Detailed Action
This is the Final Rejection based on application 18/433,802 filed on 02/06/2024, and which claims as amended on 02/20/2026 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
There is no claim for an earlier priority date. As such the filing date of 02/06/2024 is being used to establish prior art.
Response to Amendment
The amendments have been sufficient to overcome the original claim objections, and rejections under 35 USC 112(b) present in the Non-Final Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 5, “multi-action exercise.” Must have the period removed and be changed to –multi-action exercise,” .
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for issuing exercise instructions” in claims 1, 8, 18, and 23.
Paragraph [0020] of the instant application’s specification states, “A speaker 108 can be provided in the base 102, to allow the mobile boxing bag to play music, issue exercise instructions, sound alarms, or make other sounds. In addition to, or instead of, the speaker 108, a user terminal 200 (described below) can play the music, issue the exercise instructions, sound the alarms, or make other sounds. The user terminal 200 can issue sounds in response to wireless instructions from the mobile boxing bag 100, or can issue sounds in accordance with an exercise routine (described below) that has been selected and started on the user terminal 200. As another alternative, a user may connect headphones, for example by WiFi or Bluetooth®, to the base 102 or to the user terminal 200, and sounds can be issued via the headphones.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, 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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6,8-15, 17-20, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell US 20170340942 A1 , and further in view of Codrington US 20170036087 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
Connel teaches an exercise support device comprising: a base (base 52); and a boxing bag mounted on the base (upper portion 54. The examiner notes that paragraph [0011] states that the device is intended to be used for a variety of sports including boxing and therefore the upper pads are considered a boxing bag); wherein the base comprises: a processor (processor 142); a memory storing an exercise routine that comprises a movement pattern for the base including a plurality of different positions of the base (Paragraph [0183] states that the control system includes a memory where location data such a routes of motion for the device are stored. The examiner notes that the base moving through different routes of motion inherently include a plurality of positions for the base to move to.); a drive system (uni-ball drive system 18 which paragraph [0082] describes as a single large ball 24 driven by multiple omni-directional wheels 26) configured to move the base with the boxing bag mounted on the base (This is a recitation of the function of the drive system which the abstract of Connell states the drive system provides motion for the device); means for issuing exercise instructions (Speakers 192. The examiner notes that paragraph [0149] further discusses other various means of issuing instructions including external lights and a display) and wherein the processor is configured to control the drive system to move the base to the plurality of different positions in accordance with the movement pattern stored in the memory (Paragraph [0141] states that the controller can use pre-programmed function with predetermined routes for the device to follow, which would include the movement patterns stored in the memory).
[AltContent: textbox (a perspective view of a lower portion of a further embodiment of the electronic punching bag with a frame cage protective device)]
PNG
media_image1.png
414
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (a perspective view of a second alternate illustrative embodiment, a mobile device which simulates human motion.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
416
258
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Connell fails to teach that the exercise routine stored in the memory includes at least one exercise to be performed at each of the plurality of different positions of the base, and issuing, at the different positions of the base to which the base is moved in accordance with the movement pattern, instructions for the at least one exercise to be performed at each position via the means for issuing exercise instructions.
The examiner notes that as discussed above Connell already teaches moving the base to a plurality of different positions, what is not specifically taught is that the means for issuing instructions issue instructions for at least one exercise to be performed.
Codrington, however, teaches an electronic punching bag including an elongate bag formed of resilient material, and a microprocessor disposed in an interior of the electronic punching bag or at a periphery of the electronic punching bag (See abstract), and further teaches teach that the exercise routine stored in the memory includes at least one exercise to be performed at each of the plurality of different positions of the base (The examiner notes that paragraphs [0045]-[0047] discuss a variety of exercise stored in the memory and the instructions provided to the user to execute the different exercises, including boxing combinations, jumping jacks, color cued striking etc.), and issuing, instructions for the at least one exercise to be performed at each position via the means for issuing exercise instructions (The examiner notes that paragraph [0039] states that predefined training programs are stored in the memory storage of the device, and that paragraph [0067] further specifies that an example training program includes fight choreography recorded from professional boxing matches where the user needs to follow the pattern/instructions given by the device in order to follow the movements and punches thrown, which are boxing exercises, in order to complete the training session. Furthermore, the examiner notes that paragraph [0062] states (“The audio speaker has a connection to the microprocessor 4 and is capable of giving audio commands and prompts and feedback to the boxer.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Connell to include different exercises as part of the exercise routine, and to instruct the user to perform the different exercises as taught by Codrington, as Connell already includes the means to provide feedback/instructions to the user via lights, displays, and/or speakers, and already moves through a route which changes when struck, therefore issuing instructions for different exercises to be performed as the bag moves would add variety to the workout and cause the user to be more involved in the training since they need to follow specific instructions while moving.
Regarding claim 2:
Connell as modified discloses the exercise support device according to claim 1, wherein the drive system is operable to move the base, with the boxing bag mounted on the base, in at least two directions (Paragraph [0082] states “The omni-directional wheels are able to power the ball 24 in any direction, allowing for a complete range of motion and allowing for the device 10 to quickly and elegantly change directions.”, which inherently includes two directions such as forward and backwards).
Regarding claim 3:
Connell as modified discloses the exercise support device according to claim 1, wherein the drive system is operable to move the base, with the boxing bag mounted on the base, in at least four directions (Paragraph [0082] states “The omni-directional wheels are able to power the ball 24 in any direction, allowing for a complete range of motion and allowing for the device 10 to quickly and elegantly change directions.”, which inherently includes four directions such as forward and backwards and left and right.).
Regarding claim 4:
Connell as modified discloses the exercise support device according to claim 1, wherein the drive system is operable to move the base, with the boxing bag mounted on the base, in eight directions (Paragraph [0082] states “The omni-directional wheels are able to power the ball 24 in any direction, allowing for a complete range of motion and allowing for the device 10 to quickly and elegantly change directions.”, which inherently includes eight directions such as forward and backwards and left and right, and the diagonals since the device is able to rotate while moving).
Regarding claim 5:
Connell as modified discloses the exercise support device according to claim 1, wherein the drive system comprises a plurality of wheels (omni directional wheels 26), and a plurality of motors (motors 20) respectively connected to each of the wheels (“In one illustrative embodiments, at least two of the omni-wheels are powered by 3 HP brushed DC motors 20 and bearings on either side to prevent side-loading on the motors 20 during the impact of a tackle.” See paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claim 6:
Connell as modified discloses the exercise support device according to claim 5, wherein the wheels are drivable independently of each other (The examiner notes that paragraph [0091] discusses controlling the motors independently from one another through the use of wireless transmitters, and therefore since the motors drive the wheels, the wheels are drivable independently from each other).
Regarding claim 8:
Connell as modified by Codrington teaches the exercise support device according to claim 1, wherein the means for issuing exercise instructions comprise a speaker on the base (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9:
Connell as modified by Codrington teaches the exercise support device according to claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to control the drive system to move the base sequentially to each of the plurality of positions in the movement pattern (See rejection of claim 1, which claim 8 depends on, which claim 9 depends on), and, to control the speaker to output instructions for the exercises to be performed at each of the plurality of positions(See rejection of claim 1, which claim 8 depends on, which claim 9 depends on).
Regarding claim 10:
Connell as modified teaches the exercise support device according to claim 1, wherein the exercise routine further comprises a multi-action exercise to be performed during movement of the base (See rejection of claim 1 where the various exercises taught by Connell and Codrington can include boxing exercises, or other exercises such as jumping jacks), and the processor is further configured to issue, only at an initial position of the base for the multi-action exercise (The examiner notes that paragraph [0036] of the instant application’s specification discusses how the boxing bag issues exercise instructions while moving, and specifically mentions 2 exemplary ways this is achieved where it states “For example, the mobile boing bag 100 could move to a certain position in the movement pattern, issue an instruction to perform a certain number of exercises (e.g., five squats) and wait for a preset period of time (e.g., five seconds) to allow the exerciser time to perform the exercises. Or, for example, the mobile boxing bag 100 can move to a certain position in the movement pattern, issue an instruction to perform a certain number of exercises (e.g., five jabs) and immediately continue moving to a next position in the movement pattern, thereby encouraging the exerciser to perform the exercises while moving along with the mobile boxing bag 100.” Therefore, each movement position where the instructions are given along the movement pattern must be an initial position since the bag can both pause and wait for the exercise to be completed or continue moving, therefore Connell discusses in paragraphs [0186]-[0188] and depicted in figure 31 how the device will move along the exercise route and return to a home position, which is an initial position when struck or instructed to do so and then start the next exercise route again.), instructions for the multi-action exercise via the means for issuing exercise instructions (See rejection of claim 1 where Connell as modified by Codrington issues the instructions for each exercise.), and control the drive system to move the base to subsequent positions for the multi-action exercise in accordance with the movement pattern stored in the memory (See rejection of claim 1 which discusses how the processor controls the drive system to move the bag to each position).
[AltContent: textbox (flow diagram illustrating mobile unit routing, re-routing, obstacle activity, and return to home.)]
PNG
media_image3.png
458
452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11:
Connell as modified teaches the exercise support device according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the exercise routine further comprises pause times associated with each of the positions of the base in the movement pattern, and the processor is further configured to control the drive system to move the base in accordance with the movement pattern and to pause the base at each of the plurality of positions of the base in the movement pattern in accordance with the pause times associated with the plurality of positions of the base.
Codrington, however, teaches an electronic punching bag including an elongate bag formed of resilient material, and a microprocessor disposed in an interior of the electronic punching bag or at a periphery of the electronic punching bag (See abstract), and further teaches wherein the exercise routine further comprises pause times associated with each of the positions of the base in the movement pattern (The examiner notes that paragraph [0068] states that the fight choreograph program includes pauses to give the user a break, such as the time between rounds, and that the pauses can be adjusted according to the inputs of the user or follow the preprogrammed routine as recorded), and the processor is further configured to control the drive system to move the base in accordance with the movement pattern and to pause the base at each of the plurality of positions of the base in the movement pattern in accordance with the pause times associated with the plurality of positions of the base (The examiner notes that Codrington stops/changes the visual display and instructs the user to follow the pauses which includes the user stopping their movements or exercises, and that Connell includes the processors control over the drive system as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above).
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 exercise programming of Connell to include pauses at each location along the movement trajectory as taught by Codrington, in order to provide a rest opportunity, or to allow the user time to catch up to the instructions being provided on the device so they can follow the routine more closely without deviating or falling behind.
Regarding claim 12:
Connell as modified discloses the exercise support device according to claim 11, wherein the exercise routine further comprises at least one movement speed (“Software/UI can automatically determine speed and steering controls to execute a path, and waypoints.” See paragraph [0029]), and the processor is further configured to control the drive system to move the base in accordance with the movement pattern at the at least one movement speed (As noted in the rejection of claim 1, which claim 11 depends on, the preprogrammed movements the processor uses to control the devices movement, correlate to a speed/acceleration and direction of players or objects and as such the movement speed of the device must meet these requirements in order to operate, with paragraph [0135] stating that the speed of the device can depend on the specific user base and the desired outcome of training).
Regarding claim 13:
Connell as modified discloses the exercise support device according to claim 1, wherein the base further comprises a housing (frame 46), and a plurality of bumpers provided around a circumference of the housing (high density foam 14 which is stated to cushion against the frame and provide protection of the electronics housed within the frame base as shown in paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 14:
Connell as modified discloses the exercise support device according to claim 10, wherein the base further comprises a plurality of mechanical sensors, each of the mechanical sensors corresponding to one of the bumpers and being activated by contact of the one of the bumpers with an object (The examiner notes that Connell discusses pressure transducers and strain gauges included in the device to detect contact on the foam portions as outlined in paragraph [0032], with the high density foam portions 14 surrounding the frame 46 which protects the electronics as stated in paragraph [0095] acting as the bumpers are being considered the mechanical sensors corresponding to the bumpers and activated when struck by an object).
Regarding claim 15:
Connell as modified discloses the exercise support device according to claim 1, wherein the base further comprises a plurality of distance sensors (“The system may use sensors, including radar, lidar, sonar and cameras, to detect obstacles in the path of a device.” See paragraph [0189]. The examiner notes that paragraph [150] discusses the sensors being onboard the device to allow it to evade or attack approaching users).
Regarding claim 17:
Connell as modified discloses the exercise support device according to claim 1, wherein the base further comprises at least one localization sensor (“Location data of the training devices and the control unit may be determined by one or more of the set including GPS, RTK GNSS, compass, camera(s), Lidar, Sonar, RFID, wireless communication to fiducial markers, on-board beacon. Location of the control unit may be used to orient the training device to the operator.” See paragraph [0192]).
Regarding claim 18:
Connell teaches an exercise support system comprising:
(i) an exercise support device (device 10) comprising:
a base (base 52); and a boxing bag mounted on the base (upper portion 54. The examiner notes that paragraph [0011] states that the device is intended to be used for a variety of sports including boxing and therefore the upper pads are considered a boxing bag); wherein the base comprises: a processor (processor 142); a memory storing an exercise routine that comprises a movement pattern for the base including a plurality of different positions of the base (Paragraph [0183] states that the control system includes a memory where location data such a routes of motion for the device are stored); a drive system (uni-ball drive system 18 which paragraph [0082] describes as a single large ball 24 driven by multiple omni-directional wheels 26) configured to move the base with the boxing bag mounted on the base (This is a recitation of the function of the drive system which the abstract of Connell states the drive system provides motion for the device); and means for issuing exercise instructions (Speakers 192. The examiner notes that paragraph [0149] further discusses other various means of issuing instructions including external lights and a display); and wherein the processor is configured to control the drive system to move the base to the plurality of different positions in accordance with the movement pattern stored in the memory (Paragraph [0141] states that the controller can use pre-programmed function with predetermined routes for the device to follow, which would include the movement patterns stored in the memory) and (ii) a user terminal configured to wirelessly communicate with the exercise support device (Paragraph [0029] outlines how the user interface can be provided on a variety of devices and how the user/coach can use it to issue commands and control the device wirelessly).
Connell fails to teach that the exercise routine stored in the memory includes at least one exercise to be performed at each of the plurality of different positions of the base, and issuing, at the different positions of the base to which the base is moved in accordance with the movement pattern, instructions for the at least one exercise to be performed at each position via the means for issuing exercise instructions.
The examiner notes that as discussed above Connell already teaches moving the base to a plurality of different positions, what is not specifically taught is that the means for issuing instructions issue instructions for at least one exercise to be performed.
Codrington, however, teaches an electronic punching bag including an elongate bag formed of resilient material, and a microprocessor disposed in an interior of the electronic punching bag or at a periphery of the electronic punching bag (See abstract), and further teaches teach that the exercise routine stored in the memory includes at least one exercise to be performed at each of the plurality of different positions of the base (The examiner notes that paragraphs [0045]-[0047] discuss a variety of exercise stored in the memory and the instructions provided to the user to execute the different exercises, including boxing combinations, jumping jacks, color cued striking etc.), and issuing, instructions for the at least one exercise to be performed at each position via the means for issuing exercise instructions (The examiner notes that paragraph [0039] states that predefined training programs are stored in the memory storage of the device, and that paragraph [0067] further specifies that an example training program includes fight choreography recorded from professional boxing matches where the user needs to follow the pattern/instructions given by the device in order to follow the movements and punches thrown, which are boxing exercises, in order to complete the training session. Furthermore, the examiner notes that paragraph [0062] states (“The audio speaker has a connection to the microprocessor 4 and is capable of giving audio commands and prompts and feedback to the boxer.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Connell to include different exercises as part of the exercise routine, and to instruct the user to perform the different exercises as taught by Codrington, as Connell already includes the means to provide feedback/instructions to the user via lights, displays, and/or speakers, and already moves through a route which changes when struck, therefore issuing instructions for different exercises to be performed as the bag moves would add variety to the workout and cause the user to be more involved in the training since they need to follow specific instructions while moving.
Regarding claim 19:
Connell as modified teaches the exercise support device according to claim 18, wherein the exercise routine further comprises a multi-action exercise to be performed during movement of the base (See rejection of claim 1 where the various exercises taught by Connell and Codrington can include boxing exercises, or other exercises such as jumping jacks), and the processor is further configured to issue, only at an initial position of the base for the multi-action exercise. (The examiner notes that paragraph [0036] of the instant application’s specification discusses how the boxing bag issues exercise instructions while moving, and specifically mentions 2 exemplary ways this is achieved where it states “For example, the mobile boing bag 100 could move to a certain position in the movement pattern, issue an instruction to perform a certain number of exercises (e.g., five squats) and wait for a preset period of time (e.g., five seconds) to allow the exerciser time to perform the exercises. Or, for example, the mobile boxing bag 100 can move to a certain position in the movement pattern, issue an instruction to perform a certain number of exercises (e.g., five jabs) and immediately continue moving to a next position in the movement pattern, thereby encouraging the exerciser to perform the exercises while moving along with the mobile boxing bag 100.” Therefore, each movement position where the instructions are given along the movement pattern must be an initial position since the bag can both pause and wait for the exercise to be completed or continue moving, therefore Connell discusses in paragraphs [0186]-[0188] and depicted in figure 31 how the device will move along the exercise route and return to a home position, which is an initial position when struck or instructed to do so and then start the next exercise route again.), instructions for the multi-action exercise via the means for issuing exercise instructions (See rejection of claim 1 where Connell as modified by Codrington issues the instructions for each exercise.), and control the drive system to move the base to subsequent positions for the multi-action exercise in accordance with the movement pattern stored in the memory (See rejection of claim 1 which discusses how the processor controls the drive system to move the bag to each position).
Regarding claim 20:
Connell as modified discloses the exercise support system according to claim 18, wherein the user terminal is configured to create the exercise routine and to transmit the exercise routine to the exercise support device (See paragraph [0029] of Connell which outlines the various functions of the user interface including “draw-to-drive” functions and uploading new movement instructions to the device).
Regarding claim 22:
Connell as modified discloses the exercise support system according to claim 18, wherein the user terminal and the exercise support device are further operable in a directed operation mode in which the user terminal issues movement instructions to the exercise support device without regard to the stored exercise routine (See paragraph [0029] of Connell which outlines the various functions of the user interface including “draw-to-drive” functions and uploading new movement instructions to the device, which would not be related to the pre=programmed routes discussed previously, as the user is drawing new routes.).
Regarding claim 23:
Connell teaches an exercise support device comprising: : a base (base 52); and a boxing bag mounted on the base (upper portion 54. The examiner notes that paragraph [0011] states that the device is intended to be used for a variety of sports including boxing and therefore the upper pads are considered a boxing bag); wherein the base comprises: a processor (processor 142); a memory (Paragraph [0183] states that the control system includes a memory where location data such a routes of motion for the device are stored); a drive system (uni-ball drive system 18 which paragraph [0082] describes as a single large ball 24 driven by multiple omni-directional wheels 26) configured to move the base with the boxing bag mounted on the base (This is a recitation of the function of the drive system which the abstract of Connell states the drive system provides motion for the device); and means for issuing instructions (Speakers 192. The examiner notes that paragraph [0149] further discusses other various means of issuing instructions including external lights and a display); and wherein the processor is configured to, in accordance with instructions stored locally on the exercise support device or received from an external device, control the drive system to move the base to a plurality of different positions (Paragraph [0141] states that the controller can use pre-programmed function with predetermined routes for the device to follow, which would include the movement patterns stored in the memory. The examiner notes that the inclusion of the phrase “or” requires that only one of the two optional limitations of either a local or remote storage, is necessary for the invention. )
Connell fails to teach that the exercise routine stored in the memory includes at least one exercise to be performed at each of the plurality of different positions of the base, and issuing, at the different positions of the base to which the base is moved in accordance with the movement pattern, instructions for the at least one exercise to be performed at each position via the means for issuing exercise instructions.
The examiner notes that as discussed above Connell already teaches moving the base to a plurality of different positions, what is not specifically taught is that the means for issuing instructions issue instructions for at least one exercise to be performed.
Codrington, however, teaches an electronic punching bag including an elongate bag formed of resilient material, and a microprocessor disposed in an interior of the electronic punching bag or at a periphery of the electronic punching bag (See abstract), and further teaches teach that the exercise routine stored in the memory includes at least one exercise to be performed at each of the plurality of different positions of the base (The examiner notes that paragraphs [0045]-[0047] discuss a variety of exercise stored in the memory and the instructions provided to the user to execute the different exercises, including boxing combinations, jumping jacks, color cued striking etc.), and issuing, instructions for the at least one exercise to be performed at each position via the means for issuing exercise instructions (The examiner notes that paragraph [0039] states that predefined training programs are stored in the memory storage of the device, and that paragraph [0067] further specifies that an example training program includes fight choreography recorded from professional boxing matches where the user needs to follow the pattern/instructions given by the device in order to follow the movements and punches thrown, which are boxing exercises, in order to complete the training session. Furthermore, the examiner notes that paragraph [0062] states (“The audio speaker has a connection to the microprocessor 4 and is capable of giving audio commands and prompts and feedback to the boxer.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Connell to include different exercises as part of the exercise routine, and to instruct the user to perform the different exercises as taught by Codrington, as Connell already includes the means to provide feedback/instructions to the user via lights, displays, and/or speakers, and already moves through a route which changes when struck, therefore issuing instructions for different exercises to be performed as the bag moves would add variety to the workout and cause the user to be more involved in the training since they need to follow specific instructions while moving.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell et al. US 20170340942 A1 in view of Codrington US 20170036087 A1.
Connell as modified teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 7:
Connell as modified teaches the exercise support device according to claim 5, however the embodiment discussed above does not teach wherein each of the wheels is a mecanum wheel. However, Connell does discuss a possible alternative to the uni-ball drive system discussed above which does teach wherein each of the wheels is a mecanum wheel (“Other types of drive systems can be used without departing from the scope of the invention. Such systems include, but are not limited to, mecanum wheel drive systems.” See paragraph [0114]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mecanum wheel configuration of Connell as it would provide independent control of each wheel in every direction and still maintain the self-balancing and stability properties of the other embodiments.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell US 20170340942 A1 , in view of Codrington US 20170036087 A1, and further in view of Spychaiski US 20120208150 A1.
Connell as modified teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 16:
Connell as modified teaches the exercise support device according to claim 15, but fails to teach wherein the distance sensors are arranged around a circumference of the base. The examiner notes that as stated above in the rejection presented under 35 USC 112(b), distance sensors have not yet been claimed in claims 1, 10, or 11, but that Connell does teach distance sensors in paragraph [0189], but specifically doesn’t teach that they are arranged around the base.
Spychiaski, however, teaches a moving, shooting, video recording, human-appearing combat training machine comprising of three major components referred to as the mobile base unit, the target body and an unattached control system (See abstract), and further teaches sensors arranged around the base (“In an embodiment, the sensor 461 may be mounted to the base portion 10 and the bullet resistant plate 315 in a friction fit manner. The sensor 461 may be mounted at varying angles of view for ideal sensing capabilities.” See paragraph [0077] and figure 16).
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 placement of the sensors already included in Connell to be around the circumference of the base as taught by Spychiaski, as the function of the distance sensors is to allow the device to detect when it is nearing an object or player and evade or attack accordingly so having them in the base would allow for the sensors to detect the ground and distance from low objects while being protected from strikes by the foam housing.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell US 20170340942 A1 , in view of Codrington US 20170036087 A1, and further in view of Leon III US 20210008428 A1.
Connell as modified teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 21:
Connell as modified teaches the exercise support system according to claim 18, but fails to teach a server which stores the exercise routine, wherein the exercise support device is configured to obtain the exercise routine from the server.
Leon, however, teaches an apparatus, method, and a non-transitory programmed medium provide a structure to move a heavy bag to simulate sparring along with a method and programmed media to provide selective training experiences (See abstract) and further teaches a server (“The various subsystems include data module 260 in the hanging bag 24, motor module 280, local control unit 300, a trainer console 320, a local server 330, a remote server 340, and a remote location module 360.” See paragraph [0046]) which stores the exercise routine (“Generally, the command signals will be provided by the local control unit 300. Motion commands may also be provided from the local server 330, the trainer console 320, and the remote server 340.” See paragraph [0048]), wherein the exercise support device is configured to obtain the exercise routine from the server (These training sequences can be embodied in programs stored in the local server 330 or the remote server 340 (FIG. 3) and provided for download for use in the training apparatus 16.” See paragraph [0068]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Connell to include a server which stores the exercise routine the device uses as taught by Leon, as this would allow for a wider variety of exercise routines to be stored and chosen from, since a server can be connected online and can pull from web based applications or downloaded and stored in the memory as discussed by Leon and then used to control the device/instruct the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to the arguments presented with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 18 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) in view of the Connell reference, the examiner notes that originally the newly amended claim limitations of a means for issuing exercise instructions, and issuing at different positions instructions for the at least on exercise to be performed at each position along a movement pattern were not in claims, and therefore the new rejection under 35 USC 103 for claims 1 and 18, and new independent claim 23 was issued. Wherein, as discussed above Connell does teach a means for issuing instruction in the form of a speaker, but can also include lights or a display, with the examiner noting that the means for issuing instructions as claimed above do not specifically require initially that the instructions are issued, only that a structure capable of the function is required. Furthermore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments in regards to the combination of Connell and Codrington, as Codrington is not being used to teach any movement limitations of the base, since Connell already discloses the structures, functions, and programming required to move the base to a plurality of different positions along either predownloaded routes, or routes drawn/instructed from a remote control device, with Codrington specifically teaching using the speaker/lights/display/means for issuing instructions and memory already present in the invention of Connell to be used in order to store instructions for a wider variety of exercises, and issue the instructions to perform these exercises to the user, while the moving system of Connell executes its already established movement functions.
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
/LOAN B JIMENEZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3784
