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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-16 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the module of Smith to take into account the losses/error resulting from the polygon effect taught by Liu Duxi. However, MPEP § 2143 teaches that it is insufficient to simply state that the references could be combined; there must be some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Since Smith teaches a rowing machine that includes a pulley machine with a smooth, cylindrical spool/drum and Liu Duxi teaches error sources associated with the polygon effect in tooth-belt timing systems, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for why a person of ordinary skill would modify a rowing machine to correct a polygon effect error that does not exist in its mechanism. Thus, it would not have been obvious to combine Smith with Liu Duxi.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than their specific disclosures. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969). The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In an obviousness analysis we are concerned with the general problem that confronted the inventor. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In this case, the problem to be solved by the present invention may therefore be regarded as to accurately determine the power exerted by a user pulling on the handle of the training device. Applicant does not argue, or direct us to anything in the record showing, that the problem of mechanical losses due to the polygon effect is unique to rowing machines. The Federal Circuit has recognized that an inventor considering a hinge and latch mechanism for portable computers would naturally look to references employing other "housings, hinges, latches, springs, etc." See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1481-82 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
A person of ordinary skill in the art of dealing with force transmission is aware of the many factors that affect the accuracy of chains or timing belt transmissions, among which the polygon effect (or chordal action) is the main source of errors due to mechanical loss in chains or timing belt transmissions. Smith discloses the use of a sprocket as a force transmission device and also contemplates the implementation of sensors to provide input to the controller or to provide rowing performance data to the server or to the rower or both. One or ordinary skill in the art would seeking to reduce the polygon effect which creates a mechanical loss in chains or timing belt transmissions of rowing machines and would consider a reference such as Liu Duxi et al to factor in effects of chordal action to improve the accuracy of the sensed force transmission, thereby arriving at the claimed subject matter.
Applicant further argues:
The Examiner takes Official Notice that "an electronic device with a physical on/off switch or wherein the controller is configured to enter a sleep mode when a predetermined amount of time has elapsed is well known within the art to save energy," in connection with the obviousness rejection of claims 9 and 10. Applicant hereby traverses this Official Notice.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to at least US Patent 11,717,738 which establishes that is common knowledge that rowing machines are known to comprise electronic components which “may be placed in a minimum-power idle or off state to minimize overall power consumption and maximize the amount of time that the unit will operate before the battery must be recharged or replaced. Electronics in the remote control may thus operate in a “minimal-power” mode during periods of inactivity, with only the required resources to enable interrogation of the accelerometer to know when the unit is moving. If the unit remains stationary for a certain period of time, the electronics may assume that it is not in use and place the unit into an off or low power mode. Conversely, if the unit begins moving after a period of inactivity, the electronics may power the unit on or place it in a ready active state, designated as “full-function” mode” (Col 3, Line 59 - Col 4, Line 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0351283) in view of Liu Duxi et al (“Long-Range automatic precision displacement measuring of winding system using double timing belt transmission”).
1-3. Smith et al disclose a motion detection module suitable for detecting motion of a retractable handle or grip (301) at a distal end of a flexible power transfer (302), wherein the flexible power transfer runs over a rotating body, wherein the rotating body comprises a circumference comprising one or more segments of a polygon (Par. 0176: “the handle is connected by a cable to a spool or sprocket that turns on an axle with resistance provided by the resistance engine”).
Smith et al also disclose that “the rowing machine has at least one sensor to measure the angular velocity of one or more of the disk eddy current brake, flywheel, and motor-generator. A temperature sensor can be included to track the temperature of at least one of the eddy current brake disk and the motor-generator. In some cases, the rowing machine can have other sensors to provide input to the controller or to provide rowing performance data to the server or to the rower or both. The types of sensors include load cells, Hall effect sensors, optical sensors, and electrodes. Other types of sensors useful for measuring force, deformation, weight, position, speed, and other physical and human performance parameters can also be used. One or more sensors can be located on the rail or the seat to measure seat travel direction, speed, acceleration and rower weight. One or more sensors can be located on the handle to measure applied force, position, speed, acceleration, heart rate, or travel direction. One or more sensors can be located on the footrest to measure the contribution of the legs to the power stroke” (Par. 0173).
However, Smith et al do not explicitly disclose that the motion detection module is configured for capturing the motion of the flexible power transfer by sensing the polygon effect.
Liu Duxi et al disclose that there are many factors with regards to force transmission that affect the accuracy of chains or timing belt transmissions, among which the polygon effect (or chordal action) is the main source of errors (item 2.2.1). As advanced above, Smith et al contemplate the implementation of a motion detection module for a rowing machine (Par. 0044: “sensors to measure a variety of parameters associated with the machine, shell, or rower and sensor electronics to drive the sensors” and Par. 0173 cited above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the module of Smith et al to take into account the losses/error resulting from the polygon effect as taught by Liu Duxi et al such that the accuracy of the sensed force transmission can be more precise.
5. Smith et al disclose the motion detection module according to claim 3 wherein the force sensor is mounted in a handle or a grip of a fitness device (Par. 0173: “one or more sensors can be located on the handle to measure applied force, position, speed, acceleration, heart rate, or travel direction”), such as a rowing machine.
6. Smith et al disclose the motion detection module according to claim 5, wherein the force sensor is mounted between the handle or grip and the flexible power transfer, such as a cable or chain (302; Par. 0179: “We use the term “cable” broadly to include, for example, any entity for transmitting tensile force from the handle to the resistance engine. The cable can be a cable, such as a braided steel cable. The cable can be a rope, a cord, a belt, a toothed belt, a v-belt, or webbing, or combinations of them. The cable can also be a chain with links. The cable must be able to deform less than 5% under a tensile load of 1000 N. The cable should be essentially unable to transmit compressive force. The cable should be able to wrap around wheels (such as pulley wheels, or sprockets in case the cable is a chain) to change the direction of the transmitted force”), wherein the flexible power transfer is configured to be retractably connected to a base of a rowing machine at its proximal end (Fig 11).
8. Smith et al disclose the motion detection module according to claim 1, wherein the module is equipped with a wireless transmission (304) to a computer or mobile device (103).
9-10. Smith et al disclose the motion detection module significantly as claimed, but do not disclose wherein the module is equipped with an electronic on switch to power its signal processor or wherein the module is equipped with an automatic off switch, configured to switch off when e.g. over a prolonged time, no force is detected. Examiner takes Official Notice that is well-understood, routine, conventional activity engaged in by those in the relevant art, in that the additional elements are widely prevalent or in common use in the art to provide an electronic device with a physical on/off switch or wherein the controller is configured to enter a sleep mode when a predetermined amount of time has elapsed is well known within the art to save energy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the exercise machine of Smith et al to include an on/off switch or a wake/sleep function thereon as these are one of a number ways known in the art to power on or power of an electronic device. Such a modification is merely a design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art and would produce expected and predictable results.
Note: Applicant may challenge the examiner's position of Official notice, specifically stating that such elements are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity by amending the claim, e.g., to add additional elements or modify existing elements, present persuasive arguments based on a good faith belief as to why the rejection is in error and/or submit evidence traversing the rejection. If Applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the examiner’s common knowledge or well-known in the art statement will be taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice.
11. Smith et al disclose the motion detection module according to claim 1, wherein the signal processor can be configured to perform various other functions, such as a gaming console, radio or television operation (Par. 0194-0198).
12. Smith et al disclose a handle or grip (301) comprising a motion detection module according to claim 1.
13. Smith et al disclose a method of deducing the distance of travel of a flexible power transfer of a fitness device, such as a rowing machine during its use, comprising the following steps, to be executed in any suitable order:
a) providing a fitness device, such as a rowing machine (Fig 11), equipped with a retractable handle or grip (301) at a distal end of a flexible power transfer (302), wherein the flexible power transfer runs over a rotating body (116), wherein the rotating body comprises a circumference comprising one or more segments of a polygon (Par. 0176: “the handle is connected by a cable to a spool or sprocket that turns on an axle with resistance provided by the resistance engine”);
b) motion detection module according to claim 1 (see claim 1above); and
c) using the fitness device, such as a rowing machine (Fig 11).
Smith et al also disclose that “the rowing machine has at least one sensor to measure the angular velocity of one or more of the disk eddy current brake, flywheel, and motor-generator. A temperature sensor can be included to track the temperature of at least one of the eddy current brake disk and the motor-generator. In some cases, the rowing machine can have other sensors to provide input to the controller or to provide rowing performance data to the server or to the rower or both. The types of sensors include load cells, Hall effect sensors, optical sensors, and electrodes. Other types of sensors useful for measuring force, deformation, weight, position, speed, and other physical and human performance parameters can also be used. One or more sensors can be located on the rail or the seat to measure seat travel direction, speed, acceleration and rower weight. One or more sensors can be located on the handle to measure applied force, position, speed, acceleration, heart rate, or travel direction. One or more sensors can be located on the footrest to measure the contribution of the legs to the power stroke” (Par. 0173).
However, Smith et al do not explicitly disclose that the motion detection module is configured for capturing the motion of the flexible power transfer by sensing the polygon effect by counting the number of phases in a signal comprising variations due to the calculating the distance of travel of flexible power transfer by multiplying the counted number of phases in the signal with the length of the segments of the polygon of the rotating body.
Liu Duxi et al disclose that there are many factors with regards to force transmission that affect the accuracy of chains or timing belt transmissions, among which the polygon effect (or chordal action) is the main source of errors (item 2.2.1). As advanced above, Smith et al contemplate the implementation of a motion detection module for a rowing machine (Par. 0044: “sensors to measure a variety of parameters associated with the machine, shell, or rower and sensor electronics to drive the sensors” and Par. 0173 cited above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the module of Smith et al to take into account the losses/error resulting from the polygon effect as taught by Liu Duxi et al such that the accuracy of the sensed force transmission can be more precise.
14. Smith et al the method according to claim 13, wherein the motion detection module comprises a force sensor (Par. 0173).
16. Smith et al disclose the method according to wherein the signals of the sensor can be calculated and processed within the hard- and/or software of the signal processor of the motion detection module, and the obtained data about the amount of work or energy exerted by a user can be transmitted to a centralised or distributed application for competition rowing, either real time or in a specific time delay period independent of the location of the users (Par. 0194-0198; Figs 7-10).
Claims 4, 17, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Liu Duxi et al as applied to Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-14, and 16 above, and further in view of Ghaffari et al (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0095670).
4, 7, and 15. Smith in view of Liu Duxi et al disclose the motion detection module significantly as claimed including processors which “can provide features, functions, and any other kind of services through a communication network to one or more rowing machines” (Par. 047), but do not explicitly disclose wherein the signal processor is configured to deduce the amount of force exerted by a user from the first relative low frequency repetitive force signal, and the signal processor is further configured to deduce the travel of the handle from the second relative high frequency repetitive force signal.
Ghaffari et al disclose a similar therapeutic device and system having a sensor and a signal processor which uses a band pass filter associated with the sensor to derive different categories of sensed information (Par. 0070-0071) such that the differentiated signal my be processed by the signal processor. As it is the goal of Smith et al to process force signals, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Smith et al to include the signal processor/ filter as taught by Ghaffari et al to differentiate signals detected by a sensor to derive different categories of sensed information.
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 JOSHUA T KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)272-8297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7a-4:30p MST.
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.
/JOSHUA T KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784 7/24/2026
Prosecution Insights