Detailed Action
This is the Final Rejection based on application 18/432,172 filed on 02/05/2024, and which claims as amended on 01/15/2026 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 .
Priority
The instant application claims priority to foreign application CN 2024200598457 and as such the earliest priority date of 01/09/2024 has been granted to the instant application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments have been sufficient to overcome the original drawing objections, and claim objections present in the Non-Final Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On lines 11-12, “wherein each of the limiting members is used” should be –wherein each of the limiting members are used--.
On line 15, “wherein limiting members that are adjacent” should be –wherein the limiting members that are adjacent--.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On lines 7-8, “wherein each of the limiting members is used” should be –wherein each of the limiting members are used--.
On line 11, “wherein limiting members that are adjacent” should be –wherein the limiting members that are adjacent--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “cushioning means” in claims 1, 8, and 10.
Paragraph [0013] of the instant application’s specification states, “The cushioning means can be a cushion pad, for example, made of PVC or rubber.” With paragraph [0031] further stating, “The cushioning means 50 can be made of elastic materials such as silicone, rubber, PVC, etc. In some embodiments, the cushioning means 50 is provided with bore features, such as, in a honeycomb-shaped pattern.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Corbalis et al. US 20180361194 A1.
Regarding claim 10:
Corbalis discloses an exercise device (treadmill 100), comprising: a frame assembly (see figures 1 and 2) including a base frame (frame 202) ; a running deck (flexible deck 104) ; a running belt (belt 102) surrounding the running deck (See figure 1) ; a cushioning means (intermediate support 206. The examiner notes that paragraph [0027] states that the intermediate supports dampen movement of the flexible deck and [0028] states that the intermediate supports may include a polymer material. Therefore, due to the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) noted above the intermediate supports are being considered cushioning means.) arranged between the running deck and the base frame (See figure 1) to attenuate the impact force exerted by the user through the running belt (“In one embodiment, the intermediate support 206 progressively resists flexion of the flexible deck 104 in response to an applied force on the flexible deck 104, such as the weight of a user standing or striding on the flexible deck 104. In certain embodiments, the intermediate support 206 dampens movement of the flexible deck 104.” See paragraph [0027]); wherein the running deck is supported by the base frame only at first and second ends of the running deck, such that a central region of the running deck remains suspended, and the cushioning means is arranged to cooperate with the central region of the running deck that remains suspended to enhance cushioning effect and stability (The examiner notes that figure 2 of Corbalis depicts the intermediate supports on the rails of the frame 202 which are positioned on the lateral edges of deck 104, and that the only supports connecting frame 202 to deck 104, are the suspension connectors 204 located in the front and rear, left and right, corners of the deck, and that paragraph [0029] states that the location of the supports 206 can be adjusted. Therefore as depicted in figures 2 and 5 the intermediate supports are not in contact with a central region of the running deck.)
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) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corbalis et al. US 20180361194 A1.
Regarding claim 8:
Corbalis teaches an exercise device (treadmill 100), comprising: a frame assembly (see figures 1 and 2) including a base frame (frame 202) ; a running deck (flexible deck 104) fixed to the base frame at first and second ends of the running deck via fixing devices (suspension connectors 204 The examiner notes that the specification of the instant application states in paragraph [0033] states that the fixing devices can be solid or hollow support blocks or pillars, and therefore the hollow frame support pillars that comprise the suspension connectors 204 as depicted in annotated figure 2 are being considered fixing devices.); a running belt (belt 102) surrounding the running deck (See figure 1); and a limiting installation structure comprising upright members (See annotated figure 1) extending upward from the base frame (See annotated figure 1) and limiting members (suspension pivots 310) fixed to the upright members (See figure 4 which depicts the entire assembly of the limiting installation structure), wherein each of the limiting members is used to restrict the movements of the running deck along a length direction corresponding to the direction of travel of the running belt and a width direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the running belt (“The suspension pivot 310 may be connected to the frame 102. In one embodiment, a portion of the flexible deck 104 pivots around the suspension pivot 310 in response to an applied load on the flexible deck 104.” See paragraph [0039] and figures 6A-6C which depict the only direction the pivots allow motion in. The examiner notes that the pivots only allow movement in one direction and does not allow movement in the width direction of the running belt, nor the length direction of the running belt, only in a vertical axis to make use of the suspension connectors and the cushioning members/intermediate supports); wherein a central region and lateral edge regions of the running deck are not directly supported by the base frame (See figure 2 which depicts an exploded view of the running deck, belt, suspension connectors, and intermediate supports, where the central region and lateral edges are not connected to the base frame, and only the corners which are connected to the fixing means are supported), a cushioning means (intermediate supports 206. The examiner notes that paragraph [0027] states that the intermediate supports dampen movement of the flexible deck and [0028] states that the intermediate supports may include a polymer material. Therefore, due to the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) noted above the intermediate supports are being considered cushioning means.) is arranged between the lateral edge regions of the running deck and the base frame (See figure 1) to enhance the cushioning effect (“In one embodiment, the intermediate support 206 progressively resists flexion of the flexible deck 104 in response to an applied force on the flexible deck 104, such as the weight of a user standing or striding on the flexible deck 104. In certain embodiments, the intermediate support 206 dampens movement of the flexible deck 104.” See paragraph [0027]).
Corbalis fails to specifically teach wherein limiting members that are adjacent along the length direction are spaced apart by a distance in the range of 50% to 90% of the length of the running deck.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the limiting members apart by a distance in the range of 50% to 90% of the length of the running deck, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9:
Corbalis as modified discloses the exercise device according to claim 8, wherein the fixing devices are distributed at or near four corners of the exercise device (“The flexible deck 104 may be substantially rectangular and a suspension connector 204 may be disposed at or near each corner of the rectangular flexible deck 104.” See paragraph [0045]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1- 5 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to teach or disclose the exercise device of independent claim 1 including specifically a limiting installation structure comprising upright members extending upward from the base frame and limiting members fixed to the upright members, wherein each of the limiting members is used to restrict the movements of the running deck along a length direction corresponding to the direction of travel of the running belt and a width direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the running belt, and wherein the running deck is fixed to the base frame only at its first and second ends of the running deck via fixing devices.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The closest prior art of record includes Corbalis et al. US 20180361194 A1, The Egofit Walker Pro/Plus Smallest Under Desk Treadmill Walking Pad, Small & Compact Walking Treadmill with Fixed 5% Incline to Fit Desk Perfectly and Home & Office with APP & Remote Control for sale on Amazon.com, with the date first available being March 14, 2021 (Henceforth the Egofit Walker Pro). (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CWPBHBBH?ref=emc_s_m_5_i_atc&th=1)
The Egofit Walker Pro from amazon has been discussed in its entirety including what is and is not taught, either alone or in combination in the previous Non-Final Action.
Corbalis et al. US 20180361194 A1: Apparatus System, and Method for a flexible treadmill deck, which teaches an exercise device (treadmill 100), comprising: a frame assembly (see figures 1 and 2) including a base frame (frame 202) ; a running deck (flexible deck 104) ; a running belt (belt 102) surrounding the running deck (See figure 1) ; a cushioning means (intermediate support 206. The examiner notes that paragraph [0027] states that the intermediate supports dampen movement of the flexible deck and [0028] states that the intermediate supports may include a polymer material. Therefore, due to the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) noted above the intermediate supports are being considered cushioning means.) arranged between the running deck and the base frame (See figure 1) to attenuate the impact force exerted by the user through the running belt and the running deck (“In one embodiment, the intermediate support 206 progressively resists flexion of the flexible deck 104 in response to an applied force on the flexible deck 104, such as the weight of a user standing or striding on the flexible deck 104. In certain embodiments, the intermediate support 206 dampens movement of the flexible deck 104.” See paragraph [0027]), wherein the cushioning means is arranged along lateral edge regions of the running deck (See figure 1), while a central region of the running deck does not come into contact with the cushioning means (The examiner notes that figure 2 depicts the intermediate supports on the rails of the frame 202 which are positioned on the edges of where deck 104 would be connected via suspension members 204, and that paragraph [0029] states that the location of the supports 206 can be adjusted. Therefore as depicted in figure 2 the intermediate supports are not in contact with a central region of the running deck.) ; and a limiting installation structure comprising upright members (See annotated figure 2, which depicts an exploded view of the suspension connectors 204 which include upright structures) extending upward from the base frame (See annotated figure 1) and limiting members (suspension pivots 310) fixed to the upright members (See figure 4 which depicts the entire assembly of the limiting installation structure), wherein each of the limiting members is used to restrict the movements of the running deck along a length direction corresponding to the direction of travel of the running belt and a width direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the running belt (“The suspension pivot 310 may be connected to the frame 102. In one embodiment, a portion of the flexible deck 104 pivots around the suspension pivot 310 in response to an applied load on the flexible deck 104.” See paragraph [0039] and figures 6A-6C which depict the only direction the pivots allow motion in. The examiner notes that the pivots only allow movement in one direction and does not allow movement in the width direction of the running belt, nor the length direction of the running belt, only in a vertical axis to make use of the suspension connectors and the cushioning members/intermediate supports); such that a central region and lateral edge regions of the running deck are not in direct contact with the base frame (See above reasoning in regards to the central region of the deck being unsupported by the cushioning means), wherein the lateral edge regions accommodate the cushioning means (See figure 1) and the central region remains suspended to enhance cushioning effect and stability under cooperation with the limiting installation structure(See above reasoning in regards to the central region of the deck being unsupported by the cushioning means).
PNG
media_image1.png
471
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upright members)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
489
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
752
402
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
506
660
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Corbalis fails to specifically teach wherein limiting members that are adjacent along the length direction are spaced apart by a distance in the range of 50% to 90% of the length of the running deck, and wherein the running deck is fixed to the base frame only at its first and second ends of the running deck via fixing devices. The examiner notes that the suspension connectors 204 as discussed above comprise various unnamed structures connected together to form the overall suspension connector assembly, however as claimed in the instant application Corbalis does not teach three separate structures including fixing devices, limiting members, and upright members, and it would be unreasonable to further separate the structures of the suspension connectors in order to find the limitations of the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to new claims 8-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Furthermore, the new limitations presented in the amended claims required an updated search and consideration, and subsequent rejection(s) presented above as the new limitations were not originally present.
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 extension fee 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 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 on (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