said anterior direction in a rush circumstance should be relatively greater than the velocity of said carriage in said posterior direction for recovery, such that the simulated rush is experienced as somewhat abrupt while the recovery is noticed only minimally. Preferably, the device is equipped with a seat position sensor S (shown only in FIG. 6) that also is operatively coupled to the controller. The controller may be programmed to cause a rush simulation when seat position sensor signals that the seat is near the end of a drive phase or near the beginning of a recovery phase, i.e., closer to the fully posterior position”.
PNG
media_image3.png
364
495
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
371
506
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
377
514
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Hoover
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 rowing simulator of Kamnik to be mounted onto the track of Hoover in order to further simulate rowing on water while exercising with the rowing simulator of Kamnik and to measure the velocity of the machine, as disclosed by Hoover to allow for a specific simulation (col. 1, lines 39-44, “It is desired to provide a device to simulate a “rush” stroke by forward rowers to allow rowers, particularly stroke rowers, to train for this circumstance. For this purpose, a rowing device having a seat and track arrangement, a handle, and a resistance mechanism is provided, with the seat track being disposed on a carriage”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamnik (International Publication WO2013006145A1), in view of Radow (PG Patent Publication No. US20110118086A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kamnik shows the system of claim 1, wherein the load unit comprises a flywheel (Kamnik, rotating disk, page 4), wherein the first sensor is configured to measure the first parameter indicative of the pulling action on the handle (Kamnik, “Measurements and data on the movement of the handle 12 in the device 2 or boat are provided by a movement sensor 7 arranged on a rotating disk”)
Kamnik fails to explicitly show the measuring an angular acceleration of the flywheel to derive a pulling force in order to measure the first parameter.
However, Radow, from the same field of endeavor, discloses in the Abstract “A control system and method for exercise equipment and the like provides a way to simulate a physical activity in a manner that takes into account the physics of the physical activity being simulated to provide an accurate simulation”. Radow continues to disclose in paragraph 0074, “The control arrangement of the present invention can be utilized to control exercise devices such as those discussed above, and also to control rowing machines, weight lifting machines, swimming machines, tennis or baseball practice machines, or any other machine or device used to simulate an exercise or other physical activity”.
PNG
media_image6.png
427
329
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Radow
Radow teaches the measuring an angular acceleration of the flywheel to derive a pulling force (Radow, “Controller 213 may be programmed to utilize the force measured by strain gauge 248 as an input into the control system… In general, the force measured by strain gauge 248 will be a function of the force applied to pedals 209 (FIG. 26) by a rider. However, it will be understood that the forces measured by strain gauge 248 may be somewhat lower than the forces input by a rider on pedals 209 due to frictional losses and the inertial effects of flywheel 204, and the like. The force measured by strain gauge 248 may be calibrated to account for frictional losses and inertial effects to thereby provide an accurate estimated rider input force, that can be utilized by controller 213. The relationship between force and acceleration for flywheel 204 may be calculated utilizing an angular acceleration equation of the form F=ma, or it may be determined empirically by inputting a series of different known forces on pedals 209 while measuring the acceleration of flywheel 204 utilizing encoder 211. In general, the rider input force is equal to the sum of the frictional forces, the force required to cause a change in momentum of flywheel 204, and the total resistance force measured by strain gauge 248”, paragraphs 0156-0157).
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 movement sensor of Kamnik to be the sensors of Radow which require the angular acceleration of the flywheel with the encoder to more accurately determine the input force by the user while engaging the rotating disk of Kamnik.
Claims 17-19, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamnik (International Publication WO2013006145A1), in view of Radow (PG Patent Publication No. US20110118086A1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hoover (U.S. Patent No. 9,968,822B2).
Regarding claim 17, Kamnik, in view of Radow, teaches the method of claim 15, including the support track and the second parameter.
Kamnik and Radow fail to explicitly teach the support track is mounted on and arranged to slide relative to the floor, and measuring the second parameter comprises measuring a velocity Vew of movement of the rowing machine relative to the floor.
However, Hoover, teaches the support track is mounted and arranged to slide relative to the floor (Hoover, “The seat track 35 is disposed on a carriage 37 which is itself moveable relative to a base 39 of the device. Preferably the carriage slides on its own track 40. The carriage is movable via a drive mechanism D, which can be any suitable mechanism such as a motor or hydraulic piston”, col. 2, lines 48-52; The carriage of Hoover is comparable to the support track of the claimed invention, and track of Hoover allows the carriage to slide relative to the floor). Hoover also discloses in col. 2, line 66- col. 3, line 14, “The controller should be programmed to cause a recovery from the simulation by moving the carriage in the posterior direction. The velocity of the carriage in said anterior direction in a rush circumstance should be relatively greater than the velocity of said carriage in said posterior direction for recovery, such that the simulated rush is experienced as somewhat abrupt while the recovery is noticed only minimally. Preferably, the device is equipped with a seat position sensor S (shown only in FIG. 6) that also is operatively coupled to the controller. The controller may be programmed to cause a rush simulation when seat position sensor signals that the seat is near the end of a drive phase or near the beginning of a recovery phase, i.e., closer to the fully posterior position”.
PNG
media_image7.png
474
646
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
493
674
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
476
651
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Hoover
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 rowing simulator of Kamnik to be mounted onto the track of Hoover in order to further simulate rowing on water while exercising with the rowing simulator of Kamnik and to measure the velocity Vew of the machine, as disclosed by Hoover to allow for a specific simulation (col. 1, lines 39-44, “It is desired to provide a device to simulate a “rush” stroke by forward rowers to allow rowers, particularly stroke rowers, to train for this circumstance. For this purpose, a rowing device having a seat and track arrangement, a handle, and a resistance mechanism is provided, with the seat track being disposed on a carriage”).
Regarding claim 18, Kamnik, in view of Radow and Hoover, teaches the method of claim 17, the method further comprising determining a power Pfw of the pushing action delivered to the foot stretcher using the pushing force Ff received by the foot stretcher and the velocity Vew of movement of the rowing machine according to the equation: P fw-Ff *V ew (Kamnik discloses on page 5, “The forces of legs are measured with force sensors 5 arranged on a foot support 13… The values measured with sensors 5 - 10, arranged on the training device are entered as input information into the processing unit 3 in predetermined time intervals. These values are measured values of forces and their application points, motions and form a set 14 of sizes of measurements of forces and motions… Said sets of sizes are converted in a module 16 of biomechanical parameters into biomechanical parameters of a rower's rowing in a given moment, such as the length of a stroke, duration of individual phases of a pull, frequency, trajectory of handle movement, torso posture, performed work as a time function… The method of learning of the model uses both input information and output time-dependent biomechanical parameters of rowing measured during the rowing of skilled rowers and represent proper values of a stroke in a given moment”. Because the claim language specifically recites “optionally” for the method determining power, the examiner does not have to provide a rejection with art for claim 18, see 112b rejection above. However, Kamnik already discloses the performed work as a time function which is comparable to the power of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 19, Kamnik, in view of Radow and Hoover, teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the handle is coupled to the load unit by means of a first chain or a first cable (2) Kamnik, “said handle 12 being fastened to a rotating disk that creates resistance similar to that of the water”, see FIG. 1 below), and measuring the first parameter comprises measuring a tension applied to the first cable or the first chain when the handle is pulled (Kamnik, “The handle 12 is provided with the inertial sensor 9 for measuring the movement of the handle in space with sizes, such as translation and orientation with angular velocity and acceleration in space”), the method further comprising: measuring a velocity Vhw of movement of the handle relative to the load unit (Kamnik, “The handle 12 is provided with the inertial sensor 9 for measuring the movement of the handle in space with sizes, such as translation and orientation with angular velocity and acceleration in space”, page 4); and determining a power Phw of the pulling action delivered to the handle using the tension Th applied to the first chain or the first cable when the handle is pulled and the velocity Vhw of movement of the handle according to an equation: Phw=Th*Vhw (Kamnik discloses on pages 4-5, “The device 2 is provided with at least one force sensor 5, 6, preferably several force sensors… Pull-force of the handle simulating an oar is measured during all stroke phases by the force sensors 6 arranged on the handle 12… The values measured with sensors 5 - 10, arranged on the training device are entered as input information into the processing unit 3 in predetermined time intervals. These values are measured values of forces and their application points, motions and form a set 14 of sizes of measurements of forces and motions… Said sets of sizes are converted in a module 16 of biomechanical parameters into biomechanical parameters of a rower's rowing in a given moment, such as the length of a stroke, duration of individual phases of a pull, frequency, trajectory of handle movement, torso posture, performed work as a time function… The method of learning of the model uses both input information and output time-dependent biomechanical parameters of rowing measured during the rowing of skilled rowers and represent proper values of a stroke in a given moment”. The force sensor 6 is shown to be integrated into the cable, beside the handle of Kamnik. Kamnik already discloses the biomechanical parameter in a given moment includes performed work as a function of time, thereby showing power. The Examiner notes that the additional of “optionally” renders the claim indefinite, see above and further results in the limitations not being required by the prior art, however, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the velocity detected by inertial sensor 9 of Kamnik and the force of the pulling action detected by force sensor 6 of Kamnik to determine the power of the pulling action. Furthermore, it is well known in the art that the tension of the cable is equivalent to the force of the pulling handle for a rowing machine, therefore the force detected by the force sensor 6 of Kamnik shows the tension applied to the first chain or the first cable when the handle is pulled of the claimed invention).
PNG
media_image2.png
587
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kamnik
Regarding claim 35, Kamnik, in view of Radow and Hoover, teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the handle is coupled to the load unit by means of a first chain or a first cable (Kamnik, “said handle 12 being fastened to a rotating disk that creates resistance similar to that of the water”, see FIG. 1), and measuring the first parameter comprises measuring a tension Th applied to the first chain or the first cable when the handle is pulled to determine a pulling force (Kamnik, “The handle 12 is provided with the inertial sensor 9 for measuring the movement of the handle in space with sizes, such as translation and orientation with angular velocity and acceleration in space”), and the method further comprising deriving a pushing force Ff caused by the pushing action received by the foot stretcher using the velocity Vew of movement of the rowing machine according to the equation: F f=(T h -M e *dV ew /dt), where Me*dVew/dt denotes a force acting on the rowing machine (Kamnik, “The forces of legs are measured with force sensors 5 arranged on a foot support 13”, page 5; In light of the modified rowing simulator of Kamnik, the velocity movement of the rowing machine is caused by the force of the legs of the user against the foot stretcher. Therefore, the force of the legs against the foot stretcher would be indicative and caused in part by the velocity movement of the rowing machine).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 21-23, 25, 31 and 36 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 all the limitations required by dependent claim 4, more specifically, the system of claim 1, wherein the foot stretcher (4) is rigidly coupled to the load unit (1) and the load unit is slidably coupled to the support track (6), wherein element is the load unit and the second sensor (17) configured to measure as the second parameter a velocity of movement of the load unit relative to the support track.
Claim 5 is also considered allowable for its dependency on claim 4.
The closest prior art of record, Kamnik (WO2013006145A1), discloses the system of claim 1, including the foot stretcher, the load unit, and the support track, but fails to disclose, wherein the foot stretcher (4) is rigidly coupled to the load unit (1) and the load unit is slidably coupled to the support track (6), wherein the element is the load unit and the second sensor (17) configured to measure as the second parameter a velocity of movement of the load unit relative to the support track.
The next closest prior art of record, Rowing Analytics: Oartec DX – First Impressions (https://analytics.rowsandall.com/2018/04/02/oartec-dx-first-impressions/), discloses the foot stretcher (4) is rigidly coupled to the load unit (1) and the load unit is slidably coupled to the support track (6), but fails to disclose, the second sensor (17) configured to measure as the second parameter a velocity of movement of the load unit relative to the support track.
PNG
media_image10.png
497
662
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Rowing Analytics: Oartec DX
None of the prior art teach or make obvious the combinations of all the limitations required by dependent claim 21, more specifically, the method of claim 15, wherein the foot stretcher is rigidly coupled to the load unit and the load unit is slidably coupled to the support track, wherein the element is the load unit and measuring the second parameter comprises measuring a velocity Vluw of movement of the load unit relative to the support track.
Claims 22 and 36 are also considered allowable for its dependency on claim 21.
The closest prior art of record, Kamnik (WO2013006145A1), discloses the foot stretcher, the load unit, and the support track, but fails to disclose, wherein the foot stretcher is rigidly coupled to the load unit and the load unit is slidably coupled to the support track, wherein the element is the load unit and measuring the second parameter comprises measuring a velocity Vluw of movement of the load unit relative to the support track.
The next closest prior art of record, Rowing Analytics: Oartec DX – First Impressions (https://analytics.rowsandall.com/2018/04/02/oartec-dx-first-impressions/), discloses the foot stretcher is rigidly coupled to the load unit and the load unit is slidably coupled to the support track, but fails to disclose, measuring the second parameter comprises measuring a velocity Vluw of movement of the load unit relative to the support track.
PNG
media_image10.png
497
662
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Rowing Analytics: Oartec DX
None of the prior art teach or make obvious the combinations of all the limitations required by dependent claim 23, more specifically, the method of claim 15, wherein the foot stretcher is slidably coupled to the support track and coupled to the load unit by means of a second chain or a second cable, wherein the foot stretcher is arranged to move relative to the load unit along the support track, wherein the element is the foot stretcher and measuring the second parameter comprises measuring a velocity of movement of the foot stretcher relative to the support track, Vfw.
Claim 25 is also considered allowable for its dependency on claim 23.
The closest prior art of record, Kamnik (WO2013006145A1), discloses the foot stretcher, the support track, and the load unit, but fails to disclose, wherein the foot stretcher is slidably coupled to the support track and coupled to the load unit by means of a second chain or a second cable, wherein the foot stretcher is arranged to move relative to the load unit along the support track, wherein the element is the foot stretcher and measuring the second parameter comprises measuring a velocity of movement of the foot stretcher relative to the support track, Vfw.
The next closest prior art of record, Quantified Rowing: Concept 2 Dynamic – Product Review (https://quantifiedrowing.com/2017/02/12/concept2-dynamic-product-review/), discloses the foot stretcher is slidably coupled to the support track and coupled to the load unit by means of a second chain or a second cable, wherein the foot stretcher is arranged to move relative to the load unit along the support track, but fails to disclose, measuring the second parameter comprises measuring a velocity of movement of the foot stretcher relative to the support track, Vfw.
PNG
media_image11.png
892
694
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Quantified Rowing: Concept 2 Dynamic
None of the prior art teach or make obvious the combinations of all the limitations required by dependent claim 31, more specifically, the method of claim 15, further comprising determining a ratio between the pulling action on the handle and the pushing action received by the foot stretcher based on the first parameter and the second parameter.
The closest prior art of record, Kamnik (WO2013006145A1), discloses the method of claim 15, including the first parameter being indicative of the pulling action on the handle, and second parameter being the pushing action received by the foot stretcher, but fails to disclose, determining a ratio between the pulling action on the handle and the pushing action received by the foot stretcher based on the first parameter and the second parameter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts regarding the 102 rejection of claim 1, “since claim 1 requires ‘a first sensor configured to measure a first parameter indicative of the pulling action on the handle’, then the performance feedback provided by the claimed system would be entirely derived from the movement of the handle. However, this is precisely an issue identified in the present application, as explained at paragraphs [0023] and [0025] of the present description… Thus, any attempt to derive the pushing action received by the foot stretcher from the movement of the handle clearly contradicts the teaching of the present application”.
This argument is not persuasive. The claim language has not been amended by applicant to disclose any specific arrangement with the first sensor and the foot stretcher. The limitation “configured to measure a first parameter indicative of the pulling action on the handle” is a functional limitation which is shown by Kamnik as the movement sensor 7 of Kamnik detects movement of the rotating disk which is caused by the pulling of the handle by the user. Although the applicant provides references to the paragraphs in the specification, the claim language currently does not address the concerns of applicant.
Applicant continues to assert “Kamnik failed to disclose at least a sensor that is ‘configured to measure a second parameter indicative of a velocity of movement of an element of the rowing machine caused by the pushing action received by the foot stretcher’, as required by present claim 1… As there are no explicit teaching in Kamnik of a sensor that measures a parameter indicative of a velocity of movement of an element of the rowing machine caused by the pushing action received by the foot stretcher, a skilled person starting from the teaching of Kamnik would not and cannot modify the system of Kamnik in any obvious manner to arrive at the performance feedback system of claim 1”.
This argument is not persuasive. The inertial sensors 9 of Kamnik for measuring movement of the handle in space teaches the measurement of a parameter indicative of velocity as Kamnik discloses on page 3, “The handle is further provided with an inertial sensor that acquires all movement sizes of the handle in space during the course of a stroke, i. e. translation and rotation in space, velocity and acceleration”. Furthermore, similarly to the examiner’s response above, the inertial sensors detect movement on the handle which is caused in part by the user pushing on the foot stretcher. The claim language currently does not address the concerns of applicant.
Applicant continues to assert “neither Hoover (U.S. Patent No. 9968822B2) nor Radow (PG Patent Publication No. US20110118086A1) discloses or suggests the second sensor or the data processing unit as defined in claim 1. Thus, the skilled person cannot arrive at the system of claim 1 even when combining the teaching of Kamnik, Hoover and/or Radow… Claim 1 therefore satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 103. The same argument applies, mutats mutandis, to corresponding claim 15 and claim 33. The remaining claims 2-5, 7, 17-19, 21-23, 25, 31, 35, and 36 are regarded allowable by virtue of being dependent on claim 1 or claim 15.
This argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 remains rejected for the reasons above.
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 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