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 amendments filed on 10/08/2025. Claims 1-11 are pending in the application. Claims 1-11 have been rejected as set forth below.
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 assemblies…for 360 degrees of synchronous rotations of the first and second crank assemblies” in claim 1, wherein “system assemblies” 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 ¶ [0066] 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 ¶ [0079], 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 § 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 1-4, 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abelbeck (US 2018/0008861 A1) in view of Ashby (US 2007/0254778 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Abelbeck teaches an exercise device (20, 20”) comprising:
a frame (22, Figs. 1 and 10);
a first and a second crank system mounted opposing sides of the frame adapted for positioning a user (36) therebetween (Fig. 1), each of the first and second crank system comprising a first crank assembly (28) rotatable about a first axis (30) and a second crank assembly (32) rotatable about a second axis (34) with the first and second axes each being displaced from the other (Figs. 1 and 10), each of the first crank assemblies comprising a first crank arm (38), and each of the second crank assemblies comprising a second crank arm (40, Figs. 1 and 10, ¶ [38], [49]);
a pair of synchronous control system assemblies (44), one mechanically coupled to the first crank system and the other mechanically coupled to the second crank system (Figs. 1 and 10), 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 (Figs. 1 and 10, ¶ [9], [39], [60]);
a pair of pedal arms (46), one coupled to the first crank system and the other coupled to the second crank system (Figs. 1 and 10), each of the pair of pedal arms being pivotally coupled at a first end (48) to the first crank arm (38) of the first crank assembly and being pivotally coupled at a second end (50) to a pedal (52, Figs. 1 and 10, ¶ [40]);
a pair of movable crank links (96), one corresponding to each of the first and second crank systems (Figs. 10-11, ¶ [49]), each of the pair of movable crank links comprising a first attachment point (108 on one of 98 or 100), a second attachment point (108 on the other one of 98 or 100), and a flexible attachment (102) between the first attachment point and second attachment point (Fig. 12), wherein the first attachment point of each movable crank link is pivotally coupled to the pedal arm (46) of its corresponding crank system (Figs. 10-11) and the second attachment point of each movable crank is pivotally coupled to the second crank arm of its corresponding second crank assembly (Figs. 10-11, ¶ [49]-[51]).
Abelbeck is silent about a computer gaming system integrated with the exercise device, wherein the exercise device acts as a gaming controller for computer gaming systems, and the exercise device comprising a sensor configured to measure a movement of a component of the exercise device and transmit the measurement as data to a compatible computing device.
Regarding claim 1, Ashby teaches an exercise device with computer gaming system integration (100), wherein the exercise device acts as a gaming controller for computer gaming systems, comprising: a frame (102, Fig. 1, ¶ [31]); a first and a second crank system (110 with the element connecting its one end to the wheel 112, Fig. 1), mounted opposing sides of the frame adapted for positioning a user therebetween (Fig. 1, ¶ [31]); a pair of pedal arms (116), one coupled to the first crank system and the other coupled to the second crank system (Fig. 1), each of the pair of pedal arms coupled at an end to a pedal (Fig. 1, ¶ [31]-[34]); a sensor (404/418/422, Figs. 8-10) configured to measure a movement of a component of the exercise device and transmit (indirectly) the measurement as data to a compatible computing device (i.e., video processor 408, Fig. 9, ¶ [15], [63], [68], [76]-[77], [85], [87]-[88], claims 5-6).
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 Abelbeck’s invention wherein the exercise device acts as a gaming controller for computer gaming systems, and the exercise device comprising a sensor configured to measure a movement of a component of the exercise device and transmit the measurement as data to a compatible computing device as taught by Ashby in order to reduce user’s boredom and motivate the user to exercise more.
Regarding claim 2, Abelbeck in view of Ashby teaches the exercise device further comprising a game controller (Ashby: 130, ¶ [42]-[44]), wherein: the game controller comprises a computer interface (Ashby: i.e., MCU 400) for communicating with the compatible computing device (Ashby: i.e., 408, Fig. 9); and the game controller is configured to transmit game control data to the compatible computing device via the computer interface (Ashby: Fig. 9, ¶ [68]).
Regarding claim 3, Abelbeck in view of Ashby teaches wherein the game controller comprises buttons or a touchscreen for game input by the user (Ashby: Figs. 1 and 4, ¶ [41]-[43]).
Regarding claim 4, Abelbeck in view of Ashby teaches the exercise device further comprising a pair of game controllers (Ashby: 130) affixed to the exercise device (Ashby: Fig. 1, ¶ [41]) and configured to transmit (Ashby: via MCU 400) game control data (Ashby: ¶ [41]-[43]) to the compatible computing device (Ashby: 408, Fig. 9, ¶ [68]), wherein each game controller is accessible to a hand of the user (Ashby: Figs. 1 and 4, ¶ [41]).
Regarding claim 7, Abelbeck in view of Ashby teaches wherein the sensor is configured to measure a speed of operation of one of the pair of synchronous control systems (Abelbeck teaches the pair of synchronous control systems (44); Ashby in ¶ [63] teaches that sensors (404) may be used to determine a speed associated with the operation of the apparatus. Upon modification of Abelbeck’s invention with features of Ashby, the sensors (404) would determine the speed associated with the operation of at least one of the pair of synchronous control systems connected to the pedal arms).
Regarding claim 9, Abelbeck in view of Ashby teaches wherein a securely steerable handlebar (Abelbeck: 58 in Fig. 11; Ashby: 118, Fig. 1) with integrated game controllers (Ashby: 130 on handlebars 118) is affixed to the exercise device (Ashby: Figs. 1 and 9) and configured to transmit (Ashby: via MCU 400) the game control data to the compatible computing device (Ashby: Fig. 9, ¶ [41]-[43], [68]).
Regarding claim 10, Abelbeck in view of Ashby teaches wherein the sensor (Ashby: 404) is configured to transmit data to the compatible computing device (Ashby: i.e., 408, Fig. 9) through the computer interface (Ashby: i.e., MCU 400) of the game controller (Ashby: Fig. 9, ¶ [68]).
Regarding claim 11, Abelbeck in view of Ashby teaches wherein the sensor (Ashby: 404) is configured to transmit data to the compatible computing device (Ashby: i.e., 408, Fig. 9) through the computer interface (Ashby: i.e., MCU 400) of the game controller (Ashby: Fig. 9, ¶ [68]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abelbeck in view of Ashby as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Radow et al. (US 2011/0118086 A1).
Abelbeck in view of Ashby teaches measuring speed of operation (see above). Abelbeck in view of Ashby is silent about wherein the sensor is configured to calculate a power output of the user based on the measured speed of operation.
Regarding claim 8, Radow teaches an exercise device/system comprising a sensor (i.e., encoder) configured to measure a speed/velocity of operation of the exercise device (¶ [17]), wherein the sensor is configured to calculate a power output of the user based on the measured speed of operation (¶ [17], [176]).
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 Abelbeck’s invention in view of Ashby wherein the sensor is configured to calculate a power output of the user based on the measured speed of operation as taught by Radow in order to inform the user of further performance information to keep track of his/her progress and improvement.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abelbeck (US 2018/0008861 A1) in view of Kerber (US 2020/0241628 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Abelbeck teaches an exercise device (20, 20”) comprising:
a frame (22, Figs. 1 and 10);
a first and a second crank system mounted opposing sides of the frame adapted for positioning a user (36) therebetween (Fig. 1), each of the first and second crank system comprising a first crank assembly (28) rotatable about a first axis (30) and a second crank assembly (32) rotatable about a second axis (34) with the first and second axes each being displaced from the other (Figs. 1 and 10), each of the first crank assemblies comprising a first crank arm (38), and each of the second crank assemblies comprising a second crank arm (40, Figs. 1 and 10, ¶ [38], [49]);
a pair of synchronous control system assemblies (44), one mechanically coupled to the first crank system and the other mechanically coupled to the second crank system (Figs. 1 and 10), 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 (Figs. 1 and 10, ¶ [9], [39], [60]);
a pair of pedal arms (46), one coupled to the first crank system and the other coupled to the second crank system (Figs. 1 and 10), each of the pair of pedal arms being pivotally coupled at a first end (48) to the first crank arm (38) of the first crank assembly and being pivotally coupled at a second end (50) to a pedal (52, Figs. 1 and 10, ¶ [40]);
a pair of movable crank links (96), one corresponding to each of the first and second crank systems (Figs. 10-11, ¶ [49]), each of the pair of movable crank links comprising a first attachment point (108 on one of 98 or 100), a second attachment point (108 on the other one of 98 or 100), and a flexible attachment (102) between the first attachment point and second attachment point (Fig. 12), wherein the first attachment point of each movable crank link is pivotally coupled to the pedal arm (46) of its corresponding crank system (Figs. 10-11) and the second attachment point of each movable crank is pivotally coupled to the second crank arm of its corresponding second crank assembly (Figs. 10-11, ¶ [49]-[51]).
Abelbeck is silent about a computer gaming system integrated with the exercise device, wherein the exercise device acts as a gaming controller for computer gaming systems, and the exercise device comprising a sensor configured to measure a movement of a component of the exercise device and transmit the measurement as data to a compatible computing device.
Regarding claim 1, Kerber teaches an exercise device with computer gaming system integration (10) wherein the exercise device acts as a gaming controller for computer gaming systems, comprising: a frame (30, Figs. 1A-1B, ¶ [34]); a first and a second crank system mounted opposing sides of the frame (Figs. 1A-1B, 6 and 9, ¶ [41]); a pair of pedal arms (32, 34), one coupled to the first crank system and the other coupled to the second crank system (Figs. 1A-1B), a sensor (18 with 80) configured to measure a movement of a component of the exercise device and transmit the measurement as data to a compatible computing device (22, Fig. 1A, ¶ [46]-[53], also see ¶ [28] and [30]).
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 Abelbeck’s invention wherein the exercise device acts as a gaming controller for computer gaming systems, and the exercise device comprising a sensor configured to measure a movement of a component of the exercise device and transmit the measurement as data to a compatible computing device as taught by Kreber in order to reduce user’s boredom and motivate the user to exercise more.
Regarding claims 5-6, wherein the sensor is configured to continually or periodically measure a distance between the first attachment point and second attachment point, (It is clear from Abelbeck’s Figs. 10-12 and their corresponding paragraphs, that as the pedal arms are moved forward/backward by the user exercising, the distance between the first attachment point and the second attachment point changes. Kreber teaches that the sensor can determine the movement/position of the pedal arms/foot platforms (32/34) and determine distance (see ¶ [48]-[51] of Kreber). Upon modification of Abelbeck’s invention with features of Kreber, the distance determined can be between the first and second attachment points), wherein the sensor is configured to calculate a stride length and stride period based on the continually or periodically measured distance (Kreber: ¶ [48], [57]-[59], [79], Kreber teaches determining stride length and velocity from distance measured. It is well known that stride period is the time passed to complete one stride, which can be determined from stride length and velocity. Stride length/ velocity = stride period (stride time). Such calculation is considered to be held within one ordinary skill in the art. 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 Abelbeck’s invention in view of Kreber, wherein the stride period is calculated from the stride length and velocity using known mathematical formula(s), in order to determine more information regarding the user’s gait/performance, and improve upon such performance).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 stating:
“The Examiner acknowledges that Abelbeck teaches the movable crank link structure but is silent about a computer gaming system integrated with the exercise device and the sensor, highlighting that such integration is not inherent to exercise devices of the Abelbeck type. This silence underscores the absence of any natural bridge between Abelbeck's complex natural gait mechanism and Ashby's gaming overlay. The Examiner then turns to Ashby to fill this gap. However, Ashby discloses a fundamentally different exercise device (a basic stationary bicycle with a wheel and simple crank system) that bears no resemblance to Abelbeck's sophisticated dual-crank system with movable links designed to produce natural gait motion. Moreover, Ashby requires sensor data to be transmitted to a separate video processor (see Ashby [0063], [0076]-[0077]), which then interfaces with the game. By contrast, Claim 1 requires that the exercise device itself act as the gaming controller. This structural-functional distinction is not suggested or remedied by Ashby and cannot be supplied by the Examiner's conclusory rationale. The rejection lacks a reasoned motivation supported by evidence. The stated rationale "to reduce user's boredom and motivate the user to exercise more" is impermissibly broad and could justify adding gaming sensors to literally any exercise device. This generic motivation fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill would have been led to combine Ashby's gaming system specifically with Abelbeck's natural gait mechanism featuring movable crank links”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. Ashby teaches various types of exercise devices, with computer gaming system integration, including but not limited to an elliptical trainer 100, a stationary bicycle 200, treadmill 300, stair climber or stepper, rowing apparatus, striking apparatus, skiing apparatus, etc. (see ¶ [9], [30], [35]). Furthermore, the exercise device of Ashby also acts as a game controller. For instance, Ashby in ¶ [87] recites: “In a more specific example, upon increase of the RPMs of a stationary bike, the block configurations of a TETRIS style-game may begin to drop at a slower pace providing a user with more time to make a decision as to how the falling block should be oriented and where it should be placed” and in ¶ [88] recites: “In another embodiment, the level of resistance, the level of incline or some other operation parameter of the exercise apparatus 100, 200, 300 may be used to effect the dynamics of the game being played, making it generally easier or harder depending on the operational parameter of the exercise apparatus 100, 200, 300 selected by the user”. As such, the exercise apparats in Ashby also acts as a game controller. In response to applicant’s stating that the provided rational "to reduce user's boredom and motivate the user to exercise more" is impermissibly broad and could justify adding gaming sensors to literally any exercise device. This generic motivation fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill would have been led to combine Ashby's gaming system specifically with Abelbeck's natural gait mechanism featuring movable crank links, the Examiner would like to mention that reducing boredom and keeping a user motivated to exercise more would make any user of Abelbeck’s use the exercise device more often for his/her particular fitness/rehabilitation purpose. Ashby in various paragraphs provides such motivations stating that integrating a computer gaming system with an exercise device would provide added motivation for a user to exercise more energetically and enthusiastically as they try to obtain personal best scores and reduces boredom (see ¶ [4]-[10] and [91] of Ashby for details). 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 to combine Abelbeck’s invention with features of Ashby is both found in Ashby and also in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In response to applicant’s arguments stating:
“Additionally, the references address entirely different exercise modalities and mechanical problems. Abelbeck's focus is on creating a natural walking/running gait through a complex dual-crank system with variable stride length via movable crank links (see Abelbeck [0089]- [0093]). Ashby's focus is on basic cycling exercise with simple gaming overlay. Nothing in either reference suggests combining a sophisticated natural gait mechanism with gaming sensors, nor is there any teaching that the unique biomechanical advantages of Abelbeck's movable crank link system would benefit from, or be enhanced by, gaming integration”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown above, Ashby teaches integration of the computer gaming system with various types of exercise devices (see above for details) including an elliptical trainer 100, having foot pads that follow elliptical path and the stride length can be adjusted (see ¶ [33]-[34]). Furthermore, motivation regarding modifying Abelbeck’s invention with features of Ashby, has also been provided see above.
In response to applicant’s similar arguments stating:
“the Examiner has not adequately explained how Ashby's simple bicycle-based sensor system would be bodily incorporated into Abelbeck's complex dual-crank mechanism with movable links, nor why a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to make such a combination beyond the impermissibly generic rationale of reducing boredom. The structural and functional distinction between Claim 1's requirement that the exercise device itself act as a gaming controller and Ashby's intermediate video processor architecture further demonstrates that the references, even in combination, do not teach or suggest the claimed invention”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to refer the applicant to the explanation provided above and mention that as much as applicant has claimed, Abelbeck in view of Ashby teaches the claim limitations of claim 1 and applicant’s arguments are narrower than claimed.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 stating:
“The Examiner acknowledges that Abelbeck teaches this movable crank link structure, but Kerber contains no such structure. Kerber discloses rigid pendulum-swinging legs that operate on gravity-driven oscillation principles without variable stride capability. Abelbeck's movable crank links incorporate springs specifically designed to allow variable stride length by permitting compression and extension during use, providing biomechanical feedback that adapts to the user's natural gait variations. The Examiner has not explained why a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to incorporate Abelbeck's spring-loaded movable crank links into Kerber's rigid pendulum-based system, nor how such incorporation would be physically accomplished”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention that claim 1 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Abelbeck in view of Kreber. Furthermore, the spring-loaded movable crank links of Abelbeck has not been incorporated into Kreber’s invention, rather Abelbeck’s invention has been modified such that the exercise device acts as a gaming controller for computer gaming systems, and the exercise device comprising a sensor configured to measure a movement of a component of the exercise device and transmit the measurement as data to a compatible computing device as taught by Kreber in order to reduce user’s boredom and motivate the user to exercise more (see above for details).
In response to applicant’s further arguments stating:
“Claim 1 further recites that "the exercise device acts as a gaming controller for computer gaming systems" with "a sensor configured to measure a movement of a component of the exercise device and transmit the measurement as data to a compatible computing device." Kerber requires an intermediate Controller CPU (20) to convert sensor inputs into step metrics, which are then passed to a separate Virtual Environment Processor (22). By contrast, Claim 1 requires the exercise device itself to act as the gaming controller, transmitting sensor data directly to a computing device The claimed architecture eliminates the intermediate controller CPU processing layer that Kerber requires. The rejection does not articulate how Kerber's multi-tier processing architecture teaches or suggests the claimed direct gaming controller functionality”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. Kreber teaches various types of sensors being used to determine different parameters including sensors determining revolution and/or direction of each revolution of an elliptical wheel and determining distance traveled, as well as the speed of walking, or running or the like, as the user travels through the virtual environment. The walking motion of the user in the virtual environment is based on the user’s gliding or elliptical motion on the exercise device (see [28], [30], [46]-[53] of Kreber). Furthermore, nowhere in claim 1, has applicant recited transmitting sensor data directly to a computing device. As such applicant is arguing narrower than claimed.
In response to applicant’s arguments stating:
“Furthermore, the combination lacks a reasoned motivation supported by evidence. The Examiner's stated rationale of "to reduce user's boredom and motivate the user to exercise more" is impermissibly generic and could justify adding gaming sensors to virtually any exercise equipment. This rationale fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill would specifically combine Kerber's VR locomotion system with Abelbeck's movable crank link mechanism. Kerber's stated purpose is VR locomotion safety, preventing users from walking into obstacles while wearing VR headsets. Abelbeck's purpose is providing natural gait biomechanics through variable stride length for enhanced exercise effectiveness. The Examiner has not explained what specific problem would be solved by this combination, or why a skilled artisan seeking to add gaming capability to Abelbeck's natural gait device would look to Kerber's VR safety-focused system. Moreover, no rationale has been provided as to how the combination would be physically implemented. Would the movable crank links be added to Kerber's pendulum legs? Would Abelbeck's dual-crank system replace Kerber's pendulum mechanism entirely? The Office Action provides no guidance on bodily incorporation of these mechanically distinct systems. The Examiner also has not explained how Kerber's sensors would be adapted to measure the specific movements claimed. Kerber's IMU sensors are configured to detect pendulum motion of rigid legs for VR navigation. Abelbeck's movable crank links undergo complex compression and extension movements as springs deform during variable stride operation. The type of sensor data required to measure compression/extension motion differs significantly from Kerber's pendulum motion detection. The combination would require more than routine modification, effectively redesigning both systems in ways not suggested by either reference. The rejection therefore fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The Examiner has not adequately explained: (1) why a skilled artisan would be motivated to combine Kerber's gaming sensors with Abelbeck's movable crank links; (2) how Kerber's intermediate Controller CPU architecture teaches or suggests Claim 1's requirement that the exercise device itself act as the gaming controller; (3) how Kerber's sensors would be adapted to measure compression/extension of movable crank links; or (4) how the combination would be physically implemented. The generic motivation of reducing boredom does not provide a sufficient reason for combining these mechanically and functionally distinct devices”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. 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 to combine Abelbeck’s invention with features of Kreber is found in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. In response to applicant's argument that the Office Action/Examiner has provided no guidance on bodily incorporation of the mechanically distinct systems of Kreber with Abelbeck, specifically how the sensors of Kreber would be adapted to measure the specific movements claimed, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Please note that nowhere in claim 1, has applicant recited any specific movement, rather claim 1, recites: “a sensor configured to measure a movement of a component of the exercise device and transmit the measurement as data to a compatible computing device”. As such, applicant is arguing narrower than claimed. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant’s similar arguments regarding Radow are moot in view of the above provided explanation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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