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, 8-15, and 17 have been amended by applicant. Claims 6-7, 16, and 18 have been cancelled by applicant. Claims 19-22 have been newly added by applicant.
In light of amendments made by applicant, the claim interpretation and the 112b rejections are withdrawn by the examiner. However, also in light of the amendments made by applicant, a new claim interpretation and corresponding 112b rejection is seen below.
Claims 1-5, 8-15, 17, and 19-22 remain rejected.
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: The examiner notes the applicant discloses in Remarks on 10/16/2025 that paragraph 0025 of the specification describes “a device that maintains tension on the first and/or second line ends. A person of skill in the art familiar with flywheel type resistance devices would understand that this describes, in on example, a simple bungee cord”. However, on page 5 of the specification “The retraction mechanism may be configured to maintain a minimum tension on the first and/or second line end”. There is nowhere in the specification that recites ‘tension device’ only ‘retraction mechanism’.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 15, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, line 1, “according claim 1” should read, --according to claim 1—
In claim 15, line 1, “claim 14 further” should read, --claim 14, further--
In claim 17, line 1, “claim 1 wherein” should read, --claim 1, wherein--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) of claim 4 is/are:
A/ the generic place holder is device
B/ the functional language is tension
C/ tension device is not modified by sufficient “structure, material, or acts”
D/ the attachment member is not disclosed in the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a tension device which maintains tension on the first line end and/or the second line end” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification discloses on page 5 of the specification “The retraction mechanism may be configured to maintain a minimum tension on the first and/or second line end”. Claim 4 is considered indefinite because is unclear if the retraction mechanism is the tension device of claim 4, and there is no structure associated with the retraction mechanism disclosed on page 5 of the specification. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is considering the retraction mechanism to be the tension device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 12 recites in lines 2-4, “an axis that is substantially perpendicular to a or the longitudinal direction of the leg and substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the respective beam”. This claim is considered indefinite because in the first instance of the recitation of ‘longitudinal direction’, it is unclear if the antecedent is “a” or “the”. In the second instance of the recitation of ‘longitudinal direction’, it is unclear if it is the same as or different from the first instance of the recitation of ‘longitudinal direction’.
Claim 13 recites in line 3, “a or the longitudinal direction”. This claim is considered indefinite because it is unclear if the antecedent is “a” or “the”.
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 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, 17, and 19-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habing (PG Patent Publication No. US20130274075A1).
Regarding claim 1, Habing shows an exercise system device (Habing, exercise apparatus 200, paragraph 0036), comprising two exercise devices (Habing, “Two wide, adjustable pull points 201L and 201R, shown here with D-handles, are provided on carriages 202L and 202R, respectively. The pull points are coupled to respective selectable weight stacks 204L and 204R by paired cable and pulley systems similar to those used on apparatus 10 described above. The carriages are vertically slidable on vertical members 212L and 212R, respectively, and include a sleeve that encircles guide rods 206L and 206R, respectively”, paragraph 0036), each comprising: -a frame (Habing, see annotated FIG. 8 below); -a resistance system (Habing, selectable weight stacks 204L and 204R); and -an engagement element (Habing, D-handles), wherein for each exercise device: the frame comprises at least one leg (Habing, guide rods 206L and 206R, paragraph 0036, see annotated FIG. 8 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
755
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Habing
The apparatus 200 of Habing fails to specifically show the engagement element being connected to the resistance system using a first line end and a second line end, the resistance system providing a resistance to extension of the first line end and the second line end, the first line end engaging the frame at a first engagement mechanism and the second line end engaging the frame at a second engagement mechanism, which is in a different position than the first engagement mechanism, so that a movement of the engagement element with respect to the frame in a first direction from the second engagement mechanism to the first engagement mechanism corresponds to an extension of at least the second line end, and a movement of the engagement element with respect to the frame in a second direction from the first engagement mechanism to the second engagement mechanism corresponds to an extension of at least the first line end, the exercise device thereby allowing reciprocal movement of the engagement element with respect to the frame against the resistance provided by the resistance system, wherein the resistance system is configured to provide the resistance to extension of the first line end independently from the resistance to extension of the second line end, wherein the frame also comprises a first beam supported by the at least one leg, the first beam carrying at least one of the first and second engagement mechanisms, and a second beam supported by the at least one leg, the second beam carrying the other of the first and second engagement mechanisms, wherein the exercise system allows adjustment between the two exercise devices selected from the Group consisting of: a) independent height adjustment of the beams along the legs of the two exercise devices; and b) independent height adjustment of corresponding engagement mechanisms of the two exercise devices; c) a distance between corresponding engagement mechanisms of the two exercise devices is adjustable; and d) combinations of two or more of a), b) and c).
However, the preferred embodiment of Habing, exercise apparatus 10 of Habing teaches the engagement element being connected to the resistance system using a first line end and a second line end (Habing, see annotated FIG. 2 below), the first line end engaging the frame at a first engagement mechanism (Habing, pulley 52R, paragraph 0028, see FIG. 2 below) and the second line end engaging the frame at a second engagement mechanism (Having, pulley 54R, paragraph 0028, see FIG. 2 below), which is in a different position than the first engagement mechanism (Habing, see FIG. 2 below), so that a movement of the engagement element with respect to the frame in a first direction from the second engagement mechanism to the first engagement mechanism corresponds to an extension of at least the second line end (Habing; When a user pulls on the handle 44 seen in FIG. 1 in a direction away from the pulley 54R to pulley 52R, the second line end identified in FIG. 2 below extends), and a movement of the engagement element with respect to the frame in a second direction from the first engagement mechanism to the second engagement mechanism corresponds to an extension of at least the first line end (Habing; When a user pulls the handle 44 seen in FIG. 1 in a direction away from the pulley 52R to the pulley 54R, the first line end identified in FIG. 2 below extends).
PNG
media_image2.png
670
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
517
651
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Habing
Furthermore, with this modified carriage assembly of Habing, each selectable weight stack of Habing provides a resistance to the first line end and the second line end. The modified carriage assembly of Habing also teaches that the exercise apparatus 200 of Habing allows for the reciprocal movement of the handle with respect to the identified frame of Habing against resistance provided by the selectable weight stacks, wherein the selectable weight stacks of Habing are able to provide resistance to the identified first line end of Habing independently from the resistance to the extension of the identified second line end of Habing as the specification of the claimed invention discloses on pages 3-4 “The independent connection of the resistance mechanism may herein be understood as that each resistance mechanism offers resistance only to extension of one line end, but not to extension of the other line end. In case the line ends are part of the same single line, this may be achieved e.g. via a freewheel.” Habing discloses the same arrangement between the identified line ends above in FIG. 2 and the handle as that of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, the first beam and the second beam of the claimed invention, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, are taught by the modified carriage assembly of Habing, seen above in annotated FIG. 1, each of which is supported by at least one leg. With this modified carriage, Habing teaches, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, that the first beam carries at least one of the first and second engagement mechanisms of the claimed invention and the second beam carrying the other of the first and second engagement mechanisms as the first and second engagement mechanisms of the claimed invention are taught by the pulleys 52R and 54R, respectively.
Furthermore, the modified carriage assembly of Habing teaches the exercise system allows adjustment between the two exercise devices selected from the Group consisting of: a) independent height adjustment of the beams along the legs of the two exercise devices (Habing, “The carriages are vertically slidable on vertical members 212L and 212R, respectively, and include a sleeve that encircles guide rods 206L and 206R, respectively. The carriages may be locked at a desired height by means of respective release levers 208”, paragraph 0036; The identified beams of Habing are connected to the carriages, thereby also being height adjustable); and b) independent height adjustment of corresponding engagement mechanisms of the two exercise devices (Habing, “The carriages are vertically slidable on vertical members 212L and 212R, respectively, and include a sleeve that encircles guide rods 206L and 206R, respectively. The carriages may be locked at a desired height by means of respective release levers 208”; Similarly, the pulleys of Habing are connected to the carriages therby also being height adjustable); c) a distance between corresponding engagement mechanisms of the two exercise devices is adjustable (Habing, see FIG. 1 below; As can be seen in FIG. 1, as well as all embodiments of the carriage for Habing, the bracket that supports the pulleys is pivotable from the identified beams of Habing, thereby teaching, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the distance between corresponding engagement mechanisms of the two exercise devices being adjustable); and d) combinations of two or more of a), b) and c) (Habing teaches each of these functions therefore teaching combinations of two or more of a, b, and c).
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 exercise apparatus 200 of Habing to specifically have the carriage assembly as that of exercise apparatus 10 of Habing as Habing discloses various carriage assemblies for various exercises. Moreover, Habing discloses in paragraph 0036, “(Habing, “The pull points are coupled to respective selectable weight stacks 204L and 204R by paired cable and pulley systems similar to those used on apparatus 10 described above”),” thereby showing how exercise apparatus 200 builds off of exercise apparatus 10, making this modification obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Habing teaches the exercise system according to claim 1, wherein for each exercise device the resistance system comprises at least two separate resistance mechanisms, each independently connected to the first line end and the second line end respectively (Habing, “The pull points are coupled to respective selectable weight stacks 204L and 204R by paired cable and pulley systems similar to those used on apparatus 10 described above”).
Regarding claim 4, Habing teaches the exercise system according to claim 1, each exercise device further comprising a tension device which maintains tension on the first line end and/or the second line end (Habing, “cable 50R is reeved around a fixed high pulley 56R and then around another high fixed pulley 58R. Cable 50R then travels downwardly around floating pulley 60R and then upwardly around high fixed pulley 62R. Cable 50R continues down around low fixed pulley 64R and then around low fixed pulley 66R. From there, cable 50R travels upwardly and is reeved around pulley 54R. The cable and pulley arrangement on the left side of the apparatus is a mirror image of that just described”, paragraph 0028, FIG. 2; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the pulleys 56R, 58R, 60R, 62R, 64R, and 66R maintain the tension on the first line end and the second line end of Habing, thereby showing the tension device of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 5, Habing teaches the exercise system according to claim 1, each exercise device comprising a first line having the first line end and at least one second line having the second line end (Habing, “The pull points are coupled to respective selectable weight stacks 204L and 204R by paired cable and pulley systems similar to those used on apparatus 10 described above”, see annotated FIG. 2 below; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, cable 68 of Habing shows the at least one second line of the claimed invention).
PNG
media_image4.png
434
696
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Habing
Regarding claim 8, Habing teaches the exercise system according to claim 16, wherein for each exercise device the resistance system is at least partly supported by the first and/or second beam (Habing, “The pull points are coupled to respective selectable weight stacks 204L and 204R by paired cable and pulley systems similar to those used on apparatus 10 described above”; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the identified first beam and second beam of Habing at least partly supports the resistance system via the cable).
Regarding claim 9, Habing teaches the exercise system according to claim 2, wherein for each exercise device the first and the second beam each carry one of the first and second resistance mechanisms (Habing, “The pull points are coupled to respective selectable weight stacks 204L and 204R by paired cable and pulley systems similar to those used on apparatus 10 described above”; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the identified first beam and second beam of Habing each carry one of the first and second resistance mechanisms via the cables, respectively).
Regarding claim 10, Habing teaches the exercise system according to claim 1, wherein for each exercise device the first beam and/or the second beam is moveable with respect to the leg (Habing, “The carriages are vertically slidable on vertical members 212L and 212R, respectively, and include a sleeve that encircles guide rods 206L and 206R, respectively”; As the guide rods 206L and 206R of Habing each show the leg of the claimed invention, and the identified first beam and the second beam of Habing are connected with the carriage, the first beam and the second beam of Habing is moveable with respect to the guide rods 206L and 206R of Habing, respectively).
Regarding claim 11, Habing teaches the exercise system according to claim 10 wherein for each exercise device the first beam and/or the second beam is moveable along a longitudinal direction of the leg (Habing, “The carriages are vertically slidable on vertical members 212L and 212R, respectively, and include a sleeve that encircles guide rods 206L and 206R, respectively”, see annotated FIG. 8 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
611
678
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Habing
Regarding claim 17, Habing teaches the exercise system according to claim 1, wherein the two exercise devices being attached to each other via their frames (Habing, FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 19, Habing teaches the exercise system of claim 1 wherein the exercise system allows the adjustment between the two exercise devices by the independent height adjustment of the beams along the legs of the two exercise devices (Habing, “The carriages are vertically slidable on vertical members 212L and 212R, respectively, and include a sleeve that encircles guide rods 206L and 206R, respectively. The carriages may be locked at a desired height by means of respective release levers 208”, paragraph 0036; The identified beams of Habing are connected to the carriages, thereby also being height adjustable).
Regarding claim 20, Habing teaches the exercise system of claim 1 wherein the exercise system allows the adjustment between the two exercise devices by the independent height adjustment corresponding engagement mechanisms of the two exercise devices (Habing, “The carriages are vertically slidable on vertical members 212L and 212R, respectively, and include a sleeve that encircles guide rods 206L and 206R, respectively. The carriages may be locked at a desired height by means of respective release levers 208”; Similarly, the pulleys of Habing are connected to the carriages therby also being height adjustable).
Regarding claim 21, Habing teaches the exercise system of claim 1 wherein the exercise system allows the adjustment between the two exercise devices by the distance between corresponding engagement mechanisms of the two exercise devices being adjustable (Habing, see FIG. 1 below; As can be seen in FIG. 1, as well as all embodiments of the carriage for Habing, the bracket that supports the pulleys is pivotable from the identified beams of Habing, thereby teaching, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the distance between corresponding engagement mechanisms of the two exercise devices being adjustable).
Regarding claim 22, Habing teaches the exercise system of claim 1 wherein the exercise system allows the adjustment between the two exercise devices by the combinations of two or more of a), b) and c) (Habing teaches each of these functions therefore teaching combinations of two or more of a, b, and c, as noted in claims 1 and 19-21 above).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habing (PG Patent Publication No. US20130274075A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Olson (International Patent Publication No. WO2015100429A1).
Regarding claim 3, Habing teaches the exercise system according to claim 1, including the resistance system of each exercise device.
Habing fails to teach wherein for each exercise device the resistance system comprising at least one flywheel for providing the resistance, possibly further comprising a magnetic brake for braking the flywheel.
However, Olson, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the at least one flywheel for providing the resistance, possibly further comprising a magnetic brake for braking the flywheel (Olson, “a cable exercise machine that incorporates a sensor that tracks the position of a flywheel. The flywheel is incorporated into a magnetic resistance mechanism that applies a load of resistance to the movement of the pull cable. As the flywheel rotates, the sensor tracks the rotation of the flywheel”, paragraph 0063).
PNG
media_image6.png
793
470
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Olson
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced each of the selectable weight stacks of Habing with the magnetic resistance mechanism, including the flywheel, and the sensor of Olson as both Habing and Olson apply a resistance to the movements of a user with cables, pulleys, and handles. Furthermore, Olson discloses in paragraph 0062, “Generally, cable exercise machines provide resistance to the movement of the cable with a set of weighted plates. Often, these weighted plates are arranged in a stack with an ability to selectively connect a subset of the weighted plates to an attachment of the cable. This can be done by inserting a removable pin within a plate slot of at least one of the weighted plates such that the pin is also inserted into an attachment slot of the cable. With this arrangement, when the user pulls the cable, the weighted plate will move with the cable. Also, any plates stacked over the moving plate will move with the cable as well. However, this type of cable exercise machine does not include a mechanism that assists the user in tracking the amount of calories burned during the workout”, making this modification obvious.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habing (PG Patent Publication No. US20130274075A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (U.S. Patent No. US11458350B2).
Regarding claim 13, Habing teaches the exercise system according to claim 10, including the exercise device including the first beam, the second beam, and the leg.
Habing fails to teach for each exercise device the first beam and/or the second beam is pivotable about an axis that is parallel to a or the longitudinal direction of the leg.
However, Yang, from the same field of endeavor, discloses in col. 4, lines 1-6, “FIGS. 1 to 3, the first sliding seat 22 includes a first sliding seat body 221 slidably sleeved on the adjustment tube 21, a pivoting member 222 connected to one side of the first sliding seat body 221, a pair of pulleys 223 pivotally connected to and disposed side by side in the pivoting member 222”. See FIGS. 14 and 15 below for how the pivoting member of Yang rotates about the adjustable tube 21 of Yang.
PNG
media_image7.png
731
623
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Yang
PNG
media_image8.png
744
531
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
737
504
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Yang
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified carriage of Habing to be pivotable about the identified first beam and identified second beam of Habing, like that seen in Yang above in FIGS. 14 and 15, in order to allow a user to properly perform various exercises.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habing (PG Patent Publication No. US20130274075A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peltonen (International Patent Publication No. WO2008000909A1).
Regarding claim 14, Habing teaches the exercise system according to claim 1, including the exercise device and the engagement element.
Habing fails to teach wherein each exercise device further comprising a sensor configured for sensing an amount of work performed by moving the engagement element.
However, Peltonen, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a sensor configured for sensing an amount of work performed by moving the engagement element (Peltonen, “Figure 4 shows a measuring device 34 according to the invention. The pin 16 includes a pin stress measuring instrument 52. In the sensor component 30, a strain gauge transducer 56 is used for measuring the mass. Acceleration, in turn, is measured with an acceleration sensor 50. The measurement of time is based in the solution according to the figure on the vibration frequency of a microcontroller 62 in which case separate time measuring means are not required. In other words, the frequency of the microcontroller is selected as suitable and the determination of time is based on this frequency. The microcontroller 62 itself is used for gathering the measuring data.. The measuring data is transferred from the microcontroller further to wireless data transfer equipment 58 using wired data transfer equipment 64. The data is delivered wirelessly to the control component 36, which accommodates computing devices and a user interface. The user interface is used with the control equipment 46 and data is read from the display 44… When the sensor component measures the mass as well, the work, consumed energy, and efficiency can be calculated without inputting the mass of the weight stack functioning as resistance”, pages 6-7).
PNG
media_image10.png
579
436
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
757
526
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Peltonen
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the pins of the selectable weight stacks of Habing seen in FIG. 8 above in claim 1, with the sensor component 30/pin of Peltonen to retrieve fitness data for a user. This modification is obvious as both Habing and Peltonen both apply a resistance to the movements of a user with cables, pulleys, and handles. Furthermore, Peltonen discloses on page 3, “The method enables thus a measuring device which is easily transferrable between weight stack units. The measuring device can thus be used in conjunction with several different weight stack units. In addition, the measuring device is suitable in connection with weight stack units of different manufacturers. Thus the measuring device is easily transportable and installable in connection with weight stack units of many manufacturers,” making this modification obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Habing, in view of Peltonen, teaches the exercise system according to claim 14. Peltonen teaches further comprising a display configured to display the amount of work (Peltonen, “The user interface is used with the control equipment 46 and data is read from the display 44”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 combination of all the limitations required by dependent claim 12, more specifically, the exercise system according to claim 10, wherein for each exercise device the first beam and/or the second beam is rotatable about an axis that is substantially perpendicular to a or the longitudinal direction of the leg and substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the respective beam.
The closest prior art of record, Habing (US20130274075A1), discloses the exercise system according to claim 10, including the first beam, the second beam, and the leg, but fails to disclose, wherein for each exercise device the first beam and/or the second beam is rotatable about an axis that is substantially perpendicular to a or the longitudinal direction of the leg and substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the respective beam.
There is no evidence from the prior art why someone skilled in the art would have anticipated the identified beams of Habing, seen in annotated FIG. 1 above, to be rotatable about an axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the guide rods of Habing and perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the respective beam without hindsight of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner relies on Habing (US20130274075A1) to teach independent claim 1. The corresponding dependent claims of independent claim 1 also remain rejected, see 112b and 103 rejections above
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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