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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/22/2023 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 10/12/2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Throughout the specification, “S-shaped beam 257” should read –S-shaped beam 251—.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 22 recites “a first loop formed by either a first strap or by at least one band, and being directly connected to the first arm; and a second loop formed by a second strap and being directly connected to the second arm;”. However, specification, on page 29, “The first arm 280 is disposed within the second loop in the strap 281, thereby connecting the load cell 256 to the carabiner 250. The second arm 284 is disposed within the first loop of the strap 282, thereby connecting the load cell 256 to the D-ring 252”. For examining purposes, the examiner is considering the first loop to be around the first arm, and the second loop to be around the second arm. The examiner suggests adjusting the specification to mirror the corresponding limitations in claim 22.
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 22-42 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 22 recites “a substantially S-shaped beam”. This claim is indefinite because it is unclear what is considered to be ‘substantially’ S-shaped. The examiner suggests removing “substantially” from the claim.
Claims 23-42 are also rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 30 recites “substantial relative movement”. This claim is indefinite because it is unclear what movement is considered ‘substantial’ and ‘relative’ movement. The examiner suggests removing “substantial relative” from the claim.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "an exercise system" in line 1, and “a force sensor” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 37 recites “near real-time basis”. This claim is indefinite because it is unclear what is considered ‘near’ real-time. The examiner suggests removing “near” from the claim.
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 22-28, 31-32, 36-37, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryce (International Patent Publication No. WO2019/241824A1), in view of Siu (PG Patent Publication No. US2018/0318631A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
766
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Bryce shows a force sensor (Bryce, portable load cell, paragraph 0007), comprising: a load cell (Bryce, load cell, paragraph 0007) comprising: a substantially S-shaped beam (Bryce, see annotated FIG. 1B above, “Figure 1B is a schematic side view of the portable load cell body of Figure 1 A with side covers 3 removed. The centre of the load cell body comprises a load cell 22 comprising a central cavity 21 defined by two opposing axial beams 25 and 26 and two opposing transverse surfaces 24 and 24'”, paragraph 0068) comprising a first arm and a second arm (Bryce, hook portion 27, 39, paragraph 0065); and at least one strain gauge (Bryce, at least one strain gauge sensor 23, paragraph 0068) mounted on the beam (Bryce, “At least one strain gauge sensor 23 is located on one of the transverse surfaces 24, 24’”, paragraph 0068); and a first computing device (Bryce, computing apparatus 140, paragraph 00106) communicatively coupled to the strain gauge (Bryce, “the load cell apparatus measures the force or load through the cable and wirelessly transmits this 131 to a computing apparatus 140”, paragraph 00106; As “a load cell located in the central portion and comprising at least one strain gauge sensor” (Bryce, paragraph 0007), the strain gauge is also communicatively coupled to the strain gauge as well.) and comprising a processor (Bryce, at least one processor 142, paragraph 00106) configured to determine a force acting on the force sensor based on an output of the strain gauge (Bryce, “The processor is configured to process the received force measurements from the load cell apparatus and display a force time curve 152 on a display 150, which may be integrated in the computing apparatus 140 or be external but operatively connected to the computing apparatus 140”, paragraph 00106).
Bryce also discloses “The load cell apparatus described herein is designed for measuring muscle weakness for medical, rehabilitation and sporting science applications. The apparatus may be placed in line between a support and an elastic resistance band (Theraband) to measure the magnitude of the total axial force as the patient pulls the elastic resistance band to perform an exercise (ie magnitude of total or unidirectional force applied or travelling through the apparatus)” (Bryce, paragraph 0067).
Bryce fails to show a first loop formed by either a first strap or by at least one band, and being directly connected to the first arm; and a second loop formed by a second strap and being directly connected to the second arm; the second strap configured to be coupled to an anchoring point.
PNG
media_image2.png
470
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Siu, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a first loop (Siu, the loop at the end of each exercise strap 104, paragraph 0078, see annotated FIG. 17 above; The loop at the end of the formed by either exercise strap 104 is considered to be the first loop) a first strap or by at least one band (Siu, exercise strap 104, paragraph 0078, see FIG. 17 above); and a second loop (Siu, a loop, paragraph 0057, see FIG. 17 above) formed by a second strap (Siu, main strap 102, paragraph 0057, see FIG. 17 above); and the second strap configured to be coupled to an anchoring point (Siu, “The anchor 226, which is attached to one end 210 of the main strap 102 (see FIG. 2), is used to secure the main strap 102 to a stationary object, such as a door”, paragraph 0059; the anchor 226 of Siu teaches the anchoring point of the claimed invention).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the support and the elastic resistance band of Bryce with the exercise strap and the main strap of Siu as Bryce generally describes the exercise bands that may be used to perform a variety of resistance exercises but fails to provide specific details regarding the exercise bands. Siu, however, provides those details, making this modification obvious. Furthermore, this modification is obvious as Bryce discloses the same need for the user to use the type of exercise band Siu teaches, “Clinicians, such as physiotherapists and occupational therapists are interested in assessing muscle weakness in patients and often prescribe exercises using resistance band or cord type devices such as cables to rebuild muscle strength. Typically the patient fixes one end of the elastic band to a fixed support and grasps a handle formed in, or connected to the other end of the resistance band and performs a set of exercises at the home, clinic or a gym. Traditionally Clinicians assess recovery at subsequent consultations. Ideally clinicians would also like to measure additional information such as the adherence of the patient to the exercise regime, and the actual force exerted by the patient during use, so that this can be tracked over an extended time period order to make an a more informed assessment of the patient’s recovery and to adjust treatment as required” (Bryce, paragraph 0003). Therefore, Bryce enhances the overall function of the exercise bands of Siu, making this modification further obvious.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to position the main strap of Siu where the support of Bryce is positioned, on one side of the portable load cell of Bryce, and the exercise strap of Siu where the elastic resistance band of Bryce is positioned, on the opposite side of the portable load cell of Bryce, in order for the portable load cell to properly retrieve data regarding the force exerted by the user while using the exercise apparatus.
Regarding claim 23, Bryce, in view of Siu, teaches the force sensor according to claim 22, wherein the first computing device is configured to communicate with a second computing device (Bryce, “a standard computing apparatus, such as smartphone, table computer, laptop, a desktop computer or in a customised apparatus or system (eg embedded or integrated computing apparatus). The computing apparatus may be a unitary computing or programmable apparatus, or a distributed apparatus comprising several components operatively (or functionally) connected via wired or wireless connections”, paragraph 00129; The first computing device is taught with ‘the table computer, laptop, or a desktop computer’ of Siu, and the second computing device is taught with the smartphone of Siu) which is configured to display information (Bryce, “displayed on another device such as a smart phone, tablet or other computing apparatus”, paragraph 0098).
PNG
media_image3.png
848
693
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Bryce, in view of Siu, teaches the force sensor according to claim 22, wherein: the beam of the load cell further comprises a first lip located at a freestanding end of the first arm (Bryce, “the ends of the attachment portions 39, 27 are sloped”, paragraph 0087, see FIG. 1B above), and a second lip located at a freestanding end of the second arm; the first lip is configured to retain the first strap or the at least one band on the first beam (Bryce, “the ends of the attachment portions 39, 27 are sloped”, paragraph 0087, see FIG. 1B above); and the second lip is configured to retain the second strap on the second beam (Bryce, “the ends of the attachment portions 39, 27 are sloped to act as a stop to prevent the clip arm from over extending through the clip opening on return from a deflected position”, paragraph 0087); in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the sloped ends circled above teach the second lip which will retain the second strap regardless of the clip).
PNG
media_image4.png
440
336
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
283
331
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
770
441
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Bryce, in view of Siu, teaches the force sensor according to claim 24, wherein: a distance between the first lip and a non-freestanding end of the first arm is about equal to a width of the first strap or to a width of the at least one band, respectively; and a distance between the second lip and a non- freestanding end of the second arm is about equal to a width of the second strap (Bryce and Siu teach the limitations of claim 25 as Bryce already discloses “The apparatus may be placed in line between a support and an elastic resistance band (Theraband) to measure the magnitude of the total axial force as the patient pulls the elastic resistance band to perform an exercise (ie magnitude of total or unidirectional force applied or travelling through the apparatus)” (Bryce, paragraph 0067) and the upper opening 1304 and the opening 1306 of the main buckle of Siu, seen in FIG. 13 above, are each shown to have a distance that are about equal to the widths of the the exercise strap and the main strap of Siu. Therefore, it would be obvious for the opposing end 8 and 11 of the load cell body 2 of Bryce, seen in FIG. 1B above, to have corresponding dimensions to that of corresponding bands/straps).
Regarding claim 26, Bryce, in view of Siu, teaches the force sensor according to claim 22, wherein: the first computing device comprises a memory (Bryce, at least one memory 144, paragraph 00106) having calibration data for the load cell stored therein (Bryce, “calibration of the apparatus can then be mapped to the force being applied by the user”, paragraph 0067, and “This means the load can be calibrated through calculations done in the firmware of the apparatus and the correct and accurate force readings will be displayed back to the user. One, two or four strain gauge sensors may be used for each Wheatstone Bridge circuit (ie quarter, half or full bridges)”, paragraph 0068); The calibration of the apparatus shows the calibration data of the claimed invention); and the processor is further configured to determine the force acting on the force sensor based on the output of the strain gauge and the calibration data (Bryce, “The load cell uses sensitive strain gauges 23 which translate the strain on the apparatus to a change in resistance of the gauge, which translates to a change in a voltage, which through calibration of the apparatus can then be mapped to the force being applied by the user”, paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 27, Bryce, in view of Siu, teaches the force sensor according to claim 22, wherein the at least one band is an inelastic band (Siu, “The extension apparatus are preferably made from stiff materials/components to reduce force attenuation/dampening and maximise the force transmitted/applied to the load cell. For example rather than pulling an elastic band (eg theraband) a stiff polymer webbed strap is used”, paragraph 00115).
PNG
media_image7.png
576
408
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
376
417
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, Bryce, in view of Siu, teaches the force sensor according to claim 22, wherein if the first strap is connected to the first arm, the at least one band is connected to the first strap (Siu, “Either embodiment described in connection with FIG. 22A/B or FIG. 23 may be used to connect the elastic inner member 2202 to a connector 2402 that is the similar or same as the connector 2106 that connects to the main buckle 106”, paragraph 0101, see FIG. 21 and 23 above).
PNG
media_image9.png
310
311
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31, Bryce, in view of Siu, teaches the force sensor according to claim 22, further comprising a sleeve (Siu, upper strap sleeve 1906, paragraph 0089) configured to receive overlapping portions of the at least one band, wherein the sleeve is fixed to only one of the overlapping portions of the at least one band (Siu, “The safety strap 1910 is also attached at an opposite end to the upper strap sleeve 1906. The safety strap 1910 is designed such that any failure by the buckle 1808 to hold either the upper strap 1804 or the lower strap 1806, which would otherwise result in the loss of a connection between these two straps, would be prevented”, paragraph 0090, and “The safety strap 1910 is also attached at an opposite end to the upper strap sleeve 1906. The safety strap 1910 is designed such that any failure by the buckle 1808 to hold either the upper strap 1804 or the lower strap 1806, which would otherwise result in the loss of a connection between these two straps, would be prevented… It should be appreciated, however, that the upper strap 1804, in particular upper strap 1804′, passes freely through the center of this separate loop of material 1912 and, accordingly, through the upper strap sleeve 1906, in either direction”, paragraph 0091, see FIG. 19B above; The upper strap sleeve 1906 is fixed to the upper strap, which is comparable to the at least one band, with the safety strap.).
Regarding claim 32, Bryce, in view of Siu, teaches the force sensor according to claim 22, wherein the at least one band is a first band; and the force sensor further comprises a second band (Siu, pair of exercise straps, paragraph 0085, FIG. 18; The pair of exercise straps teaches both the first band and the second band of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 36, Bryce, in view of Siu, teaches an exercise system, comprising: a force sensor according to claim 22; and a second computing device communicatively coupled to the first computing device (Bryce, “a standard computing apparatus, such as smartphone, table computer, laptop, a desktop computer or in a customised apparatus or system (eg embedded or integrated computing apparatus). The computing apparatus may be a unitary computing or programmable apparatus, or a distributed apparatus comprising several components operatively (or functionally) connected via wired or wireless connections”, paragraph 00129; The first computing device is taught with ‘the table computer, laptop, or a desktop computer’ of Siu, and the second computing device is taught with the smartphone of Siu) and configured to display information relating to an exercise session performed on the system by a user (Bryce, “displayed on another device such as a smart phone, tablet or other computing apparatus”, paragraph 0098).
Regarding claim 37, Bryce, in view of Siu, teaches the system of claim 36, wherein the second computing device is further configured to display, on a real-time or near real-time basis, the force acting on the force sensor (Bryce, “In one form, the communications interface may be a wireless communications interface, and the load cell measurements may be received from the load cell apparatus and displayed in real time or near real time”, paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 42, Bryce in view of Siu, teaches the system of claim 36, wherein the second computing device is a smartphone (Bryce, “a standard computing apparatus, such as smartphone, table computer, laptop, a desktop computer or in a customised apparatus or system (eg embedded or integrated computing apparatus). The computing apparatus may be a unitary computing or programmable apparatus, or a distributed apparatus comprising several components operatively (or functionally) connected via wired or wireless connections”, paragraph 00129; The second computing device is taught with the smartphone of Siu).
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryce (International Patent Publication No. WO2019/241824A1), in view of Siu (PG Patent Publication No. US2018/0318631A1), as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Li (PG Patent Publication No. US2020/0346062A1).
Regarding claim 33, Bryce, in view of Siu, teaches the force sensor according to claim 32, including the respective end portions of the first and second bands.
Bryce and Siu fail to teach the respective end portions the first and second bands overlap, are secured to each other, and define at least one loop.
PNG
media_image10.png
457
360
media_image10.png
Greyscale
However, Li, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the respective end portions the first and second bands overlap, are secured to each other, and define at least one loop (Li, “a fixing strap 7, the fixing strap 7 is arranged in a forky manner, and the top end of the fixing strap 7 is provided with a fixing hook 71, wherein the upper portion is sewn, the portion below a sewn part is forky to form two connecting straps 72”, paragraph 0054, see FIG. 4 above).
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 the exercise bands of Siu with the suspension training straps of Li such that the suspension training straps of Li are secured to the portable load cell of Bryce. This modification is obvious as Siu and Li provide exercise straps with the same overall function and set of components as one another.
PNG
media_image11.png
367
316
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, Bryce, in view of Siu and Li, teaches the force sensor according to claim 33, wherein said overlap is secured by stitching (Li, sewn part, paragraph 0054); and the stitching being comprised of at least two spaced apart stitch lines (Li, see annotated FIG. 1 above; It would be obvious to apply the stitching seen in FIG. 1 to the stitching seen in FIG. 1 to structurally reinforce the loop created by the stitching.).
PNG
media_image12.png
475
304
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 35, Bryce, in view of Siu and Li, teaches the force sensor according to claim 33, wherein the said second band is formed by folding the first band about itself and securing the overlap (Li, “a fixing strap 7, the fixing strap 7 is arranged in a forky manner, and the top end of the fixing strap 7 is provided with a fixing hook 71, wherein the upper portion is sewn, the portion below a sewn part is forky to form two connecting straps 72”, paragraph 0054, see FIG. 4 above).
Claims 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryce (International Patent Publication No. WO2019/241824A1), in view of Siu (PG Patent Publication No. US2018/0318631A1), as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Eder (PG Patent Publication No. US2021/0187352A1).
Regarding claim 38, Bryce, in view of Siu, teaches the system of claim 36, including the second computing device.
Bryce and Siu fail to teach the second computing device is further configured to calculate and display a percentage of an exercise session that has been completed by the user.
PNG
media_image13.png
602
529
media_image13.png
Greyscale
However, Eder, from the same field of endeavor, teaches “The second sensor 170 can therefore generate a signal at a first level when the entire weight stack is static based on the force of the entire weight stack applied to the second sensor 170. When any number of plates are lifted off the weight stack during an exercise, only the remaining portion of the weight stack applies force to the second sensor 170. The signal generated by the second senor 170 will therefor vary based on the weight of the plates that are lifted off the weight stack and can be used to ascertain the amount of weight used for a particular exercise. Additional example of load cell signaling is provided below in FIGS. 8-9”, paragraph 0031, “FIG. 19 depicts an example exercise apparatus 1900 having a resistance assembly 1910 operatively coupled to a flexible member 1920 and an interaction member 1901. This example exercise apparatus 1900 is configured as a leg extension machine. A sensor device 1960 is associated with the resistance assembly 1910 that is configured to generate data that indicates direction of travel, speed of travel, distance of travel, and amount of weight selected on the resistance assembly 1910. Other sensors may also be coupled to various structures of the exercise apparatus 1900. Information from the sensor(s) 1960 can be transmitted wirelessly to a controller 1930, which is shown as a component of a tablet computer mounted to a kiosk 1964. The example kiosk 1964 include a rechargeable battery pack 1963 for powering the tablet computer. A display 1938 can be used to convey exercise event data 1937, such as the number of reps completed, the number of sets completed, among other information”, paragraph 0055, and “Additionally, vertical travel between 0 and 12 inches can be correlated to the stroke, such that a percentage of stroke completion can be graphically conveyed to the user on the display 1938” (Eder, paragraph 0056, see FIG. 19 above). The percentage of stroke completion mirrors the percentage of an exercise session that has been completed by the user of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the force data collected by the portable load cell of Bryce to be used to determine and display a percentage of exercise completion taught by Eder as Eder also discloses the detection of force with load cell signaling and as well as the capability to determine a completion percentage. It is well known in the art to provide performance stats to the user to determine if a user is effectively performing a workout or exercise. It is also well known that in order to complete exercises a certain amount of force is required, therefore it would be obvious to determine a completion of an exercise based on the force, which is detected by both Bryce and Eder.
Claims 39-41 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryce (International Patent Publication No. WO2019/241824A1), in view of Siu (PG Patent Publication No. US2018/0318631A1), as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Hanoun (Canadian Patent Publication No. CA2587491A1).
Regarding claim 39, Bryce, in view of Siu, teaches the system of claim 36, including the second computing device and the at least one handle.
Brycef also discloses “For example in the context of measuring muscle weakness the indicator could indicate to the user that the load cell is approaching, reaching or exceeding the desired (target) force. This target force could be stored by the microprocessor, wirelessly transmitted to the apparatus (and stored by the microprocessor), or entered using the switch 4 (eg using a particular sequences of presses)” (Bryce, paragraph 0097).
Bryce and Siu fail to teach the second computing device is further configured to calculate target values for a force to be applied to the at least one handle by the user, based on the performance of the user during the exercise session or during a previous exercise session.
However, Hanoun, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the second computing device is further configured to calculate target values for a force to be applied to the at least one handle by the user, based on the performance of the user during the exercise session or during a previous exercise session (Hanoun, “In a further aspect, the present invention provides a method of providing interactive feedback to an exerciser including the following steps: calculating exercise intensity in response to measured user performance data; determining an exercise intensity indication based on a comparison between the calculated exercise intensity and a target exercise intensity stored in a user profile; and providing an indication to the user to increase, sustain, or decrease exercise intensity based on the exercise intensity indication”, page 13).
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 target values of Bryce to specifically be calculated based on the performance of the user, as taught by Hanoun as Bryce already discloses target values stored in the microprocessor. Bryce fails to disclose exactly how the target values are calculated or stored in the microprocessor. It is also well known in the art to have target values based on the performance of the user or past performances of the user, making this modification obvious.
Regarding claim 40, Bryce, in view of Siu, teaches the system of claim 36, including the second computing device.
Brycef also discloses “For example in the context of measuring muscle weakness the indicator could indicate to the user that the load cell is approaching, reaching or exceeding the desired (target) force. This target force could be stored by the microprocessor, wirelessly transmitted to the apparatus (and stored by the microprocessor), or entered using the switch 4 (eg using a particular sequences of presses)” (Bryce, paragraph 0097).
Bryce and Siu fail to teach the second computing device is further configured to calculate and display target values for a rate and a number of repetitive applications of a force to be applied to the at least one handle by the user, and to display an actual rate and an actual number of repetitive applications of the force applied by the user to the at least one handle.
However, Hanoun teaches the second computing device is further configured to calculate and display target values for a rate and a number of repetitive applications of a force to be applied to the at least one handle by the user, and to display an actual rate and an actual number of repetitive applications of the force applied by the user to the at least one handle (Hanoun, “A display portion of the system allows the user to log in using a PIN, providing exercise execution information such as seat and weight settings, target sets and reps, and rep counts. While such known approaches provide computer-based solutions for fitness training, those solutions are essentially electronic versions of a performance card on which measured repetition and set data is stored and possibly compared to a target value. The feedback provided is minimal, and only provides information relating to targets for sets and repetitions, not in terms of overall health targets”, page 7, and “The body summary is also provided as a percentage of the target human performance as well as with a zone indication, such as a colour”, page 52).
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 target values of Bryce to be dependent on the repetitions of the user, as taught by Hanoun. Bryce fails to disclose exactly how the target values are calculated or stored in the microprocessor. It is also well known in the art to have target values be dependent on the repetitions for a user to complete.
Regarding claim 41, Bryce, in view of Siu, teaches the system of claim 36, including the second computing device.
Brycef also discloses “For example in the context of measuring muscle weakness the indicator could indicate to the user that the load cell is approaching, reaching or exceeding the desired (target) force. This target force could be stored by the microprocessor, wirelessly transmitted to the apparatus (and stored by the microprocessor), or entered using the switch 4 (eg using a particular sequences of presses)” (Bryce, paragraph 0097).
Bryce and Siu fail to teach the second computing device is further configured to recommend to a user a difficulty level of an exercise session based on performance of the user during one or more prior exercise sessions.
However, Hanoun teaches the second computing device is further configured to recommend to a user a difficulty level of an exercise session based on performance of the user during one or more prior exercise sessions (Hanoun, “trainer is given an opportunity to customize the message prior to sending to the user, and to include recommendations based on the observed performance as well as the personal trainer's knowledge of that user and the user's history”, page 63, and “These are the specific flag descriptions and recommendations as created by the system of the present invention”, page 65).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable load cell of Bryce to specifically include recommended difficulty levels, as taught by Hanoun, as Bryce already discloses stored target forces. It is well known in the art to include recommendations based on a user’s performance and goals. Furthermore, Bryce and Hanoun disclose the same overall purpose as Bryce discloses “Traditionally Clinicians assess recovery at subsequent consultations. Ideally clinicians would also like to measure additional information such as the adherence of the patient to the exercise regime, and the actual force exerted by the patient during use, so that this can be tracked over an extended time period order to make an a more informed assessment of the patient’s recovery and to adjust treatment as required” (Bryce, paragraph 0003). Therefore, this modification is obvious as the recommendations provided by Hanoun aid this purpose.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 29-30 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 limitations requited by dependent claim 29, more specifically, the force sensor according to claim 22, further comprising a buckle configured to connect at least one handle to the at least one band; and a restraint, wherein the restraint comprises: a first sleeve configured to receive overlapping portions of the at least one band; a second sleeve configured to receive a portion of a strap of the at least one handle; and a tether connected to the first and second sleeve and configured to straddle the buckle.
Claim 30 is also considered allowable subject matter due to its dependency.
The closest prior art of record, Bryce (WO2019/241824A1), discloses the force sensor according to claim 22, but fails to disclose, a buckle configured to connect at least one handle to the at least one band; and a restraint, wherein the restraint comprises: a first sleeve configured to receive overlapping portions of the at least one band; a second sleeve configured to receive a portion of a strap of the at least one handle; and a tether connected to the first and second sleeve and configured to straddle the buckle.
The next closest prior art of record, Siu (US2018/0318631A1), discloses a buckle configured to connect at least one handle to the at least one band; and a restraint, wherein the restraint comprises: a first sleeve configured to receive overlapping portions of the at least one band; a second sleeve configured to receive a portion of a strap of the at least one handle; and a tether, but fails to disclose, the tether being connected to the first and second sleeve and configured to straddle the buckle.
There is no evidence from the prior art why someone skilled in the art would have anticipated the tether being attached to both the first and second sleeve while also having the tether straddling the buckle. Siu teaches a tether with the safety strap 1910. However, the safety strap, seen in FIG. 19B below, attaches to only one tab/sleeve. It would not be obvious for a tether to connect the tab/sleeves of Siu that correspond to the first sleeve and the second sleeve of the claimed invention, seen in FIG. 18 below.
PNG
media_image9.png
310
311
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
501
406
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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 on 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
/SUNDHARA M GANESAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights