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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/19/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/22/2025.
Claims 2, 4, and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 5-19, and 21-23 are currently pending and considered below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deola (US Pat. 4,784,384) further in view of Ward et al. (US Pat. 11,207,564), further in view of Elsom-Cook et al. (US 2012/0058859), and further in view of Bird (US 8,968,155).
Regarding independent claim 1, Deola teaches an exercise machine (Fig. 1), comprising:
a frame (32, 34, 36, 100);
a resistance mechanism (22) supported by the frame;
a pull cable (formed by selective connection of cable segments 186, 188, and/or 192) supported by the frame and linked to the resistance mechanism (see Fig. 3); and
a power rack attached to the frame, the power rack comprising:
a first upright post (28);
a second upright post (30), the first upright post and the second upright post configured to support a barbell (104, see Figs. 1 and 3);
a handle (bar 120) selectively attachable to the pull cable (via connection point 126);
an upper pulley (48), the pull cable routable through the upper pulley to connect to the barbell from above the barbell (the Office notes the pull cable formed by selective connection of cable segments 186, 188, and/or 192 is capable of connecting to the barbell 104 at cable hooking mechanism 106 by simply rotating the barbell and the cable hooking mechanism to point upwards instead of downwards, and by selectively attaching any of 186, 188, and 192 to the cable hooking mechanism from above instead of below the barbell, similar to how segment 192 connects to bar 120 as illustrated in Fig. 4); and
a lower pulley (90), the pull cable routable through the lower pulley to connect to the barbell from below the barbell (see Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
611
874
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Deola does not teach a console configured to control a level of resistance applied to the pull cable by the resistance mechanism according to a live or pre-recorded workout session.
Ward et al. teaches an exercise machine comprising a frame (mechanical support system 204), a resistance mechanism (motor 402A) supported by the frame and a pull cable (cord 406A) supported by the frame and linked to the resistance mechanism (col. 6 lines 27-29, “The force resistant reel assembly can include a motor 402A connected to a reel 404A for winding a cord 406A”), and further teaches a console (display 102 or 202) configured to control a level of resistance applied to the pull cable by the resistance mechanism (via system 800) according to a live or pre-recorded workout session (col. 4 lines 19-25, “The display can present information related to a user, including exercise machine usage information, training videos, current or historical exercise related data, interactive simulated or live person video for training or encouragement, entertainment videos, social network related information or communications, or advertisements” and col. 8 lines 41-47, “system 800 in conjunction with a workout script that allows for individualized exercise routines that can be dynamically modified. A workout script 802 is provided. Based on sensor and other data collected 804, along with script-based data analysis 806, live feedback or adjustments to force profiles or exercise routine parameters (step 808) can be made”).
PNG
media_image3.png
500
505
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
481
462
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the resistance mechanism of Deola to be a motor linked to the pull cable, as is similarly taught by Ward et al., as a matter of simple substitution of one known means of providing resistance to the pull cable for another known means of providing resistance to the pull cable, and to further modify the exercise machine of Deola to include a console configured to control a level of resistance applied to the pull cable by the motor according to a live or pre-recorded workout session, as is similarly taught by Ward et al., for the purpose of allowing dynamic force control of the cable to improve training during complex exercise routines (Ward et al. col. 6 lines 49-54, “force control can be modified using scripted control inputs or dynamic force adjustments based on three-dimensional user position and/or kinematic user motion models. This allows for fine control of force applied during complex exercise routines, for improved training or high intensity weightlifting”).
Deola as modified by Ward et al. does not teach a bottom-out mechanism comprising: a sensor configured to trigger based at least in part on an extension of the pull cable and one or more brakes configured, in response to the sensor triggering, to engage the pull cable.
Elsom-Cook, in the same field of endeavor with regards to bottom-out mechanisms for exercise machines, teaches an exercise machine (Fig. 1) comprising a pull cable (30 connected to barbell 16) and a bottom-out mechanism comprising a sensor configured to trigger based at least in part on an extension of the pull cable (position/speed sensor 54, cable tension sensor 56) and one or more brakes configured, in response to the sensor triggering, to engage the pull cable (par. [0042], “The position and speed of the barbell 16 are evaluated and if they are outside the accepted tolerances and decision is made as to whether the brake 42 and/or motor 26 should be engaged” and par. [0043], “If processor control 52 determines the speed is above an acceptable limit, the processor control sends a signal to the brake control 60, which engages the brake 42”).
PNG
media_image5.png
590
426
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
394
589
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exercise machine of Deola in view of Ward et al. to further include a bottom-out mechanism comprising a sensor and one or more brakes, as is similarly taught by Elsom-Cook, for the purpose of providing additional safety features to the exercise machine should a user be unable to complete an exercise and to prevent the pull cable from extending beyond an acceptable tolerance (see Elsom-Cook par. [0042], [0043], [0088]).
Deola as modified by Ward et al. and Elsom-Cook does not teach the bottom-out mechanism comprising: an alarm configured, in response to the sensor triggering, to alert a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended.
Bird teaches an exercise machine (100) comprising a mechanism for alerting a user when a full stroke/excursion of a cable has been achieved in response to a sensor (i.e., full stroke indicator, position of cable sensed by potentiometer 115) triggering (col. 14 line 63 – col. 15 line 7, “The host computing device 106 includes a full stroke indicator that is programmable to indicate, visually and/or numerically, cable position in real-time to the user. In some cases, the stroke indicator provides approximately a 1/4 inch cable 108 position resolution and encompasses the full cable stroke/excursion. In some embodiments, the user can program the desired stroke length for a given resistance training movement or exercise, and the stroke indicator may be calibrated to indicate cable position relative to the desired stroke length. Stroke endpoint indication can also be signaled by sound from the controller 104 and/or host computing device 106, such as via a beep” and col. 15 lines 8-13, “The potentiometer 115 (an example of a cable position sensing device) senses cable position and/or optional cable velocity and via controller 104, can signal to the controller 104 to reduce resistance when, for example, the cable velocity exceeds a retraction speed threshold, or the cable 108 goes below a set or pre-programmed stroke start or end point.”). The Office notes the alert provided by Bird achieves the claimed function of alerting a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended, as the alert indicates when a full stroke of the cable has been achieved.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bottom-out mechanism of Deola in view of Elsom-Cook to further include an alarm configured, in response to the sensor triggering, to alert a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended, as is similarly taught by Bird, for the purpose of preventing damage to the exercise machine caused by a user attempting to extend the pull cable beyond its stroke limit.
Regarding claim 5, Deola as modified further teaches wherein the pull cable is configured to increase a perceived weight of the barbell (via force adjustment from motor 402A as modified by Ward et al.) when routed through the lower pulley (via attachment with the barbell from below, pull cable will be routed through the lower pulley; see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Deola as modified further teaches wherein the upper pulley (48) and the lower pulley (90) are located on a same of the first upright post and the second upright post (upper pulley 48 connected to first upright post 28 via upper right corner structure unit 38, and lower pulley 90 connected to first upright post 28 via lower right corner structural unit 84).
Regarding claim 7, Deola as modified further teaches wherein the pull cable (186, 188, and/or 192) is a first pull cable, the upper pulley (48) is a first upper pulley, and the lower pulley (90) is a first lower pulley, and further comprising a second pull cable (formed by selective connection of cable segments 194, 196, and/or 200), and wherein the power rack further comprises:
a second upper pulley (58) located on an opposite side of the power rack from the first upper pulley, the second pull cable routable through the second upper pulley (see Figs. 3-4); and
a second lower pulley (76) located on the opposite side of the power rack from the first lower pulley, the second pull cable routable through the second lower pulley (see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 8, Deola as modified further teaches wherein the resistance mechanism (motor 402A as modified by Ward et al.) is configured to resist extension of the pull cable (as a user pulls on 186, 188, and/or 192, motor 402A as modified by Ward et al. resists extension of the pull cable away from pulley 48 and/or 90).
Regarding claim 9, Deola as modified further teaches wherein the resistance mechanism (motor 402A as modified by Ward et al.) is configured to apply a retraction force on the pull cable (as a user pulls on 186, 188, and/or 192, motor 402A as modified by Ward et al. applies a retraction force on the pull cable towards and over pulley 48 and/or pulley 90).
Regarding independent claim 10, Deola discloses an exercise machine (Fig. 1), comprising:
a frame (32, 34, 36, 100);
a resistance mechanism (22) supported by the frame;
a pull cable (formed by selective connection of cable segments 186, 188, and/or 192) supported by the frame and linked to the resistance mechanism (see Fig. 3); and
a power rack attached to the frame, the power rack comprising:
a first upright post (28);
a second upright post (30), the first upright post and the second upright post configured to support a barbell (104, see Figs. 1 and 3);
a handle (bar 120) selectively attachable to the pull cable (via connection point 126); and
a plurality of pulleys (44, 48, 62, 90), the pull cable routable through the plurality of pulleys to connect to the barbell (see Fig. 3).
Deola does not teach a console configured to control a level of resistance applied to the pull cable by the resistance mechanism according to a live or pre-recorded workout session.
Ward et al. teaches an exercise machine comprising a frame (mechanical support system 204), a resistance mechanism (motor 402A) supported by the frame and a pull cable (cord 406A) supported by the frame and linked to the resistance mechanism (col. 6 lines 27-29, “The force resistant reel assembly can include a motor 402A connected to a reel 404A for winding a cord 406A”), and further teaches a console (display 102 or 202) configured to control a level of resistance applied to the pull cable by the resistance mechanism (via system 800) according to a live or pre-recorded workout session (col. 4 lines 19-25, “The display can present information related to a user, including exercise machine usage information, training videos, current or historical exercise related data, interactive simulated or live person video for training or encouragement, entertainment videos, social network related information or communications, or advertisements” and col. 8 lines 41-47, “system 800 in conjunction with a workout script that allows for individualized exercise routines that can be dynamically modified. A workout script 802 is provided. Based on sensor and other data collected 804, along with script-based data analysis 806, live feedback or adjustments to force profiles or exercise routine parameters (step 808) can be made”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the resistance mechanism of Deola to be a motor linked to the pull cable, as is similarly taught by Ward et al., as a matter of simple substitution of one known means of providing resistance to the pull cable for another known means of providing resistance to the pull cable, and to further modify the exercise machine of Deola to include a console configured to control a level of resistance applied to the pull cable by the motor according to a live or pre-recorded workout session, as is similarly taught by Ward et al., for the purpose of allowing dynamic force control of the cable to improve training during complex exercise routines (Ward et al. col. 6 lines 49-54, “force control can be modified using scripted control inputs or dynamic force adjustments based on three-dimensional user position and/or kinematic user motion models. This allows for fine control of force applied during complex exercise routines, for improved training or high intensity weightlifting”).
Deola as modified by Ward et al. does not teach a bottom-out mechanism comprising: a sensor configured to trigger based at least in part on an extension of the pull cable and one or more brakes configured, in response to the sensor triggering, to engage the pull cable.
Elsom-Cook, in the same field of endeavor with regards to bottom-out mechanisms for exercise machines, teaches an exercise machine (Fig. 1) comprising a pull cable (30 connected to barbell 16) and a bottom-out mechanism comprising a sensor configured to trigger based at least in part on an extension of the pull cable (position/speed sensor 54, cable tension sensor 56) and one or more brakes configured, in response to the sensor triggering, to engage the pull cable (par. [0042], “The position and speed of the barbell 16 are evaluated and if they are outside the accepted tolerances and decision is made as to whether the brake 42 and/or motor 26 should be engaged” and par. [0043], “If processor control 52 determines the speed is above an acceptable limit, the processor control sends a signal to the brake control 60, which engages the brake 42”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exercise machine of Deola in view of Ward et al. to further include a bottom-out mechanism comprising a sensor and one or more brakes, as is similarly taught by Elsom-Cook, for the purpose of providing additional safety features to the exercise machine should a user be unable to complete an exercise and to prevent the pull cable from extending beyond an acceptable tolerance (see Elsom-Cook par. [0042], [0043], [0088]).
Deola as modified by Ward et al. and Elsom-Cook does not teach the bottom-out mechanism comprising: an alarm configured, in response to the sensor triggering, to alert a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended.
Bird teaches an exercise machine (100) comprising a mechanism for alerting a user when a full stroke/excursion of a cable has been achieved in response to a sensor (i.e., full stroke indicator, position of cable sensed by potentiometer 115) triggering (col. 14 line 63 – col. 15 line 7, “The host computing device 106 includes a full stroke indicator that is programmable to indicate, visually and/or numerically, cable position in real-time to the user. In some cases, the stroke indicator provides approximately a 1/4 inch cable 108 position resolution and encompasses the full cable stroke/excursion. In some embodiments, the user can program the desired stroke length for a given resistance training movement or exercise, and the stroke indicator may be calibrated to indicate cable position relative to the desired stroke length. Stroke endpoint indication can also be signaled by sound from the controller 104 and/or host computing device 106, such as via a beep” and col. 15 lines 8-13, “The potentiometer 115 (an example of a cable position sensing device) senses cable position and/or optional cable velocity and via controller 104, can signal to the controller 104 to reduce resistance when, for example, the cable velocity exceeds a retraction speed threshold, or the cable 108 goes below a set or pre-programmed stroke start or end point.”). The Office notes the alert provided by Bird achieves the claimed function of alerting a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended, as the alert indicates when a full stroke of the cable has been achieved.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bottom-out mechanism of Deola in view of Elsom-Cook to further include an alarm configured, in response to the sensor triggering, to alert a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended, as is similarly taught by Bird, for the purpose of preventing damage to the exercise machine caused by a user attempting to extend the pull cable beyond its stroke limit.
Regarding claim 12, Deola as modified by Ward et al. further teaches wherein the pull cable (186, 188, and/or 192) is configured to hinder a user in lifting the barbell (via force adjustment from motor 402A as modified by Ward et al. when the pull cable is attached to the barbell from below the barbell).
Regarding claim 14, Deola as modified by Ward et al. further teaches wherein the resistance mechanism comprises a motor (motor 402A as modified by Ward et al.) to retract the pull cable (Ward et al. col. 6 lines 27-29).
Claims 3, 11, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deola (US Pat. 4,784,384) in view of Ward et al. (US Pat. 11,207,564), in view of Elsom-Cook et al. (US 2012/0058859), in view of Bird (US 8,968,155), and further in view of Pearson (US Pat. 4,836,535).
Regarding claim 3, Deola as modified does not teach wherein the pull cable is configured to reduce a perceived weight of the barbell when routed through the upper pulley.
Pearson, in the same field of endeavor with regards to pull cables configured to connect to a barbell, teaches connecting a pull cable (endless chain 102) to a barbell (30) from above so as to selectively connect a resistance mechanism (weight stack members 108) to the barbell (col. 6 lines 48-53, “As the weight bar assembly is moved upwardly or downwardly, the chain 102 will thus rotate about the upper and lower sprockets. The weight stack members will be optionally coupled to the apparatus through the pins 117 (FIG. 4), so that weight stack members may be employed or omitted altogether”), wherein the pull cable reduces a perceived weight of the barbell (col. 7 lines 4-12, “for ease of use and convenience and purposes of safety, approximately 3 of the nested weight block members such as members 160 (FIG. 9) can be operationally associated with the chain 102 previously described so as to counter balance the mass of the weight bar assembly 30. This counter balance phenomena can be important, for example, when the weight bar assembly is "unloaded" by the removal of free weights 40.”; where counter balancing reduces the perceived weight of the barbell).
PNG
media_image7.png
339
391
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the use of the pull cable in Deola to include selectively providing a counter balance effect on the barbell using the resistance mechanism by connecting the pull cable to the barbell from above, by routing the pull cable through the upper pulley, thereby reducing the perceived weight of the barbell, as is similarly taught by Pearson, for the purpose of increasing the “ease of use and convenience and purposes of safety” (Pearson col. 7 lines 4-5) when a user is performing exercises with the exercise machine. The Office notes that any amount of resistance provided by the resistance mechanism through attachment with the barbell from above will reduce the perceived weight of the barbell at a point during an exercise by providing a counter balancing effect. For example, if user performs an exercise that involves pulling or pushing the barbell in a downward direction while the pull cable is attached from above, a resistance force will be provided when the user is pulling or pushing the barbell downward and an assisting force will be provided as the user moves the barbell back to its resting position, where the assisting force will reduce the perceived weight of the barbell.
Regarding claim 11, Deola does not teach wherein the pull cable is configured to support a user in lifting the barbell.
Pearson, in the same field of endeavor with regards to pull cables configured to connect to a barbell, teaches connecting a pull cable (endless chain 102) to a barbell (30) from above so as to selectively connect a resistance mechanism (weight stack members 108) to the barbell (col. 6 lines 48-53, “As the weight bar assembly is moved upwardly or downwardly, the chain 102 will thus rotate about the upper and lower sprockets. The weight stack members will be optionally coupled to the apparatus through the pins 117 (FIG. 4), so that weight stack members may be employed or omitted altogether”), wherein the pull cable supports a user in lifting the barbell by reducing a perceived weight of the barbell (col. 7 lines 4-12, “for ease of use and convenience and purposes of safety, approximately 3 of the nested weight block members such as members 160 (FIG. 9) can be operationally associated with the chain 102 previously described so as to counter balance the mass of the weight bar assembly 30. This counter balance phenomena can be important, for example, when the weight bar assembly is "unloaded" by the removal of free weights 40.”; where counter balancing reduces the perceived weight of the barbell, thereby making lifting the barbell easier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the use of the pull cable in Deola to include selectively providing a counter balance effect on the barbell using the resistance mechanism by connecting the pull cable to the barbell from above, thereby reducing the perceived weight of the barbell and supporting a user in lifting the barbell, as is similarly taught by Pearson, for the purpose of increasing the “ease of use and convenience and purposes of safety” (Pearson col. 7 lines 4-5) when a user is performing exercises with the exercise machine. The Office notes that any amount of resistance provided by the resistance mechanism through attachment with the barbell from above will reduce the perceived weight of the barbell at a point during an exercise by providing a counter balancing effect, thereby supporting a user in lifting the barbell. For example, if user performs an exercise that involves pulling or pushing the barbell in a downward direction while the pull cable is attached from above, a resistance force will be provided when the user is pulling or pushing the barbell downward and an assisting force will be provided as the user moves/lifts the barbell back to its resting position, where the assisting force will reduce the perceived weight of the barbell.
Regarding independent claim 15, Deola discloses a method for exercising (inherent method of exercising using exercise device 20), comprising:
routing a pull cable (formed by selective connection of cable segments 186, 188, and/or 192) from a resistance mechanism (weight device 22) through a first pulley (either upper pulley 48 or lower pulley 90) to a barbell (104), the resistance mechanism and the barbell supported by a power rack (formed by frame members 28, 30, 32, 34);
applying a first force to the barbell through the pull cable (downward force via attachment to barbell from below barbell, illustrated in Fig. 3);
routing the pull cable (186, 188, and/or 192) from the resistance mechanism through a second pulley (other of upper pulley 48 or lower pulley 90) to the barbell.
The Office notes the pull cable (186, 188, and/or 192) of Deola is capable of connecting to the barbell (104) from above the barbell in the same manner as the pull cable is capable of connecting to the illustrated pull up bar (120) in Fig. 4, but Deola does not teach applying a second force to the barbell through the pull cable.
Pearson, in the same field of endeavor with regards to pull cables configured to connect to a barbell, teaches connecting a pull cable (endless chain 102) to a barbell (30) from above so as to selectively connect a resistance mechanism (weight stack members 108) to the barbell (col. 6 lines 48-53, “As the weight bar assembly is moved upwardly or downwardly, the chain 102 will thus rotate about the upper and lower sprockets. The weight stack members will be optionally coupled to the apparatus through the pins 117 (FIG. 4), so that weight stack members may be employed or omitted altogether”), wherein the pull cable provides an upward force on the barbell (col. 7 lines 4-12, “for ease of use and convenience and purposes of safety, approximately 3 of the nested weight block members such as members 160 (FIG. 9) can be operationally associated with the chain 102 previously described so as to counter balance the mass of the weight bar assembly 30. This counter balance phenomena can be important, for example, when the weight bar assembly is "unloaded" by the removal of free weights 40.”; where counter balancing is achieved by applying an upward force on the barbell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the use of the pull cable in Deola to include attaching the pull cable to the barbell from above to selectively provide a counter balance effect on the barbell using the resistance mechanism by attaching the pull cable to the barbell from above, thereby providing an upward force on the barbell, as is similarly taught by Pearson, for the purpose of increasing the “ease of use and convenience and purposes of safety” (Pearson col. 7 lines 4-5) when a user is performing exercises with the exercise machine. The Office notes that any amount of resistance provided by the resistance mechanism through attachment with the barbell from above will reduce the perceived weight of the barbell at a point during an exercise by providing a counter balancing effect via an upward force. For example, if user performs an exercise that involves pulling or pushing the barbell in a downward direction while the pull cable is attached from above, a resistance force will be provided when the user is pulling or pushing the barbell downward and an assisting force will be provided as the user moves the barbell back to its resting position, where the assisting force will be an upward force to achieve the counter balancing effect.
Deola as modified by Pearson does not teach applying the first or second force according to a live or pre-recorded workout session.
Ward et al. teaches a method of exercising comprising routing a pull cable (cord 406A) through a pulley (408A) and applying a force to a handle (412A) attached to the pull cable via a motor (402A) according to a live or pre-recorded workout session (col. 4 lines 19-25, “The display can present information related to a user, including exercise machine usage information, training videos, current or historical exercise related data, interactive simulated or live person video for training or encouragement, entertainment videos, social network related information or communications, or advertisements” and col. 8 lines 41-47, “system 800 in conjunction with a workout script that allows for individualized exercise routines that can be dynamically modified. A workout script 802 is provided. Based on sensor and other data collected 804, along with script-based data analysis 806, live feedback or adjustments to force profiles or exercise routine parameters (step 808) can be made”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the resistance mechanism of Deola in view of Pearson to be a motor linked to the pull cable, as is similarly taught by Ward et al., as a matter of simple substitution of one known means of providing resistance to the pull cable for another known means of providing resistance to the pull cable, and to further modify the method of exercising of Deola in view of Pearson to include applying a force to the pull cable by the motor according to a live or pre-recorded workout session, as is similarly taught by Ward et al., for the purpose of allowing dynamic force control of the cable to improve training during complex exercise routines (Ward et al. col. 6 lines 49-54, “force control can be modified using scripted control inputs or dynamic force adjustments based on three-dimensional user position and/or kinematic user motion models. This allows for fine control of force applied during complex exercise routines, for improved training or high intensity weightlifting”).
Deola as modified by Pearson and Ward et al. does not teach triggering, according to a sensor and based at least in part on an extension of the pull cable, one or more brakes to engage the pull cable; and engaging the one or more brakes with the pull cable in response to triggering the one or more brakes.
Elsom-Cook, in the same field of endeavor with regards methods of using exercise machines having a pull cable, a sensor, and one or more brakes, teaches a method of exercising using an exercise machine (Fig. 1) comprising a pull cable (30 connected to barbell 16) and triggering, according to a sensor and based at least in part on an extension of the pull cable (position/speed sensor 54, cable tension sensor 56), one or more brakes (42) to engage the pull cable, and engaging the one or more brakes with the pull cable in response to triggering the one or more brakes (par. [0042], “The position and speed of the barbell 16 are evaluated and if they are outside the accepted tolerances and decision is made as to whether the brake 42 and/or motor 26 should be engaged” and par. [0043], “If processor control 52 determines the speed is above an acceptable limit, the processor control sends a signal to the brake control 60, which engages the brake 42”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of exercising with the exercise machine of Deola in view of Pearson and Ward et al. to further include triggering one or more brakes according to a sensor and based at least in part on an extension of the pull cable, as is similarly taught by Elsom-Cook, for the purpose of providing additional safety features to the exercise machine should a user be unable to complete an exercise and to prevent the pull cable from extending beyond an acceptable tolerance (see Elsom-Cook par. [0042], [0043], [0088]).
Deola as modified by Pearson, Ward et al. and Elsom-Cook does not teach triggering, according to the sensor and based at least in part on the extension of the pull cable, an alarm configured to alert a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended.
Bird teaches a method for exercising including alerting a user when a full stroke/excursion of a cable has been achieved in response to a sensor (i.e., full stroke indicator, position of cable sensed by potentiometer 115) triggering (col. 14 line 63 – col. 15 line 7, “The host computing device 106 includes a full stroke indicator that is programmable to indicate, visually and/or numerically, cable position in real-time to the user. In some cases, the stroke indicator provides approximately a 1/4 inch cable 108 position resolution and encompasses the full cable stroke/excursion. In some embodiments, the user can program the desired stroke length for a given resistance training movement or exercise, and the stroke indicator may be calibrated to indicate cable position relative to the desired stroke length. Stroke endpoint indication can also be signaled by sound from the controller 104 and/or host computing device 106, such as via a beep” and col. 15 lines 8-13, “The potentiometer 115 (an example of a cable position sensing device) senses cable position and/or optional cable velocity and via controller 104, can signal to the controller 104 to reduce resistance when, for example, the cable velocity exceeds a retraction speed threshold, or the cable 108 goes below a set or pre-programmed stroke start or end point.”). The Office notes the alert provided by Bird achieves the claimed function of alerting a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended, as the alert indicates when a full stroke of the cable has been achieved.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for exercising of Deola in view of Elsom-Cook to further include triggering an alarm configured to alert a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended, as is similarly taught by Bird, for the purpose of preventing damage to the exercise machine caused by a user attempting to extend the pull cable beyond its stroke limit.
Regarding claim 16, Deola as modified further teaches wherein the first force supports the user extending the barbell (the Office notes either the downward force provided by routing the pull cable through lower pulley 90 and attaching the pull cable to the barbell from below and the upward force provided by routing the pull cable through the upper pulley 48 and attaching the pull cable to the barbell from above, as modified by Pearson, can be considered the first force; the upward force on the barbell provided by routing the pull cable through the upper pulley 48 and attaching the pull cable to the barbell from above, as modified by Pearson, supports a user in extending the barbell away from the base 18 and floor 36).
Regarding claim 17, Deola as modified further teaches wherein the first force resists the user extending the barbell (the Office notes either the downward force provided by routing the pull cable through lower pulley 90 and attaching the pull cable to the barbell from below and the upward force provided by routing the pull cable through the upper pulley 48 and attaching the pull cable to the barbell from above, as modified by Pearson, can be considered the first force; the downward force provided by routing the pull cable through lower pulley 90 and attaching the pull cable to the barbell from below resists a user in extending the barbell away from the base 18 and floor 36).
Regarding claim 18, Deola as modified further teaches wherein the first force is opposite the second force (the downward force provided by routing the pull cable through lower pulley 90 and attaching the pull cable to the barbell from below is opposite to the upward force provided by routing the pull cable through the upper pulley 48 and attaching the pull cable to the barbell from above, as modified by Pearson, where either force can be considered the first or second force).
Regarding claim 19, Deola as modified further teaches wherein the first pulley (i.e., upper pulley 48) is located above the barbell and the second pulley (i.e., lower pulley 90) is located below the barbell (see Deola Fig. 3).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deola (US Pat. 4,784,384) in view of Ward et al. (US Pat. 11,207,564), in view of Elsom-Cook et al. (US 2012/0058859), further in view of Bird (US 8,968,155), and further in view of Ilfrey et al. (US Pat. 10,814,172).
Regarding claim 13, Deola as modified by Ward et al. teaches wherein the resistance mechanism comprises a motor, but does not teach wherein the resistance mechanism comprises a magnetic resistance mechanism.
Ilfrey et al., in the same field of endeavor with regards to resistance mechanisms for pull cables, teaches a resistance mechanism (17 and 25) linked to a pull cable (19) and configured to provide a resistance force to the pull cable (Fig. 2), wherein the resistance mechanism comprises a motor that is a magnetic resistance mechanism (motor 25, col. 5 lines 60-61, “In some embodiments, permanent magnet synchronous motors are employed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the motor of Deola in view of Ward et al. to be a permanent magnet synchronous motor, as is similarly taught by Ilfrey et al., as a matter of simple substitution of one known motor for another in the art to achieve the same predictable results of providing adjustable force to the pull cable.
Claims 1, 5-10, 12, 14, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burchatz (US 4,907,798), further in view of Ward et al. (US Pat. 11,207,564), further in view of Elsom-Cook et al. (US 2012/0058859), and further in view of Bird (US 8,968,155). Regarding independent claim 1, Burchatz discloses an exercise machine (Fig. 1) comprising:
a frame (formed by front vertical frame members 44, 45);
a resistance mechanism supported by the frame (weight trucks 114R, 114L);
a pull cable supported by the frame (127R or 127L) and linked to the resistance mechanism (cable 127R, 127L connect to weight trucks 114R, 114L, respectively, via eyebolts 125R, 125L);
a power rack attached to the frame (formed by rear vertical frame members 35, 36), the power rack comprising:
a first upright post (35);
a second upright post (36), the first upright post and the second upright post configured to support a barbell (handlebar 170 constitutes a barbell, supported by handlebar hanger clips 171R, 171L fastened to right and left rear vertical frame members 35, 36, respectively; see Figs. 11-12)
a handle selectively attachable to the pull cable (hand grips 154R, 154L attachable to cables 127R, 127L; see Figs. 7-8);
an upper pulley (128R or 128L), the pull cable routable through the upper pulley to connect to the barbell from above the barbell (this limitation represents intended use, and as the pull cable 127R, 127L is capable of being routed through the upper and connect to the barbell from above by connecting to the respective ends of handlebar 170, the exercise machine of Burchatz satisfies the intended use limitation); and
a lower pulley (130R or 130L), the pull cable routable through the lower pulley to connect to the barbell from below the barbell (see Figs. 11-12, cables 127R, 127L connect to respective ends of handlebar 170 after routing through pulleys 130R, 130L).
PNG
media_image8.png
460
678
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
328
464
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Burchatz does not teach a console configured to control a level of resistance applied to the pull cable by the resistance mechanism according to a live or pre-recorded workout session.
Ward et al. teaches an exercise machine comprising a frame (mechanical support system 204), a resistance mechanism (motor 402A) supported by the frame and a pull cable (cord 406A) supported by the frame and linked to the resistance mechanism (col. 6 lines 27-29, “The force resistant reel assembly can include a motor 402A connected to a reel 404A for winding a cord 406A”), and further teaches a console (display 102 or 202) configured to control a level of resistance applied to the pull cable by the resistance mechanism (via system 800) according to a live or pre-recorded workout session (col. 4 lines 19-25, “The display can present information related to a user, including exercise machine usage information, training videos, current or historical exercise related data, interactive simulated or live person video for training or encouragement, entertainment videos, social network related information or communications, or advertisements” and col. 8 lines 41-47, “system 800 in conjunction with a workout script that allows for individualized exercise routines that can be dynamically modified. A workout script 802 is provided. Based on sensor and other data collected 804, along with script-based data analysis 806, live feedback or adjustments to force profiles or exercise routine parameters (step 808) can be made”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the resistance mechanism of Burchatz to be a motor linked to the pull cable, as is similarly taught by Ward et al., as a matter of simple substitution of one known means of providing resistance to the pull cable for another known means of providing resistance to the pull cable, and to further modify the exercise machine of Burchatz to include a console configured to control a level of resistance applied to the pull cable by the motor according to a live or pre-recorded workout session, as is similarly taught by Ward et al., for the purpose of allowing dynamic force control of the cable to improve training during complex exercise routines (Ward et al. col. 6 lines 49-54, “force control can be modified using scripted control inputs or dynamic force adjustments based on three-dimensional user position and/or kinematic user motion models. This allows for fine control of force applied during complex exercise routines, for improved training or high intensity weightlifting”).
Burchatz as modified by Ward et al. does not teach a bottom-out mechanism comprising: a sensor configured to trigger based at least in part on an extension of the pull cable and one or more brakes configured, in response to the sensor triggering, to engage the pull cable.
Elsom-Cook, in the same field of endeavor with regards to bottom-out mechanisms for exercise machines, teaches an exercise machine (Fig. 1) comprising a pull cable (30 connected to barbell 16) and a bottom-out mechanism comprising a sensor configured to trigger based at least in part on an extension of the pull cable (position/speed sensor 54, cable tension sensor 56) and one or more brakes configured, in response to the sensor triggering, to engage the pull cable (par. [0042], “The position and speed of the barbell 16 are evaluated and if they are outside the accepted tolerances and decision is made as to whether the brake 42 and/or motor 26 should be engaged” and par. [0043], “If processor control 52 determines the speed is above an acceptable limit, the processor control sends a signal to the brake control 60, which engages the brake 42”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exercise machine of Burchatz in view of Ward et al. to further include a bottom-out mechanism comprising a sensor and one or more brakes, as is similarly taught by Elsom-Cook, for the purpose of providing additional safety features to the exercise machine should a user be unable to complete an exercise and to prevent the pull cable from extending beyond an acceptable tolerance (see Elsom-Cook par. [0042], [0043], [0088]).
Burchatz as modified by Ward et al. and Elsom-Cook does not teach the bottom-out mechanism comprising: an alarm configured, in response to the sensor triggering, to alert a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended.
Bird teaches an exercise machine (100) comprising a mechanism for alerting a user when a full stroke/excursion of a cable has been achieved in response to a sensor (i.e., full stroke indicator, position of cable sensed by potentiometer 115) triggering (col. 14 line 63 – col. 15 line 7, “The host computing device 106 includes a full stroke indicator that is programmable to indicate, visually and/or numerically, cable position in real-time to the user. In some cases, the stroke indicator provides approximately a 1/4 inch cable 108 position resolution and encompasses the full cable stroke/excursion. In some embodiments, the user can program the desired stroke length for a given resistance training movement or exercise, and the stroke indicator may be calibrated to indicate cable position relative to the desired stroke length. Stroke endpoint indication can also be signaled by sound from the controller 104 and/or host computing device 106, such as via a beep” and col. 15 lines 8-13, “The potentiometer 115 (an example of a cable position sensing device) senses cable position and/or optional cable velocity and via controller 104, can signal to the controller 104 to reduce resistance when, for example, the cable velocity exceeds a retraction speed threshold, or the cable 108 goes below a set or pre-programmed stroke start or end point.”). The Office notes the alert provided by Bird achieves the claimed function of alerting a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended, as the alert indicates when a full stroke of the cable has been achieved.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bottom-out mechanism of Burchatz in view of Elsom-Cook to further include an alarm configured, in response to the sensor triggering, to alert a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended, as is similarly taught by Bird, for the purpose of preventing damage to the exercise machine caused by a user attempting to extend the pull cable beyond its stroke limit.
Regarding claim 5, Burchatz as modified teaches wherein the pull cable is configured to increase a perceived weight of the barbell when routed through the lower pulley (see Burchatz Figs. 11-12, resistance will increase the perceived weight of the barbell).
Regarding claim 6, Burchatz as modified teaches wherein the upper pulley and the lower pulley are located on the same of the first upright post and the second upright post (128R, 130R both connected to rear vertical frame member 35; 128L, 130L both connected to rear vertical frame member 36).
Regarding claim 7, Burchatz as modified teaches wherein the pull cable is a first pull cable (i.e., pull cable 127R), the upper pulley is a first upper pulley (i.e., pulley 128R), and the lower pulley is a first lower pulley (i.e., pulley 130R), and further comprising a second pull cable (i.e., pull cable 127L), and wherein the power rack further comprises;
a second upper pulley (i.e., pulley 128L) located on an opposite side of the power rack from the first upper pulley (128L connected to rear vertical frame member 36), the second pull cable routable through the second upper pulley (see Figs. 11-12); and
a second lower pulley (i.e., pulley 130L) located on the opposite side of the power rack from the first lower pulley (130L connected to rear vertical frame member 36), the second pull cable routable through the second lower pulley (see Figs. 11-12).
Regarding claim 8, Burchatz as modified teaches wherein the resistance mechanism (motor 402A as modified by Ward et al.) is configured to resist extension of the pull cable (as a user pulls on pull cables 127R, 127L, motor 402A as modified by Ward et al. resists extension of the pull cables).
Regarding claim 9, Burchatz as modified further teaches wherein the resistance mechanism (motor 402A as modified by Ward et al.) is configured to apply a retraction force on the pull cable (as a user pulls on pull cables 127R, 127L, motor 402A as modified by Ward et al. applies a retraction force on the pull cables).
Regarding independent claim 10, Burchatz discloses an exercise machine (Fig. 1) comprising:
a frame (formed by front vertical frame members 44, 45);
a resistance mechanism supported by the frame (weight trucks 114R, 114L);
a pull cable supported by the frame (127R or 127L) and linked to the resistance mechanism (cable 127R, 127L connect to weight trucks 114R, 114L, respectively, via eyebolts 125R, 125L);
a power rack attached to the frame (formed by rear vertical frame members 35, 36), the power rack comprising:
a first upright post (35);
a second upright post (36), the first upright post and the second upright post configured to support a barbell (handlebar 170 constitutes a barbell, supported by handlebar hanger clips 171R, 171L fastened to right and left rear vertical frame members 35, 36, respectively; see Figs. 11-12)
a handle selectively attachable to the pull cable (hand grips 154R, 154L attachable to cables 127R, 127L; see Figs. 7-8); and
a plurality of pulleys (128R and 130R or 128L and 130L), the pull cable routable through the plurality of pulleys to connect to the barbell (see Figs. 11-12, cables 127R, 127L connect to respective ends of handlebar 170).
Burchatz does not teach a console configured to control a level of resistance applied to the pull cable by the resistance mechanism according to a live or pre-recorded workout session.
Ward et al. teaches an exercise machine comprising a frame (mechanical support system 204), a resistance mechanism (motor 402A) supported by the frame and a pull cable (cord 406A) supported by the frame and linked to the resistance mechanism (col. 6 lines 27-29, “The force resistant reel assembly can include a motor 402A connected to a reel 404A for winding a cord 406A”), and further teaches a console (display 102 or 202) configured to control a level of resistance applied to the pull cable by the resistance mechanism (via system 800) according to a live or pre-recorded workout session (col. 4 lines 19-25, “The display can present information related to a user, including exercise machine usage information, training videos, current or historical exercise related data, interactive simulated or live person video for training or encouragement, entertainment videos, social network related information or communications, or advertisements” and col. 8 lines 41-47, “system 800 in conjunction with a workout script that allows for individualized exercise routines that can be dynamically modified. A workout script 802 is provided. Based on sensor and other data collected 804, along with script-based data analysis 806, live feedback or adjustments to force profiles or exercise routine parameters (step 808) can be made”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the resistance mechanism of Burchatz to be a motor linked to the pull cable, as is similarly taught by Ward et al., as a matter of simple substitution of one known means of providing resistance to the pull cable for another known means of providing resistance to the pull cable, and to further modify the exercise machine of Burchatz to include a console configured to control a level of resistance applied to the pull cable by the motor according to a live or pre-recorded workout session, as is similarly taught by Ward et al., for the purpose of allowing dynamic force control of the cable to improve training during complex exercise routines (Ward et al. col. 6 lines 49-54, “force control can be modified using scripted control inputs or dynamic force adjustments based on three-dimensional user position and/or kinematic user motion models. This allows for fine control of force applied during complex exercise routines, for improved training or high intensity weightlifting”).
Burchatz as modified by Ward et al. does not teach a bottom-out mechanism comprising: a sensor configured to trigger based at least in part on an extension of the pull cable and one or more brakes configured, in response to the sensor triggering, to engage the pull cable.
Elsom-Cook, in the same field of endeavor with regards to bottom-out mechanisms for exercise machines, teaches an exercise machine (Fig. 1) comprising a pull cable (30 connected to barbell 16) and a bottom-out mechanism comprising a sensor configured to trigger based at least in part on an extension of the pull cable (position/speed sensor 54, cable tension sensor 56) and one or more brakes configured, in response to the sensor triggering, to engage the pull cable (par. [0042], “The position and speed of the barbell 16 are evaluated and if they are outside the accepted tolerances and decision is made as to whether the brake 42 and/or motor 26 should be engaged” and par. [0043], “If processor control 52 determines the speed is above an acceptable limit, the processor control sends a signal to the brake control 60, which engages the brake 42”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exercise machine of Burchatz in view of Ward et al. to further include a bottom-out mechanism comprising a sensor and one or more brakes, as is similarly taught by Elsom-Cook, for the purpose of providing additional safety features to the exercise machine should a user be unable to complete an exercise and to prevent the pull cable from extending beyond an acceptable tolerance (see Elsom-Cook par. [0042], [0043], [0088]).
Burchatz as modified by Ward et al. and Elsom-Cook does not teach the bottom-out mechanism comprising: an alarm configured, in response to the sensor triggering, to alert a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended.
Bird teaches an exercise machine (100) comprising a mechanism for alerting a user when a full stroke/excursion of a cable has been achieved in response to a sensor (i.e., full stroke indicator, position of cable sensed by potentiometer 115) triggering (col. 14 line 63 – col. 15 line 7, “The host computing device 106 includes a full stroke indicator that is programmable to indicate, visually and/or numerically, cable position in real-time to the user. In some cases, the stroke indicator provides approximately a 1/4 inch cable 108 position resolution and encompasses the full cable stroke/excursion. In some embodiments, the user can program the desired stroke length for a given resistance training movement or exercise, and the stroke indicator may be calibrated to indicate cable position relative to the desired stroke length. Stroke endpoint indication can also be signaled by sound from the controller 104 and/or host computing device 106, such as via a beep” and col. 15 lines 8-13, “The potentiometer 115 (an example of a cable position sensing device) senses cable position and/or optional cable velocity and via controller 104, can signal to the controller 104 to reduce resistance when, for example, the cable velocity exceeds a retraction speed threshold, or the cable 108 goes below a set or pre-programmed stroke start or end point.”). The Office notes the alert provided by Bird achieves the claimed function of alerting a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended, as the alert indicates when a full stroke of the cable has been achieved.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bottom-out mechanism of Burchatz in view of Elsom-Cook to further include an alarm configured, in response to the sensor triggering, to alert a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended, as is similarly taught by Bird, for the purpose of preventing damage to the exercise machine caused by a user attempting to extend the pull cable beyond its stroke limit.
Regarding claim 12, Burchatz as modified teaches wherein the pull cable is configured to hinder a user in lifting the barbell (see Figs. 11-12).
Regarding claim 14, Burchatz as modified teaches wherein the resistance mechanism comprises a motor (motor 402A as modified by Ward et al.) to retract the pull cable (Ward et al. col. 6 lines 27-29).
Regarding claim 21, Burchatz as modified teaches wherein the upper pulley is configured to selectively receive the pull cable and wherein the lower pulley is configured to selectively receive the pull cable (Burchatz explicitly illustrates the pull cable 127R, 127L being selectively received by pulleys 130R, 130L depending on exercises being performed, and implicitly teaches pull cable 127R, 127L being selectively received by pulleys 128R, 128L as the pull cable is capable of being selectively received in the same manner as pulleys 130R, 130L), the pull cable decoupled from the upper pulley and the lower pulley for cable workouts (the Office notes this limitation represents intended use, and as the pull cable 127R, 127L is capable of being decoupled from pulleys 128R, 128L, 130R, 130L, the exercise machine of Burchatz satisfies the intended use limitation).
Regarding claim 22, Burchatz as modified teaches wherein each pulley of the plurality of pulleys is configured to selectively receive the pull cable (Burchatz explicitly illustrates the pull cable 127R, 127L being selectively received by pulleys 130R, 130L depending on exercises being performed, and implicitly teaches pull cable 127R, 127L being selectively received by pulleys 128R, 128L as the pull cable is capable of being selectively received in the same manner as pulleys 130R, 130L), the pull cable decoupled from the plurality of pulleys for cable workouts (the Office notes this limitation represents intended use, and as the pull cable 127R, 127L is capable of being decoupled from pulleys 128R, 128L, 130R, 130L, the exercise machine of Burchatz satisfies the intended use limitation).
Claims 3, 11, 15-19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burchatz (US 4,907,798), in view of Ward et al. (US Pat. 11,207,564), in view of Elsom-Cook et al. (US 2012/0058859), further in view of Bird (US 8,968,155), and further in view of Pearson (US Pat. 4,836,535).
Regarding claim 3, Burchatz as modified does not teach wherein the pull cable is configured to reduce a perceived weight of the barbell when routed through the upper pulley.
Pearson, in the same field of endeavor with regards to pull cables configured to connect to a barbell, teaches connecting a pull cable (endless chain 102) to a barbell (30) from above so as to selectively connect a resistance mechanism (weight stack members 108) to the barbell (col. 6 lines 48-53, “As the weight bar assembly is moved upwardly or downwardly, the chain 102 will thus rotate about the upper and lower sprockets. The weight stack members will be optionally coupled to the apparatus through the pins 117 (FIG. 4), so that weight stack members may be employed or omitted altogether”), wherein the pull cable reduces a perceived weight of the barbell (col. 7 lines 4-12, “for ease of use and convenience and purposes of safety, approximately 3 of the nested weight block members such as members 160 (FIG. 9) can be operationally associated with the chain 102 previously described so as to counter balance the mass of the weight bar assembly 30. This counter balance phenomena can be important, for example, when the weight bar assembly is "unloaded" by the removal of free weights 40.”; where counter balancing reduces the perceived weight of the barbell).
PNG
media_image7.png
339
391
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the use of the pull cable in Burchatz to include selectively providing a counter balance effect on the barbell using the resistance mechanism by connecting the pull cable to the barbell from above, by routing the pull cable through the upper pulley, thereby reducing the perceived weight of the barbell, as is similarly taught by Pearson, for the purpose of increasing the “ease of use and convenience and purposes of safety” (Pearson col. 7 lines 4-5) when a user is performing exercises with the exercise machine. The Office notes that any amount of resistance provided by the resistance mechanism through attachment with the barbell from above will reduce the perceived weight of the barbell at a point during an exercise by providing a counter balancing effect. For example, if user performs an exercise that involves pulling or pushing the barbell in a downward direction while the pull cable is attached from above, a resistance force will be provided when the user is pulling or pushing the barbell downward and an assisting force will be provided as the user moves the barbell back to its resting position, where the assisting force will reduce the perceived weight of the barbell.
Regarding claim 11, Burchatz does not teach wherein the pull cable is configured to support a user in lifting the barbell.
Pearson, in the same field of endeavor with regards to pull cables configured to connect to a barbell, teaches connecting a pull cable (endless chain 102) to a barbell (30) from above so as to selectively connect a resistance mechanism (weight stack members 108) to the barbell (col. 6 lines 48-53, “As the weight bar assembly is moved upwardly or downwardly, the chain 102 will thus rotate about the upper and lower sprockets. The weight stack members will be optionally coupled to the apparatus through the pins 117 (FIG. 4), so that weight stack members may be employed or omitted altogether”), wherein the pull cable supports a user in lifting the barbell by reducing a perceived weight of the barbell (col. 7 lines 4-12, “for ease of use and convenience and purposes of safety, approximately 3 of the nested weight block members such as members 160 (FIG. 9) can be operationally associated with the chain 102 previously described so as to counter balance the mass of the weight bar assembly 30. This counter balance phenomena can be important, for example, when the weight bar assembly is "unloaded" by the removal of free weights 40.”; where counter balancing reduces the perceived weight of the barbell, thereby making lifting the barbell easier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the use of the pull cable in Burchatz to include selectively providing a counter balance effect on the barbell using the resistance mechanism by connecting the pull cable to the barbell from above, thereby reducing the perceived weight of the barbell and supporting a user in lifting the barbell, as is similarly taught by Pearson, for the purpose of increasing the “ease of use and convenience and purposes of safety” (Pearson col. 7 lines 4-5) when a user is performing exercises with the exercise machine. The Office notes that any amount of resistance provided by the resistance mechanism through attachment with the barbell from above will reduce the perceived weight of the barbell at a point during an exercise by providing a counter balancing effect, thereby supporting a user in lifting the barbell. For example, if user performs an exercise that involves pulling or pushing the barbell in a downward direction while the pull cable is attached from above, a resistance force will be provided when the user is pulling or pushing the barbell downward and an assisting force will be provided as the user moves/lifts the barbell back to its resting position, where the assisting force will reduce the perceived weight of the barbell.
Regarding independent claim 15, Burchatz discloses a method for exercising (inherent method of exercising using exercise device of Fig. 1), comprising:
routing a pull cable (127R or 127L) from a resistance mechanism (weight trucks 114R, 114L) through a first pulley (upper pulley 128R or 128L) to a barbell (handlebar 170 constitutes a barbell, see Figs. 11-12), the resistance mechanism and the barbell supported by a power rack (formed by frame members 35, 36, 44, 45);
applying a first force to the barbell through the pull cable (downward force via attachment to barbell from below barbell, illustrated in Figs. 11-12);
routing the pull cable (127R or 127L) from the resistance mechanism through a second pulley (lower pulley 130R or 130L) to the barbell.
The Office notes the pull cable (127R, 127L) of Burchatz is capable of connecting to the barbell (170) from above the barbell in the same manner as the pull cable attaches to the barbell from below by attaching to the respective ends of the barbell after routing the pull cable (127R, 127L) through the first pulley (128R, 128L), but Burchatz does not teach applying a second force to the barbell through the pull cable.
Pearson, in the same field of endeavor with regards to pull cables configured to connect to a barbell, teaches connecting a pull cable (endless chain 102) to a barbell (30) from above so as to selectively connect a resistance mechanism (weight stack members 108) to the barbell (col. 6 lines 48-53, “As the weight bar assembly is moved upwardly or downwardly, the chain 102 will thus rotate about the upper and lower sprockets. The weight stack members will be optionally coupled to the apparatus through the pins 117 (FIG. 4), so that weight stack members may be employed or omitted altogether”), wherein the pull cable provides an upward force on the barbell (col. 7 lines 4-12, “for ease of use and convenience and purposes of safety, approximately 3 of the nested weight block members such as members 160 (FIG. 9) can be operationally associated with the chain 102 previously described so as to counter balance the mass of the weight bar assembly 30. This counter balance phenomena can be important, for example, when the weight bar assembly is "unloaded" by the removal of free weights 40.”; where counter balancing is achieved by applying an upward force on the barbell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the use of the pull cable in Burchatz to include attaching the pull cable to the barbell from above to selectively provide a counter balance effect on the barbell using the resistance mechanism by attaching the pull cable to the barbell from above, thereby providing an upward force on the barbell, as is similarly taught by Pearson, for the purpose of increasing the “ease of use and convenience and purposes of safety” (Pearson col. 7 lines 4-5) when a user is performing exercises with the exercise machine. The Office notes that any amount of resistance provided by the resistance mechanism through attachment with the barbell from above will reduce the perceived weight of the barbell at a point during an exercise by providing a counter balancing effect via an upward force. For example, if user performs an exercise that involves pulling or pushing the barbell in a downward direction while the pull cable is attached from above, a resistance force will be provided when the user is pulling or pushing the barbell downward and an assisting force will be provided as the user moves the barbell back to its resting position, where the assisting force will be an upward force to achieve the counter balancing effect.
Burchatz as modified by Pearson does not teach applying the first or second force according to a live or pre-recorded workout session.
Ward et al. teaches a method of exercising comprising routing a pull cable (cord 406A) through a pulley (408A) and applying a force to a handle (412A) attached to the pull cable via a motor (402A) according to a live or pre-recorded workout session (col. 4 lines 19-25, “The display can present information related to a user, including exercise machine usage information, training videos, current or historical exercise related data, interactive simulated or live person video for training or encouragement, entertainment videos, social network related information or communications, or advertisements” and col. 8 lines 41-47, “system 800 in conjunction with a workout script that allows for individualized exercise routines that can be dynamically modified. A workout script 802 is provided. Based on sensor and other data collected 804, along with script-based data analysis 806, live feedback or adjustments to force profiles or exercise routine parameters (step 808) can be made”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the resistance mechanism of Burchatz in view of Pearson to be a motor linked to the pull cable, as is similarly taught by Ward et al., as a matter of simple substitution of one known means of providing resistance to the pull cable for another known means of providing resistance to the pull cable, and to further modify the method of exercising of Burchatz in view of Pearson to include applying a force to the pull cable by the motor according to a live or pre-recorded workout session, as is similarly taught by Ward et al., for the purpose of allowing dynamic force control of the cable to improve training during complex exercise routines (Ward et al. col. 6 lines 49-54, “force control can be modified using scripted control inputs or dynamic force adjustments based on three-dimensional user position and/or kinematic user motion models. This allows for fine control of force applied during complex exercise routines, for improved training or high intensity weightlifting”).
Burchatz as modified by Pearson and Ward et al. does not teach triggering, according to a sensor and based at least in part on an extension of the pull cable, one or more brakes to engage the pull cable; and engaging the one or more brakes with the pull cable in response to the triggering.
Elsom-Cook, in the same field of endeavor with regards exercise machines having a pull cable, a sensor, and one or more brakes, teaches a method of exercising using an exercise machine (Fig. 1) comprising a pull cable (30 connected to barbell 16) and triggering, according to a sensor and based at least in part on an extension of the pull cable (position/speed sensor 54, cable tension sensor 56), one or more brakes (42) to engage the pull cable, and engaging the one or more brakes with the pull cable in response to the triggering (par. [0042], “The position and speed of the barbell 16 are evaluated and if they are outside the accepted tolerances and decision is made as to whether the brake 42 and/or motor 26 should be engaged” and par. [0043], “If processor control 52 determines the speed is above an acceptable limit, the processor control sends a signal to the brake control 60, which engages the brake 42”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of exercising with the exercise machine of Burchatz in view of Pearson and Ward et al. to further include triggering one or more brakes according to a sensor and based at least in part on an extension of the pull cable, as is similarly taught by Elsom-Cook, for the purpose of providing additional safety features to the exercise machine should a user be unable to complete an exercise and to prevent the pull cable from extending beyond an acceptable tolerance (see Elsom-Cook par. [0042], [0043], [0088]).
Burchatz as modified by Pearson, Ward et al. and Elsom-Cook does not teach triggering, according to the sensor and based at least in part on the extension of the pull cable, an alarm configured to alert a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended.
Bird teaches a method for exercising including alerting a user when a full stroke/excursion of a cable has been achieved in response to a sensor (i.e., full stroke indicator, position of cable sensed by potentiometer 115) triggering (col. 14 line 63 – col. 15 line 7, “The host computing device 106 includes a full stroke indicator that is programmable to indicate, visually and/or numerically, cable position in real-time to the user. In some cases, the stroke indicator provides approximately a 1/4 inch cable 108 position resolution and encompasses the full cable stroke/excursion. In some embodiments, the user can program the desired stroke length for a given resistance training movement or exercise, and the stroke indicator may be calibrated to indicate cable position relative to the desired stroke length. Stroke endpoint indication can also be signaled by sound from the controller 104 and/or host computing device 106, such as via a beep” and col. 15 lines 8-13, “The potentiometer 115 (an example of a cable position sensing device) senses cable position and/or optional cable velocity and via controller 104, can signal to the controller 104 to reduce resistance when, for example, the cable velocity exceeds a retraction speed threshold, or the cable 108 goes below a set or pre-programmed stroke start or end point.”). The Office notes the alert provided by Bird achieves the claimed function of alerting a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended, as the alert indicates when a full stroke of the cable has been achieved.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for exercising of Burchatz in view of Elsom-Cook to further include triggering an alarm configured to alert a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended, as is similarly taught by Bird, for the purpose of preventing damage to the exercise machine caused by a user attempting to extend the pull cable beyond its stroke limit.
Regarding claim 16, Burchatz as modified by Pearson further teaches wherein the first force supports a user extending the barbell (the Office notes either the downward force provided by routing the pull cable through lower pulley 130R, 130L and attaching the pull cable to the barbell from below and the upward force provided by routing the pull cable through the upper pulley 128R, 128L and attaching the pull cable to the barbell from above, as modified by Pearson, can be considered the first force; the upward force on the barbell provided by routing the pull cable through the upper pulley 128R, 128L and attaching the pull cable to the barbell from above, as modified by Pearson, supports a user in extending the barbell away from the ground).
Regarding claim 17, Burchatz as modified by Pearson further teaches wherein the first force resists a user extending the barbell (the Office notes either the downward force provided by routing the pull cable through lower pulley 130R, 130L and attaching the pull cable to the barbell from below and the upward force provided by routing the pull cable through the upper pulley 128R, 128L and attaching the pull cable to the barbell from above, as modified by Pearson, can be considered the first force; the downward force provided by routing the pull cable through lower pulley 130R, 130L and attaching the pull cable to the barbell from below resists a user in extending the barbell away from the ground).
Regarding claim 18, Burchatz as modified by Pearson further teaches wherein the first force is opposite the second force (the downward force provided by routing the pull cable through lower pulley 130R, 130L and attaching the pull cable to the barbell from below is opposite to the upward force provided by routing the pull cable through the upper pulley 128R, 128L and attaching the pull cable to the barbell from above, as modified by Pearson, where either force can be considered the first or second force).
Regarding claim 19, Burchatz as modified by Pearson further teaches wherein the first pulley (i.e., upper pulley 128R, 128L) is located above the barbell and the second pulley (i.e., lower pulley 130R, 130L) is located below the barbell (see Burchatz Figs. 11-12).
Regarding claim 23, Burchatz as modified does not teach decoupling the pull cable (127R, 127L) from the first pulley (i.e., upper pulley 128R, 128L) and the second pulley for cable workouts (i.e., lower pulley 130R, 130L). However, Burchatz teaches selectively using the pulleys to permit a variety of exercises to be performed with the exercise machine (col. 2 lines 58-63, “Various auxiliary pulleys may be optionally used, with the pull cables attached to weight trucks running over the auxiliary pulleys to afford a very wide variety of tension directions, permitting a substantially infinite variety of muscle toning exercises”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of using the exercise machine of Burchatz to include decoupling the pull cable from the first and second pulleys for cable workouts by selectively engaging with desired ones of the pulleys for the purpose of allowing the user to perform a greater variety of exercises using the exercise machine.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burchatz (US 4,907,798), in view of Ward et al. (US Pat. 11,207,564), in view of Elsom-Cook et al. (US 2012/0058859), further in view of Bird (US 8,968,155), and further in view of Ilfrey et al. (US Pat. 10,814,172).
Regarding claim 13, Burchatz as modified by Ward et al. teaches wherein the resistance mechanism comprises a motor, but does not teach wherein the resistance mechanism comprises a magnetic resistance mechanism.
Ilfrey et al., in the same field of endeavor with regards to resistance mechanisms for pull cables, teaches a resistance mechanism (17 and 25) linked to a pull cable (19) and configured to provide a resistance force to the pull cable (Fig. 2), wherein the resistance mechanism comprises a motor that is a magnetic resistance mechanism (motor 25, col. 5 lines 60-61, “In some embodiments, permanent magnet synchronous motors are employed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the motor of Burchatz in view of Ward et al. to be a permanent magnet synchronous motor, as is similarly taught by Ilfrey et al., as a matter of simple substitution of one known motor for another in the art to achieve the same predictable results of providing adjustable force to the pull cable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 10, and 15, 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. Specifically, applicant argues the prior art of record to Deola, Ward et al., Elsom-Cook, Burchatz, Pearson, and Ilfrey do not teach or suggest the newly added limitations of the bottom-out mechanism comprising an alarm configured, in response to the sensor triggering, to alert a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended (claims 1, 10) or a method for exercising including a step of triggering, according to the sensor and based at least in part on the extension of the pull cable, an alarm configured to alert a user of a danger of the pull cable being fully extended. The Office agrees the previously relied upon prior art of record does not teach or suggest these limitations. However, a new ground of rejection has been applied in view of the previous prior art and further in view of Bird, which teaches alerting a user via an alarm when a cable is extended to a full stroke (i.e., fully extended). The Office further notes that alarms on exercise equipment and methods of exercising alerting a user to a condition of an exercise machine and the functionality/operating state thereof are well-known in the art. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are moot with respect to the new ground of rejection.
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 KATHLEEN FISK whose telephone number is (571)272-1042. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM M-F (Central).
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.
/KATHLEEN M FISK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/LOAN B JIMENEZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3784