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 amendments filed on 12/22/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1-20 have been examined as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watterson et al. (US 2011/0172059 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Watterson ‘059”).
Regarding claim 1, Watterson ‘059 discloses an exercise machine for performing an exercise motion (12), the exercise machine comprising:
a resistance mechanism (112 (including 114, 116 and 117)) that controls a resistance for performing the exercise motion (¶ [64]-[66]);
an incline adjustment device (122, Figs. 2-4) that controls an incline of at least a portion (i.e., upright structure 92) of the exercise machine relative to a horizontal plane (Figs. 3-4) for performing the exercise motion (¶ [74]-[77]); and
a control system (i.e., 120) operatively coupled to the resistance mechanism and the incline adjustment device (¶ [68]), the control system being configured to:
receive a resistance setting for controlling the resistance (Figs. 5A-5c, ¶ [68], [79], [81], [89]-[92], [105]);
receive an incline setting for controlling the incline (Figs. 5A-5c, ¶ [68], [79], [81], [89]-[92], [105], [108], receiving a user selection of a route or a route segment (i.e., between point A and point B), is considered/corresponds to receiving an incline setting, since upon receiving such selection of route/route segment, incline of the route/route segment which corresponds to an incline setting for the exercise machine is determined using correlation algorithm. According to ¶ [108], the distance and the grade/elevation change between two points (A and B) on a selected route are correlated and a control signal that causes the exercise 12 to simulate the train by adjusting the incline/tilt and resistance of the exercise cycle 12 is generated. The correlation algorithm determines incline by determining the distance of a segment and the elevation change over a segment. The correlation algorithm may include setting the incline to a value corresponding to the elevation change divided by distance. For instance, according to the example provided by Watterson ‘059, for a selected route/route segment (between point A and point B), the distance between point A and point B is determined to be half a mile or 2640 feet and the elevation change to be about 320 feet. By dividing the elevation change by the distance, it is determined that the selected route/route segment between point A and point B has a grade of about twelve percent (i.e., 320ft / 2640ft = 0.12, grade/incline setting = 0.12 x 100 = 12%). Based on this information, one or more control signals that will cause the exercise cycle to incline its upright support structure 92 to approximately 12% grade, are generated);
determine a resistance modifier for adjusting the resistance based on the incline setting (¶ [109], the correlation algorithm determines the force applied by a resistance mechanism by multiplying the incline by a constant force, and then subtracting a friction factor, an approximate value for gravitational force may be used as the constant force. Please note that the incline, which corresponds to incline setting, can be determined according to ¶ [108] (see above for details), thereby the resistance modifier is based on the incline setting);
adjust the resistance setting based on the resistance modifier to provide a modified resistance setting (¶ [108]-[109], since the resistance can be dynamically varied according to each segment of the selected route, the resistance setting is being adjusted relative to each segment of the selected route according to the resistance modifier);
control the incline adjustment device based on the incline setting (¶ [74]-[77], [108]); and
control the resistance mechanism based on the modified resistance setting (¶ [64]-[66], [109]),
wherein controlling the resistance mechanism based on the modified resistance setting causes an exertion by a user for performing the exercise motion to change when the incline setting is changed (¶ [64]-[65], [108]-[109], changing resistance causes an exertion by the user to also change. For instance, increasing resistance, causes the user to increase his/her exertion (apply more force) to continue the exercise, and vice versa. According to ¶ [108]-[109], changing the incline setting causes changes to the modified resistance and exertion by the user (see explanation provided above for details)).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Watterson ‘059 discloses wherein the control system is configured to determine the resistance modifier such that a given change in the incline setting changes the exertion by the user to correspond to a change in a reference exertion from changing an incline setting of a reference exercise machine by that given change/wherein the resistance modifier is determined such that the exertion for performing the exercise motion is approximately the same as the reference exertion (¶ [59], [64], [108]-[109], any changes in the incline setting (i.e., according to the route), would also change the resistance based on the resistance modifier. Any changes to the resistance, changes the exertion by the user/affects the force required from the user to continue the exercise. When the user uses (or has previously used) another similar exercise machine as a reference exercise machine, any similar changes in an incline setting of the reference exercise machine (i.e., selecting the same route), would similarly change the resistance applied and cause similar change in the user’s exertion/force (reference force). As such, the control system is configured to determine the resistance modifier such that a given change in the incline setting changes the exertion by the user which corresponds to a change (same/similar change) in a/the reference exertion from changing an incline setting of a reference exercise machine by that given change).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Watterson ‘059 discloses wherein the control system is configured to determine the resistance modifier based also on at least one of a weight of the user, a heartrate of the user, a force exerted by the user when performing the exercise motion, and a speed in which the exercise motion is performed (¶ [109]-[110], a speed in which the exercise motion is performed).
Regarding claim 8, Watterson ‘059 discloses a method for controlling an exercise machine (12) for performing an exercise motion, the method comprising:
receiving a resistance setting for controlling a resistance for performing the exercise motion (Figs. 5A-5c, ¶ [64-[66], [68], [79], [81], [89]-[92], [105]);
receiving an incline setting for controlling an incline of at least a portion (i.e., upright structure 92) of the exercise machine relative to a horizontal plane for performing the exercise motion (Figs. 2-5c, ¶ [68], [74]-[77], [79], [81], [89]-[92], [105], [108], receiving a user selection of a route or a route segment (i.e., between point A and point B), is considered/corresponds to receiving an incline setting, since upon receiving such selection of route/route segment, incline of the route/route segment which corresponds to an incline setting for the exercise machine is determined using correlation algorithm. According to ¶ [108], the distance and the grade/elevation change between two points (A and B) on a selected route are correlated and a control signal that causes the exercise 12 to simulate the train by adjusting the incline/tilt and resistance of the exercise cycle 12 is generated. The correlation algorithm determines incline by determining the distance of a segment and the elevation change over a segment. The correlation algorithm may include setting the incline to a value corresponding to the elevation change divided by distance. For instance, according to the example provided by Watterson ‘059, for a selected route/route segment (between point A and point B), the distance between point A and point B is determined to be half a mile or 2640 feet and the elevation change to be about 320 feet. By dividing the elevation change by the distance, it is determined that the selected route/route segment between point A and point B has a grade of about twelve percent (i.e., 320ft / 2640ft = 0.12, grade/incline setting = 0.12 x 100 = 12%). Based on this information, one or more control signals that will cause the exercise cycle to incline its upright support structure 92 to approximately 12% grade, are generated);
determining a resistance modifier for adjusting the resistance setting based on the incline setting (¶ [109], the correlation algorithm determines the force applied by a resistance mechanism by multiplying the incline by a constant force, and then subtracting a friction factor, an approximate value for gravitational force may be used as the constant force. Please note that the incline, which corresponds to incline setting, can be determined according to ¶ [108] (see above for details), thereby the resistance modifier is based on the incline setting); adjusting the resistance setting based on the resistance modifier to provide a modified resistance setting (¶ [108]-[109], since the resistance can be dynamically varied according to each segment of the selected route, the resistance setting is being adjusted relative to each segment of the selected route according to the resistance modifier); controlling the incline based on the incline setting (¶ [74]-[77], [108]); and controlling the resistance based on the modified resistance setting (¶ [64]-[66], [109]), wherein the resistance is controlled based on the modified resistance setting so that an exertion by a user for performing the exercise motion is caused to change when the incline setting is changed (¶ [64]-[65], [108]-[109], changing resistance causes an exertion by the user to also change. For instance, increasing resistance, causes the user to increase his/her exertion (apply more force) to continue the exercise, and vice versa. According to ¶ [108]-[109], changing the incline setting causes changes to the modified resistance and exertion by the user (see explanation provided above for details)).
Regarding claim 12, Watterson ‘059 discloses the method further comprising receiving an input from the user and basing at least one of the resistance setting and the incline setting on the input (Figs. 5A-5c, ¶ [68], [79], [81], [89]-[92], [105], [108]).
Regarding claim 14, Watterson ‘059 discloses the method further comprising determining at least one of a weight of the user, a heartrate of the user, a force exerted by the user when performing the exercise motion, and a speed in which the exercise motion is performed and determining the resistance modifier based thereon (¶ [109]-[110], a speed in which the exercise motion is performed).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watterson ‘059 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frank (US 2017/0136289 A1).
Watterson ‘059 teaches the invention as substantially claimed. See above. However, Watterson ‘059 is silent about wherein the exercise machine is configured such that the exercise motion comprises a striding exercise motion.
Regarding claim 2, Frank teaches an exercise machine for performing an exercise motion, he exercise machine comprising: a resistance mechanism that controls a resistance for performing the exercise motion (¶ [21]); an incline adjustment device that controls an incline for performing the exercise motion (¶ [57], [66]), and a control system operatively coupled to the resistance mechanism and the incline adjustment device and configured to: adjust the resistance based on the incline and/or weight of the user (¶ [21], [30]), wherein the exercise machine is configured such that the exercise motion comprises a striding exercise motion (¶ [10], [28]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Watterson ‘059 wherein the exercise machine is configured such that the exercise motion comprises a striding exercise motion as taught by Frank in order to enable a user use other exercise machines to perform different exercises such as walking or running, for various exercise or rehabilitation purposes or to train for a sport specific event and reduce the user’s boredom.
Claims 4, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watterson ‘059 as applied to claims 1, 3 and 8 above, and further in view of Anderson (US 2016/0375308 A1).
Watterson ‘059 is silent about wherein the reference exercise machine comprises a treadmill, determining the resistance modifier based also on a reference exertion for performing a reference exercise motion with a reference exercise machine having an incline controlled at the incline setting, wherein the reference exertion is stored in memory, and wherein the resistance modifier is determined such that the exertion for performing the exercise motion is approximately the same as the reference exertion, and determining the resistance modifier based also on the resistance setting.
Regarding claim 4, Anderson teaches wherein a reference exercise machine comprises a treadmill (¶ [26]-[27]).
Regarding claim 9, Anderson teaches a method comprising: determining a resistance modifier based on a reference exertion for performing a reference exercise motion with a reference exercise machine having an incline controlled at an incline setting, wherein the reference exertion is stored in memory, and wherein the resistance modifier is determined such that the exertion for performing the exercise motion is approximately the same as the reference exertion (¶ [19], [21], [23], [26]-[29], [31], [34], [37]-[38], [56], ¶ [19] teaches the system and method dynamically and automatically adjusting physical resistance for athletic activities and/or fitness equipment to match the athletic performance or physical effort between users, ¶ [21] teaches bicycle wheel resistance (e.g., or other physical resistance) can be adjusted in various ways as described herein to allow users of varying abilities to be more closely matched during athletic activities. Adjustment can occur automatically, or the system can instruct the user on how to adjust the physical resistance level. For example, if one participant gets a given distance ahead of other participants, the system of an example embodiment can increase that participant's resistance to allow the other participants to catch up. Alternatively, the system of an example embodiment can increase the thrust force for each of the other participants to enable them to catch up to the faster participant, ¶ [34] teaches effort normalization, wherein the user is prompted to change the incline and user compliance with the prompt ensures that the individual asserts a target amount of effort. Upon modifying invention of Watterson ‘059 with features of Anderson, the resistance modifier would be based on both the incline setting and a reference exertion).
Regarding claim 13, Anderson teaches a method comprising: determining a resistance modifier based on the resistance setting (¶ [19], [21], [23], [26]-[29], [31], [34], [37]-[38], [56], resistance modifier can include changes to be made to the amount of resistance currently being provided based on the resistance setting (in order to have the user’s exertion match that of another user or the same user at a previous session). Upon modifying invention of Watterson ‘059 with features of Anderson, the resistance modifier would be based on both the incline setting and the resistance setting).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Watterson ‘059 wherein the reference exercise machine comprises a treadmill, determining the resistance modifier based also on a reference exertion for performing a reference exercise motion with a reference exercise machine having an incline controlled at the incline setting, wherein the reference exertion is stored in memory, and wherein the resistance modifier is determined such that the exertion for performing the exercise motion is approximately the same as the reference exertion, and determining the resistance modifier based also on the resistance setting as taught by Anderson in order to ensure and encourage the user to exert a target amount of effort which may be the same as other users or a previous session of the same user, and give the user a sense of exercising together with others and thereby encourage the user to exercise more, and provide the same experience for the user or other users on different exercise machines including a treadmill while performing different exercise motions according to the exercise/rehabilitation goals of the user or users.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watterson ‘059 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Watterson et al. (US 2006/0205566 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Watterson ‘566”).
Regarding claims 10-11, Watterson ‘059 teaches receiving a scale setting, and receiving an input from the user (¶ [79], via a scaling control).
Watterson ‘059 is silent about determining the resistance modifier based on the scale setting, wherein the scale setting changes how much the resistance modifier varies as a function of the incline setting, and basing the scale setting on the input from the user.
Regarding claims 10-11, Watterson ‘566 teaches a method comprising receiving a scale setting and determining a resistance modifier based on the scale setting, wherein the scale setting changes how much the resistance modifier varies as a function of the incline setting, and further comprising receiving an input from the user and basing the scale setting on the input (¶ [68], [76], via scaling control 86, a user may activate scaling control 86 and vary the intensity of an exercise program, the scaling control 86, enables a user to select a value representative of the proportional change to be made to the control signal received by the communication mechanism of treadmill 12 from communication system 18. For example, if an exercise program requires a maximum speed of 6 miles per hour (mph) with a maximum incline of 15 degrees for a period of 30 minutes, an individual may activate scaling control 86 to require only 66% intensity of the exercise program; stated otherwise, reduce the intensity by one third. Therefore, the exercise program is varied to a maximum speed of 4 mph, with a maximum incline of 10 degrees, for a period of 20 minutes. Optionally, scaling control 86 may enable the user to set maximum values for each operating parameter of treadmill 12. In another configuration, scaling control 86 may enable the user to scale only one operating parameter of treadmill 12 while leaving other parameters unchanged. Upon modification of invention of Watterson ‘059 with scaling features of Watterson ‘566, based on the scaling setting (inputted using the scaling control), the resistance modifier according to Watterson ‘056, would also be based on the scale setting, which changes how much the resistance modifier varies as a function of the incline setting).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Watterson ‘059 with determining the resistance modifier based on the scale setting, wherein the scale setting changes how much the resistance modifier varies as a function of the incline setting, and basing the scale setting on the input from the user as taught by Watterson ‘566 in order to enable a user perform exercises according to their fatigue, recovery and/or fitness levels, thereby preventing the user from potential injuries due to over-exertion or over-exercising.
Claims 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watterson et al. (US 2011/0172059 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Watterson ‘059”) in view of Anderson (US 2016/0375308 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Watterson ‘059 teaches a method for controlling an exercise machine for performing an exercise motion, the method comprising:
receiving a resistance setting for controlling a resistance for performing the exercise motion (Figs. 5A-5c, ¶ [68], [79], [81], [89]-[92], [105]);
receiving an incline setting for controlling an incline of at least a portion (i.e., upright structure 92) of the exercise machine relative to a horizontal plane for performing the exercise motion (Figs. 2-5c, ¶ [68], [74]-[79], [81], [89]-[92], [105], [108], receiving a user selection of a route or a route segment (i.e., between point A and point B), is considered/corresponds to receiving an incline setting, since upon receiving such selection of route/route segment, incline of the route/route segment which corresponds to an incline setting for the exercise machine is determined using correlation algorithm. According to ¶ [108], the distance and the grade/elevation change between two points (A and B) on a selected route are correlated and a control signal that causes the exercise 12 to simulate the train by adjusting the incline/tilt and resistance of the exercise cycle 12 is generated. The correlation algorithm determines incline by determining the distance of a segment and the elevation change over a segment. The correlation algorithm may include setting the incline to a value corresponding to the elevation change divided by distance. For instance, according to the example provided by Watterson ‘059, for a selected route/route segment (between point A and point B), the distance between point A and point B is determined to be half a mile or 2640 feet and the elevation change to be about 320 feet. By dividing the elevation change by the distance, it is determined that the selected route/route segment between point A and point B has a grade of about twelve percent (i.e., 320ft / 2640ft = 0.12, grade/incline setting = 0.12 x 100 = 12%). Based on this information, one or more control signals that will cause the exercise cycle to incline its upright support structure 92 to approximately 12% grade, are generated);
determining a resistance modifier for adjusting the resistance setting based on the incline setting (¶ [109], the correlation algorithm determines the force applied by a resistance mechanism by multiplying the incline by a constant force, and then subtracting a friction factor, an approximate value for gravitational force may be used as the constant force. Please note that the incline, which corresponds to incline setting, can be determined according to ¶ [108] (see above for details), thereby the resistance modifier is based on the incline setting); adjusting the resistance setting based on the resistance modifier to provide a modified resistance setting (¶ [108]-[109], since the resistance can be dynamically varied according to each segment of the selected route, the resistance setting is being adjusted relative to each segment of the selected route according to the resistance modifier); controlling the incline based on the incline setting (¶ [74]-[77], [108]); and controlling the resistance based on the modified resistance setting (¶ [64]-[66], [109]), wherein the resistance is controlled based on the modified resistance setting so that changing the incline setting causes a change in an exertion by a user for performing the exercise motion correspondingly (¶ [64]-[65], [108]-[109], according to ¶ [108]-[109], changing the incline setting causes changes to the modified resistance and exertion by the user (see explanation provided above for details)).
Watterson ‘059 is silent about determining a resistance modifier for adjusting the resistance setting based on a reference exertion for performing the reference exercise motion at the incline setting using the reference exercise machine, wherein the resistance is controlled based on the modified resistance setting so that changing the incline setting changes the reference exertion.
Regarding claim 15, Anderson teaches a method for controlling an exercise machine for performing an exercise motion based on a reference exercise machine for performing a reference exercise motion, the method comprising: receiving a resistance setting for controlling a resistance for performing the exercise motion, receiving an incline setting for controlling an incline for performing the exercise motion, determining a resistance modifier for adjusting the resistance setting based on a reference exertion for performing the reference exercise motion at the incline setting using the reference exercise machine, adjusting the resistance setting based on the resistance modifier to provide a modified resistance setting, controlling the incline based on the incline setting, and controlling the resistance based on the modified resistance setting, wherein the resistance is controlled based on the modified resistance setting so that changing the incline setting changes the reference exertion and causes a change in an exertion by a user for performing the exercise motion correspondingly (¶ [19], [21], [23], [26]-[29], [31], [34], [37]-[38], [56], ¶ [19] teaches the system and method dynamically and automatically adjusting physical resistance for athletic activities and/or fitness equipment to match the athletic performance or physical effort between users on other fitness equipment, ¶ [21] teaches bicycle wheel resistance (e.g., or other physical resistance) can be adjusted in various ways as described herein to allow users of varying abilities to be more closely matched during athletic activities. Adjustment can occur automatically, or the system can instruct the user on how to adjust the physical resistance level. For example, if one participant gets a given distance ahead of other participants, the system of an example embodiment can increase that participant's resistance to allow the other participants to catch up. Alternatively, the system of an example embodiment can increase the thrust force for each of the other participants to enable them to catch up to the faster participant, ¶ [34] teaches effort normalization, wherein the user is prompted to change the incline and user compliance with the prompt ensures that the individual asserts a target amount of effort. Upon modifying invention of Watterson ‘059 with features of Anderson, the resistance would be controlled based on the modified resistance setting so that changing the incline setting (i.e., based on the selected route), would change the reference exertion (corresponding to that of another user or the same user in a previous exercise session), and cause a change in an exertion by the user for performing the exercise motion correspondingly).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Watterson ‘059 with determining a resistance modifier for adjusting the resistance setting (also) based on a reference exertion for performing the reference exercise motion at the incline setting using the reference exercise machine, wherein the resistance is controlled based on the modified resistance setting so that changing the incline setting changes the reference exertion as taught by Anderson in order to ensure and encourage the user to exert a target amount of effort which may be the same as other users or a previous session of the same user, and give the user a sense of exercising together with others and thereby encourage the user to exercise more.
Regarding claim 18, Watterson ‘059 in view of Anderson teaches the method further comprising receiving an input from the user and basing at least one of the resistance setting and the incline setting on the input (Watterson ‘059: Figs. 5A-5c, ¶ [68], [79], [81], [89]-[92], [105], [108]).
Regarding claim 19, Watterson ‘059 in view of Anderson teaches a method comprising: determining a resistance modifier based also on the resistance setting (Anderson: ¶ [19], [21], [23], [26]-[29], [31], [34], [37]-[38], [56], resistance modifier can include changes to be made to the amount of resistance currently being provided based on the resistance setting (in order to have the user’s exertion match that of another user or the same user at a previous session). Upon modifying invention of Watterson ‘059 with features of Anderson, the resistance modifier would be based on both the incline setting and the resistance setting).
Regarding claim 20, Watterson ‘059 in view of Anderson teaches the method further comprising determining at least one of a weight of the user, a heartrate of the user, a force exerted by the user when performing the exercise motion, and a speed in which the exercise motion is performed, and determining the resistance modifier based thereon (Watterson ‘059: ¶ [109]-[110], a speed in which the exercise motion is performed).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watterson ‘059 in view of Anderson as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Watterson et al. (US 2006/0205566 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Watterson ‘566”).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Watterson ‘059 in view of Anderson teaches receiving a scale setting, and receiving an input from the user (Watterson ‘059: ¶ [79], via a scaling control).
Watterson ‘059 in view of Anderson is silent about determining the resistance modifier based on the scale setting, wherein the scale setting changes how much the resistance modifier varies as a function of the incline setting, and basing the scale setting on the input from the user.
Regarding claims 16-17, Watterson ‘566 teaches a method comprising receiving a scale setting and determining a resistance modifier based on the scale setting, wherein the scale setting changes how much the resistance modifier varies as a function of the incline setting, and further comprising receiving an input from the user and basing the scale setting on the input (¶ [68], [76], via scaling control 86, a user may activate scaling control 86 and vary the intensity of an exercise program, the scaling control 86, enables a user to select a value representative of the proportional change to be made to the control signal received by the communication mechanism of treadmill 12 from communication system 18. For example, if an exercise program requires a maximum speed of 6 miles per hour (mph) with a maximum incline of 15 degrees for a period of 30 minutes, an individual may activate scaling control 86 to require only 66% intensity of the exercise program; stated otherwise, reduce the intensity by one third. Therefore, the exercise program is varied to a maximum speed of 4 mph, with a maximum incline of 10 degrees, for a period of 20 minutes. Optionally, scaling control 86 may enable the user to set maximum values for each operating parameter of treadmill 12. In another configuration, scaling control 86 may enable the user to scale only one operating parameter of treadmill 12 while leaving other parameters unchanged. Upon modification of invention of Watterson ‘059 with scaling features of Watterson ‘566, based on the scaling setting (inputted using the scaling control), the resistance modifier according to Watterson ‘056, would also be based on the scale setting, which changes how much the resistance modifier varies as a function of the incline setting).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Watterson ‘059 in view of Anderson with determining the resistance modifier based on the scale setting, wherein the scale setting changes how much the resistance modifier varies as a function of the incline setting, and basing the scale setting on the input from the user as taught by Watterson ‘566 in order to enable a user perform exercises according to their fatigue, recovery and/or fitness levels, thereby preventing the user from potential injuries due to over-exertion or over-exercising.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1, stating that Watterson ‘059 does not disclose determining a resistance modifier for adjusting the resistance based on the incline setting, that the “Incline” in ¶ [109] of Watterson ‘059, relates to an incline from the “map data, the topographical data, and other reference points along the selected route”, that this paragraph discusses controlling resistance to simulate elevation changes as the user progresses along a route, that the incline of a simulated elevation change is not the same as an incline setting, which is clarified by the present amendment that the incline setting relates to control of the incline of the exercise machine relative to a horizontal plane, and that even if the incline of the exercise machine were also controlled based on a simulated elevation change, Watterson ‘059 does not disclose controlling resistance based on an incline setting for the incline of the exercise machine, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. Claim 1, as currently presented, recites: “an incline adjustment device that controls an incline of at least a portion of the exercise machine relative to a horizontal plane for performing the exercise motion”. Watterson ‘059 in Figs. 3-4 and ¶ [74]-[77], teaches such incline adjustment device (i.e., 122) that controls the incline of at least a portion (upright structure 92, see Fig. 2) of the exercise machine relative to a horizontal plane for performing the exercise motion (Figs. 3-4 has been reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
497
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
521
629
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Watterson ‘059 in ¶ [108], recites:
“Once communication system 14 has retrieved the desired information for the selected route, communication system 14 or another component can compile the gathered data and generate an exercise program. Communication system 14 may use the map, topographical, or other data to automatically and/or dynamically generate a sequence of control signals that control one or more operating parameters of the exercise cycle 12. For instance, using a correlation algorithm, communication system 14 can synchronize topographical data with map data to correlate the distance and the grade or elevation change between two points on the selected route and generate a control signal that will cause exercise cycle 12 to simulate that terrain by adjusting the incline/tilt and/or resistance of the exercise cycle 12. For instance, a route can be made up of any number of discrete portions, which portions may be set based on predetermined or user-configurable criteria. For instance, an automatic setting may break-up a selected route in to quarter-mile, half-mile, or other increments to calculate the corresponding incline, resistance, and the like. Increments may be set based on additional or other factors as well, such as where a user makes a left or right hand turn, a location where a significant slope change is encountered, locations where the user encounters an intersection with a stop light, stop sign, or other signage, or based on other factors or any combination of the foregoing. Regardless of the particular manner in which the route is segmented, the correlation algorithm may compute the particular incline for a portion of a path. In one example, the correlation algorithm determines incline by determining the distance of a segment and the elevation change over a segment. The correlation algorithm may include setting the incline to a value corresponding to the elevation change divided by the distance. Accordingly, in one example, the communication system 14 can use the map data to determine that the distance between point A and point B is half a mile, or 2640 feet, and that the elevational change is about 320 feet. By dividing the elevational change by the distance, the topographical data may thus be used to determine that the segment between points A and B has a grade of about twelve percent. Using this information, communication system generates one or more control signals that will cause the exercise cycle to incline its upright support structure 92 (FIG. 2) to approximately a twelve percent grade until the user has cycled for a half mile”.
Receiving a user selection of a route or a route segment (i.e., between point A and point B), is considered/corresponds to receiving an incline setting, since upon receiving such selection of route/route segment, incline of the route/route segment which corresponds to an incline setting for the exercise machine is determined using correlation algorithm. According to ¶ [108], the distance and the grade/elevation change between two points (A and B) on a selected route are correlated and a control signal that causes the exercise 12 to simulate the train by adjusting the incline/tilt and resistance of the exercise cycle 12 is generated. The correlation algorithm determines incline by determining the distance of a segment and the elevation change over a segment. The correlation algorithm may include setting the incline to a value corresponding to the elevation change divided by distance. For instance, according to the example provided by Watterson ‘059, for a selected route/route segment (between point A and point B), the distance between point A and point B is determined to be half a mile or 2640 feet and the elevation change to be about 320 feet. By dividing the elevation change by the distance, it is determined that the selected route/route segment between point A and point B has a grade of about twelve percent (i.e., 320ft / 2640ft = 0.12, grade/incline setting = 0.12 x 100 = 12%). Based on this information, one or more control signals that will cause the exercise cycle to incline its upright support structure 92 to approximately 12% grade, are generated. As such, Watterson ‘059 still discloses receiving an incline setting for controlling the incline of at least a portion of the exercise machine relative to a horizontal plane.
Watterson ‘059 in ¶ [109], recites:
“In a similar manner, communication system 14 can use the map data, the topographical data, and other reference points along the selected route to generate control signals that control the resistance applied to the flywheel 114 and/or the pedal assembly 106 (FIG. 2). For instance, as simulation of an uphill climb begins, the resistance may increase. Similarly, as simulation of a downhill ride begins, the resistance may decrease and in some cases an optional positive force, or negative resistance, may be applied. In one example, the correlation algorithm determines the force applied by a resistance mechanism (e.g., resistance mechanism 116 and/or electric motor 117 of FIG. 2) by multiplying the incline by a constant force, and then subtracting a friction factor. In some cases, an approximate value for gravitational force may be used as the constant force”.
Accordingly, the correlation algorithm can determine a force applied by a resistance mechanism, by multiplying the incline by a constant force and then subtracting a friction factor. As shown above, Watterson ‘059 in ¶ [108] shows how the incline (which corresponds to the incline setting) is determined (see above for details). This determined incline can be multiplied by a constant force and a friction factor subtracted therefrom, to determine the resistance force to be applied by the resistance mechanism. As such, Watterson ‘059 still teaches determining a resistance modifier for adjusting the resistance based on the incline setting.
In response to applicant’s argument stating that under Watterson ‘059, if an incline setting for the incline of the exercise machine were changed absent a change in elevation for a simulated route, there would be no change to resistance settings, the Examiner would like to mention that claim 1, lacks any limitations regarding how specifically the incline setting is changed. As such, applicant is arguing narrower than claimed. As shown and explained above, Watterson ‘059, still discloses the claimed limitations of claim 1.
Applicant’s similar arguments regarding claims 2-20 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
Prosecution Insights