Detailed Action
This is the Final Rejection based on application 18/337,773 filed on 06/20/2023, and which claims as amended on 05/15/2026 have been considered in the ensuing action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments have been sufficient to overcome the claim objections presented in the previous Non-Final Action.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation “change which of the settings are allowed to be selected for controlling the actuator” on lines 12-13. It is unclear what the claimed limitation is intending to mean as to the system changing which settings are allowed to be selected, more specifically whether the limitation is claiming is a physical “reduction of the range of settings” as in when the maximum or minimum deflection amounts are selected the system simply doesn’t allow a further change to take place physically, or if the control system somehow takes away the options/settings available and now the user/system cannot make that selection. Paragraphs [0111]-[0112] of the instant applications specification discuss the logic the system uses to determine whether the desired setting causes the deck deflection to exceed a deflection threshold by either being too soft or too stiff given the data of the user’s weight, however how the system actually removes/alters these settings is not discussed.
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) 1-6,8-10, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watterson et al. US 20050164839 A1,and further in view of Basta et al. US 20160007885 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
Watterson teaches a fitness machine (treadmill 10) providing shock absorption for a user operating the fitness machine (“In more particular the present invention relates to a self-adjusting treadmill having a moveable console and a self-adjusting cushioning assembly.” See abstract), the fitness machine comprising: a base (base 22); at least one member (tread base 50) engageable by the user and moveable relative to the base during operation of the fitness machine (“Tread base 50 provides a surface allowing a user to exercise on treadmill 10.” See paragraph [0052]); a resilient body (cushioning member 72) that resists movement of the at least one member towards the base so as to provide shock absorption for the user (“Cushioning member 72 is comprised of a resilient material that is utilized to absorb impact on deck 56. Cushioning member 72 contacts deck 56 such that when a user is exercising on deck 56 cushioning member 72 absorbs impact while also controlling the amount of deflection of deck 56.” See paragraph [0055]), wherein the resistance provided by the resilient body is adjustable to vary the shock absorption provided (“Variable cushioning mechanism 70 provides a mechanism for providing variable amounts of cushioning to a user exercising on tread base 50.” See paragraph [0054]); and a control system (Control system 101) configured to receive from the user a shock setting corresponding to how much shock absorption is desired (“The user inputs the desired amount of cushioning to be provided by the variable cushioning mechanism 70 by inputting the desired amount of cushioning into user cushioning selection pad 100.” See paragraph [0071]), and to receive other than from the user a secondary input (“The amount of cushioning provided can be varied based on the weight, desired amount of deflection of the deck, or other parameters that can be utilized to customize the amount of cushioning provided by cushioning assembly to a user exercising on tread base 50.See paragraph [0053]), wherein the control system is further configured to adjust the resistance provided by the resilient body based on both the shock setting and the secondary input simultaneously (“In one embodiment, utilizing known qualities of deck, the amount of deflection of deck can be used to ascertain the weight of the user standing on deck.” See paragraph [0058]. The examiner notes that the system using the weight of the user and the deflection together to control the amount of cushioning as discussed above and in the citation of paragraph [0053] above is the system using the user’s chosen deflection setting and the secondary input simultaneously).
PNG
media_image1.png
625
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
489
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Watterson fails to teach that the secondary input being other than a measured distance and not based on a measured distance of the at least one member moving towards the base.
Basta, however, teaches an integrated unweighted gait training system having an unweighting system comprising a computer controller; a gait measurement system in communication with the controller; and a display in communication with the computer controller adapted and configured to provide real-time feedback to a user of the integrated unweighting gait training system (See abstract), and further teaches the secondary input being other than a measured distance and not based on a measured distance of the at least one member moving towards the base (Paragraph [0033] and figure 2 outline that the system can utilize multiple sensors including patient worn sensors, either implanted or worn directly by the user, as well as sensors housed within the gait training system itself in order to feed data to the controller to provide controls for the device) . The examiner notes that Basta provides further examples of what types of secondary inputs it uses such as a target muscle group for the user when operating the fitness machine (“In yet another aspect, biofeedback can include the stimulation of designated and associated action groups to help with training of a targeting muscle group.” See paragraph [0032]), historical adjustments of the resilient body from previous operation of the fitness machine (“In this way, the system may be able to only change the system parameters within an established safe limit of parameter change for this patient type, age, previous performance, established protocol, or other safety related parameter for system adjustment.” See paragraph [0113]. The examiner notes that the system being changed based on previous performance of the user includes the previous adjustments of the members in order for it to change during the instant use).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary input to be anything other than just the distance of the at least one member moving towards the base as taught by Basta, so the system can provide more accurate adjustments based on specific data points gathered from the user’s performance in real time, not just a measured distance change as the user steps/runs on the tread belt.
Regarding claim 2:
Watterson as modified by Basta teaches the fitness machine according to claim 1, teaches wherein the secondary input is based at least in part on a target muscle group for the user when operating the fitness machine (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3:
Watterson teaches the fitness machine according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the secondary input is based at least in part on a metabolic response of the user when operating the fitness machine.
Basta, however, teaches an integrated unweighted gait training system having an unweighting system comprising a computer controller; a gait measurement system in communication with the controller; and a display in communication with the computer controller adapted and configured to provide real-time feedback to a user of the integrated unweighting gait training system (See abstract), and further teaches wherein the secondary input is based at least in part on a metabolic response of the user when operating the fitness machine (“In some embodiments, the training device or system is capable of recording a broad range of information about user performance, including but not limited to duration, speed, incline, percentage body weight, heart rate, and gait factors.” See paragraph [0181]. The examiner notes that paragraph [0082] also states that data regarding muscle activation can also be collected and used by the control system)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary input(s) of Watterson to be based on metabolic responses of the user as taught by Basta, so that the electronic control system can provide more accurate adjustments to the shock settings without the user needing to manually adjust the settings themselves during use.
Regarding claim 4:
Watterson as modified by Basta teaches the fitness machine according to claim 1, wherein the secondary input is based at least in part on historical adjustments of the resilient body from previous operation of the fitness machine (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5:
Watterson as modified discloses the fitness machine according to claim 1, wherein the secondary input is based on a program for operating the fitness machine over a period of time(“For example, a user of a constant weight may desire a change in the amount of cushioning provided by variable cushioning mechanism 70 based on the type or intensity of exercise to be performed. For example, a user may select a large amount of cushioning for a long and slow paced workout while desiring a small amount of cushioning for a shorter more intense workout.” See paragraph [0067]. The examiner notes that the user being able to select the type/intensity of exercise and the system then controlling the cushioning based on the selected exercise program for the session is the secondary input being based on a program for operating over a period of time).
Regarding claim 6:
Watterson as modified discloses the fitness machine according to claim 5, wherein the program includes simulated terrains that change over the period of time for operating the fitness machine (“As the user exercises on the endless belt, inclining of tread base 50 can simulate natural changes in the slope of the running surface that are encountered during a typical outdoor exercise routine.” See paragraph [0028]), and wherein the secondary input is based at least in part on the simulated terrains (The examiner notes that as stated above in the rejections of claims 1 and 5, which claim 6 is dependent on, the cushioning can be automatically adjust according to the exercise program selected by the user, and further influenced by the detected deflection of the tread belt, therefore as the system changes the inclination of the tread belt to simulate various terrains/running surfaces, the deflection and thereby the amount of cushioning must also change accordingly).
Regarding claim 8:
Watterson teaches the fitness machine according to claim 1, further comprising a sensor (Sensor mechanism 82) that measures the movement of the at least one member towards the base during operation of the fitness machine (“Deflection member 84 is coupled to deck 56 such that deflection of deck 56 result in movement of deflection member 84. Sensor mechanism 82 is coupled to tread base frame 58. Sensor mechanism 82 detects movement of deflection member 84 and monitors the amount of movement of deflection member 84.” See paragraph [0057]),but fails to teach wherein the control system is further configured to generate a trend of a change in the movement measured by the sensor over time, wherein the secondary input is based at least in part on the trend.
Basta, however, teaches an integrated unweighted gait training system having an unweighting system comprising a computer controller; a gait measurement system in communication with the controller; and a display in communication with the computer controller adapted and configured to provide real-time feedback to a user of the integrated unweighting gait training system, and further teaches wherein the control system is further configured to generate a trend of a change in the movement measured by the sensor over time (“Over time, as the desired gait mechanics are achieved with more consistency, the amount of unweighting may be progressively reduced in order to acclimate the user to walking or running in this new method of gait patterns until such patterns are set as new biomechanics at full gravity.” See paragraph [0084]. The examiner notes that a trend and a pattern are synonymous, and that the gait pattern directly corresponds with the movement of the member), wherein the secondary input is based at least in part on the trend generated from the movement measured by the sensor (as stated above, the gait pattern generated and detected by the control system of Basta is used to determine the feedback and adjustments needed for the user to maintain those results consistently, and then are used as the new baseline once those requirements are met.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Watterson to generate a pattern/trend of the movement of the member to use as an input as taught by Basta, in order for more accurate control of the resilient bodies by the system to be achieved, in order for the user to be able to make consistent improvement and receive accurate performance feedback during use.
Regarding claim 9:
Watterson as modified teaches the fitness machine according to claim 1, further comprising a sensor (Sensor mechanism 82) that measures the movement of the at least one member towards the base during operation of the fitness machine (“Deflection member 84 is coupled to deck 56 such that deflection of deck 56 result in movement of deflection member 84. Sensor mechanism 82 is coupled to tread base frame 58. Sensor mechanism 82 detects movement of deflection member 84 and monitors the amount of movement of deflection member 84.” See paragraph [0057]), wherein the at least one member extends in a first direction (see annotated figure 1) and in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (See annotated figure 2), wherein the movement of the at least one member is a third direction perpendicular to both the first direction and the second direction (The examiner notes that the two preceding limitations and the instant limitation are merely claiming that the member has a length, width, and moves up and down, which as stated above in the rejection of claim 1 the deck moves up and down and the distance is measured by the sensor measuring the deflection member), but fails to teach wherein the control system is further configured to determine a position of a foot of the user on the at least one member engageable by the user, and wherein the secondary input is based at least in part on the position of the foot determined by the control system.
Basta, however, teaches an integrated unweighted gait training system having an unweighting system comprising a computer controller; a gait measurement system in communication with the controller; and a display in communication with the computer controller adapted and configured to provide real-time feedback to a user of the integrated unweighting gait training system, and further teaches wherein the control system is further configured to determine a position of a foot of the user on the at least one member engageable by the user (“In still other aspects, the plurality of gait parameters of a user on a treadmill further comprising foot placement phase asymmetry and stride time jitter.” See paragraph [0035]), wherein the secondary input is based at least in part on the position of the foot determined by the control system (“For example, the system may indicate for the user to change the orientation of their foot, rotate their ankle, bend their knees more, or other adjustments that are based on analysis of the patient gait data to correct or modify that patient's gait.” See paragraph [0112]). Basta further teaches, wherein the position includes both a take-off position and a landing position (“Other additional gait parameters include, by way of example and not limitation, foot placement phase asymmetry (right to left step time compared with left to right step time) and stride time jitter (variation in timing between subsequent footfalls on the same or opposite sides)” See paragraph [0097] and figure 31B for stride phase asymmetry)
PNG
media_image3.png
141
333
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Watterson to track the foot position of the user as taught by Basta, so that the system can more accurately track the users performance such as by tracking their force relative to the resistance applied by the resilient body shock absorbers, and making adjustments necessary so the desired resistance is applied during exercise, and to make sure their foot position corresponds with safe parameters such as to close to the edge of the tread belt or detecting a change in pace so that the system can make adjustments accordingly.
Regarding claim 10:
Watterson as modified by Basta taches the fitness machine according to claim 9, wherein the position includes both a take-off position and a landing position for the foot (See rejection of claim 9).
Regarding claim 13:
Watterson teaches a method for making a fitness machine providing shock absorption for a user operating the fitness machine (“In more particular the present invention relates to a self-adjusting treadmill having a moveable console and a self-adjusting cushioning assembly.” See abstract The examiner notes that while the preamble of the claim states it is a method of making, no production processes are claimed other than “providing” the structures and controls of the exercise machine, therefore the invention of Watterson is capable of being made as all the claimed structures henceforth claimed are shown.), providing a base (base 22) and at least one member engageable by the user and moveable relative to the base during operation of the fitness machine (tread base 50. “Tread base 50 provides a surface allowing a user to exercise on treadmill 10.” See paragraph [0052]); providing a resilient body (cushioning member 72) that resists movement of the at least one member towards the base so as to provide shock absorption for the user (“Cushioning member 72 is comprised of a resilient material that is utilized to absorb impact on deck 56. Cushioning member 72 contacts deck 56 such that when a user is exercising on deck 56 cushioning member 72 absorbs impact while also controlling the amount of deflection of deck 56.” See paragraph [0055]), wherein the resistance provided by the resilient body is adjustable to vary the shock absorption provided (“Variable cushioning mechanism 70 provides a mechanism for providing variable amounts of cushioning to a user exercising on tread base 50.” See paragraph [0054]); configuring a control system (Control system 101) to receive from the user a shock setting corresponding to how much shock absorption is desired (“The user inputs the desired amount of cushioning to be provided by the variable cushioning mechanism 70 by inputting the desired amount of cushioning into user cushioning selection pad 100.” See paragraph [0071]); and to receive other than from the user a secondary input (“The amount of cushioning provided can be varied based on the weight, desired amount of deflection of the deck, or other parameters that can be utilized to customize the amount of cushioning provided by cushioning assembly to a user exercising on tread base 50.See paragraph [0053]) and adjusting the resistance provided by the resilient body based on both the shock setting and the secondary input simultaneously (“In one embodiment, utilizing known qualities of deck, the amount of deflection of deck can be used to ascertain the weight of the user standing on deck.” See paragraph [0058]. The examiner notes that the system using the weight of the user and the deflection together to control the amount of cushioning as discussed above and in the citation of paragraph [0053] above is the system using the user’s chosen deflection setting and the secondary input simultaneously).
Watterson, fails to teach the secondary input being other than a measured distance and not based on a measured distance of the at least one member moving towards the base.
Basta, however, teaches an integrated unweighted gait training system having an unweighting system comprising a computer controller; a gait measurement system in communication with the controller; and a display in communication with the computer controller adapted and configured to provide real-time feedback to a user of the integrated unweighting gait training system (See abstract), and further teaches the secondary input being other than a measured distance and not based on a measured distance of the at least one member moving towards the base (Paragraph [0033] and figure 2 outline that the system can utilize multiple sensors including patient worn sensors, either implanted or worn directly by the user, as well as sensors housed within the gait training system itself in order to feed data to the controller to provide controls for the device) . The examiner notes that Basta provides further examples of what types of secondary inputs it uses such as a target muscle group for the user when operating the fitness machine (“In yet another aspect, biofeedback can include the stimulation of designated and associated action groups to help with training of a targeting muscle group.” See paragraph [0032]), historical adjustments of the resilient body from previous operation of the fitness machine (“In this way, the system may be able to only change the system parameters within an established safe limit of parameter change for this patient type, age, previous performance, established protocol, or other safety related parameter for system adjustment.” See paragraph [0113]. The examiner notes that the system being changed based on previous performance of the user includes the previous adjustments of the members in order for it to change during the instant use).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary input to be anything other than just the distance of the at least one member moving towards the base as taught by Basta, so the system can provide more accurate adjustments based on specific data points gathered from the user’s performance in real time, not just a measured distance change as the user steps/runs on the tread belt.
Regarding claim 14:
Watterson as modified by Basta teaches the method according to claim 13, further comprising adjusting the resistance based on at least one of a target muscle group for the user and a metabolic response of the user (The examiner notes that the phrase “at least one of” preceding the two options requires that only 1 is necessary for the invention.) when operating the fitness machine (See rejection of claim 13).
Regarding claim 15:
Watterson as modified by Basta teaches the method according to claim 13, further comprising adjusting the resistance based at least in part on historical adjustments of the resilient body from previous operation of the fitness machine (See rejection of claim 13).
Regarding claim 16:
Watterson as modified discloses the method according to claim 13, further comprising adjusting the resistance based at least in part on a program for operating the fitness machine over a period of time (“For example, a user of a constant weight may desire a change in the amount of cushioning provided by variable cushioning mechanism 70 based on the type or intensity of exercise to be performed. For example, a user may select a large amount of cushioning for a long and slow paced workout while desiring a small amount of cushioning for a shorter more intense workout.” See paragraph [0067]. The examiner notes that the user being able to select the type/intensity of exercise and the system then controlling the cushioning based on the selected exercise program for the session is the secondary input being based on a program for operating over a period of time).
Regarding claim 17:
Watterson teaches the method according to claim 13, further comprising measuring a movement of the at least one member towards the base during operation of the fitness machine (“Deflection member 84 is coupled to deck 56 such that deflection of deck 56 result in movement of deflection member 84. Sensor mechanism 82 is coupled to tread base frame 58. Sensor mechanism 82 detects movement of deflection member 84 and monitors the amount of movement of deflection member 84.” See paragraph [0057]), but fails to teach generating a trend of a change in the movement over time, and adjusting the resistance based at least in part on the trend.
Basta, however, teaches an integrated unweighted gait training system having an unweighting system comprising a computer controller; a gait measurement system in communication with the controller; and a display in communication with the computer controller adapted and configured to provide real-time feedback to a user of the integrated unweighting gait training system (See abstract), and further teaches wherein the control system is further configured to generate a trend of a change in the movement over time (“Over time, as the desired gait mechanics are achieved with more consistency, the amount of unweighting may be progressively reduced in order to acclimate the user to walking or running in this new method of gait patterns until such patterns are set as new biomechanics at full gravity.” See paragraph [0084]. The examiner notes that a trend and a pattern are synonymous, and that the gait pattern directly corresponds with the movement of the member), wherein the secondary input is based at least in part on the trend generated from the movement measured by the sensor (as stated above, the gait pattern generated and detected by the control system of Basta is used to determine the feedback and adjustments needed for the user to maintain those results consistently, and then are used as the new baseline once those requirements are met.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Watterson to generate a pattern/trend of the movement of the member to use as an input as taught by Basta, in order for more accurate control of the resilient bodies by the system to be achieved, in order for the user to be able to make consistent improvement and receive accurate performance feedback during use.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watterson et al. US 20050164839 A1, in view of Basta et al. US 20160007885 A1, and further in view of Corbalis et al. US 20110319229 A1.
Watterson teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 7:
Watterson teaches the fitness machine according to claim 5, but fails to teach wherein the program includes random adjustments for the resistance provided by the resilient body over time, and wherein the secondary input is based at least in part on the random adjustments in the program.
Corbalis, however, teaches an exercise machine including a motivating and instructional user interface or display, where the interface includes a virtual coach or other encouraging stimulus to provide key motivation for users of indoor exercise machines, and further teaches that an exercise program includes random adjustments for the resilient body over time, and wherein the secondary input is based at least in part on the random adjustments in the program (“For example, a user of the exercise machine may input initialization information indicative of one or more of the following workout parameters: a preselected workout type (e.g., fat burning, strength building, cardio, endurance), the weight of the user, desired heart rate range, the age of the user, the user's exercise experience (e.g., beginner, intermediate, expert), desired caloric expenditure, workout length, simulated terrain type (e.g., level, hills, mixed, random), combinations of the same or the like.” See paragraph [0048]. The examiner notes that as stated above in the rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) in view of Lu the system already utilizes a program and other inputs as the secondary inputs to make adjustments to the resistance of the resilient bodies which can be based off of simulated terrain environments, however it is not stated that they are random, as such the system of Corbalis being able to provide random simulations during the course of an exercise is being considered as the secondary input being based on the random changes to resistance as the user would not know what terrain environment is being used).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary input of Watterson to be based on random adjustments for the resilient body as taught by Corbalis, as this would keep the user engaged during exercise since the adjustments would not only be based off their desired workout inputs but they would need to adapt to the changes thus increasing the value of the workout for the user.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watterson et al. US 20050164839 A1, in view of Basta et al. US 20160007885 A1, and further in view of Corbalis et al. US 20180361194 A1.
Watterson teaches the invention as substantially claimed.
Regarding claim 11:
Watterson teaches the fitness machine according to claim 1, wherein the resilient body is two or more resilient bodies that each resist movement of the at least one member towards the base (“In the illustrated embodiment, variable cushioning mechanism 70 includes cushioning members 72a, b, lever arms 74a, b, moveable fulcrums 76a, b and a transverse bar 78.” See paragraph [0068 and figure 9), but fails to teach wherein the control system is configured to adjust the resistances provided by the two or more resilient bodies independently of each other based on the shock setting and the secondary input.
PNG
media_image4.png
516
686
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Corbalis, however, teaches a treadmill including a frame, a suspension connector connected to the frame, and a flexible deck connected to the suspension connector. The flexible deck is configured to flex in response to a load applied by a user striding on the treadmill, and further teaches wherein the control system is configured to adjust the resistances provided by the two or more resilient bodies independently of each other based on the shock setting and the secondary input (“In another example, one or more components of the intermediate support 206 may be moved in response to determining a user's weight.” See paragraph [0032]. The examiner notes that paragraph [0032] further states that the stiffness adjustment can be an automated process completed by the systems controller, and that the mention that “one or more” of the suspension supports 206 can be adjusted by the system shows that can be an independent adjustment for each support).
PNG
media_image5.png
408
381
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control system of Watterson to include the capability to independently adjust the suspension/cushioning elements as taught by Corbalis as this would allow the amount of cushioning/resistance to be more precisely adjusted according to where the user feels they need more support during workouts, and can follow the simulated terrain functions better adapting the amount of support to the training program desired/input by the user.
Regarding claim 12:
Watterson as modified teaches the fitness machine according to claim 11, , further comprising a sensor (Sensor mechanism 82) that measures the movement of the at least one member towards the base during operation of the fitness machine (“Deflection member 84 is coupled to deck 56 such that deflection of deck 56 result in movement of deflection member 84. Sensor mechanism 82 is coupled to tread base frame 58. Sensor mechanism 82 detects movement of deflection member 84 and monitors the amount of movement of deflection member 84.” See paragraph [0057]), wherein the at least one member extends in a first direction (see annotated figure 1) and in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (See annotated figure 2), wherein the movement of the at least one member is a third direction perpendicular to both the first direction and the second direction (The examiner notes that the two preceding limitations and the instant limitation are merely claiming that the member has a length, width, and moves up and down, which as stated above in the rejection of claim 1 the deck moves up and down and the distance is measured by the sensor measuring the deflection member), but fails to teach wherein the control system is configured to determine a position of a foot of the user on the at least one member engageable by the user in the first direction and/or in the second direction, and wherein the secondary input for independently adjusting the two or more resilient bodies is based at least in part on the position of the foot determined by the control system.
Basta, however, teaches an integrated unweighted gait training system having an unweighting system comprising a computer controller; a gait measurement system in communication with the controller; and a display in communication with the computer controller adapted and configured to provide real-time feedback to a user of the integrated unweighting gait training system, and further teaches wherein the control system is further configured to determine a position of a foot of the user on the at least one member engageable by the user (“In still other aspects, the plurality of gait parameters of a user on a treadmill further comprising foot placement phase asymmetry and stride time jitter.” See paragraph [0035]), wherein the secondary input is based at least in part on the position of the foot determined by the control system (“For example, the system may indicate for the user to change the orientation of their foot, rotate their ankle, bend their knees more, or other adjustments that are based on analysis of the patient gait data to correct or modify that patient's gait.” See paragraph [0112]). Basta further teaches, wherein the position includes both a take-off position and a landing position (“Other additional gait parameters include, by way of example and not limitation, foot placement phase asymmetry (right to left step time compared with left to right step time) and stride time jitter (variation in timing between subsequent footfalls on the same or opposite sides)” See paragraph [0097] and figure 31B for stride phase asymmetry)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Watterson to track the foot position of the user as taught by Basta, so that the system can more accurately track the users performance such as by tracking their force relative to the resistance applied by the resilient body shock absorbers, and making adjustments necessary so the desired resistance is applied during exercise, and to make sure their foot position corresponds with safe parameters such as to close to the edge of the tread belt or detecting a change in pace so that the system can make adjustments accordingly.
Regarding claim 18:
Watterson teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the resilient body is two or more resilient bodies that each resist movement of the at least one member towards the base (“In the illustrated embodiment, variable cushioning mechanism 70 includes cushioning members 72a, b, lever arms 74a, b, moveable fulcrums 76a, b and a transverse bar 78.” See paragraph [0068 and figure 9), but fails to teach wherein the resistances of the two or more resilient bodies are adjusted independently based on the shock setting and the secondary input.
Corbalis, however, teaches a treadmill including a frame, a suspension connector connected to the frame, and a flexible deck connected to the suspension connector. The flexible deck is configured to flex in response to a load applied by a user striding on the treadmill, and further teaches wherein the control system is configured to adjust the resistances provided by the two or more resilient bodies independently of each other based on the shock setting and the secondary input (“In another example, one or more components of the intermediate support 206 may be moved in response to determining a user's weight.” See paragraph [0032]. The examiner notes that paragraph [0032] further states that the stiffness adjustment can be an automated process completed by the systems controller, and that the mention that “one or more” of the suspension supports 206 can be adjusted by the system shows that can be an independent adjustment for each support).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control system of Watterson to include the capability to independently adjust the suspension/cushioning elements as taught by Corbalis as this would allow the amount of cushioning/resistance to be more precisely adjusted according to where the user feels they need more support during workouts, and can follow the simulated terrain functions better adapting the amount of support to the training program desired/input by the user.
Regarding claim 19:
Watterson as modified teaches the method according to claim 18, but fails to teach determining a position of a foot of the user on the at least one member engageable by the user, wherein the secondary input is based at least in part on the position of the foot determined by the control system.
Basta, however, teaches an integrated unweighted gait training system having an unweighting system comprising a computer controller; a gait measurement system in communication with the controller; and a display in communication with the computer controller adapted and configured to provide real-time feedback to a user of the integrated unweighting gait training system, and further teaches determining a position of a foot of the user on the at least one member engageable by the user (“In still other aspects, the plurality of gait parameters of a user on a treadmill further comprising foot placement phase asymmetry and stride time jitter.” See paragraph [0035]), wherein the secondary input is based at least in part on the position of the foot determined by the control system (“For example, the system may indicate for the user to change the orientation of their foot, rotate their ankle, bend their knees more, or other adjustments that are based on analysis of the patient gait data to correct or modify that patient's gait.” See paragraph [0112]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify system of Watterson to determine a position of the foot of the user and base the secondary input at least in part on the detected foot position as taught by Basta, as this would allow the system to not only more accurately track the users performance, but also provide more accurate real time adjustments to the resilient bodies to improve the workout and training experienced by the user.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watterson et al. US 2005164839 A1, and further in view of Skowronski et al. US 6436008 B1.
Watterson teaches a fitness machine providing shock absorption for a user operating the fitness machine (“In more particular the present invention relates to a self-adjusting treadmill having a moveable console and a self-adjusting cushioning assembly.” See abstract), the fitness machine comprising: a base (base 22) and at least one member engageable by the user and moveable relative to the base during operation of the fitness machine (tread base 50. “Tread base 50 provides a surface allowing a user to exercise on treadmill 10.” See paragraph [0052]); a resilient body (cushioning member 72) that resists movement of the at least one member towards the base to provide shock absorption for the user (“Cushioning member 72 is comprised of a resilient material that is utilized to absorb impact on deck 56. Cushioning member 72 contacts deck 56 such that when a user is exercising on deck 56 cushioning member 72 absorbs impact while also controlling the amount of deflection of deck 56.” See paragraph [0055]; an actuator (cushioning adjustment motor 92) controllable within a range of settings, wherein a resistance provided by the resilient body is adjustable by controlling the actuator (“Cushioning adjustment motor 92 causes lengthening and shortening of adjustment rod 90. As adjustment rod 90 lengthens and shortens, movement of transverse bar 78 occurs proximally and distally along the length of moveable fulcrum 76a, b. Movement of transverse bar 78 results in movement of moveable fulcrum 76a, b and a change in the amount of cushioning provided by variable cushioning mechanism 70.” See paragraph [0070]. The examiner notes that paragraph [0069] discusses the construction of the cushioning adjustment system and that as the transverse bar 78 moves the fulcrums 76a/b the lever arms 74a/b in turn adjust the amount of resistance/cushioning provided by the cushioning members 72.); a sensor (deflection sensor assembly 80 which includes sensor mechanism 82 and deflection member 84) configured to measure the movement of the at least one member during operation of the fitness machine (“Sensor mechanism 82 is coupled to tread base frame 58. Sensor mechanism 82 detects movement of deflection member 84 and monitors the amount of movement of deflection member 84. Based on the amount of movement of deflection member 84 sensor mechanism is able to ascertain the amount of deflection of deck 56.” See paragraph [0057].).
PNG
media_image6.png
416
692
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
484
668
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Watterson fails to teach a control system configured to determine whether the movement of the at least one member is beyond a threshold and to change which of the settings are allowed to be selected for controlling the actuator while using the fitness machine when the movement of the at least one member is beyond the threshold.
Skowronski, however, teaches an exercise treadmill having a shock absorbent running surface by providing resilient members to support a deck located under a belt (See col. 3 lines 27-30) and further teaches a control system configured to determine whether the movement of the at least one member is beyond a threshold (“The degree of inclination chosen by the treadmill user is further controlled by a potentiometer 176 connected to microprocessor 300. Potentiometer 176 is attached to frame 26. Potentiometer 176 also comprises a gear 178 which is mounted to travel up or down screw 158 as treadmill 10 becomes more or less inclined, respectively. The rotation of gear 178 therefore is used to calculate the degree of inclination as discussed below. Additionally, limit switches (not shown) which sense the upper and lower degrees of inclination, respectively in a known arrangement.” See col. 14 lines 32-42) and to change which of the settings are allowed to be selected for controlling the actuator while using the fitness machine when the movement of the at least one member is beyond the threshold (The examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, that under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural or functional limitations the range of settings selectable being reduced is being considered to be that once the threshold is exceeded the system will not allow the treadmill to move anymore, and therefore Skowronski states in col.14 lines 46-49, “Once the maximum upper or lower degree of inclination is reached as sensed by either potentiometer 176 or the limit switches, the microprocessor shuts off motor 166.” Where the microprocessor shutting the motor off and removing the ability for the treadmill to move is the range of settings being reduced to zero selectable settings).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Watterson to include a control system which determines whether the movement of the at least one member is beyond a threshold and to reduce the range of settings selectable for controlling the actuator when the movement of the at least one member is beyond the threshold as taught by Skowronski as this would prevent the user from exceeding the physical limits of the treadmill causing damage to the treadmill, and would increase the safety restraints of the system preventing the user from injuring themselves during use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2026 in response to the rejection previously presented under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive, as such the rejection has been withdrawn.
In regards to the rejection previously presented under 35 USC 112(b) for independent claim 20, the applicant did not provide any response in regards to the rejection in the arguments filed 05/15/2026, whether to provide clarity or to define the indicated undefined claim limitations, and therefore the rejection has been maintained above.
Furthermore the applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2026 in regards to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13 under 5 USC 103 in view of the combination of Watterson and Basta have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As noted in the rejection above, Watterson does discuss using an input consisting of the user’s desired stiffness setting and a secondary input which could be the user’s weight detected by the system during use, to automatically control the settings of the device during use. What is not specifically taught is that the secondary input is one not based on a measured distance of the at least one member moving towards the base. Therefore the secondary reference of Basta was introduced which teaches using a variety of sensor inputs, and historical data, as inputs to the controller for the system to determine operating settings, where the modification of Watterson noted above was to modify the secondary input to be the historical data of Basta, to make the control system dependent on user profiles, or previous workout data, in addition to the current settings chosen by the user to suggest or modify the current operating parameters of the device are a common occurrence in the field of electronically controlled exercise devices. In addition, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 JONATHAN ANGELO DICUIA whose telephone number is (703)756-4713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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.
/JONATHAN A DICUIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights