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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Claims 8 and 22 have been amended by applicant. Claim 30 is newly added by applicant.
The amendments have been sufficient to overcome some of the claim objections, the amendments have not been sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections. Please see Response to Arguments below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/30/2023, 12/1/2023, 12/02/2024 02/05/2026, 03/20/2026, 04/28/2026 and 05/21/2026 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is 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.
The specification as originally filed fails to disclose “an absence of a user on the treadmill”, and is therefore considered new matter. While “absence of a user on the belt” is disclosed, there is a difference is scope between the belt and the treadmill. Moreover, paragraph 0021 discloses “the absence of the user is detected via monitoring sensors positioned under a deck supporting the belt of the treadmill” for the purpose of detecting the absence of the user specifically on the belt. Although paragraph 0056 discloses “Sensors 7 are provided and configured to detect the presence of the user on the fitness machine2, for example a piezoelectric sensor positioned under the belt 6 as described in U.S. Patent No.7,914,420,” detecting the presence of the user on the fitness machine is not equivalent to detecting the absence of a user on the fitness machine, and therefore is not considered as written description for the amendment.
Furthermore, “without changing rotation of the belt” with the step of ‘changing an operation of the light’ has also been considered new matter, as those limitations in combination have also not been disclosed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-13 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the absence of the user one the belt" in lines 6-7 lacks antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear if the limitation is the same as the previously claimed “an absence of a user on the treadmill,”. Please also see the 35 USC 112(a) rejection above.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a user" in line 7, this lacks clarity. It is unclear if the user is the same as or different from the first recitation of “user” in claim 8.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "monitoring sensors" in line 2 lacks clarity. It is unclear if the monitoring sensors are the same as of different from the senor disclosed in claim 8.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "a user" in line 2 lacks clarity. It is unclear if the user is the same as or different from the first recitation of “user” in claim 8 or the second recitation of “user” in claim 8.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "a user" in line 2 lacks clarity. It is unclear if the user is the same as or different from the first recitation of “user” in claim 8 or the second recitation of “user” in claim 8.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "a user" in line 2 lacks clarity. It is unclear if the user is the same as or different from the first recitation of “user” in claim 8 or the second recitation of “user” in claim 8.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "a user" in lines 2 and 3 lack clarity. It is unclear if the user is the same as or different from the first recitation of “user” in claim 8 or the second recitation of “user” in claim 8.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "a user" in lines 2 and 3 lack clarity. It is unclear if the user is the same as or different from the first recitation of “user” in claim 8 or the second recitation of “user” in claim 8.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "a user" in line 5 lack clarity. It is unclear if the user is the same as or different from the first recitation of “user” in claim 8 or the second recitation of “user” in claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 8, and its respective dependent claims 9-13 and 21-29, and Claim 30, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 8-13 and 21-29 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. Each of Claims 8-13 and 21-29 recites at least one step or instruction for changing an operation of a light, without changing rotation of the belt, when the absence of a user on the belt is detected and the belt is rotating, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, each of Claims 1, 7, and 13 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 8 recites: A method for controlling a treadmill having a light, the method comprising:
determining via a processing system (additional element) whether a belt of the treadmill is rotating (observation or evaluation, which is a mental process);
detecting via the processing system (additional element) and based on data from a sensor (additional element) an absence of a user on the treadmill while the belt is rotating (observation or evaluation, which is a mental process); and
changing an operation of the light, without changing rotation of the belt, when the absence of a user on the belt is detected and the belt is rotating so as to provide warning that the belt is rotating (evaluation or judgement, which is a mental process).
Specifically, Claim 30 recites: A method for controlling a treadmill having a light, the method comprising:
determining via a processing system (additional element) whether a belt of the treadmill is rotating (observation or evaluation, which is a mental process);
detecting via the processing system (additional element) and based on data from a sensor (additional element) an absence of a user on the treadmill while the belt is rotating (observation or evaluation, which is a mental process); and
changing an operation of the light when the absence of a user on the treadmill is detected and the belt is rotating so as to provide warning that the belt is rotating (evaluation or judgement, which is a mental process).
Further, dependent Claims 9-13 and 21-29 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 8 and 30 (and their respective dependent Claims 9-13 and 21-29) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because there are no additional elements, either alone or in combination, that generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: a processing system and a sensor are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 8 and 30 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 8 and 30 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a processor as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 8 and 30 (and their respective dependent claims) are not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 8 and 30 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B
None of Claims 8 and 30, and their respective dependent claims 9-13 and 21-29, include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a processing system and a sensor.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, in paragraphs 0064-0065, “The processing system 60 loads and executes an executable program 68 from the memory system 62, accesses data 70 stored within the memory system 62, and directs the fitness machine 2 to operate as described in further detail below. It should be recognized that mechanisms for controlling a light via a control system are well known and thus not described further here. The processing system 60 may be implemented as a single microprocessor or other circuitry or be distributed across multiple processing devices or sub-systems that cooperate to execute the executable program 68 from the memory system 62. Non-limiting examples of the processing system include general purpose central processing units, application specific processors, and logic devices.”, in paragraph 0056, “Sensors 7 are provided and configured to detect the presence of the user on the fitness machine2, for example a piezoelectric sensor positioned under the belt 6 as described in U.S. Patent No.7,914,420. Other types of sensors7 are also contemplated by the present disclosure, including IR sensors, cameras, or others known in the art.”, and in paragraph 0068, “Sensors 107 may be provided to detect the presence of the user on the fitness machine102, such as being built into the steps for getting on and off the fitness machine 102.” The specification of the claimed invention fails to provide any substantial structure or drawings that go beyond generic computer functions.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term, a processing system and a sensor, is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processing and a sensor. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in independent Claims 8 and 30 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the methods of independent Claims 8 and 30, respectively, are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 8 and 30 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 8-13 and 21-30 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 8-13 and 21-30 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 8-9, 12-13, 21-25, 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fima (PG Patent Publication No. US20200171353A1).
Regarding claim 8, Fima shows a method for controlling a treadmill having a light (Fima, “treadmill 100 may include lights and lighting systems configured to provide information to the user and/or to others (e.g., warn others in the vicinity that the treadmill 100 is operational)”, paragraph 0087), the method comprising: determining via a processing system whether a belt of the treadmill is rotating (Fima, “The treadmill 100 may include peripheral lights 124 configured to illuminate an area on the floor surrounding the treadmill 100 to, for example, alert an approaching person that he or she is approaching a treadmill 100 that is in use, i.e., the tread 102 is moving… The lighting system may also include the controller 314 or any other controller configured to control the lights. The lights may be in communication (e.g., wired or wireless communication) with the controller 314 or any other controller. The lights may operate in conjunction with the controller 314 and other components of the treadmill 100”, paragraph 0097; The illumination of the peripheral lights based on the treadmill being in use/the tread is moving shows the step of determining whether the belt of the treadmill is rotating of the claimed invention. The controller of Fima which is configured to control the lights of Fima shows the processing system of the claimed invention); detecting via the processing system and based on data from a sensor an absence of a user on the treadmill while the belt is rotating (Fima, “The weight sensors 118 located underneath the side rails 106 are configured to detect whether the user is present on any portion of the side rails 106 and/or foot pads 122… during operation of the treadmill 100, the controller 314 determines that the user is present on both the side rails 106 (e.g., simultaneously) and that the user is not present on the tread 102 (e.g., the user has stepped off the tread 102 onto one or both of the side rails 106) the controller 314 may engage the brake 326 to slow rotation of the tread 102 as previously described”, paragraphs 0082-0083; In light of the 112b rejection above, the examiner is considering the absence of the user to correspond to the belt. The user not being present on the tread of Fima shows the detection of the absence of the user on the belt, and as the controller ‘may’ engage the brake to slow the rotation of the tread shows the belt rotating while the absence is detected. The weight sensors of Fima shows the sensor of the claimed invention); changing an operation of the light, without changing rotation of the belt, when the absence of a user on the belt is detected and the belt is rotating so as to provide warning that belt rotating ( Fima, “The controller 314 may configured to control at least one of the color, brightness, or light emission frequency of the lights in response to receiving a signal from a biometric sensor shown in FIG. 1… Additionally and/or alternatively, the biometric sensor may detect biometric information associated with the user in response to the weight sensors 118 detecting the user's presence on the foot pads 122 and/or side rails 106”, paragraph 0097; in paragraph 0063, “engagement of the lock 316 may occur after a period of time. “The lights of Fima changing in response to the weight sensors, which as previously cited above shows the user being absent from the belt of the treadmill, shows the change in operation of the light because of the absence of the user on the belt. Further, as noted above, the controller may engage the brake to slow the rotation of the tread after a period of time. Fima shows the portion of the limitation of the claimed invention, “without changing rotation of the belt”).
PNG
media_image1.png
483
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fima
Regarding claim 9, Fima shows waiting a predetermined time after detecting the absence of the user on the belt while the belt is rotating before changing the operation of the light (Fima, “Engagement of the lock 316 may be instant, i.e., as soon as the sensors 118, 116 both fail to detect a user. Engagement of the lock 316 may occur after a period of time” see paragraph 0063)
Regarding claim 12, Fima shows the light is a particular light among multiple lights on the treadmill, and wherein the particular light is positioned adjacent to the belt (Fima, “The peripheral lights 124 may be located on and/or under the side skirts 104, side rails 106 or handrails peripheral 110, and may include LED lights, lasers, projectors, or any other light source”, paragraph 0090).
Regarding claim 13, Fima shows the absence of the user is detected via monitoring sensors positioned under a deck supporting the belt of the treadmill (Fima, “Each side skirt 104 may include a side rail 106 located on an upper surface of the side skirt 104… Each of the side rails 106 may include a foot pad 122 designating one or more portions of the side rails 106 on which the user may stand. The foot pads 122 may be integral with the side rails 106 or may be separately located on the side rails 106”, paragraph 0036, and “One or more weight sensors 118 may be positioned such that weight and/or presence is detected when a user stands on the foot pads 122 and/or the side rails 106. The weight sensors 118 may include strain sensors or any sensor configured to detect the weight and/or presence of the user. For example, two strain sensors may be positioned under each foot pad 122 between the underlying frame and a bracket 200 shown in FIG. 2. The bracket 200 may be positioned under the foot pads 122 and the tread 102 to evenly distribute the user's weight to the weight sensors 118 while standing on the foot pads 122”, paragraph 0041; The side skirts 104 of Fima shows the deck supporting the belt of the treadmill of the claimed invention, see FIG. 1. In light of the 112b rejection above, the examiner is considering the monitoring sensors to be the same as the sensor in claim 8. The weight sensors 118 of Fima shows the weight sensors of the claimed invention. The weight sensors of Fima being positioned under the foot pads 122, which is shown in FIG. 1 to be part of the side skirts 104 of Fima, shows the monitoring sensor being positioned under the deck of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 21, Fima shows displaying a message when the absence of a user is detected while the belt is rotating so as to provide further warning that the belt is moving (Fima, “The display may indicate to the user during use that stepping on the foot pads 122 will apply the break during a rest period. In response to engaging the brake 326, the display 112 may generate a notification indicating to the user that the brake 326 is engaged. The brake 326 may slow rotation of the tread 102 to threshold speed which may be predetermined or may be set by the user”, paragraph 0083; The user stepping on the foot pads of Fima shows the absence of the user on the belt of the claimed invention. The slowing of the rotation of the treadmill with the brake of Fima shows the belt is moving of the claimed invention. The display of Fima generating a notification shows the warning of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 22, Fima shows waiting a predetermined time after detecting the absence of a user while the belt is moving and subsequently displaying a message so as to provide further warning that the belt is moving, wherein the message is displayed so as to be displaced from the light (Fima, “Engagement of the lock 316 may be instant, i.e., as soon as the sensors 118, 116 both fail to detect a user. Engagement of the lock 316 may occur after a period of time paragraph 0063and “The display may indicate to the user during use that stepping on the foot pads 122 will apply the break during a rest period. In response to engaging the brake 326, the display 112 may generate a notification indicating to the user that the brake 326 is engaged. The brake 326 may slow rotation of the tread 102 to threshold speed which may be predetermined or may be set by the user”, paragraph 0083;).
PNG
media_image2.png
449
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fima
Regarding claim 23, Fima shows waiting a predetermined time after detecting the absence of a user while the belt is moving and slowing a speed in which the belt is moving after the predetermined time has lapsed (Fima,” Engagement of the lock 316 may be instant, i.e., as soon as the sensors 118, 116 both fail to detect a user. Engagement of the lock 316 may occur after a period of time” paragraph 0063 “During use of the treadmill 100, a user may step on the side rails 106 and off of the tread 102 to take a drink, answer a phone call, talk to someone present, or rest, as non-limiting examples. When the user steps on the side rails 106 while the tread 102 is moving, the brake 326 engages to slow the tread 102 down so that when the user is ready to step back on the tread 102, the tread 102 moves at a slower, more manageable pace than when the user stepped off… If the user remains off the tread 102 and on the foot pads 122 for a period of time, the brake 326 may be disengaged when a threshold time or speed is reached, allowing the tread 102 to further slow under its own momentum”, paragraph 0073; The engagement of the brake after stepping on the rails by the user, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘predetermined time’ shows the waiting of a predetermined time after detecting the absence of the user of the claimed invention. The slowing of the speed of the belt is shown with the application of the brakes as Fima disclose in paragraph 0072, “The brake 326 is configured to slow rotation of the tread 102 in response to the user stepping off of the tread 102 and onto the side rails 106 (e.g., while the user is resting). By slowing but not completely stopping rotation of the tread 102 while the user is resting on the side rails 106, the user may step back onto the tread 102 and continue using the treadmill more easily”).
Regarding claim 24, Fima shows receiving a request to start an exercise for a user to perform using the treadmill (Fima, “The initiation criteria may include one or more in combination: detection of the user's presence on the foot pads 122 by the weight sensors 118; detection of the user's presence on both side rails 106 by the weight sensors 118; detection of the user's presence on any portion of the side rail 106 by the weight sensors 118; detection of the user by the presence sensors 116; a determination by the controller 314 that a user weight detected by the weight sensors 118 meets or exceeds a threshold weight; and/or authorization of an identification code entered by the user (e.g., using the display 112)”, paragraph 0064), waiting a predetermined time after detecting the absence of a user while the belt is moving, and pausing the exercise after the predetermined time has lapsed such that the exercise may be resumed (Fima, “During use of the treadmill 100, a user may step on the side rails 106 and off of the tread 102 to take a drink, answer a phone call, talk to someone present, or rest, as non-limiting examples. When the user steps on the side rails 106 while the tread 102 is moving, the brake 326 engages to slow the tread 102 down so that when the user is ready to step back on the tread 102, the tread 102 moves at a slower, more manageable pace than when the user stepped off… If the user remains off the tread 102 and on the foot pads 122 for a period of time, the brake 326 may be disengaged when a threshold time or speed is reached, allowing the tread 102 to further slow under its own momentum”, paragraph 0073; The period of time of Fima shows the predetermined time of the claimed invention. The brake of Fima being engaged to slow the tread and the disengaging to allow the tread to slow on its own shows the pausing of the exercise after the predetermined time).
Regarding claim 25, Fima shows receiving a request to start an exercise for a user to perform using the treadmill (Fima, “The initiation criteria may include one or more in combination: detection of the user's presence on the foot pads 122 by the weight sensors 118; detection of the user's presence on both side rails 106 by the weight sensors 118; detection of the user's presence on any portion of the side rail 106 by the weight sensors 118; detection of the user by the presence sensors 116; a determination by the controller 314 that a user weight detected by the weight sensors 118 meets or exceeds a threshold weight; and/or authorization of an identification code entered by the user (e.g., using the display 112)”, paragraph 0064), and waiting a predetermined time after detecting the absence of a user while the belt is moving and determining that the exercise has ended after the predetermined time (Fima, “The lock 316 is configured to automatically stop rotation of the tread 102 in any direction when the user is not present on the treadmill 100 (e.g., not present on the tread 102 or the side rails 106). Once the lock 316 is engaged, such as when the user steps off of the treadmill, the lock 316 may prevent rotation of the tread 102 in any direction until the user is again identified by presence with the weight sensors, infrared sensors and, in some embodiments, the entry of an identification code”, paragraph 0055, and “In operation 610, the controller 314 initiates engagement of the lock 316 in response to determining that no user is present on the treadmill 100. The controller 314 may initiate engagement of the lock 316 after a threshold period has expired. In one example, the controller 314 may initiate engagement of the lock 316 in response to determining that no user is present on the treadmill 100 and to determining that the threshold period has expired. The threshold period begins in response to determining that no user is present on the treadmill 100. The threshold period of time can vary and can be set by the user of the treadmill or can be predetermined”, paragraph 0071; The lock of Fima preventing the rotation of the tread shows the determining the exercise has ended. The engagement of the lock of Fima after a threshold period shows the waiting of the predetermined time after detecting the absence of the user).
Regarding claim 27, Fima shows the predetermined time is at least 1 second (Noted above in claim 9, the stepping on the rails by the user shows the predetermined time. Stepping on the rails takes at least one second, thereby showing the predetermined time of the claimed invention being 1 second).
Regarding claim 30, Fima shows a method for controlling a having a light (Fima, “treadmill 100 may include lights and lighting systems configured to provide information to the user and/or to others (e.g., warn others in the vicinity that the treadmill 100 is operational)”, paragraph 0087), the method comprising: determining via a processing system whether a belt of the treadmill is rotating (Fima, “The treadmill 100 may include peripheral lights 124 configured to illuminate an area on the floor surrounding the treadmill 100 to, for example, alert an approaching person that he or she is approaching a treadmill 100 that is in use, i.e., the tread 102 is moving… The lighting system may also include the controller 314 or any other controller configured to control the lights. The lights may be in communication (e.g., wired or wireless communication) with the controller 314 or any other controller. The lights may operate in conjunction with the controller 314 and other components of the treadmill 100”, paragraph 0097; The illumination of the peripheral lights based on the treadmill being in use/the tread is moving shows the step of determining whether the belt of the treadmill is rotating of the claimed invention. The controller of Fima which is configured to control the lights of Fima shows the processing system of the claimed invention); detecting via the processing system and based on data from a sensor an absence of a user on the treadmill while the belt is rotating (Fima, “The weight sensors 118 located underneath the side rails 106 are configured to detect whether the user is present on any portion of the side rails 106 and/or foot pads 122… during operation of the treadmill 100, the controller 314 determines that the user is present on both the side rails 106 (e.g., simultaneously) and that the user is not present on the tread 102 (e.g., the user has stepped off the tread 102 onto one or both of the side rails 106) the controller 314 may engage the brake 326 to slow rotation of the tread 102 as previously described”, paragraphs 0082-0083; In light of the 112b rejection above, the examiner is considering the absence of the user to correspond to the belt. The user not being present on the tread of Fima shows the detection of the absence of the user on the belt, and as the controller ‘may’ engage the brake to slow the rotation of the tread shows the belt rotating while the absence is detected. Fima further discloses that the engagement of the lock may occur after a period of time, see paragraph 0063. The weight sensors of Fima shows the sensor of the claimed invention); and changing an operation of the light when the absence of a user on the treadmill is detected and the belt is rotating so as to provide warning that the belt is rotating (Fima, “The controller 314 may configured to control at least one of the color, brightness, or light emission frequency of the lights in response to receiving a signal from a biometric sensor shown in FIG. 1… Additionally and/or alternatively, the biometric sensor may detect biometric information associated with the user in response to the weight sensors 118 detecting the user's presence on the foot pads 122 and/or side rails 106”, paragraph 0097; The lights of Fima changing in response to the weight sensors, which as previously cited above shows the user being absent from the treadmill, shows the change in operation of the light because of the absence of the user on the belt. Further, as noted above, the controller may engage the brake to slow the rotation of the tread. As the engagement of the brake is an option, Fima shows the portion of the limitation of the claimed invention, “belt is rotating”).
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.
Claims 10-11 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fima (PG Patent Publication No. US20200171353A1). Fima discloses the device as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 10, Fima shows the predetermined time is a first predetermined time, further comprising changing the operation of the light again if the absence of the user on the belt remains for a second predetermined time after the first predetermined time (Fima, “During use of the treadmill 100, a user may step on the side rails 106 and off of the tread 102 to take a drink, answer a phone call, talk to someone present, or rest, as non-limiting examples. When the user steps on the side rails 106 while the tread 102 is moving, the brake 326 engages to slow the tread 102 down so that when the user is ready to step back on the tread 102, the tread 102 moves at a slower, more manageable pace than when the user stepped off… If the user remains off the tread 102 and on the foot pads 122 for a period of time, the brake 326 may be disengaged when a threshold time or speed is reached, allowing the tread 102 to further slow under its own momentum”, paragraph 0073, and “The controller 314 may activate the peripheral lights 124 to illuminate the area surrounding the treadmill and/or may change the color of the peripheral lights 124 in response to engagement of the brake 326 or in response to engagement of the lock 316. For example, the peripheral lights 124 may not be activated when the lock 316 is engaged”, paragraph 0092; The first predetermined time of the claimed invention is shown when the user steps off the treadmill of Fima initially to either take a drink or answer a phone call and the brake is engaged to slow the tread down. The second predetermined time of the claimed invention is shown with the user continuing to remain off the tread for a period of time and the brake is disengaged to let the tread slow down on its own. The change of operation of the light between the first predetermined time and the second predetermined time of the claimed invention is shown when the controller of Fima activates or changes color of the peripheral lights in response to the engagement of the brake. Therefore, the peripheral lights of Fima can are adjusted by the controller to when the brake is engaged and disengaged.
Fima explicitly discloses the changing of the color of the peripheral lights when the brake is engaged, but fails to explicitly disclose the color of the peripheral lights being changed again once the brake is disengaged.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have specifically modified the peripheral lights of Fima to also change color once the brake has been disengaged to indicate to the user the belt is slowing down on its own as Fima discloses in paragraph 0090, “The peripheral lights 124 may be of any color and may illuminate according to any predetermined or user-customized setting (e.g., flashing). The peripheral lights 124 may also change color according to any predetermined or user-customized setting”. This modification is obvious as Fima discloses various reasons why the light sources are adjusted to alert a user of a change with functions of the treadmill, the performance of the user, and presence of people with the treadmill. Such an example is in paragraph 0100 of Fima, “By illuminating the front and rear portions of the treadmill 100 using a color typically associated with a warning, such as yellow, orange, or red, the lighting system may alert individuals nearby the treadmill 100 to use caution while near the treadmill 100”). Further, the limitations lack criticality.
Regarding claim 11, Fima shows the light is changed to red after the first predetermined time (Fima, “The controller 314 may activate the peripheral lights 124 to illuminate the area surrounding the treadmill and/or may change the color of the peripheral lights 124 in response to engagement of the brake 326 or in response to engagement of the lock 316. For example, the peripheral lights 124 may not be activated when the lock 316 is engaged”, paragraph 0092, and “By illuminating the front and rear portions of the treadmill 100 using a color typically associated with a warning, such as yellow, orange, or red, the lighting system may alert individuals nearby the treadmill 100 to use caution while near the treadmill 100”, paragraph 0100; As noted above in claim 10, the engagement of the brake causes the change of the peripheral lights.
Fima fails to explicitly show the change in color is specifically red and that the light is changed in brightness after the second predetermined time, but does disclose in paragraph 100 as a color change is possibly red.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the changing of the peripheral light to be red once the user has stepped on the side rails as Fima already discloses red as a color option and changed in brightness after the second predetermined time as these are common indicators that are used with lights. Further, the limitations lack criticality.
Regarding claim 28, Fima fails to explicitly show that the light is changed in brightness after the second predetermined time.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the change in brightness after the second predetermined time as these are common indicators that are used with lights. Further, the limitations lack criticality.
Regarding claim 29, Fima shows the method according to claim 10, wherein the light is changed in color after the second predetermined time (The modified method of Fima discussed in claim 10 teaches the first predetermined time of the claimed invention is shown when the user steps off the treadmill of Fima initially to either take a drink or answer a phone call and the brake is engaged to slow the tread down. The second predetermined time of the claimed invention is shown with the user continuing to remain off the tread for a period of time and the brake is disengaged to let the tread slow down on its own. As cited above, the change of operation of the light between the first predetermined time and the second predetermined time of the claimed invention is shown when the controller of Fima activates or changes color of the peripheral lights in response to the engagement of the brake. The peripheral lights of Fima to change color once the brake has been disengaged to indicate to the user the belt is slowing down on its own, see claim 10 above).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fima (PG Patent Publication No. US20200171353A1), in view of Bayerlein (PG Patent Publication No. US20200332990A1). Fima disclose the method as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 26, Fima shows the light is a first light (Fima, “The controller 314 may activate the peripheral lights 124 to illuminate the area surrounding the treadmill and/or may change the color of the peripheral lights 124 in response to engagement of the brake 326 or in response to engagement of the lock 316. For example, the peripheral lights 124 may not be activated when the lock 316 is engaged”, paragraph 0092; The activation of the peripheral lights/change of color of the peripheral lights of Fima in response to the engagement of the brake shows the change in operation of the light because of the absence of the user on the belt as discussed by Fima in paragraph 0083).
Fima fails to explicitly teach further comprising controlling a second light associated with a storage area of the treadmill after detecting the absence of a user so as to provide a reminder to check the storage area.
However, Bayerlein, from the same field of endeavor, teaches controlling a second light associated with a storage area of the treadmill (Bayerlein, “the lighting system 150 includes a light source disposed in the cup holder 210, for example a cup holder light source 216 operable to project light into, onto, and/or out of the cup holder 210. In the embodiment shown, the cup holder light source 216 is coupled to a first side wall 215 of the cup holder 210 and oriented to project light onto an opposing side wall 211 of the cup holder 210. The light may reflect off the opposing side wall 211 and/or a bottle, cup, etc. placed in the cup holder 210 to illuminate the cup holder 210… The cup holder light source 216 thereby aids the user in placing items into the cup holders 210 by illuminating the cup holders 210”, paragraph 0034).
PNG
media_image3.png
343
509
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
601
414
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bayerlein
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the cup holders and corresponding the cup holder light sources of Bayerlein onto the handrail of Fima as Bayerlein discloses light sources that are adjusted after receiving data from the treadmill, as seen in FIG. 8 above. Bayerlein not only discloses light sources in the cup holders, but multiple light sources as well, including a belt light source and under light source 114, similar to that disclosed by Fima. Fima also discloses the data from the treadmill being used to control lights of the treadmill depending on the presence of a user. It would therefore be obvious to include multiple light sources of the treadmill to effectively alert a user to check cup holders after detecting the absence of a user so as to provide a reminder to check the storage area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts “Claim 8, to which claims 21-25 depend, first recites detecting an absence of a user on the belt while the belt is rotating. Accordingly, the Examiner has objected to later recitations to detecting the absence of "a" user, asserting that these later recitations should be detecting the absence of "the" user. The claims must be read as a whole, and the term "absence" means there is no user. Therefore, it would be illogical to refer to "the" user since there is no user to refer to. Instead, the applicant respectfully asserts that the claim is clearest and antecedent basis requirements are met by later referring to the [absence of a user] with the detected "absence of a user" being the element subsequently referenced. Therefore, all related objections are believed to be overcome”.
This argument is not persuasive. See the 112b rejection above. Further, the applicant is inconsistent on use of “the” or “a” user. For instance, see claim 25.
Applicant continues to assert “Even if for the sake of argument detecting an absence of a user could be a mental process, changing the operation of a light is certainly not a mental activity. The light's operation cannot be changed in or by the person's mind. For at least this reason, the applicant respectfully asserts that the §101 rejections is improper, and that claim 8 as well as claims 9-13 and 21-29 are indeed patent eligible subject matter... It should further be noted that changing an operation of the light based on the steps above (including on the basis of data from a sensor) cannot be a mental process or human activity, as discussed above”.
This argument is not persuasive. Whether or not the individual step of changing an operation of the light when the absence of a user on the belt is detected is an evaluation or judgement i.e. a mental process, the previous steps of the method of claim 8 remain an evaluation or judgement i.e. a mental process. However, the step of changing an operation of the light when the absence of a user on the belt is detected is in fact an evaluation or judgment i.e. a mental process because an individual may in fact determine as a result of the absence of a user to change the operation of the light manually without any processing system. Moreover, the absence of the user is determined based on steps that are evaluations/judgements. Therefore, the 101 rejection remains for each of the limitations listed above in the 101 rejection.
Application continues to assert “claim 8 is hereby amended to further clarify that the claimed subject matter is not a mental process nor a method of organizing human activity. In particular, the step of determining whether a belt of the treadmill is rotating is performed via a processing system, and therefore not via mental process or human activity. Moreover, the step of detecting an absence of a user on the belt while the belt is rotating is performed via the processing system and based on data from a sensor, which are also not mental processes or human activity… Likewise, claim 8 does not merely automate well-known steps in the art that would normally be performed manually. For all these reasons, amended claim 8 is believed to overcome the rejection under §101, as well as claims 9-13 and 21-29 by dependency”.
This argument is not persuasive. The processing system and the sensor are additional elements which are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. See 101 rejection above.
Applicant continues to assert, “Claim 8 includes the step of changing an operation of the light when the absence of a user is detected while and the belt is rotating so as to provide warning that the belt is rotating. The Office Action asserts that Fima discloses this step in paragraph [0092], which refers to activating lights "1) in response to engagement of the brake 326 or 2) in response to engagement of the lock 316" (OA page 6, bold numbering added for clarity in later reference). With respect to option 2) regarding the lock 316, Fima is clear that when the lock is engaged, the belt cannot be rotated-this is the very purpose of the lock (see e.g., paragraphs [0066-67]). Accordingly, Fima's recitation of activating lights based on engagement of the lock is irrelevant and does not disclose the claimed step… Fima's teachings of controlling lights in this context are limited to being "in response to engagement of the brake 326 or in response to engagement of the lock 316" (para. [0092], as discussed above). Therefore, Fima does not disclose changing operation of the light, without changing rotation of the belt, when the absence of a user on the belt is detected and the belt is rotating.”
This argument is not persuasive. In paragraphs 0082-0083, “The weight sensors 118 located underneath the side rails 106 are configured to detect whether the user is present on any portion of the side rails 106 and/or foot pads 122… during operation of the treadmill 100, the controller 314 determines that the user is present on both the side rails 106 (e.g., simultaneously) and that the user is not present on the tread 102 (e.g., the user has stepped off the tread 102 onto one or both of the side rails 106) the controller 314 may engage the brake 326 to slow rotation of the tread 102 as previously described”. Therefore, engaging the brake is an option for an alternate embodiment of the method of Fima and the tread is also able to continue at the speed at which it was rotating. Further, paragraph 0063 states that the engagement of the lock may occur after a period of time, which is similar to the method disclosed by Applicant.
Furthermore, in paragraph 0097, “The controller 314 may configured to control at least one of the color, brightness, or light emission frequency of the lights in response to receiving a signal from a biometric sensor shown in FIG. 1… Additionally and/or alternatively, the biometric sensor may detect biometric information associated with the user in response to the weight sensors 118 detecting the user's presence on the foot pads 122 and/or side rails 106”. Therefore, the lights, including the peripheral lights respond simply to the output of the weight sensors. Thereby, showing the limitation of the claimed invention in question. Moreover, this is further reinforced as later in Fima, Fima discloses in paragraph 0125, “The lighting systems described herein can be used in many different ways, some of which are described here”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 MEGAN M ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6531. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6 a.m. -4 p.m. (Arizona).
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.
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights