DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is in response to the RCE filed on 04/15/2026. Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are pending in the application. Claims 1-2 and 4-8 have been examined as set forth below.
Specification
The amendment filed 09/16/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
In paragraph [0076]:
“Here, two alternate configurations of moveable crank link 96 are shown, a first
configuration on the right side of the machine showing first spring 104 between the ends of the first link 98 and second link 100 and second spring 106 between the end of the first link 98 and a middle portion of the second link 100, and a second configuration on the left side of the machine showing first spring 98 between the ends of the first link 98 and second link 100 and second spring 106 between the end of the second link 100 and a middle portion of the first link 98. Assuming that the first link 98 and second link 100 are the same length and crank link pin 102 is attached at the same location on both, these alternate configurations are mechanically equivalent and may be used on either side of the machine interchangeably”.
According to Applicant’s Remarks (see Applicant’s Response on page 6), The above paragraph has been added, in response to the previous objections to the Drawing for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in claims 4 and 5. However, this paragraph, includes language that was not originally supported anywhere in the specification or the drawings and as such, introduces New Matter. Specifically, with respect to Figs. 10-14 which is described in ¶ [0076], the added language of: “here, two alternate configuration of moveable crank link 96 are shown, a first configuration on the right side of the machine…and a second configuration on the left side of the machine…Assuming that the first link 98 and second link 100 are the same length and crank link pin 102 is attached at the same location on both, these alternate configurations are mechanically equivalent and may be used on either side of the machine interchangeably”, is considered New Matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Applicant is required to formally file an amendment to the Specification that illustrates and states the removal/cancelation of the above recited portions of ¶ [0076] which has been considered as the new matter, in the reply to this Office Action, to overcome this rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the attachment point” in each of lines 9 and 10, needs to be changed to “the pivoting attachment”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “wherein force resistance devices comprise one or more of the one or more force resistance devices drawn” in lines 1-2, needs to be changed to either: 1) “wherein the one or more force resistance devices are drawn” OR 2) “wherein one or more of the first force resistance device and the second force resistance device are drawn”.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “synchronous control system assembly…for 360 degrees of synchronous rotations of the first and second crank assemblies” in claim 1, wherein “system assembly” is the generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language “for 360 degrees of synchronous rotations of the first and second crank assemblies”/synchronous control, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification, in ¶ [0053] recites: “The control system may include a drive shaft rotateably connected to the frame, which may provide mechanical communication between the first crank arm and the second crank arm of the first crank assembly. The control system may also include a drive member selected from the groups consisting of a belt, roller chain, a synchronous belt, a v-belt and a poly-v belt.
File: 2016-ABE-01-Spec-NP -3-The control system may also include a torque linkage including a link rod rotateably coupled to the second crank assembly and the drive shaft”, and in ¶ [0066], recites: “The control system 44 may be comprised of a roller chain, a drive belt, a gearing system or any other mechanical transmission elements known in the art. In that the first axis 30 and the second axis 34 may not allow a direct communication between the right and left portions of the first crank assembly 28 or the second crank assembly 32, the control system 44 may also be in mechanical communication with the driveshaft 42”. As such, the claim limitation “control system” has been interpreted according to the structure(s) recited in the specification and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 4 recites: “wherein one movable crank link of the pair of movable crank links has its force resistance devices attached in a first configuration in which a first force resistance device is attached between the second end of the first link and the second end of the second link and a second force resistance device is attached between the second end of the first link and a location on the second link between the first end of the second link and the pivoting attachment, and the other movable crank link of the pair of movable crank links has its force resistance devices attached in a second configuration in which a first force resistance device is attached between the second end of the second link and the second end of the first link and a second force resistance device is attached between the second end of the second link and a location on the first link between the first end of the first link and the pivoting attachment”, while claim 1, upon which claim 4 indirectly depends recites: “each of the pair of movable crank links comprising a first attachment point, a second attachment point, and a flexible attachment comprising one or more force resistance devices”, and it is unclear how a movable crank link with a flexible attachment comprising one force resistance device, can include a plurality of force resistance devices including a first force resistance device and a second force resistance device. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claim 5 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claim 4.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,948 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed towards an exercise device comprising: a frame, a first and a second crank system mounted opposing sides of the frame, a synchronous control system assembly coupled to the first crank system, a pair of pedal arms coupled to the crank systems, a pair of movable crank links, each comprising a first and a second link pivotally coupled at a medial location with a pivot attachment and a first and a second spring coupled to the links. Table below shows the mapping of the claims of current application with those of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,948 B2.
Claims of Current Application
Claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,948 B2
1. An exercise device comprising:
a frame;
a first and a second crank system mounted opposing sides of the frame adapted for positioning a user therebetween, each of the first and second crank systems comprising a first crank assembly rotatable about a first axis and a second crank assembly rotatable about a second axis, with the first and second axes each being displaced from the other, each of the first crank assemblies comprising a first crank arm, and each of the second crank assemblies comprising a second crank arm;
a synchronous control system assembly mechanically coupled to the first crank system in a configuration that allows for 360 degrees of synchronous rotation of the first and second crank assemblies, wherein each first crank arm of each first crank assembly rotates in the same direction as the second crank arm of each second crank assembly by the synchronous control system assembly;
a pair of pedal arms, one coupled to the first crank system and the other coupled to the second crank system, each of the pair of pedal arms being pivotally coupled at a first end to the first crank arm of the first crank assembly and being pivotally coupled at a second end to a pedal;
a pair of movable crank links, one corresponding to each of the first and second crank systems, each of the pair of movable crank links comprising a first attachment point, a second attachment point, and a flexible attachment comprising one or more force resistance devices between the first attachment point and the second attachment point, wherein the first attachment point of each movable crank link is pivotally coupled to the pedal arm of its corresponding crank system and the second attachment point of each movable crank link is pivotally coupled to the second crank arm of its corresponding second crank assembly, and wherein the flexible attachment of each movable crank link allows for variation of a stride length of a user during exercise.
2.The exercise device of claim 1, wherein: each movable crank link of the pair of movable crank links comprises a first link, a second link, and a pivoting attachment pivotally connecting the first and second links, wherein the first attachment point of the movable crank link is proximal to a first end of the first link and the second attachment point of the movable crank link is proximal to a first end of the second link, and the pivoting attachment of the first and second links is at a medial location of both the first and second links, such that a second end of the first link distal from the first attachment point extends past the attachment point and second end of the second link distal to the second attachment point extends past the attachment point.
4. The exercise device of claim 2, wherein one movable crank link of the pair of movable crank links has its force resistance devices attached in a first configuration in which a first force resistance device is attached between the second end of the first link and the second end of the second link and a second force resistance device is attached between the second end of the first link and a location on the second link between the first end of the second link and the pivoting attachment, and the other movable crank link of the pair of movable crank links has its force resistance devices attached in a second configuration in which a first force resistance device is attached between the second end of the second link and the second end of the first link and a second force resistance device is attached between the second end of the second link and a location on the first link between the first end of the first link and the pivoting attachment.
6. The exercise device of claim 2, wherein a first force resistance device of the one or more force resistance devices is attached at a first end to the first link at a point on the first link between the first end of the first link and the pivoting attachment, and is attached at a second end to the second link at a point on the second link between the first end of the second link and the pivoting attachment.
1. An exercise device comprising:
a frame;
a first and a second crank system mounted opposing sides of the frame adapted for positioning a user therebetween, each of the first and second crank system comprising a first crank assembly rotatable about a first axis and a second crank assembly rotatable about a second axis with the first and second axes each being displaced from the other, each of the first crank assemblies comprising a first crank arm, and each of the second crank assemblies comprising a second crank arm;
a pair of synchronous control system assemblies, one mechanically coupled to the first crank system and the other mechanically coupled to the second crank system, each synchronous control system assembly of the pair of synchronous control system assemblies being mechanically coupled to the first and second crank assemblies of the corresponding crank system in a configuration that allows for 360 degrees of synchronous rotation of the first and second crank assemblies, wherein each first crank arm of each first crank assembly rotates in the same direction as the second crank arm of each second crank assembly by the corresponding synchronous control system assembly of the pair of synchronous control system assemblies;
a pair of pedal arms, one coupled to the first crank system and the other coupled to the second crank system, each of the pair of pedal arms being pivotally coupled at a first end to the first crank arm of the first crank assembly and being pivotally coupled at a second end to a pedal;
a pair of movable crank links, one corresponding to each of the first and second crank systems, each of the pair of movable crank links comprising: a first link having a first attachment point located proximal to a first end of the first link, a second link having a second attachment point located proximal to a first end of the second link, a pivoting attachment, a first spring, and
a second spring, wherein the first link is pivotally coupled to the second link with the pivoting attachment positioned at a medial location of both links such that a second end of each link extends past the pivoting attachment, and wherein the first spring is an attachment between the second ends of the first and second links and the second spring is attached between the second end of one link and a location between the pivoting attachment and the corresponding attachment point of the other link to provide controlled flexibility during operation,
wherein the first attachment point is pivotally coupled to the pedal arm of its corresponding crank system and the second attachment point is pivotally coupled to the second crank arm of its corresponding second crank assembly.
2. The exercise device of claim 1, wherein the second spring is attached between the second end of the first link and a location between the pivoting attachment and the second attachment point of the second link.
3. The exercise device of claim 1, wherein the second spring is attached between the second end of the second link and a location between the pivoting attachment and the first attachment point of the first link.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,948 B2 in view of Stearns et al. (US 9,764,187 B1). Claim 5 of current application, which depends on claims 1-2 and 4, and claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,948 B2 are directed towards similar devices (see table above for details), except for “wherein the force resistance devices comprise one or more of the one or more force resistance devices drawn from the list of coiled springs, would springs, flat springs, leaf springs, laminated springs, carriage springs, torsion bars, and elastomeric bands” (recited in claim 5), which is taught by Sterns (i.e., coiled spring 165 in Figs. 1 and 7A), and 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 invention claimed in claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,948 B2 wherein the force resistance devices is a coiled spring as taught by Stearns, as substituting one type of spring with another type of spring would provide the same result and would have been considered within one ordinary skill in the art.
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.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dey et al. (US 2006/0172865 A1) in view of Stearns et al. (US 9,764,187 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Dey teaches an exercise device (100) comprising:
a frame (102, Fig. 8, ¶ [36]);
a first and a second crank system mounted opposing sides of the frame adapted for positioning a user therebetween (Figs. 1 and 9-10, one on each side), each of the first and second crank systems comprising a first crank assembly rotatable about a first axis (164, Fig. 9, ¶ [47], [50]) and a second crank assembly rotatable about a second axis (166, Fig. 9, ¶ [47], [50]), with the first and second axes each being displaced from the other (Figs. 9-10), each of the first crank assemblies comprising a first crank arm (160 on each side, Figs. 9-10), and each of the second crank assemblies comprising a second crank arm (162 on each side, Figs. 9-10);
a synchronous control system assembly (i.e. 188 with 184, 186, interpreted according to 112(f) above, Figs. 9-10, ¶ [48]-[49], [56]) mechanically coupled to the first crank system in a configuration that allows for 360 degrees of synchronous rotation of the first and second crank assemblies (Figs. 9-10), wherein each first crank arm of each first crank assembly rotates in the same direction as the second crank arm of each second crank assembly by the synchronous control system assembly (Figs. 9-10 and 15, ¶ [48]-[49]);
a pair of pedal arms (170 on each side, Figs. 9-10), one coupled to the first crank system and the other coupled to the second crank system (Figs. 9-10, ¶ [45], [47], [49]), each of the pair of pedal arms being pivotally coupled at a first end to the first crank arm (160) of the first crank assembly and being pivotally coupled at a second end to a pedal (230, Figs. 9-11, ¶ [47], [58]);
a pair of movable crank links (174 with 202, on each side, Figs. 9-10), one corresponding to each of the first and second crank systems (¶ [45], [49]), each of the pair of movable crank links comprising a first attachment point (at 220, Fig. 10) and a second attachment point (at 202, Fig. 10), wherein the first attachment point (at 220) of each movable crank link is pivotally coupled to the pedal arm of its corresponding crank system (at 180, Figs. 9-10, ¶ [47], [55]) and the second attachment point of each movable crank link is pivotally coupled to the second crank arm (162) of its corresponding second crank assembly (at 176, Figs. 9-10, ¶ [47], [53]).
Dey teaches that the substantially elliptical trace that is generated can be varied by altering the lengths of the links 160, 162, 170, 174 (¶ [47]). However, Dey is silent about a flexible attachment comprising one or more force resistance devices between the first attachment point and the second attachment point, wherein the flexible attachment of each movable crank link allows for variation of a stride length of a user during exercise.
Regarding claim 1, Stearns teaches an exercise device comprising: a frame (102 with 104, Figs. 1 and 7A), a pair of pedal arms (125 on each side, Figs. 1 and 7A), each having a pedal (120, Figs. 1 and 7), and a pair of movable links (165 with end points, Figs. 1 and 7A), each comprising a first attachment point (end point at/towards 110, Figs. 1 and 7A), a second attachment point (end point towards 104 or 135, Figs. 1 and 7A), and a flexible attachment comprising one or more force resistance devices (i.e., spring 165) between the first attachment point and the second attachment point (Figs. 1 and 7A), wherein the flexible attachment of each movable crank link allows for variation of a stride length of a user during exercise (col. 3 lines 30-38, col. 9 lines 9-15 and 35-38, with respect to Fig. 7A, Stearns in col. 9 lines 35-38 recites: “The apparatus 700 permits variable longitudinal striding motion as a function of user applied force at the handlebars 140 and/or the foot platforms 120, and is variable depending on the deflection of springs 165”).
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 Dey’s invention with a flexible attachment comprising one or more force resistance devices between the first attachment point and second attachment point, wherein the flexible attachment of each movable crank link allows for variation of a stride length of a user during exercise as taught by Stearns in order to vary the elliptical trace and thereby stride length according to a user’s fitness or rehabilitation goals.
Regarding claim 7, Dey in view of Stearns teaches wherein the one or more force resistance devices of the flexible attachment is constructed of a flexible, resilient material or materials between the first attachment point and the second attachment point (Stearns: spring 165, Figs. 1 and 7A), the flexible, resilient material or materials allowing either for compression, expansion, or both, of an original distance between the first attachment point and the second attachment point upon application of a force and return of the first attachment point and the second attachment point to the original distance between them when the force is removed (Stearns: Figs. 1 and 7A, col. 3 lines 30-38 and lines 46-57, col. 9 lines 9-15 and 35-38, with respect to Fig. 7A, Stearns in col. 9 lines 35-38 recites: “The apparatus 700 permits variable longitudinal striding motion as a function of user applied force at the handlebars 140 and/or the foot platforms 120, and is variable depending on the deflection of springs 165”, please note that upon modification of Dey’s invention with features of Stearns, the flexible, resilient material or materials allowing either for compression, expansion, or both, of an original distance between the first attachment point and second attachment point in Dey, upon application of a force and return of the first attachment point and second attachment points in Dey, to the original distance between them when the force is removed).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the flexible, resilient material or materials is a leaf spring attached between the first attachment point and the second attachment point (Stearns teaches other embodiments having a leaf spring attached between two attachment points (i.e. leaf springs 354, 355, 390, 490, Figs. 3A-4B). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the (coiled/helical type) spring 165, in the embodiments shown in Figs. 1 and 7A, with a leaf spring as the type of spring used for the flexible attachment, since substituting one type of spring with another type of spring provides the same result and is considered to be held within one of ordinary skill in the art).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s response regarding the objections to the Specification for including new matter in ¶ [0076], stating: “The language added to ¶ [0076] in the amendment filed September 16, 2025 has been canceled”, the Examiner would like to mention that such cancelation is required to be formally filed and shown in the Specification (see the Examiner’s remarks under Specification above for further details).
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the newly added limitation of claim 1 reciting: “wherein the flexible attachment of each movable crank link allows for variation of a stride length of a user during exercise” and that Dey fails to teach such limitations, the Examiner would like to mention that as stated in the Office Action above, Dey has not been used to teach such limitations, rather Stearns has been used to teach this limitation (see above for details).
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the newly added limitation of claim 1, stating:
“Stearns' spring 165 is not a component of a movable crank link defining the distance between two attachment points of such a link. Rather, it is externally coupled between a crank component and the frame and functions to bias rotational motion of the crank. Deformation of spring 165 does not alter the geometric relationship between attachment points of a linkage that defines pedal trajectory, and therefore does not vary stride length during exercise. The Examiner's prior position that Stearns discloses a flexible attachment was premised on a broad reading of the claim that did not require stride length variation; however, amended claim 1 now expressly requires that the flexible attachment allow for variation of stride length during exercise, which Stearns plainly does not teach”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. As stated above, Stearns teaches an exercise device comprising: a pair of movable links (165 with end points, Figs. 1 and 7A), each comprising a first attachment point (end point at/towards 110, Figs. 1 and 7A), a second attachment point (end point towards 104 or 135, Figs. 1 and 7A), and a flexible attachment comprising one or more force resistance devices (i.e., spring 165) between the first attachment point and the second attachment point (Figs. 1 and 7A). Stearns further teaches the newly added limitation of claim 1, reciting: “wherein the flexible attachment of each movable crank link allows for variation of a stride length of a user during exercise” (see col. 3 lines 30-38, col. 9 lines 9-15 and 35-38). Specifically, with respect to Fig. 7A, Stearns in col. 9 lines 35-38 recites: “The apparatus 700 permits variable longitudinal striding motion as a function of user applied force at the handlebars 140 and/or the foot platforms 120, and is variable depending on the deflection of springs 165”. As such, the flexible attachment (i.e., spring 165) of each movable crank link allows for variation of a stride length of a user during exercise. As stated above, Dey, in ¶ [47], teaches that the substantially elliptical trace that is generated can be varied by altering the lengths of the links 160, 162, 170, 174. 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 Dey’s invention (the pair of movable crank links) with a flexible attachment comprising one or more force resistance devices between the first attachment point and second attachment point, wherein the flexible attachment of each movable crank link allows for variation of a stride length of a user during exercise as taught by Stearns in order to vary the elliptical trace and thereby stride length according to a user’s fitness or rehabilitation goals.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Dey with Stearns lacking a reasoned motivation supported by evidence, stating:
“Dey's mechanism relies on rigid links to maintain a fixed kinematic relationship between crank assemblies, while Stearns' spring operates in a different structural location and serves a different role unrelated to modifying link length within a pedal-driving linkage. Modifying Dey to incorporate a flexible attachment as claimed would require replacing its rigid link with a variable-length linkage that dynamically changes the distance between attachment points during operation, thereby fundamentally altering the kinematic behavior of the system. Neither Dey nor Stearns provides any teaching or suggestion of such a modification. Accordingly, neither Dey nor Stearns, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests a movable crank link having a flexible attachment that defines and dynamically varies the distance between its attachment points during operation to alter a user's stride length. The cited references fail to disclose or render obvious the claimed structure and its functional relationship within the linkage, and the proposed combination would require a fundamental redesign of the prior art systems without any teaching or motivation to do so. The rejection therefore fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. As stated above, Dey, in ¶ [47], teaches that the substantially elliptical trace that is generated can be varied by altering the length of the link 174. As such, Dey is suggesting that such variation in the stride length can be generated by altering the length of the link 174. With respect to dynamically varying the stride length through a variable length linkage, Stearns has been used to teach such variable length linkage (i.e., spring), wherein Stearns, in col. 9 lines 35-38 recites: “The apparatus 700 permits variable longitudinal striding motion as a function of user applied force at the handlebars 140 and/or the foot platforms 120, and is variable depending on the deflection of springs 165”. Therefore, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, such motivation is not only found in both Dey and Stearns, but also found in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant’s similar arguments regarding Arnold failing to cure the deficiencies of Dey, are moot, as Arnold has not been relied upon for teaching any of the limitations of the claims 1-2 and 4-8 of this application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LoAn 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.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights