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 .
Note:
For the purposes of compact prosecution, Applicant was contacted numerous times to discuss proposed claim amendments to overcome the claim objections and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections and place the application in condition for allowance. However, applicant was not reached. As such, the following Office Action is being sent out to applicant.
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is in response to the RCE filed on 03/16/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1-20 have been examined as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “the arm” in line 6, needs to be changed to “the first arm”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the term “comprises” in line 1, needs to be changed to “comprise”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “and, opposite the first side, a second side,” in line 2, needs to be changed to “and a second side opposite the first side,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “a shroud coupled to the body to obstruct pinch points for the user of the machine via being configured to substantially cover the first arm and the plurality of motors” in lines 1-3, needs to be changed to “a shroud, coupled to the body, configured to substantially cover the first arm and the plurality of motors so as to obstruct pinch points for the user of the machine”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “the plurality of motors” in line 22, needs to be changed to “the first plurality of motors”, and
the phrase “the control system is further configured” in line 32, needs to be changed to “the control system further configured”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “a single shroud coupled” in line 1, needs to be changed to “a single shroud, coupled”,
the phrase “of the body to obstruct pinch points for the user of the machine via being configured” in lines 2-3, needs to be changed to “of the body, configured”, and
the term “respectively” in line 4, needs to be changed to “respectively, so as to obstruct pinch points for the user of the machine”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control system for selectively extending and retracting the cables by using the motors” in each of claims 1 and 14, and “control system is configured to control a repetitive speed and resistance of the pedal assemblies during each of the prescribed pedaling patterns” in claim 14. In these limitation, the term “system” is a generic place holder that is coupled with functional languages of “control/for selectively extending and retracting the cables by using the motors/configured to control a repetitive speed and resistance of the pedal assemblies during each of the prescribed pedaling patterns”, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The “control system” has been considered to have a corresponding structure of a processing device that may execute computer instructions to implement a control system (see ¶ [0124] of the specification), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Each of Claims 7 and 17, recites: “wherein the machine does not have a seat for the user to sit on while using the machine, such that, to use the machine, the user must be seated on a separate seat, wherein the separate seat is away from the machine”. However, it is unclear whether applicant’s intention is to positively claim the “seat” as part of the invention or not, since the claim recites: “wherein the separate seat is away from the machine”. Furthermore, it is also unclear whether or not, applicant is intending to claim “the user” (introducing 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject matter eligibility issue) since the claim recites: “the user must be seated on a separate seat”. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Applicant is suggested to cancel claims 7 and 17 to overcome this issue.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action.
Claims 7and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claims 1 and 14, the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach or render obvious a machine, with all the structural components and functional limitations as detailed in each of claims 1 and 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered. Although the amendments have overcome the many of the previous claim objections and 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections, they have introduced issues that resulted in further objections and/or 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections (see above for details).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 pm.
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.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights