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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. AU2021900255, filed on 02/04/2021.
Response to Amendments
The amendments have been sufficient to overcome the claim objections and the prior art of record. However, a new prior art rejection has been issued below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-8 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Rubin et al (US 2019/0344123 A1; hereinafter: Rubin) and Orady et al (US 10,335,262).
Regarding claim 1, Rubin discloses a fitness training apparatus (the multi-cable exercise platform 2100, Fig. 21; Paragraph 0165) comprising: a base (the base 2102); at least one retractable line (the cables 2106A, 2106B; Fig. 21) provided in or on the base (base 2102 having a top surface 2104 through which multiple cables 2106 A, 2106B extend, Paragraph 0165; Fig. 21), the at least one retractable line having a free end region for operation by a user (free end region couple to handles for operation by a user, annotated Fig. 21), wherein the at least one retractable line is configured and arranged to be extended from a retracted state in or on the base to an extended state upon application of a force to the free end region of the at least one retractable line by the user (“During operation, an actuator (e.g., a motor) of the dynamic force module is used to control the rate at which the cable is extended or retracted against movement of a user, thereby creating the resistance for the given exercise”, Paragraph 0051); a load generator (there is a dynamic force module with a motor that provides a load that the user must overcome to extend the cables, Paragraph 0051) provided in or on the base for applying a selectively adjustable load (“the exercise platform force module may be communicatively coupled to a computing device, such as a smartphone, tablet, laptop, smart television, and the like to present information to the user and to enable the user to select a workout and/or exercise, adjust exercise parameters (e.g., a range of motion of the exercise, a speed of the exercise, a load, or any other similar parameter defining how an exercise is to be performed)”, Paragraph 0055) to the at least one retractable line (“each cable 2106A, 2106B may be coupled to and controlled by a respective dynamic force module”, Paragraph 0165), wherein the selectively adjustable load applied to the at least one retractable line by the load generator resists or acts against the force applied to the free end region by the user for extending the retractable line from the retracted state to the extended state (“During operation, an actuator (e.g., a motor) of the dynamic force module is used to control the rate at which the cable is extended or retracted against movement of a user, thereby creating the resistance for the given exercise”, Paragraph 0051); a force measurement device to measure the selectively adjustable load applied to the at least one retractable line (“the auxiliary I/O 1150 may also or alternatively include one or more additional force sensors, such as a strain gauge, incorporated into the exercise platform 1101 or the dynamic force module 1104 or coupled to an element of the exercise platform 1101 to measure the amount of force exerted by a user”, Paragraph 99); a processor (CPU 1103, Fig. 11; Paragraph 0096) for receiving data regarding the operation of the fitness training apparatus; and a transmitter (Communication port 2810 connects to a network, Paragraph 0184) for transmitting information about the operation of the fitness training apparatus to a remote device (“the communication port 2810 connects the computer system 2800 to one or more communication interface devices configured to transmit and/or receive information between the computing system 2800 and other devices by way of one or more wired or wireless communication networks or connections”, Paragraph 0184).
PNG
media_image1.png
632
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
534
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rubin fails to specifically disclose that the load generator includes at least one direct drive motor configured to directly drive the at least one retractable line.
Orady et al teaches an exercise apparatus with a direct drive motor (motor 100; “Motors may also be “direct drive”, meaning that the motor does not incorporate or require a gear box stage.” See column 7 lines 61-62) that is configured to directly drive at least one retractable line (cables 500, 501; see Fig. 1B; if the motor shown is replaced with the direct drive motor, as contemplated in the specification, then the motor would directly be moving the cables).
It would have been obvious to modify the generic motor of Rubin to be a direct drive motor that directly moves the at least one retractable line as taught by Orady et al as it is merely replacing one motor with another.
Regarding claim 2, Rubin discloses a fitness training apparatus (the multi-cable exercise platform 2100, Fig. 21; Paragraph 0165) comprising: a controller (System controller 1102, Fig. 11) configured to communicate instructions (“The exercise deice further includes a controller communicatively coupled to each of the force sensor and the motor. The controller is adapted to actuate the motor in response to forces applied to the top as measured by the force sensor. The controller may also actuate the motor in response to one or more additional parameters related to the speed or force with which the cable is manipulated (e.g., pulled by a user)”, Abstract) to a load generator (there is a dynamic force module with a motor that provides a load that the user must overcome to extend the cables, Paragraph 0051) to apply a selectively adjustable load (“the exercise platform force module may be communicatively coupled to a computing device, such as a smartphone, tablet, laptop, smart television, and the like to present information to the user and to enable the user to select a workout and/or exercise, adjust exercise parameters (e.g., a range of motion of the exercise, a speed of the exercise, a load, or any other similar parameter defining how an exercise is to be performed)”, Paragraph 0055) to at least one retractable line (the cables 2106A, 2106B; Fig. 21) provided in or on a base (“base 2102 having a top surface 2104 through which multiple cables 2106 A, 2106B extend”, Paragraph 0165; Fig. 21), the at least one retractable line having a free end region (free end region couple to handles for operation by a user, annotated Fig. 21), the at least one retractable line being extendible from a retracted state to an extended state upon application of a force to the free end region (“During operation, an actuator (e.g., a motor) of the dynamic force module is used to control the rate at which the cable is extended or retracted against movement of a user, thereby creating the resistance for the given exercise”, Paragraph 0051), wherein the selectively adjustable load applied to the at least one retractable line acts against the force applied to the free end region (“During operation, an actuator (e.g., a motor) of the dynamic force module is used to control the rate at which the cable is extended or retracted against movement of a user, thereby creating the resistance for the given exercise”, Paragraph 0051), wherein the controller is configured to perform operations comprising: setting a target speed band for the at least one retractable line (“the speed with which the user executes a particular movement may be tracked and various forms of audio, visual, or haptic feedback may be provided the user based on whether and to what degree the user's speed deviates from a predetermined optimal speed or speed range”, Paragraph 0093); receiving a speed of the at least one retractable line (“the dynamic force module may also include inductive or other proximity sensors for measuring the presence of the cable on the drum of the dynamic force module. Such measurements may then be converted to determine the length of cable unspooled from the dynamic force module and, as a result, the position, and speed, and/or acceleration at which the user is pulling the cable or the cable is being retracted against a force of the user against the retraction of the cable”, Paragraph 0090); and responsive to comparing the speed of the at least one retractable line to the target speed band, modifying the selectively adjustable load to the at least one retractable line to maintain the target speed band (“the speed with which the user executes a particular movement may be tracked and various forms of audio, visual, or haptic feedback may be provided the user based on whether and to what degree the user's speed deviates from a predetermined optimal speed or speed range. In certain implementations, the frequency, intensity, or other parameter of the feedback may be varied in response to the user's deviation from an optimal value or range”, Paragraph 0093).
Rubin fails to specifically disclose that the load generator includes at least one direct drive motor configured to directly drive the at least one retractable line.
Orady et al teaches an exercise apparatus with a direct drive motor (motor 100; “Motors may also be “direct drive”, meaning that the motor does not incorporate or require a gear box stage.” See column 7 lines 61-62) that is configured to directly drive at least one retractable line (cables 500, 501; see Fig. 1B; if the motor shown is replaced with the direct drive motor, as contemplated in the specification, then the motor would directly be moving the cables).
It would have been obvious to modify the generic motor of Rubin to be a direct drive motor that directly moves the at least one retractable line as taught by Orady et al as it is merely replacing one motor with another.
Regarding claim 3, Rubin as modified discloses wherein the controller comprises one or more sensors for sensing use or operation of the at least one retractable line, including sensing the speed of the at least one retractable line (“The position, speed, and/or acceleration of the user may also be determined using various sensors incorporated into the exercise platform or the dynamic force module itself”, Paragraph 0091; Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 4, Rubin as modified discloses wherein the controller comprises one or more sensors for sensing use or operation of the at least one retractable line, including sensing one or more of a current position, a motion, a speed, or an extension of the at least one retractable line (“The position, speed, and/or acceleration of the user may also be determined using various sensors incorporated into the exercise platform or the dynamic force module itself”, Paragraph 0091; Fig. 11), wherein the controller is configured to adjust the selectively adjustable load applied to the at least one retractable line by the load generator in dependence on the use or operation of the at least one retractable line (“the module may be controlled dynamically to provide variations in the force while the cable is being pulled by the user or the cable is being retracted against the force of the user”, Paragraph 0051, Fig. 11; “the frequency, intensity, or other parameter of the feedback may be varied in response to the user's deviation from an optimal value or range”, Paragraph 0093).
Regarding claim 5, Rubin as modified discloses wherein the controller is configured for communication with a user device for one or more of input of training settings by the user (“computing devices generally facilitate interaction between the user and the exercise platform by enabling the user to provide commands, settings, and similar input to the exercise platform for controlling the dynamic force module and for the exercise platform to provide information and feedback to the user”, Paragraph 0092) or displaying training information to the user during training (“provide such feedback, at least in part, through a user interface that is presented to the user via the computing device”, Paragraph 0094).
Regarding claim 6, Rubin as modified discloses wherein the user device comprises software executing on the user device for communication with the controller (the computing device must have a software installed to run an application that communicates with the system, “this disclosure provides such feedback, at least in part, through a user interface that is presented to the user via the computing device. The user interface generally includes textual, audio, speech, and/or graphical elements for guiding the user through exercises or workouts. For example, the user interface may include animated graphs or other representations for displaying a measured user parameter relative to an optimal value or optimal range for the same parameter”, Paragraph 0094).
Regarding claim 7, Rubin as modified discloses wherein the controller is configured to set the speed band responsive to receiving an input of a velocity target training setting (“the speed with which the user executes a particular movement may be tracked and various forms of audio, visual, or haptic feedback may be provided the user based on whether and to what degree the user's speed deviates from a predetermined optimal speed or speed range. In certain implementations, the frequency, intensity, or other parameter of the feedback may be varied in response to the user's deviation from an optimal value or range”, Paragraph 0093).
Regarding claim 8, Rubin as modified discloses wherein the target speed band is defined by a minimum velocity and a maximum velocity (“the speed with which the user executes a particular movement may be tracked and various forms of audio, visual, or haptic feedback may be provided the user based on whether and to what degree the user's speed deviates from a predetermined optimal speed or speed range “, Paragraph 0093; Examiner’s note: the band has operating parameters necessitating a minimum and maximum velocity and without further direction on the range any range would read. )
Regarding claim 13, Rubin as modified discloses wherein the controller modifies the load applied to the at least one retractable line at regular intervals or at discrete times (the dynamic force module may create a simulated scenario in which the weight of the caught object ramps up from a small nominal value to a full simulated value over a predetermined period of time, Paragraph 0138; It has a spotting state 1208 capable of adjusting the force required to complete the current movement, "specific cutoff for determining when spotting functionality is to be initiated may vary by exercise or may be manually adjusted by a user, however, in at least one example implementation, spotting is initiated when a force that is less than about 80% of the force required for the current rep is measured for more than a predetermined time (e.g., 2-3 seconds)", Paragraph 0121).
Regarding claim 14, Rubin as modified discloses wherein the at least one retractable line is connected with at least one end of a bar to enable performance of squat exercises (“The user may be initially asked to perform a set of a substantially unloaded squat on the exercise platform while holding a bar coupled to a cable of the exercise platform”, Paragraph 0125).
Regarding claim 15, Rubin as modified discloses wherein a handle is connected to the free end of the at least one retractable line (“during operation a user 10 may grasp the handle 108 to perform various exercises”, Paragraph 0059, Handle 108 shown connected to the at least one retractable line, Fig. 2), wherein the handle comprises a cuff to enable performance of arm curl exercises (“In other words, the dynamic force module 300 generally provides force by either resisting extension of the cable 106 by the user 10 (e.g., during the concentric portion of a bicep curl), retracting the cable 106 against the user 10 (e.g., during the eccentric portion of a bicep curl), or maintaining a particular tension on the cable 106 (e.g., during an isometric hold)”, Paragraph 0059, Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
799
433
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Rubin discloses a method, comprising: setting, by a controller (System controller 1102, Fig. 11) of a fitness training apparatus (the multi-cable exercise platform 2100, Fig. 21; Paragraph 0165), a target speed band for a retractable line of the fitness training apparatus line (“the speed with which the user executes a particular movement may be tracked and various forms of audio, visual, or haptic feedback may be provided the user based on whether and to what degree the user's speed deviates from a predetermined optimal speed or speed range”, Paragraph 0093); receiving, by a controller of a fitness training apparatus and from a sensor device (“the auxiliary I/O 1150 may also or alternatively include one or more additional force sensors, such as a strain gauge, incorporated into the exercise platform 1101 or the dynamic force module 1104 or coupled to an element of the exercise platform 1101 to measure the amount of force exerted by a user”, Paragraph 99), a speed of the retractable line (“the dynamic force module may also include inductive or other proximity sensors for measuring the presence of the cable on the drum of the dynamic force module. Such measurements may then be converted to determine the length of cable unspooled from the dynamic force module and, as a result, the position, and speed, and/or acceleration at which the user is pulling the cable or the cable is being retracted against a force of the user against the retraction of the cable”, Paragraph 0090); responsive to comparing the speed of the retractable line to the target speed band (“the speed with which the user executes a particular movement may be tracked and various forms of audio, visual, or haptic feedback may be provided the user based on whether and to what degree the user's speed deviates from a predetermined optimal speed or speed range. In certain implementations, the frequency, intensity, or other parameter of the feedback may be varied in response to the user's deviation from an optimal value or range”, Paragraph 0093), modifying, by the controller of the fitness training apparatus, a selectively adjustable load (“the exercise platform force module may be communicatively coupled to a computing device, such as a smartphone, tablet, laptop, smart television, and the like to present information to the user and to enable the user to select a workout and/or exercise, adjust exercise parameters (e.g., a range of motion of the exercise, a speed of the exercise, a load, or any other similar parameter defining how an exercise is to be performed)”, Paragraph 0055) to the retractable line to maintain the target speed band, wherein modifying the selectively adjustable load comprises communicating instructions to a load generator to modify the selectively adjustable load to the retractable line (“the speed with which the user executes a particular movement may be tracked and various forms of audio, visual, or haptic feedback may be provided the user based on whether and to what degree the user's speed deviates from a predetermined optimal speed or speed range. In certain implementations, the frequency, intensity, or other parameter of the feedback may be varied in response to the user's deviation from an optimal value or range”, Paragraph 0093).
Rubin fails to specifically disclose that the load generator includes at least one direct drive motor configured to directly drive the at least one retractable line.
Orady et al teaches an exercise apparatus with a direct drive motor (motor 100; “Motors may also be “direct drive”, meaning that the motor does not incorporate or require a gear box stage.” See column 7 lines 61-62) that is configured to directly drive at least one retractable line (cables 500, 501; see Fig. 1B; if the motor shown is replaced with the direct drive motor, as contemplated in the specification, then the motor would directly be moving the cables).
It would have been obvious to modify the generic motor of Rubin to be a direct drive motor that directly moves the at least one retractable line as taught by Orady et al as it is merely replacing one motor with another.
Regarding claim 17, Rubin as modified discloses wherein setting the target speed band comprises receiving, from a user device, instructions to apply a targeted velocity mode for the fitness training apparatus (“the speed with which the user executes a particular movement may be tracked and various forms of audio, visual, or haptic feedback may be provided the user based on whether and to what degree the user's speed deviates from a predetermined optimal speed or speed range. In certain implementations, the frequency, intensity, or other parameter of the feedback may be varied in response to the user's deviation from an optimal value or range”, Paragraph 0093).
Claims 9-11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Rubin et al (US 2019/0344123 A1; hereinafter: Rubin) and Orady et al (US 10,335,262) in further view of Jungerwirth (US 4323237 A).
Rubin discloses the device substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 9, Rubin as modified fails to disclose wherein modifying the selectively adjustable load to maintain the target speed band comprises varying the load according to a function.
Jungerwirth teaches a fitness training apparatus (“adaptive exercise apparatus comprising: a variable load; means for enabling an individual to perform work against said load in repetitive cycles”, Col. 2 ln. 1-5) and further teaches wherein modifying the selectively adjustable load to maintain the target speed band comprises varying the load according to a function (“The relationship between the size of the step increments of the signal on line 26, and the force applied to the brake pad 11, i.e. the increase in load, may be proportional or logarithmic (or have any other desired rate of change characteristic), depending upon the objectives of the exercise involved”, Col. 3 ln. 49-54; proportional change (also known a linear) and logarithm are functions). Jungerwirth further teaches wherein the function comprises a linear function (Claim 10, “The relationship between the size of the step increments of the signal on line 26, and the force applied to the brake pad 11, i.e. the increase in load, may be proportional or logarithmic (or have any other desired rate of change characteristic), depending upon the objectives of the exercise involved”, Col. 3 ln. 49-54; proportional is a linear function); wherein function comprises a log function (Claim 11, “The relationship between the size of the step increments of the signal on line 26, and the force applied to the brake pad 11, i.e. the increase in load, may be proportional or logarithmic (or have any other desired rate of change characteristic), depending upon the objectives of the exercise involved”, Col. 3 ln. 49-54).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rubin with the rate of change characteristics for the load of Jungerwirth to allow the user to work progressively harder (Jungerwirth, Col. 1 ln. 1-6).
Regarding claim 10, Rubin as modified discloses wherein the function comprises a linear function (See claim 9 rejection, “The relationship between the size of the step increments of the signal on line 26, and the force applied to the brake pad 11, i.e. the increase in load, may be proportional or logarithmic (or have any other desired rate of change characteristic), depending upon the objectives of the exercise involved”, Col. 3 ln. 49-54; proportional is a linear function).
Regarding claim 11, Rubin as modified discloses wherein function comprises a log function (See claim 9 rejection, “The relationship between the size of the step increments of the signal on line 26, and the force applied to the brake pad 11, i.e. the increase in load, may be proportional or logarithmic (or have any other desired rate of change characteristic), depending upon the objectives of the exercise involved”, Col. 3 ln. 49-54).
Regarding claim 18, Rubin as modified fails to disclose wherein modifying the selectively adjustable load to maintain the target speed band comprises varying the load according to a function.
Jungerwirth teaches a fitness training apparatus (“adaptive exercise apparatus comprising: a variable load; means for enabling an individual to perform work against said load in repetitive cycles”, Col. 2 ln. 1-5) and further teaches wherein modifying the selectively adjustable load to maintain the target speed band comprises varying the load according to a function (“The relationship between the size of the step increments of the signal on line 26, and the force applied to the brake pad 11, i.e. the increase in load, may be proportional or logarithmic (or have any other desired rate of change characteristic), depending upon the objectives of the exercise involved”, Col. 3 ln. 49-54; proportional change (also known a linear) and logarithm are functions). Jungerwirth further teaches wherein the function comprises a linear function (Claim 19, “The relationship between the size of the step increments of the signal on line 26, and the force applied to the brake pad 11, i.e. the increase in load, may be proportional or logarithmic (or have any other desired rate of change characteristic), depending upon the objectives of the exercise involved”, Col. 3 ln. 49-54; proportional is a linear function); wherein function comprises a log function (Claim 20, “The relationship between the size of the step increments of the signal on line 26, and the force applied to the brake pad 11, i.e. the increase in load, may be proportional or logarithmic (or have any other desired rate of change characteristic), depending upon the objectives of the exercise involved”, Col. 3 ln. 49-54).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rubin with the rate of change characteristics for the load of Jungerwirth to allow the user to work progressively harder (Jungerwirth, Col. 1 ln. 1-6).
Regarding claim 19, Rubin as modified discloses wherein the function comprises a linear function (See claim 18 rejection, “The relationship between the size of the step increments of the signal on line 26, and the force applied to the brake pad 11, i.e. the increase in load, may be proportional or logarithmic (or have any other desired rate of change characteristic), depending upon the objectives of the exercise involved”, Col. 3 ln. 49-54; proportional is a linear function).
Regarding claim 20, Rubin as modified discloses wherein function comprises a log function (See claim 18 rejection, “The relationship between the size of the step increments of the signal on line 26, and the force applied to the brake pad 11, i.e. the increase in load, may be proportional or logarithmic (or have any other desired rate of change characteristic), depending upon the objectives of the exercise involved”, Col. 3 ln. 49-54).
Claims 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Rubin et al (US 2019/0344123 A1; hereinafter: Rubin) and Orady et al (US 10,335,262) in further view Dube (US 10456614 A).
Rubin discloses the device substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 12, Rubin as modified discloses a spool or drum (“The dynamic force module 300 generally includes a computer controller actuator, such as a motor 302, coupled to a spool 304 about which the cable 106 is wrapped”, Paragraph 0059).
Rubin as modified fails to disclose wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least a rotary encoder for detecting rotation of a spool or drum for determining the speed of the at least one retractable line as it is extended from or retracted onto the spool or drum.
Dube teaches an analogous fitness training apparatus (Fig. 15; col. 19 ln. 57 through col. 20 ln. 24), and further teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least a rotary encoder for detecting rotation of a spool or drum (Main digital controller is capable of having a rotary encoder for determine the velocity and position feedback for the real 150, “an encoder such as Dynapar #HA725-10000-0240”, Col. 21 ln. 44-62) for determining the speed of the at least one retractable line as it is extended from or retracted onto the spool or drum (“The output of motor 830 is passed through a gearbox or other transmission 840 and controls the rotation of a reel 150 wound with a flexible assist member/cable 156. Velocity and position feedback for the reel 150 is provided by an appropriate sensor 882.”, the rotary encoder determines the velocity and position of the flexible assist member/cable 156 as it’s extended from or retracted onto the reel 150 via determining velocity and position feedback for the reel 150, Col. 21 ln. 44-62).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rubin the rotary encoder of Dube to be able to provide feedback of the speed and position of cable (Dube, Col. 21 ln. 44-62).
Regarding claim 21, Rubin as modified discloses a spool or drum (“The dynamic force module 300 generally includes a computer controller actuator, such as a motor 302, coupled to a spool 304 about which the cable 106 is wrapped”, Paragraph 0059).
Rubin as modified fails to disclose wherein the sensor comprises a rotary encoder for detecting rotation of a spool or drum for determining the speed of the retractable line as it is extended from or retracted onto the spool or drum.
Dube teaches an analogous fitness training apparatus (Fig. 15; col. 19 ln. 57 through col. 20 ln. 24), and further teaches wherein the sensor comprise at least a rotary encoder for detecting rotation of a spool or drum (Main digital controller is capable of having a rotary encoder for determine the velocity and position feedback for the real 150, “an encoder such as Dynapar #HA725-10000-0240”, Col. 21 ln. 44-62) for determining the speed of the retractable line as it is extended from or retracted onto the spool or drum (“The output of motor 830 is passed through a gearbox or other transmission 840 and controls the rotation of a reel 150 wound with a flexible assist member/cable 156. Velocity and position feedback for the reel 150 is provided by an appropriate sensor 882.”, the rotary encoder determines the velocity and position of the flexible assist member/cable 156 as it’s extended from or retracted onto the reel 150 via determining velocity and position feedback for the reel 150, Col. 21 ln. 44-62).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rubin the rotary encoder of Dube to be able to provide feedback of the speed and position of cable (Dube, Col. 21 ln. 44-62).
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted on 05/13/2025 have been considered but are moot as a new rejection has been issued. The Examiner notes that the Applicant is correct in that Rubin fails to teach the newly added limitation of “wherein the load generator includes at least one direct drive motor configured to directly drive the at least one retractable line”, however, Orady et al teaches a direct drive motor, as described.
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 LOAN B JIMENEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4966. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6 am to 4 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 B. 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.
LOAN B. JIMENEZ
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3784
/LOAN B JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3784