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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jensen (US Pat. 5827155). Jensen describes the same invention as claimed, including:
Regarding claim 10: An exercise apparatus for reducing vibration to ground, comprising: a chassis (12); a chassis support system (40) positioned outside of the chassis (Fig. 1, Fig. 2), wherein a first end of the chassis support system is connected with a bottom wall of the chassis (Fig. 1) and a second end of the chassis support system is connected with the ground (Fig. 1); and a chassis dampening system (leaf spring 44) connected to the chassis support system.
Regarding claim 13, wherein the chassis dampening system is an air suspension system (Fig. 6, air springs 80).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the chassis dampening system comprises an air supply unit, an air reservoir, and air spring, wherein the air supply unit provides air to the air reservoir and the air reservoir provides air to the air spring (col. 5, line 1-3: “Air springs 80 in either embodiment may be inflated or deflated by any means known in the art, such as manual or electric pumps and manual or remote-control valves.”.
Regarding claim 15, wherein the chassis dampening system is a spring suspension system (Fig. 1, leaf spring 44 or Fig. 8, spring 100).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the chassis dampening system comprises a first element (Fig. 9, 120), a second element (Fig. 9, 122), and a spring (Fig. 9, 100) located between the first element and the second element, wherein the spring is configured to provide force towards the first element and the second element.
Regarding claim 17, wherein the chassis dampening system is a shock absorption system (col. 5, line 34-42: “The spring means employed in the invention may comprise one or more leaf springs, coil springs, Belleville springs, or air springs, a hydraulic system such as a motorcycle shock absorber or other dashpot-type system, a sealed or variable pressure bladder, either with an empty interior or filled with a foam, or a soft rubber pad or bushing. Several types of springs, as noted above, may be employed in combination. As implied, the cushioning system may be of fixed or variable resiliency.”).
Regarding claim 18, wherein the chassis dampening system comprises a first element (Fig. 9, 120), a second element (Fig. 9, 122), and a shock absorbing material (Fig. 9, 100) located between the first element and the second element.
Regarding claim 19, wherein the shock absorbing material comprises one or more of rubber or silicone (col. 5, lines 34-42 describes rubber).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gureghian et al (US 5993358) in view of Athey (US PGPub. 2017/0333747). Gureghian et al. describes the invention substantially as claimed including:
PNG
media_image1.png
782
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Gureghian et al. shows: An apparatus for exercising, comprising: a chassis (chassis of treadmill of FIG 7); a frame suspension system, wherein the frame suspension system comprises a chamber and a piston (chamber 70d, piston 56d), wherein the chamber is at least partially filled with a magnetorheological fluid (60d); wherein the frame suspension system is
As noted by
Athey, from the same field of endeavor, teaches that it is known in the art to mount treadmill suspension elements (Athey parts 314, 318 or 310, 318, 322, 326, 332, 340) directly connected to at least one sidewall of a chassis (Athey frame 104, see Fig. 4 for connection to sidewall) and is directly connected to a bottom wall of the chassis (Athey frame 104, see Fig. 5 showing connection to bottom wall).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the parts of Gureghian et al. as taught by Athey to mount the frame elements to the chassis as claimed. Doing so provides the predictable result of providing a suspension system for a treadmill belt. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Gureghian as taught by Athey to obtain the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Gureghian et al.shows wherein the piston includes one or more piston channels (“A piston 56d including a controllable valve 80d (said valve defining a channel) located therein is slidably received within the cavity 51d thereby partitioning the cavity 51d into a first fluid chamber 70d and second fluid chamber 70d'”).
Regarding claim 3, Gureghian et al. shows wherein the magnetorheological fluid is configured to flow through the one or more piston channels when the piston moves inside of the frame suspension system (the fluid may flow through the channel formed by the valve between the two fluid chambers).
Regarding claim 5, Gureghian et al. further including an arm, wherein a first end of the arm is connected to the piston and a second end of the arm is connected to the deck (see arm 50d for connecting the piston to the deck).
Regarding claim 6, Gureghian et al. shows wherein the frame suspension system allows the deck to move relative to the chassis when the piston moves inside of the frame suspension system (during the course of normal use to damp the treadmill).
Regarding claim 7, Gureghian et al. shows wherein the piston includes an electromagnetic coil (coil 62d).
Regarding claim 8, Gureghian et al. shows wherein the electromagnetic coil is configured to generate a magnetic field (“The coil 62d creates a magnetic field within the controllable valve 80d to cause a change in rheology (an apparent viscosity change) of the MR fluid 60d in the bound path 81d portion of the passageway 58d which resultantly restricts the flow of fluid 60d through the bound path 81d of the valve 80d and causes a pressure buildup in the second (lower) chamber 70d' thereby requiring increased force to compress the damper 42d. This translates into a harder deck "feel", i.e., a higher restraining force in the "bound" direction.”).
Regarding claim 9, Gureghian et al. shows wherein a high intensity value of the magnetic field reduces a piston movement inside of the frame suspension system, and wherein a low intensity value of the magnetic field increases the piston movement inside of the frame suspension system (during the course of normal use as described in the excerpt above; intense magnetic fields increases pressure and stiffens the deck, and visa-versa).
Regarding claim 21, Gureghian et al. does not show but Athey teaches:
further comprising: a second frame suspension system (Athey first suspension system is 314, 328 and second suspension system is 310, 318, 322, 326, 332, 340) connecting the movable deck to the chassis, wherein a dampening force provided by each frame suspension system may be adjusted independently.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include a second suspension system as taught by Athey on the device of Gureghian et al.. Doing so provides the predictable result of absorbing impact in a customized way to improve the feel of the exercise device for the user. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to include the second suspension system as taught by Athey to obtain the invention as claimed.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US Pat. 5827155) in view of Nerio et al. (US PGPub. 2004/0058786).
Jensen describes the invention substantially as claimed, but does not show: wherein the chassis dampening system is a magnetic suspension system.
Nerio et al., from the same field of endeavor, teaches that it is known in the exercise art to include a magnetic suspension system as a dampening system on an exercise apparatus (Nerio depicts a treadmill in Fig. 1 and a magnetic suspension system, Nerio Figs. 11, 12).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the magnetic suspension system of Nerio et al. in place of the suspension system of Jensen. Doing so merely substitutes one suspension mechanism for another, with the predictable result of providing a suspension effect to the exercise machine. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Jensen as taught by Nerio to obtain the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Nerio teaches wherein the chassis dampening system comprises: a first magnet and a second magnet; and a space between the first magnet and the second magnet, wherein the first magnet and the second magnet have same polarity ([0041] The permanent magnet 12 (better illustrated in FIG. 11) has two pairs of pole shoes 29 forming an air gap 14 housing the first, moving component 9 of the actuator 8. The magnetic field generated by the permanent magnet 12 and the non-permanent magnet 13 is therefore radiated in the air gap 14, reaching the coil 11 housed there.). See rationale in claim 11 above for combining Jensen and Nerio.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gureghian et al (US 5993358) in view of Athey (US PGPub. 2017/0333747). Gureghian et al. describes the invention substantially as claimed including:
PNG
media_image1.png
782
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20,A method for adjusting dampening force on a dampening system of an exercise apparatus (chassis of treadmill of FIG 7), comprising: detecting a trigger to adjust a first dampening force at the dampening system,
As noted by
Athey, from the same field of endeavor, teaches that it is known in the art to mount treadmill suspension elements (Athey parts 314, 318 or 310, 318, 322, 326, 332, 340) directly connected to at least one sidewall of a chassis (Athey frame 104, see Fig. 4 for connection to sidewall) and is directly connected to a bottom wall of the chassis (Athey frame 104, see Fig. 5 showing connection to bottom wall).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the parts of Gureghian et al. as taught by Athey to mount the frame elements to the chassis as claimed. Doing so provides the predictable result of providing a suspension system for a treadmill belt. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Gureghian as taught by Athey to obtain the invention as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892 for cited art of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNDHARA M GANESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3340. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571)272-4966. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUNDHARA M GANESAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights