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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claims 5-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claims 5-10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed September 25th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the proposed combination of Chen in view of AAPA does not teach a detachable cantilever shaft. Applicant points to an alleged universal joint structure in Chen as evidence that the universal joint would not made detachable. Applicant also argues that there are specific advantages to making the shaft detachable, namely ease of assembly and disassembly.
The Office respectfully disagrees. First, the specific type of joint connection between Chen’s cantilever and guide arm is never expressly discussed in Chen. Paragraph 23 of Chen merely states that the two arms are “pivotally connected.” The drawings of Chen do not provide exploded views of the joint connection or much detail beyond the above referenced mention of the pivot connection. The Office admits that the drawings provided by Chen could disclose a universal joint, but they could just as well be showing a shaft joint. As such it does not seem clear that the connection type disclosed in Chen is expressly a universal joint.
However, even assuming that Chen does disclose a universal joint the Office is not persuaded that universal joints are in some way inherently incapable of being detached. The applicant has provided no specifics, and the Office is not independently aware, as to why an alleged universal joint would be less likely to be made detachable than a shaft joint. Without any express reasoning as to why this would be the case, the Office finds applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
The ambiguity of joint connection type was one such reason for the proposed combination with applicant’s admitted prior art which does clearly disclose a shaft connection between the cantilever and guide arm. The proposed combination, to rephrase, was to simply substituted the known shaft joint of AAPA with the ambiguous joint of Chen. The applicant have not provided any direct arguments against such a combination. Rather it appears that the applicant takes issue with the determination that it would have been obvious to make the shaft detachable.
MPEP 2144.04 V.C discusses and cites In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.” Applying this to the current invention the Office maintains that it would have been obvious to make the shaft joint of the combined Chen/AAPA prior art detachable. There are several very well-known and obvious reasons for such a change. Namely ease of replacement of a part that is a stress point in the exercise device. Absent some unexpected result from the detachable configuration or other non-obvious technical advantages the Office maintains that it would have been obvious to make the shaft joint of Chen/AAPA detachable.
As discussed above the applicant’s arguments are seen as unpersuasive. As such the rejection below has been updated to incorporate the claim amendments but are otherwise mostly unchanged.
Applicant is however directed to the other art cited in the rejection of dependent claims, and the additional relevant art cited previously. In many of these disclosures detachable shafts are expressly discussed. See for example Bernier (US 1519236) [A in fig. 1-4]; Boogerman (US 4848951) [shaft 12 in fig. 4]; and Janatka (US 5052842) [40-42 in fig. 2]. These all demonstrate that not only were detachable shafts well-known at the time of the filing, but also point towards the obviousness and desirability to one of ordinary skill in the art to make shafts detachable.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2021/0138300) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (Figures 1-2; hereinafter AAPA).
With respect to claim 1, Chen discloses, an elliptical machine (fig. 1), comprising:
a frame body (20 in fig. 1);
a left crank arm and a right crank (33 in fig. 3; para. 19 “two crank arms 33”) are pivotally arranged at a front end of the frame body (figs. 1-3);
a left cantilever and a right cantilever (60s in fig. 1) hung at a rear end of the frame body (clear from fig. 1);
a left guide arm and a right guide arm (41s in fig. 1) pivotally connected (pivot connection between 33 and 42 in fig. 3; para. 20) to the left crank arm and the right crank arm (33 in fig 3) as well as the left cantilever and the right cantilever respectively (60s in fig. 1, 3);
a left pedal assembly and a right pedal assembly (45s in fig. 1-5) pivotally arranged on the left guide arm and the right guide arm (clear from fig. 5) respectively;
a left swing arm and a right swing arm (53s in fig. 1-5; para. 21) pivotally arranged at the front end of the frame body (clear from figs. 1-5); and
a left link arm and a right link arm (55s in fig. 1-5; para. 21) coupled to the left swing arm and the right swing arm as well as the left pedal assembly and the right pedal assembly respectively (clear from figs. 1-5; para. 21);
wherein a cantilever joint is detachably arranged at a first end of each of the left cantilever and the right cantilever, a guide bearing assembly is arranged on each of the left guide arm and the right guide arm (fig. 1 shows a pivoting linkage of some sort between the cantilevers and guide arms. An annotated figure 1 is shown below denoting the mapping of the first and second matching structures.), the guide bearing assembly is pivotally matched with the cantilever joint (para. 22; “[a] rear end of the lower oblique section 62 is pivotally connected to a rear end of the rear oblique section 43 of the respective pedal 41 in a way that can swing back and for, so that each suspension arm 60 sings back and forth with the opposite pedal rod 41.”), such that the left cantilever is pivotally connected to the left guide arm and the right cantilever is pivotally connected to the right guide arm (clear from figs. 1-5)
PNG
media_image1.png
238
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen further discloses, a third matching structure is arranged at a second end of each of the left cantilever and the right cantilever (fig. 1 discloses a bearing assembly to connect cantilever 60 to 27-28), a fourth matching structure is arranged on the frame body (fig. 1 discloses a bolt to connect 27-28 to the bearing assembly of cantilever 60), and the third matching structure and the fourth matching structure are a set of a shaft (bolt in fig. 1) and a bearing assembly (u-shaped bearing in fig. 1) configured to be pivotally matched with each other (clear from fig. 1), such that the left cantilever and the right cantilever are respectively pivotally connected to the frame body (clear from fig. 1); and the third matching structure is detachably connected to the left cantilever and the right cantilever (clear from fig. 1, that the cantilever, 60, and the frame 27-28 are detachably connected by a bolt).
Chen does not expressly disclose that the first matching structure and the second matching structure are a set of a first shaft and a first bearing assembly configured to be pivotally matched with each other.
AAPA discloses, a first matching structure and the second matching structure are a set of a first shaft (3 in fig. 2) and a first bearing assembly (7 in fig. 2) configured to be pivotally matched with each other (clear from fig. 2).
AAPA and Chen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have simply substituted the shaft/bearing structure taught by AAPA with the non-disclosed pivoting structure of Chen. The result would have been a predicable pivot utilizing shaft/bearing.
Neither Chen nor AAPA expressly discloses the cantilever shaft is detachable from the cantilever.
However, merely making elements separable is alone insufficient to support a finding of patentability. Per MPEP 2144.04.V.C it would have been obvious to make elements removable if there were any reason for it. Herein there exist several reasons to make the shaft detachable. For example for repair or replacement of a pivotable element. As such the cantilever shaft being made detachable is seen as obvious.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2021/0138300) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (Figures 1-2; hereinafter AAPA) and further in view of Bernier (US 1519236).
With respect to claim 3, Chen in view of AAPA discloses, the elliptical machine according to claim 1 (see above).
Neither Chen nor AAPA expressly disclose wherein each of the left cantilever and the right cantilever further comprises a locking block locked at a first end of a cantilever body and configured to clamp a part of the cantilever shaft between the locking block and the cantilever body so as to detachably connect the cantilever shaft to the first end of the cantilever body.
Bernier discloses, a locking block (12 in fig. 1) configured to clamp a part of a shaft (A in fig. 1-4) between the locking block and the body (13 in fig. 1) so as to detachably connect the shaft to the body (bolt connection 19-20 in fig. 2).
Bernier, Chen, and AAPA are analogous art because they from the same problem-solving area of pivoting connections.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have detachably connected the shaft of AAPA/Chen to the cantilever with the known locking block design taught by Bernier. Such a combination would have been predictable and resulted in a locking block connected shaft. Potential motivations for such a combination would have been to allow for replacement of the shaft and/or ease in manufacturing (Bernier; col. 1, lines 25-30).
With respect to claim 4, Chen in view of AAPA and Bernier disclose, the elliptical machine according to claim 3 (see above).
Chen in view of AAPA and Bernier further discloses, wherein from locking block 12) and a second shaft part (shaft portion overlapped with locking black 12 in figs. 1-4) connected to each other, the first shaft part is configured to be pivotally matched with the guide bearing assembly (AAPA; 3 in fig. 2), and the second shaft part is configured to be in locked connection with the cantilever body (Bernier; protrusion 15 in figs. 1-4 locks the shaft with the lower half of the body 13) and the locking block and has a greater diameter than the first shaft part (Bernier; clear from figs. 1-4 that the diameter of 12 is larger than the external shaft part.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2021/0138300) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (Figures 1-2; hereinafter AAPA) and further in view of Bernier (US 1519236) and Horen (US 7524132).
With respect to claim 5, Chen in view of AAPA and Bernier disclose, the elliptical machine according to claim 3 (see above).
Chen in view of AAPA and Bernier further discloses, wherein be in locked connection with the cantilever body (Bernier; protrusion 15 in figs. 1-4 locks the shaft with the lower half of the body 13)
Neither Chen, AAPA, nor Bernier expressly is provided with a first matching plane and a second matching plane opposite to each other, and the first matching plane and the second matching plane are matched with the locking block and the cantilever body in an abutting manner respectively.
Horen discloses, a first matching plane and a second matching plane opposite to each other (36A and 36B in fig. 1), and the first matching plane and the second matching plane are matched with the locking block (32A in fig. 1) and the cantilever body (32B in fig. 1) in an abutting manner respectively (fig. 1).
Horen, Bernier, Chen, and AAPA are analogous art because they from the same problem-solving area of pivoting connections.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the matching plane connection taught by Horen to the second shaft part of Bernier, Chen and AAPA. Such a combination would have been predictable and resulted in a locking block connected shaft. Potential motivations for such a combination would have been to allow for replacement of the shaft and/or ease in manufacturing (Bernier; col. 1, lines 25-30).
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2021/0138300) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (Figures 1-2; hereinafter AAPA) and further in view of Bernier (US 1519236), Horen (US 7524132) and Yepez (US 2019/0276126).
With respect to claim 6, Chen in view of AAPA, Bernier, and Horen disclose, the elliptical machine according to claim 5 (see above).
Chen in view of AAPA, Bernier, Horen further discloses, wherein a first mounting surface is arranged on the locking block (Bernier; groove 14 in figs. 1-4), a first groove is formed in the first mounting surface (Bernier; groove 14 in figs. 1-4), and the first matching plane is matched with a first bottom surface of the first groove in an abutting manner (Horen; fig. 1 details an abutting connection); the cantilever body is L-shaped (AAPA; clear from fig. 2), and
a second mounting surface (Bernier; groove 14 in element 12) on the body, the first mounting surface is opposite to the second mounting surface (Bernier; clear from fig. 1-4), and a second groove is formed in the second mounting surface (Bernier; groove 14 is formed in both 12 and 13), and the second matching plane is matched with a second bottom surface of the second groove in an abutting manner (Bernier; figs. 1-4).
Chen in view of AAPA, Bernier and Horen do not expressly disclose a notch is provided in the first end of the cantilever body so as to form a second mounting surface on the first end of the cantilever body, the locking block is mounted in the notch.
Yepez discloses a notch in a first end of a body (notch in 625 in fig. 17) so as to form a mounting surface (notched surface of 625 in fig. 17), a locking block mounted in the notch (locking block 630 is mounted to 625 in fig. 17).
Yepez, Horen, Bernier, Chen, and AAPA are analogous art because they from the same problem-solving area of pivoting connections.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the notching connection taught by Yepez to the second shaft part of Bernier, Chen, Horen and AAPA. Such a combination would have been predictable and resulted in a locking block connected shaft. Potential motivations for such a combination would have been to allow for replacement of the shaft and/or ease in manufacturing (Bernier; col. 1, lines 25-30).
With respect to claim 7, Chen in view of AAPA, Bernier, Horen, and Yepez disclose, the elliptical machine according to claim 6 (see above).
Bernier further discloses, wherein there are gaps between side surfaces of the first groove and the second groove and a periphery of the second shaft part of the cantilever shaft (there will inherently be gaps between the groove 14 and the second shaft part until the fastener is fully tightened).
With respect to claim 8, Chen in view of AAPA, Bernier, Horen, and Yepez disclose, the elliptical machine according to claim 6 (see above).
Bernier further discloses, wherein one or more limit structures are further arranged at least one of between the first matching plane and the first bottom surface or between the second matching plane and the second bottom surface (protrusion 14 and matching cavity 11 in fig. 1-4).
With respect to claim 9, Chen in view of AAPA, Bernier, Horen, and Yepez disclose, the elliptical machine according to claim 8 (see above).
Bernier further discloses, wherein each of the one or more limit structures is a boss and groove matching structure (protrusion 14 and matching cavity 11 in fig. 1-4).
With respect to claim 10, Chen in view of AAPA, Bernier, Horen, and Yepez disclose, the elliptical machine according to claim 9 (see above).
Bernier further discloses, wherein a cylindrical boss is arranged on the second bottom surface, and a positioning hole matched with the cylindrical boss is provided in the second matching plane (protrusion 14 and matching cavity 11 in fig. 1-4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Janatka US 5052842 – shaft and bearing
Boogerman US 4848951 – keyed shaft and bearing
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.
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625