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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 30, 32-34, 36-41, 45-50, 52, and 55 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 30, 32-34, and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 30 newly introduces the step of “operating a tool to simultaneously apply a laterally inward clamping force on the first slide bearing apparatus and the second slide bearing apparatus.”
Applicant’s remarks have not offered any support those this limitation in the originally filed application. The Office has reviewed the specification, drawings, and originally filed claims and has found no mention of use of a tool to assemble the exercise bike as claimed in claim 30.
Dependent claims 32-34 and 36-38 inherit this rejection based on their dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 39 and 46-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irving (US 2019/0381351) in view of Koyama (US 3705733) and further in view of Fan (US D982680).
With respect to claim 39, Irving discloses, an exercise machine (fig. 1) comprising:
a frame for supporting a user of the exercise machine (i.e 101-105 in fig. 1);
a base member disposed on or integrated with the frame (i.e. 111 in fig. 1);
a console assembly including:
a carriage (112 in fig. 1) that is longitudinally slidable back and forth relative to the base member (204 in fig. 2), the carriage including a body having a first end (end closest to the body of the user) and a second end (end farthest from the body of the user),
a handlebar coupled to the first end of the carriage (110 in fig. 1 is connected to the carriage first end, the end closest to the user) and being configured for engagement by the user (110 in fig. 1),
a locking device coupled to the first end of the carriage (112 in fig. 6 is coupled to both ends the first and second end of the carriage) and being configured to lock the console assembly in position relative to the frame (112 in fig. 1; para. 51 details that element 112 is a clamp mechanism),
wherein the locking device includes a pivot lever extending upwardly from the carriage and having a first end for manually grasping by one or more fingers of a user having a hand resting on the handlebar and an opposite, second end that is pivotable into and between a raised position and a lowered position to actuate the locking device (figs. 1-2, disclose a lever, also see the annotated portion of fig. 2 included below),
wherein the pivot lever is located on top of the carriage and forwardly of the handlebar in a position wherein a user is able to rest said hand on the handlebar and pull (clear from fig. 1, that the lever, 112, is forward of handlebar 110; fig. 1 also discloses that the pivoting lever would be accessible by the user while also resting their hand on the handlebar).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Irving does not expressly disclose that the pivot lever is on top of the carriage or that pulling the first end of the pivot lever towards the handlebar with said one or more fingers to pivot the pivot lever into the raised position and to push the first end of the pivot lever away from the handlebar with said one or more fingers to pivot the pivot lever into the lowered position.
It should be noted that the disclosed pivot lever of Irving is functional in various rotational orientations one of which satisfy this specific limitation. Such an interpretation of the Fan disclosure results in the specifics of raising/lowering of the lever and their relationship to the handlebar are seen as little more than a design choice as to which direction the lever points upon raising/lowering. In other words, the lever of Irving is capable of pointing in various directions some of which would meet the claimed positional relationship. Such a rotational adjustment would not have altered either the functionality of result of the pivot lever.
Additionally it should be noted that merely repositioning the pivot lever of Fan from below the carriage to on top of the carriage is seen as a obvious design choice that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Such repositioning would have not altered the functionality or the design of the pivot lever in anyway. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C detailing rearrangement of parts.
The Office maintains that it would have been obvious to make the above adjustments to the pivot lever of Irving without any specific teaching. However, in the nature of compact prosecution the Office points Applicants to Koyama (US 3705733)
Koyama discloses a pivot lever (23 in fig. 4) located on top of a motor bike handlebar (fig. 1, 4) similar in location to atop Fan’s carriage. Furthermore the orientation of the pivot level in Koyama discloses a raised (B in fig. 4) and lowered position (A in fig. 4) that matches the relationship to the handlebars (19 in fig. 1/4) claimed by Applicant.
Koyama and Irving are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely two wheel devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have repositioned and reoriented the pivot lever of Irving as taught by Koyama. Upon such a combination the pivot lever would perform the same function as it did previously. Furthermore one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that he results of such a combination are predictable.
Neither Koyama nor Irving expressly disclose that a display is included on the console assembly.
Fan discloses a display coupled to the second end of the carriage and being configured to display and/or control (fig. 7 discloses a display placed on the end of the carriage farthest from the user, i.e. the second end) an operational characteristic of the exercise machine that is connected to a longitudinally movable console (fig. 7). Applicant is also directed to figure 2 which details a console locking device forward of the handlebars.
PNG
media_image2.png
266
354
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Irving, Koyama and Fan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the known element of a display in Fan on the console of Irving with known methods. Upon such a combination each element, the console and display would perform the same function as they do separately. Furthermore one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that he results of such a combination are predictable.
With respect to claim 46, Irving in view of Koyama and Fan discloses, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Irving further discloses, wherein the console assembly is longitudinally adjustable into and between a forwardmost position relative to the frame and a rearwardmost position relative to the frame (fig. 1; also note the annotated figure below), and wherein the locking device is configured to lock the console assembly in place relative to the forwardmost position and the rearwardmost position (para. 51).
PNG
media_image3.png
312
470
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 47, Irving in view of Koyama and Fan disclose, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Irving in view of Fan further disclose, wherein the handlebar is rigidly coupled to the carriage along two planes that are transverse to each other (Irving; fig. 1), and wherein the display is rigidly coupled to the carriage along two planes that are transverse to each other (Fan; fig. 7).
With respect to claim 48, Irving in view of Koyama and Fan disclose, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Fan further discloses, wherein the display is fastened to the first end and also fastened to the body, and wherein the handlebar is fastened to the second end and also fastened to the body (fig. 7, clearly discloses a display and handlebar fastened to different ends of the carriage body).
Claim(s) 40-41 and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irving (US 2019/0381351) in view of Koyama (US 3705733), Fan (US D982680) and further in view of Boutakis (US 2020/0361553).
With respect to claim 40, Irving in view of Koyama and Fan discloses, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Neither Irving, Koyama or Fan expressly disclose, wherein pivoting the pivot lever into the lowered position locks the console assembly in a longitudinal position relative to the frame, and wherein pivoting the lever into the raised position frees the console assembly for longitudinal movement relative to the frame.
Boutakis discloses, wherein pivoting the pivot lever into the lowered position (fig. 4) clamps the console assembly in a longitudinal position relative to the frame, and wherein pivoting the pivot lever into the raised position (fig. 6) unclamps the console assembly for longitudinal movement relative to the frame (para. 32).
Boutakis, Irving, Koyama and Fan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have simply substituted the pivot lever of Irving/Fan/Koyama with the functionally similar lever of Boutakis. Such a combination would have yielded obvious predictable results with the same functionality.
With respect to claim 41, Irving in view of Koyama and Fan discloses, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Neither Irving, Koyama or Fan expressly disclose, wherein the locking device further includes a cam that causes the locking device to clamp the console assembly to the base member upon pivoting the pivot lever and thereby prevent sliding of the console assembly relative to the frame.
Boutakis discloses, wherein the locking device further includes a cam (fig. 4, 6) that causes the locking device to clamp the console assembly to the base member upon pivoting the pivot lever and thereby prevent sliding of the console assembly relative to the frame (para. 32).
Boutakis, Irving, Koyama and Fan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have simply substituted the pivot lever of Irving/Fan with the functionally similar lever of Boutakis. Such a combination would have yielded obvious predictable results with the same functionality.
With respect to claim 55, Irving in view of Koyama and Fan disclose, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Irving further discloses, wherein the locking device is configured to clamp the console assembly in position relative to the frame (para. 51, 111), and wherein the locking device is manually operably by the user (fig. 1).
Neither Irving, Koyama nor Fan expressly disclose, wherein the locking device further includes a cam block, a cam shaft coupled to a cam and extending through the cam block, the carriage, and the base member, and a clamp head on the cam shaft, wherein pivoting the pivot lever applies a camming force on the clamp head that clamps the carriage between the base member and the clamp head.
Boutakis discloses, wherein the locking device further includes a cam block (30b in fig. 6), a cam shaft (36 in fig. 6) coupled to a cam (rounded portion of 32 in fig. 6) and extending through the cam block (fig. 6), the carriage, and the base member, and a clamp head (38 in fig. 6) on the cam shaft, wherein pivoting the pivot lever (32 in fig. 6) applies a camming force on the clamp head that clamps the carriage between the base member and the clamp head (para. 31-32; see figures 5-6).
Boutakis, Irving, Koyama and Fan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have simply substituted the pivot lever of Irving/Fan/Koyama with the functionally similar lever of Boutakis. Such a combination would have yielded obvious predictable results with the same functionality.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irving (US 2019/0381351) in view of Koyama (US 3705733), Fan (US D982680) and further in view of Schneider (US 2016/0088931).
With respect to claim 45, Irving in view of Koyama and Fan disclose, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Neither Irving, Koyama nor Fan expressly disclose, wherein the console assembly further includes a wireless charger.
Schneider discloses, an exercise device (fig. 20-21) including a console assembly (W surface in fig. 20-21) including a wireless charger (figs. 72-74; para. 105) located on top of a carriage (atop the desk surface) between the hand rest position (S in fig. 20) and the display (M in fig. 20-21).
Schneider, Irving, Koyama and Fan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the known wireless charger device to the base device of Irving/Fan/Koyama. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow users to use their personal devices quickly and easily (Schneider; para. 105).
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irving (US 2019/0381351) in view of Koyama (US 3705733), Fan (US D982680) and further in view of Murray (US 8967563).
With respect to claim 49, Irving in view of Koyama and Fan disclose, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Neither Irving nor Fan expressly disclose, wherein the carriage is coupled to the base member by opposing slide rails and opposing slide bearings that support sliding of the opposing slide rails.
Murray discloses, wherein the carriage (12 in fig. 2) is coupled to the base member (14 in fig. 2) by opposing slide rails and opposing slide bearings that support sliding of the opposing slide rails (rails and opposing bearings are clear in figs. 2-3).
Murray, Irving, Koyama and Fan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have simply substituted the triangular coupling between the carriage and base member of Irving/Fan/Koyama with the adjustable slide rails and bearings disclosed by Murray. The result would have been predictable and resulted in more secure coupling.
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irving (US 2019/0381351) in view of Koyama (US 3705733), Fan (US D982680) and further in view of Murray-2 (US 2008/0096725).
With respect to claim 50, Irving in view of Koyama and Fan disclose, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Neither Irving, Koyama nor Fan expressly disclose, a cable assembly for providing power and/or electrical communication to the console assembly, wherein the cable assembly is disposed in the frame and is coupled to and moves with the carriage relative to the base member.
Murray-2 discloses, a cable assembly for providing power and/or electrical communication to the console assembly (110 and 114 in fig. 5a-b; para. 57), wherein the cable assembly is disposed in the frame and is coupled to and moves with the carriage relative to the base member (clear from figs. 2).
Murray-2, Irving, Koyama and Fan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the wiring taught by Murray-2 into the device of Irving/Fan/Koyama. The motivation would have been to provide the pedal positioning to the computer/display device (Murray-2; para. 57).
Claim(s) 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irving (US 2019/0381351) in view of Koyama (US 3705733), Fan (US D982680) and further in view of Golesh (US 2012/0122633).
With respect to claim 52, Irving in view of Koyama, Fan and Golesh, disclose, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Golesh further discloses, further comprising a stop device configured to prevent sliding of the carriage past a forwardmost position relative to the base member and to prevent sliding of the carriage past a rearwardmost position relative to the base member (caps 132 and “stop cap” in fig. 13a, prevent sliding past forwardmost and rearwardmost positions as seen in figs. 13b and 13c), wherein the carriage is coupled to the base member by opposing slide rails (engagement surfaces in fig. 14) and opposing slide bearings supporting sliding of the opposing slide rails (bottom of receiver 82 in fig. 13a; perhaps better illustrated in the similar seat mechanism shown in fig. 10; where the triangular rails are supported by corresponding triangular bearings), and wherein the stop device includes a bumper laterally extending from the carriage and disposed between and configured to operatively engage the opposing slide bearings to prevent sliding of the carriage past the forwardmost position past the rearwardmost position (bumpers are clear seen and disclosed in figs. 13a-c ).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to substitute the carriage/console adjustment mechanism of Irving/Fan/Koyama with the forwardmost/rearwardmost adjustment mechanism of Golesh. The results would have been a predictable combination of the two designs resulting in a combined apparatus which prevents the user from inadvertently completely sliding the handlebars off the frame when performing adjustments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Workman – display / handlebar adjustments (fig. 1) US 10561877
Bingham, Jr. – specific details of pivoting lever for locking bike components US 8257231
Lu – adjustable display and handlebars (fig. 1) US D1001919
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William L Boddie whose telephone number is (571)272-0666. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4:15 M-F.
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at 571-272-4037. 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.
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights