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 .
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) 30-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golesh (US 2012/0122633) in view of Tisue (US 20050225132).
With respect to claim 30, Golesh discloses, a method of assembling an exercise machine, the method comprising:
(a) providing a frame (i.e. 10 in fig. 1) for supporting a user of the exercise machine, and a base member disposed on or integrated with the frame (i.e. 52 handlebar post in fig. 3),
(b) providing a carriage that is slidable relative to the base member along an adjustment axis (16 in fig. 3; adjustable handlebar assembly),
(c) providing a first slide bearing apparatus for supporting sliding of a first lateral side of the carriage along a first slide bearing axis (i.e. left bottom of receiver 82 in fig. 13a; perhaps better shown in the corresponding seat apparatus in fig. 10; where the engagement surfaces 92a; para. 46), the first slide bearing apparatus and the second slide bearing apparatus being separate components,
(d) providing a second slide bearing apparatus for supporting sliding of an opposite, second lateral side of the carriage along a second slide bearing axis (i.e. right bottom of receiver 82 in fig. 13a; perhaps better shown in the corresponding seat apparatus in fig. 10; where the engagement surfaces 92a; para. 46),
(e) laterally clamping the carriage between the first slide bearing apparatus and the second slide bearing apparatus (para. 54-55 detail lateral clamping of the bearing apparatus’) such that the first slide bearing axis and the second slide bearing axis are brought into substantially parallel alignment with to each other (clear from fig. 14 that the two axis are parallel to each other),
(f) thereafter rigidly coupling the first slide bearing apparatus to the base member such that the first slide bearing axis is brought into substantially parallel alignment with the adjustment axis (clear from figs. 13a-c), and
(g) thereafter fastening the second slide bearing apparatus to the base member (clear from figs. 13a-c).
Golesh does not expressly disclose that the first and second slide bearing apparatus are separate components.
Tisue discloses a first and second slide bearing apparatus (215R and 215L in fig. 11) that are separate components (clear from fig. 11, that 215L and 215R are separate and distinct components that are affixed to the frame via the bolts shown in fig. 11).
Tisue and Golesh are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely slide bearings for bicycles.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have simple substituted the single component bearing apparatus of Golesh with the separate components taught by Tisue. Such a combination would have predictably resulted in a combined device that allows for easier troubleshooting and future replacement of parts as necessary.
With respect to claim 31, Golesh in view of Tisue discloses, the method according to claim 30 (see above).
Golesh further discloses, wherein steps (e) through (g) are configured to ensure that the second slide bearing axis is coupled to the frame in an orientation that is substantially parallel to the first slide bearing axis and such that both of the first slide bearing axis and the second slide bearing axis are substantially parallel to the adjustment axis such that in use the carriage is freely slidable along the adjustment axis relative to the first slide bearing apparatus and the second slide bearing apparatus (clearly disclosed by figs 13a-c).
With respect to claim 32, Golesh in view of Tisue discloses, the method according to claim 30 (see above).
Tisue further discloses, wherein the first slide bearing apparatus comprises a first plurality of slide bearings that are separate components (214L and 215L are separate components) and wherein the second slide bearing apparatus comprises a second plurality of slide bearings that are separate components (215L and 214R are separate components).
With respect to claim 33, Golesh in view of Tisue discloses, the method according to claim 32 (see above).
Tisue further discloses, wherein the first plurality of slide bearings comprises a front slide bearing and a rear slide bearing that is a separate component from the front slide bearing and spaced apart from and substantially aligned with the front slide bearing, and wherein the second plurality of slide bearings comprises a front slide bearing and a rear slide bearing that is a separate component from the front slide bearing and spaced apart from and substantially aligned with the front slide bearing (fig. 11 clearly discloses front and rear bearings for both the left and right side that are separate components).
With respect to claim 34, Golesh in view of Tisue discloses, the method according to claim 32 (see above).
Golesh further discloses, wherein the frame comprises a pedestal (i.e. 46 in fig. 1), and further comprising coupling the base member to the pedestal (clear that 52 will be coupled to 46 in fig. 1).
With respect to claim 35, Golesh and Tisue discloses, the method according to claim 30 (see above).
Tisue discloses, wherein (f) comprises fixing the first slide bearing apparatus (42, 118 in fig. 1) to a base member (frame pipe in fig. 11) by engaging a first plurality of fasteners (bolts in fig. 10-12) in a first plurality of apertures (corresponding apertures for 214-217 in figs. 10-11) that is aligned substantially parallel to the adjustment axis (clear from fig. 10-12).
Claim(s) 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golesh (US 2012/0122633) in view of Tisue (US 20050225132) and further in view of Cooper (US 8702046).
With respect to claim 36, Golesh and Tisue disclose, the method according to claim 35 (see above).
Tisue further discloses, wherein each aperture in the first plurality of apertures is a round hole (clear from figs. 10-12).
Neither Tisue nor Golesh expressly disclose the type of fasteners used.
Cooper discloses, wherein each fastener in the first plurality of fasteners comprises a conical head that operatively engages and is centered respect to the round hole during fastening (seen conical heads in 38 on fig. 2).
Golesh, Tisue and Cooper are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely adjustable mounting for user devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have affixed the first slide bearing apparatus to the base member in Golesh/Tisue as disclosed using a plurality of fasteners as taught by Cooper. The result would have had predictable results and been motivated by shipping efficiency, removability, and/or easier part replacement.
With respect to claim 37, Golesh, Cooper and Tisue disclose, the method according to claim 36 (see above).
Tisue further discloses, wherein (g) comprises fixing the second slide bearing apparatus to the base member by engaging a second plurality of fasteners in a second plurality of fastener apertures (figs. 10-12).
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golesh (US 2012/0122633) in view of Tisue (US 20050225132) and further in view of Hawkins (US 2021/0060380).
With respect to claim 38, Golesh and Tisue disclose, the method according to claim 30 (see above).
Golesh further discloses:
(h) coupling a handlebar (20 in fig. 3) to the carriage and a display (display in fig. 3), wherein the handlebar is longitudinally adjustable relative to the frame (figs. 13a-c).
Neither Tisue nor Golesh does not expressly disclose that the display is also coupled to the carriage and longitudinally adjustable relative to the frame.
Hawkins discloses affixing a display (para. 96) to the carriage and making it longitudinally adjustable relative to the frame (figs 16-17).
Golesh, Tisue and Hawkins 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 affixed the display of Golesh/Tisue to the adjustable carriage as taught by Hawkins. Such a rearrangement of parts would have been both obvious and predictable and provided a more ergonomic view of the display for the user.
Claim(s) 39, 42-44, 46-48, and 53-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irving (US 2019/0381351) 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 handlebar for engagement by the user (110 in fig. 1), wherein the console assembly is coupled to and longitudinally movable relative to the frame to facilitate adjustment of the handlebar (204 in fig. 2; para. 65 detail longitudinal movement of the console relative to the frame), and
a carriage that is longitudinally slidable back and forth relative to the base member (112 in fig. 1);
a locking device 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 having a first end for manually grasping by the user 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), the pivot lever being located forwardly of the handlebar (clear from fig. 1, that the lever, 112, is forward of handlebar 110).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fan does not expressly disclose that pulling the first end of the pivot lever towards the handlebar pivots the pivot lever into the raised position and pushing the first end of the pivot lever away from the handlebar pivots the pivot lever into the lowered position.
It should be noted that the disclosed pivot lever of Fan is be 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.
Irving does not expressly disclose that a display is included on the console assembly.
Fan discloses a display for displaying and/or controlling 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 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 42, Irving in view of 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).
With respect to claim 43, Irving in view of Fan disclose, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Irving further discloses, wherein the locking device is manually operable by the user (para. 51; also clear from fig. 1).
With respect to claim 44, Irving in view of Fan disclose, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Fan further discloses, wherein the display includes a screen that extends upwardly at an angle relative to the handlebar (fig. 7), wherein said angle remains constant as the console assembly is longitudinally moved relative to the frame (figs. 1-7).
With respect to claim 46, Irving in view of 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 Fan disclose, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Irving in view of Fan further disclose, wherein the handlebar (Irving; fig. 1) and the display (Fan; fig. 7) are coupled to the carriage, 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 Fan disclose, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Fan further discloses, wherein the carriage includes a body having a first end and a second end, and 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).
With respect to claim 53, Irving in view of Fan disclose, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Irving further discloses, wherein the locking device is configured to lock the carriage in position relative to the base member (para. 51).
With respect to claim 54, Irving in view of Fan disclose, the exercise machine according to claim 53 (see above).
Irving further discloses, wherein the locking device is configured to clamp the console assembly in position relative to the frame, and wherein the locking device is manually operable by the user (para. 51; pivoting lever in fig. 2 is manually operable by the user).
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 Fan (US D982680) and further in view of Boutakis (US 2020/0361553).
With respect to claim 40, Irving in view of Fan discloses, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Neither Irving 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) locks the console assembly in a longitudinal position relative to the frame, and wherein pivoting the lever into the raised position (fig. 6) frees the console assembly for longitudinal movement relative to the frame (para. 32).
Boutakis, Irving 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 41, Irving in view of Fan discloses, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Neither Irving 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 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 Fan disclose, the exercise machine according to claim 54 (see above).
Neither Irving 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 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.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irving (US 2019/0381351) in view of Fan (US D982680) and further in view of Schneider (US 2016/0088931).
With respect to claim 45, Irving in view of Fan disclose, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Neither Irving 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).
Schneider, Irving 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. 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 Fan (US D982680) and further in view of Murray (US 8967563).
With respect to claim 49, Irving in view of 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 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 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 Fan (US D982680) and further in view of Murray-2 (US 2008/0096725).
With respect to claim 50, Irving in view of Fan disclose, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Neither Irving 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 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. The motivation would have been to provide the pedal positioning to the computer/display device (Murray-2; para. 57).
Claim(s) 51-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irving (US 2019/0381351) in view of Fan (US D982680) and further in view of Golesh (US 2012/0122633).
With respect to claim 51, Irving in view of Fan disclose, the exercise machine according to claim 39 (see above).
Neither Irving or Fan expressly disclose, a stop device that prevents sliding of the carriage past a forwardmost position relative to the base member and that prevents sliding of the carriage past a rearwardmost position relative to the base member.
Golesh discloses, a stop device that prevents sliding of the carriage past a forwardmost position relative to the base member and that prevents 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).
Golesh, Irving 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 include the stop device of Golesh within the adjustment mechanism of Irving/Fan. 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.
With respect to claim 52, Irving in view of Fan and Golesh, disclose, the exercise machine according to claim 51 (see above).
Golesh further discloses, 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 comprises a bumper that operatively engages at least one slide bearing of the opposing slide bearings to prevent sliding of the carriage past the forwardmost position and that operatively engages at least one slide bearing of the opposing slide bearings to prevent sliding of the carriage 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 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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