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 amendments filed on 09/16/2025. Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are pending in the application. Claims 1-2 and 4-8 have been examined as set forth below.
Drawing
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 4, as currently presented, recites: “wherein the one or more force resistance devices of the flexible attachment of each of the movable crank links of the pair of movable crank links are attached to the movable crank links in one of the following two configurations: 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, or 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”. The above cited limitations of claim 4 implies the following scenarios:
one movable crank link (of the pair of movable crank links) would have its associated one or more force resistance devices attached according to the 1st configuration (see above), and the other movable crank link (of the pair of movable crank links) would have its associated one or more force resistance devices attached according to the 2nd configuration (see above),
both movable crank links (of the pair of movable crank links), would have their associated one or more force resistance devices attached according to the 1st configuration, OR
both movable crank links (of the pair of movable crank links), would have their associated one or more force resistance devices attached according to the 2nd configuration.
Although the drawings in Fig. 11, shows features of claim 4 according to scenario I cited above, the drawings fail to show the features of claim 4 according to scenarios II and III. Therefore, features according to scenarios II and III (cited above), in claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “second crank system” in line 4, needs to be changed to “second crank systems”, the phrase “and second attachment point” in line 24, needs to be changed to “and the second attachment point”, and the phrase “each movable crank” in line 26, needs to be changed to “each movable crank link”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “each of the movable crank links” in line 2, needs to be changed to “each movable crank link”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “each of the movable crank links” in line 2, needs to be changed to “each movable crank link”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the force resistance devices” in line 4, needs to be changed to “the one or more force resistance devices”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “and second attachment point” in lines 3-4 and line 6, needs to be changed to “and the second attachment point”, and the phrase “and second attachment points” in line 7, needs to be changed to “and the second attachment point”. Appropriate corrections are 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.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 2 recites: “wherein: the flexible attachment of each of the movable crank links of the pair of movable crank links comprises a first link, a second link, and a pivoting attachment of the first and second links”. However, nowhere in the original specification, support has been provided for the “flexible attachment” comprising a first link, a second link, and a pivoting attachment of the first and second links. As such, this limitation is considered New Matter. Please note that, the phrase “flexible attachment” has only been recited once, in ¶ [0009] of the specification, stating: “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 between the first attachment point and second attachment point”. According to the original drawings and ¶ [0010] of the specification: “each of the movable crank links of the pair of movable crank links comprises a first link and a second link, 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 attachment point comprises a pivoting attachment”. It appears from the specification and the drawings, that the “flexible attachment”, in ¶ [0009], is referring to the pivoting attachment of the first and second links (i.e., 102, in Fig. 12). Further clarification, appropriate corrections and specific citations of the pertinent portions of the specification, where support for such limitations are provided, are respectfully requested. Claim 4-6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claim 2. Applicant is suggested to ament claim 2 and remove the phrase “the flexible attachment of” from the claim to overcome this rejection.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 4 recites: “wherein the one or more force resistance devices of the flexible attachment of each of the movable crank links of the pair of movable crank links are attached to the movable crank links in one of the following two configurations: [1st configuration] 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, or [2nd configuration] 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”. The above cited limitations of claim 4 implies the following scenarios:
one movable crank link (of the pair of movable crank links) would have its associated one or more force resistance devices attached according to the 1st configuration (see above), and the other movable crank link (of the pair of movable crank links) would have its associated one or more force resistance devices attached according to the 2nd configuration (see above),
both movable crank links (of the pair of movable crank links), would have their associated one or more force resistance devices attached according to the 1st configuration, OR
both movable crank links (of the pair of movable crank links), would have their associated one or more force resistance devices attached according to the 2nd configuration.
Although the original specification including the drawings, provides support for scenario I (see Fig. 11 of the original drawings), it fails to provide support for scenarios II and III. As such, the limitations of claim 4, as currently presented introduce new matter. Further clarification, appropriate corrections and specific citations of the pertinent portions of the specification, where support for such limitations are provided, are respectfully requested. Claim 5 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claim 4.
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 2 and 4-8 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 2 recites the limitation "the attachment point" in each of lines 10 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to amend the claim and replace the phrase “the attachment point” to “the pivoting attachment” in each of lines 10 and 11, to overcome this rejection.
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 the one or more force resistance devices of the flexible attachment of each of the movable crank links of the pair of movable crank links are attached to the movable crank links in one of the following two configurations: 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, or 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”. However, it is unclear how “one” force resistance device can include a first resistance device and a second 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.
Claim 7 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 7 recites: “wherein the flexible attachment is constructed of a flexible resilient material or materials between the first attachment point and the second attachment point”, while claim 1, upon which claim 7, indirectly depends, recites: “a flexible attachment comprising one or more force resistance devices between the first attachment point and second attachment point”, and it is unclear whether a flexible, resilient material or materials between the first attachment point and the second attachment point is part of the one or more force resistance devices or separate from it. For the purposes of examination, claim 7 has been examined “as best understood”, whereby the flexible resilient material or materials between the first attachment point and the second attachment point is part of the one or more resistance devices. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claim 8 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 7.
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 are also 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 system 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), 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 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 second attachment point.
Regarding claim 1, Stearns teaches an exercise device comprising: a frame (102 with 104, Fig. 1), a pair of pedal arms (125 on each side, Fig. 1), each having a pedal (120, Fig. 1), and a pair of movable links (165 with end points, Fig. 1), each comprising a first attachment point (end point at/towards 110, Fig. 1), a second attachment point (end point towards 135, Fig. 1), 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 (Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 30-38).
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 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, (claim 7 “as best understood) Dey in view of Stearns teaches wherein the flexible attachment is constructed of a flexible, resilient material or materials between the first attachment point and second attachment point (Stearns: spring 165, Fig. 1), 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 upon application of a force and return of the first attachment point and second attachment points to the original distance between them when the force is removed (Stearns: Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 30-38 and lines 46-57, 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).
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 resistance devices between the first attachment point and second attachment point as taught by Gordon in order to vary the elliptical trace and thereby stride length according to a user’s fitness or rehabilitation goals.
The following rejection has been necessitated by New Claim 8
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 Arnold et al. (US 2015/0306451 A1).
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 system 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), 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 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 resistance devices between the first attachment point and second attachment point.
Regarding claim 1, Arnold teaches an exercise device (420) comprising: a frame (Figs. 9-11), a pair of pedal arms (428R and 428L, Figs. 9-11), each having a pedal (430R, 430L, Figs. 9-11), and a pair of movable links (429R, 429L), each comprising a first attachment point (end point at a first end of 429R/429L that attaches to the pedal arm in Figs. 9-11), a second attachment point (end point at a second opposite end of 429R/429L in Figs. 9-11), and a flexible attachment comprising one or more resistance devices (429R/429L) between the first attachment point and the second attachment point (¶ [89] recites: “In one implementation, each of links 429 is releasably connectable to the associated link 428 at one of plurality of available vertically spaced mounting locations. For example, in one implementation, each foot link 428 comprises a forwardly extending plate or year having column of vertically spaced apertures by which the end portion of link 429 may be pinned or otherwise mounted. Selectively repositioning the end of link 429 in one of the various vertically spaced attachment or mounting points on the associated foot links 428 allows a person to adjust the range of stride length such that the minimum or maximum of the stride length would be uniformly larger or smaller. In one implementation, each of links 429 may alternatively have a resiliently extendable/compressible length to provide cushioning. For example, one implementation, each of links 429 may comprise a shock-absorber like hydraulic or pneumatic cylinder-piston shock assembly. In another implementation, each of links 429 may comprise a resiliently compressible leaf spring, an elastomeric rubber-like link or other elongated member having a resiliently adjustable length”).
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 resistance devices between the first attachment point and second attachment point as taught by Arnold in order to vary the elliptical trace and thereby stride length according to a user’s fitness or rehabilitation goals.
Regarding claims 7-8, (claim 7 “as best understood) Dey in view of Arnold teaches wherein the flexible attachment is constructed of a flexible, resilient material or materials between the first attachment point and second attachment point, 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 upon application of a force and return of the first attachment point and second attachment points to the original distance between them when the force is removed, wherein the flexible, resilient material or materials is a leaf spring attached between the first attachment point and the second attachment point (Arnold: ¶ [89] recites: “In one implementation, each of links 429 is releasably connectable to the associated link 428 at one of plurality of available vertically spaced mounting locations. For example, in one implementation, each foot link 428 comprises a forwardly extending plate or year having column of vertically spaced apertures by which the end portion of link 429 may be pinned or otherwise mounted. Selectively repositioning the end of link 429 in one of the various vertically spaced attachment or mounting points on the associated foot links 428 allows a person to adjust the range of stride length such that the minimum or maximum of the stride length would be uniformly larger or smaller. In one implementation, each of links 429 may alternatively have a resiliently extendable/compressible length to provide cushioning. For example, one implementation, each of links 429 may comprise a shock-absorber like hydraulic or pneumatic cylinder-piston shock assembly. In another implementation, each of links 429 may comprise a resiliently compressible leaf spring, an elastomeric rubber-like link or other elongated member having a resiliently adjustable length”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Objections to the Drawings:
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding previous objections to the drawings for failing to show features of claims 4 and 5, stating that the amendment to the specification clarifies that there are two alternate configurations of moveable crank link (ref. 96) shown in Fig. 11, and that they are mechanically equivalent and interchangeable provided that the first link (ref. 98) and second link (ref. 100) are the same length and that crank link pin is attached at the same point in both, the Examiner would like to mention that as stated above, such amendments to the specification has been considered New Matter. As such, a drawing objection has been provided regarding amended claim 4 (see above for details).
Rejections of claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. §103:
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1 and 7 and that the “extension spring 165” in Stearns is not mechanically analogous to the “flexible attachment” of the claimed invention, as it is attached to different components of the exercise machine and configured to perform a completely different mechanical function and as such, it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Stearns with Dey to result in the claimed invention, that the flexible attachment of the claimed invention is mechanically configured and attached to provide lengthening and contraction of a stride length of a user, and that Stearns explicitly refers to the extension spring 165 as providing a return force for the rotation of the crank, and not for extension of a stride length, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings.
As stated previously and 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. However, Dey is silent about a flexible attachment comprising one or more force resistance devices between the first attachment point and second attachment point. Stearns teaches an exercise device comprising: a pair of movable links (165 with end points, Fig. 1), each comprising a first attachment point (end point at/towards 110, Fig. 1), a second attachment point (end point towards 135, Fig. 1), 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 (Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 30-38). Nowhere in claim 1, the function of the flexible attachment regarding lengthening/contraction of a stride length of a user has been claimed. With respect to claim 7, Stearns teaches wherein the flexible attachment is constructed of a flexible, resilient material or materials between the first attachment point and second attachment point (Stearns: spring 165, Fig. 1), 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 upon application of a force and return of the first attachment point and second attachment points to the original distance between them when the force is removed (Stearns: Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 30-38 and lines 46-57). The spring 165 does allow (capable of allowing) for expansion of an original distance between the first attachment point and the second attachment points according to the applied force of a user, and when such force is removed, the attachment points would return to the original distance between them. 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 as taught by Stearns in order to vary the elliptical trace and thereby stride length according to a user’s fitness or rehabilitation goals. As such, the flexible attachment, as claimed in claims 1 and 7, is taught by Stearns, whereby it is capable of and is performing the function recited in claim 7. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (i.e., Stearns), 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).
Applicant’s arguments regarding Gordon is moot, as Gordon has not been relied upon in this Office Action.
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 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