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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “actuating means” of claim 12, the “bearing shell” of Claim 17, and “gate guide” of Claim 25 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The “bearing shell” of claim 17 lacks antecedent basis in the specifications.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains 2 paragraphs. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 1 recites “Ergometer”, it is suggested that Applicant replace the limitations with --An ergometer--.
Claim 1 Line 9 recites “this bearing”, should be replace with --the bearing-- since this appears to be a typographical error.
Claim 4 Line 2 recites “wherein a floor plate”, it is suggested that Applicant replace the limitation with –further comprising a floor plate--.
Claim 4 Line 3 recites “therebelow”, it is suggested that Applicant add --the floor plate--thereafter.
Claim 4 Line 4 recites “thereabove”, it is suggested that Applicant add --the floor plate--thereafter.
Claims 2-14 and 16-25 Line 1 recite “Ergometer as claimed”, should be replaced with –The ergometer as claimed--.
Claim 13 Line 5 recites “can be”, it is suggested that Applicant replace the limitation with --is configured to be--.
Claim 13 Lines 6-7 recite “can be”, it is suggested that Applicant replace the limitation with --is configured to be--.
Claim 15 Line 1 recites “Method of using”, it is suggested that Applicant replace the limitation with --A method of using--.
Claim 18 Line 3 recites “(1a)”, this appears to be a typo and should be removed.
Claim 22 Line 2 recites “below this brake”, “this” appears to be a typo and should be replaced with --the--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bearing" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to proceed, “the” will be replaced with –a--.
Claim 2 Lines 4-5and 17 Lines 3-4 recite “the con rod solely and without any further guide supports substantially the entire load”, if the con rod solely and without any other guides support the load, it is unclear how it would only substantially support the entire load. If there is no other guide support it would appear that it would either fully support or not fully support the entire load. In order to proceed, the Office will interpret the claim such as -- the con rod substantially supports the entire load--.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the at least one adjustment element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to proceed, “the” will be replaced with –a--.
Claim 12, the limitation “actuating means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 13 Line 2 recites “an eccentric disk”, however an eccentric disk has already been previously recited and therefore it is unclear if Applicant is referring to the same or different disk. In order to proceed, “an” will be replaced with --the--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the counterweight" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to proceed, “the” will be replaced with –a--.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the swivel axle mounting" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to proceed, “the” will be replaced with –a--.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the fork ends" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to proceed, “the” will be removed.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the arms" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to proceed, “the” will be removed.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the opposite converged arms" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to proceed, “the” will be removed.
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 use the word “means,” are 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: “actuating means” if claim 12.
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. There is no disclosure of a structure relating to an “actuating means” in specification.
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 § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 11, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stiefel, Rainer (DE 202018105557 U1).
Regarding Claim 1, Stiefel teaches an ergometer having at least one pedal device 4,6 for a user, and having a vibration unit 2,
PNG
media_image1.png
864
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the vibration unit has at least one main shaft 30 (Refer to annotated Figs. 1&2) which is driven directly or indirectly by a motor 22 and which has an eccentric disk 28 fastened thereto, wherein the eccentric disk is rotatably coupled to a con rod 24, and wherein the con rod by way of a con rod head 32 disposed opposite one of the eccentric disk 28 thereof transmits the vibrations to the bearing 32 of the pedal device 4,6 such that the vibrations bear on this bearing 32 substantially exclusively in the vertical direction (Refer to Figs. 3A-C English Translation:” As in particular from 3A it can be seen, have the storage facilities L the two bearing pairs 14 . 16 in each case a connecting rod 24 on, at a wave-side end a connecting rod eye 26 forms, with an eccentric disc 28 interacts. The four eccentric discs 28 are here with a drive shaft 30 connected by the engine 22 is driven, how out 1 can be seen. This forms the drive shaft 30 an axis A at the four storage facilities L the two bearing pairs 14 . 16 are stored together and coaxial and about which they with a driving force or with a drive torque M the motor can be acted upon. At a stand-side end of the connecting rods 24 are each ball bearings 32 provided that in operation by their three degrees of freedom an undisturbed tumbling motion between the floor elements 4 . 6 and the movement mechanics of the vibration device 2”.)
Regarding Claim 2, Stiefel continues to teach wherein the vibration unit 2 is disposed below the bearing 32, and wherein the con rod head is coupled directly to the bearing 32, wherein the con rod 24 solely and without any further guide supports substantially the entire load directed vertically downward on the bearing 32 (Refer to Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Stiefel continues to teach wherein the ergometer is mounted on a base plate which acts as a mechanical high-pass filter for the vibrations generated by the vibration unit, and/or in that a further eccentric disk y way of which a counterweight (36) is set in a compensating vibration is disposed on the main shaft (Refer to annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
358
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Stiefel continues to teach wherein the eccentric disk 28 and/or an optionally present further eccentric disk 28 are/is mounted on the main shaft 30 so as to be displaceable and adjustable along a direction perpendicular to the rotation axis of the main shaft 30 (Refer to Figs. 3A-C to depict that the eccentric disk 28 is vertically adjustable/displaceable perpendicular to the horizontal rotation axis of the main shaft 30).
Regarding Claim 23, Stiefel continues to teach wherein wherein the ergometer is mounted on a base plate which acts as a mechanical high-pass filter for the vibrations generated by the vibration unit, and/or in that a further eccentric disk by way of which a counterweight is set in a compensating vibration is disposed on the main shaft ,wherein this further eccentric disk is disposed on the main shaft by way of eccentricity which is counter to the eccentric disk for driving the con rod (Refer to annotated Fig. 2 above to depict the base plate , wherein the Office takes the position that the base plate acts as a high-pass filter for the vibration in as much as Applicants).
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.
Claim(s)1, 5, 7, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Meer (US 20110152040 A1) in view of Stiefel, Rainer (DE 202018105557 U1).
Regarding Claims 1&16, Van Der Meer teaches an bicycle ergometer comprising a vibration unit which has at least one main shaft 17 (Refer to Fig.4) which is driven directly or indirectly by a motor 19 and which has an disk 54 fastened thereto, wherein the disk 54 is rotatably coupled to a con rod 36, and wherein the con rod by way of a con rod head 12 disposed opposite one of the disk 54 thereof transmits the vibrations to the connection 13 of the pedal device 5 such that the vibrations bear on this connection 13 substantially exclusively in the vertical direction 40 (Refer to Figs. 2 and 3A-C Paragraph [0065]&[0069]) but fails to teach wherein the disk is an eccentric disk which transmit vibrations to the bearing of the pedal device. Stiefel teaches an vibration exercise devices comprising a motor 22 and which has an eccentric disk 28 fastened thereto, wherein the eccentric disk is rotatably coupled to a con rod 24, and wherein the con rod by way of a con rod head 32 disposed opposite one of the eccentric disk 28 thereof transmits the vibrations to the bearing 32 of the pedal device 4,6 such that the vibrations bear on this bearing 32 substantially exclusively in the vertical direction (Refer to Figs. 3A-C). Stiefel is analogous with Applicants invention in that they both teach vibrating exercise devices and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the connection point of Van Deer Meers to be in view of Stiefel such that the connection point 13 comprises a bearing and the disk 54 is an eccentric disk which transmit vibrations to the bearing of the pedal device, since Stiefel teaches that such vibration mechanisms are known in the art and therefore such modification would have been obvious tot and does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts.
Regarding Claim 5, Van Der Meer in view of Stiefel continues to teach wherein a brake 33 is disposed which brake by way of a force transmission element 38 coupled to the pedal device 5 (Refer to Van Der Meer Fig. 4 Paragraph [0065]:” The flywheel 20 is mechanically coupled to the crankshaft 17 by the two endless bodies 38 (each of them hereafter called endless driving body 38) and to the cycling device 4 by one endless body 39 (hereafter called endless cycling body 39). The cycling device 4 comprises a cycle disc 30 configured to rotate around the cycle axis 6 when the cycle members 5 are rotated around the cycle axis 6.”.. [0084] The cycle disc 30 may also be connected to a cycling resistor 33”.. [0180] 74. Training system according to any of the preceding clauses, wherein the training system comprises an adjustable cycling resistor for providing and adjusting a resistance to the rotation of the cycling member around the cycle axis.”) and wherein the bearing of the pedal device is mounted so as to be pivotable about a horizontal swivel axle 6 (Refer to annotated Fig. 2 of Van Der Meer below as modified by Stiefel).
PNG
media_image3.png
730
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Van Der Meer in view of Stiefel continues to teach wherein the vibration unit (19,54,36,12, 13 as modified) is disposed below this brake 33 (Refer to Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 20, Van Der Meer in view of Stiefel continues to teach wherein a brake 33 is disposed substantially at the same level as the pedal device 5, which brake by way of a force transmission element, in the form of a chain, of a timing belt or of a V-belt 38, is coupled to the pedal device 5, and wherein the bearing of the pedal device is mounted so as to be pivotable about a horizontal swivel axle 6 disposed at the level of an axle 6 of the brake, wherein the swivel axle is disposed in such a manner that the pivoting movement at the location of the bearing is permitted substantially exclusively in the vertical direction 40 (Refer to Van Der Meer Fig. 4 Paragraph [0065]:” The flywheel 20 is mechanically coupled to the crankshaft 17 by the two endless bodies 38 (each of them hereafter called endless driving body 38) and to the cycling device 4 by one endless body 39 (hereafter called endless cycling body 39). The cycling device 4 comprises a cycle disc 30 configured to rotate around the cycle axis 6 when the cycle members 5 are rotated around the cycle axis 6.”.. [0084] The cycle disc 30 may also be connected to a cycling resistor 33”.. [0180] 74. Training system according to any of the preceding clauses, wherein the training system comprises an adjustable cycling resistor for providing and adjusting a resistance to the rotation of the cycling member around the cycle axis.”).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiefel, Rainer (DE 202018105557 U1) in view of HYPERVIBE PTY LTD (CA 2792931 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Stiefel teaches the claimed invention as noted above in which Stiefel teaches that the device amplitudes and frequency may be adjusted (Refer to English Translation:” Moreover, it is favorable if the connecting rod has a connecting rod eye on a shaft-side end, which cooperates with an eccentric disk of the drive shaft. By this arrangement, the rotational movement of the drive shaft can be converted into a stable longitudinal movement of the connecting rods, which in turn can be used for recurring deflection of the respective floor element. By appropriate dimensioning of the eccentricity of the eccentric disk while a desired amplitude of the recurrent lifting and lowering movement of the stand surface elements can be adjusted during operation of the vibrating device.:”), but fails to expressly disclose wherein said ergometer is conceived for the operation at a frequency of 1-50 Hz with a vibration amplitude at the bearing in the range from 1-10 mm, in the range from 3-7 mm, at a load in the range from 50-500 W, in the range from 100-300 W. HYPERVIBE teaches an vibration device comprising a vibration unit for the operation at a frequency of 1-50 Hz with a vibration amplitude at the bearing in the range from 1-10 mm, in the range from 3-7 mm, at a load in the range from 50-500 W, in the range from 100-300 W (Refer to Page 20 lines 12-20).HYPERVIBE is analogous with Applicants invention in that they both teach vibration exercise devices and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the device of Stiefel such that the operation at a frequency of 1-50 Hz with a vibration amplitude at the bearing in the range from 1-10 mm, in the range from 3-7 mm, at a load in the range from 50-500 W, in the range from 100-300 W, since HYPERVIBE teaches that such frequencies and amplitudes are known in the art to be suitable for vibration exercise devices and therefore does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts.
Regarding Claim 15, Stiefel teaches the claimed invention as noted above in which Stiefel teaches that the device amplitudes and frequency may be adjusted (Refer to English Translation:” Moreover, it is favorable if the connecting rod has a connecting rod eye on a shaft-side end, which cooperates with an eccentric disk of the drive shaft. By this arrangement, the rotational movement of the drive shaft can be converted into a stable longitudinal movement of the connecting rods, which in turn can be used for recurring deflection of the respective floor element. By appropriate dimensioning of the eccentricity of the eccentric disk while a desired amplitude of the recurrent lifting and lowering movement of the stand surface elements can be adjusted during operation of the vibrating device.:”), but fails to expressly disclose wherein frequencies at the bearing are adjusted in the range from 5-50 Hz, or in the range from 7- 25 Hz, and/or with amplitudes in the range from 1-10 mm, o3-7 mm. HYPERVIBE teaches an vibration device comprising a vibration unit for the operation at a frequencies at the bearing are adjusted in the range from 5-50 Hz, or in the range from 7- 25 Hz, and/or with amplitudes in the range from 1-10 mm, o3-7 mm. (Refer to Page 20 lines 12-20).HYPERVIBE is analogous with Applicants invention in that they both teach vibration exercise devices and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the device of Stiefel such that the operation at a the bearing are adjusted in the range from 5-50 Hz, or in the range from 7- 25 Hz, and/or with amplitudes in the range from 1-10 mm, o3-7 mm., since HYPERVIBE teaches that such frequencies and amplitudes are known in the art to be suitable for vibration exercise devices and therefore does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17-19, and 21-25 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 and claim objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Van Der Meer as modified and Stiefel are the closest prior arts to the claimed invention teaching a vibration unit which has at least one main shaft which is driven directly or indirectly by a motor and which has an eccentric disk fastened thereto, wherein the disk is rotatably coupled to a con rod, and wherein the con rod by way of a con rod head disposed opposite one of the eccentric disk thereof transmits the vibrations to the connection of the pedal device such that the vibrations bear on this bearing substantially exclusively in the vertical direction but fails to teach the claimed invention as a whole including all the limitations as indicated in the depending claims above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to attach list of references cited for prior arts pertinent to claimed and unclaimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NYCA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7168. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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.
/NYCA T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784