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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wei et al. (US PGPub. 2019/0240540). Wei et al. describes the same invention as claimed, including:
Regarding claim 1, A treadmill, comprising: a deck (10); a belt (12) having a running surface that moves around the deck; and a time-of-flight (ToF) sensor (140) that detects a position of a user of the treadmill on the running surface (para. 34: “The present embodiment further provides several cases for the control unit 106 to adjust the speed of the running track 12 according to the position of the user A. For example, when the light sensor 140 detects that the user A is located at the near zone NZ, the control unit 106 may be configured to accelerate the running track 12; when the light sensor 140 detects that the user A is located at the middle zone MZ, the control unit 106 may be configured to maintain the speed of the running track 12. When the light sensor 140 detects that the user A is located at the far zone FZ, the control unit 106 may be configured to deaccelerate the running track 12. On the other hand, if the light sensor 106 detects that the user is located at one or both of the two rest zones 101 and 102, the control unit 106 may be configured to stop the running track 12.”).
Regarding claim 2, further comprising: an upper assembly (30) that is fixed to the deck, the upper assembly including: a left sidewall; a right sidewall, wherein the left sidewall and the right sidewall extend upwards from the deck; a display (106) fixed to the left sidewall and the right sidewall; and a cross bar (30) that extends between the left sidewall and the right sidewall; wherein the ToF sensor is disposed on an outer surface of the cross bar and faces a user of the treadmill on the running surface (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, further comprising: a control circuit that is communicatively coupled to the ToF sensor and operates to modify a current operation of the belt based on the position of the user of the treadmill detected by the ToF sensor (para. 34).
Regarding claim 5, further comprising: a control circuit that is communicatively coupled to the ToF sensor and operates to modify a current speed of the belt based on the position of the user of the treadmill detected by the ToF sensor (para. 34).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the time-of-flight (ToF) sensor detects the position of a user within a distinct zone of multiple detection zones that are mapped to the running surface of the belt, the multiple detection zones including: a front detection zone that represents a front area of the running surface of the belt; a center detection zone that represents a center area of the running surface of the belt; and a rear detection zone that represents a rear area of the running surface of the belt (para. 33: “Reference is further made to FIG. 3, which is a top view of a field of view of the light sensor according to the first embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 3, the running zone 103 may be divided into several zones, and when the light sensor 140 identifies which zone the user A is located, the control unit 106 may control the speed of the running track 12 directly. For example, the running track 12 may be divided into three zones, near zone NZ, middle zone MZ, and far zone FZ with respect to positions on the running zone 103 along a running direction D1 of the user. It should be noted that the first row R1 and the neighboring rows correspond to a region of the running track 12 that is near the front of the treadmill M in the example of the 1D image and 2D image, such as the near zone NZ in FIG. 3. In other embodiment, the three zones could only correspond to particular rows in the captured image, such as rows R1-R3 corresponding to near zone NZ, rows R4-R6 corresponding to middle zone MZ, and rows R7-R9 corresponding to far zone FZ.”).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the time-of-flight (ToF) sensor detects the position of a user within a distinct zone of multiple detection zones that are mapped to the running surface of the belt, the treadmill further comprising: a control circuit that is communicatively coupled to the ToF sensor and operates to modify a current operation of the belt based on the position of the user of the treadmill being within one of the distinct zones of the multiple detection zones (para. 34 and Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wei et al. (US PGPub. 2019/0240540). Wei et al. describes the same invention as claimed, including:
Regarding claim 10, A control system for a treadmill, the control system comprising: multiple hardware modules, including: a zone detection module that detects a position of a user of the treadmill being within a distinct zone of multiple detection zones that are mapped to a running surface of the treadmill; and an operation modification module that modifies a current operation of the treadmill based on the detected position of the user of the treadmill within the distinct zone of the multiple detection zones that are mapped to the running surface (para. 34: “The present embodiment further provides several cases for the control unit 106 to adjust the speed of the running track 12 according to the position of the user A. For example, when the light sensor 140 detects that the user A is located at the near zone NZ, the control unit 106 may be configured to accelerate the running track 12; when the light sensor 140 detects that the user A is located at the middle zone MZ, the control unit 106 may be configured to maintain the speed of the running track 12. When the light sensor 140 detects that the user A is located at the far zone FZ, the control unit 106 may be configured to deaccelerate the running track 12. On the other hand, if the light sensor 106 detects that the user is located at one or both of the two rest zones 101 and 102, the control unit 106 may be configured to stop the running track 12.”).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the multiple detection zones include: a front detection zone that represents a front area of the running surface of the belt; a center detection zone that represents a center area of the running surface of the belt; and a rear detection zone that represents a rear area of the running surface of the belt; and wherein the operation modification module causes movement of the running surface to speed up when the zone detection module detects that the position of the user is within the front detection zone (para. 33: “Reference is further made to FIG. 3, which is a top view of a field of view of the light sensor according to the first embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 3, the running zone 103 may be divided into several zones, and when the light sensor 140 identifies which zone the user A is located, the control unit 106 may control the speed of the running track 12 directly. For example, the running track 12 may be divided into three zones, near zone NZ, middle zone MZ, and far zone FZ with respect to positions on the running zone 103 along a running direction D1 of the user. It should be noted that the first row R1 and the neighboring rows correspond to a region of the running track 12 that is near the front of the treadmill M in the example of the 1D image and 2D image, such as the near zone NZ in FIG. 3. In other embodiment, the three zones could only correspond to particular rows in the captured image, such as rows R1-R3 corresponding to near zone NZ, rows R4-R6 corresponding to middle zone MZ, and rows R7-R9 corresponding to far zone FZ.”).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the multiple detection zones include: a front detection zone that represents a front area of the running surface of the belt; a center detection zone that represents a center area of the running surface of the belt; and a rear detection zone that represents a rear area of the running surface of the belt; and wherein the operation modification module causes movement of the running surface to slow down when the zone detection module detects that the position of the user is within the rear detection zone (para. 34).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the zone detection module accesses information captured by a time-of-flight (ToF) sensor (140) of the treadmill to detect the position of the user of the treadmill being within the distinct zone of multiple detection zones that are mapped to the running surface of the treadmill.
Regarding claim 14, wherein the operation modification module performs an action to modify a current speed of movement of the running surface of the treadmill (para. 34).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US PGPub. 2019/0240540) in view of Santra et al. (US PGPub. 2019/0240535). Wei et al. does not show, but Santra, from the same field of endeavor, teaches:
Regarding claim 5, Santra teaches further comprising: a control circuit that is communicatively coupled to the ToF sensor and operates to modify a current incline of the deck based on the position of the user of the treadmill detected by the ToF sensor (Santra para. 74 and Figs. 9A-C).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to modify the incline of the deck based on user position as taught by Santra. Doing so provides the predictable result of varying the difficulty of the user’s exercise. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Wei et al. as taught by Santra to obtain the invention as claimed.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US PGPub. 2019/0240540) in view of Wei et al., herein referred to as Pixart to avoid confusion with the other Wei et al. reference cited elsewhere in the Office Action, (US PGPub. 2017/0225038). Wei et al. does not show but Pixart teaches:
Regarding claim 6, Pixart, from the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: a left sidewall and a right sidewall that each extend upwards to support an upper assembly; wherein the ToF sensor includes a left ToF sensor disposed on an outer surface of the left sidewall and a right ToF sensor disposed on an outer surface of the right sidewall (paras. 45, 68 and Fig. 1A).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to include the duplicate time of flight sensors taught by Pixart on the device of Wei et al., as doing so enhances accuracy of detection. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Wei et al. as taught by Pixart to obtain the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Wei et al. shows further comprising: an upper assembly that is fixed to the deck via a left sidewall and a right sidewall, wherein the left sidewall and the right sidewall extend upwards to support the upper assembly (Wei et al. Fig. 1); a display fixed to the upper assembly (Wei et al. Fig. 1); and a cross bar that extends between the left sidewall and the right sidewall, wherein the ToF sensor is disposed on an outer surface of the cross bar and faces a user of the treadmill on the running surface (Wei et al. Fig. 1);
Pixart, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a left ToF sensor disposed on an outer surface of the left sidewall; and a right ToF sensor disposed on an outer surface of the right sidewall.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to include the duplicate time of flight sensors taught by Pixart on the device of Wei et al., as doing so enhances accuracy of detection. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Wei et al. as taught by Pixart to obtain the invention as claimed.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US PGPub. 2019/0240540) in view of Santra et al. (US PGPub. 2019/0240535). Wei et al. does not show, but Santra, from the same field of endeavor, teaches:
Regarding claim 15, Santra teaches wherein the operation modification module performs an action to modify a current incline position of the running surface of the treadmill (Santra para. 74 and Figs. 9A-C).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to modify the incline of the deck based on user position as taught by Santra. Doing so provides the predictable result of varying the difficulty of the user’s exercise. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Wei et al. as taught by Santra to obtain the invention as claimed.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US PGPub. 2019/0240540) alone.
Regarding claim 16, Wei et al does not show wherein the operation modification module performs an action to alert the user to move to a center zone of the multiple detection zones that are mapped to the running surface.
However, it is well known in the art to alert a user when an exercise machine is going to change a setting, as doing so ensures safety and makes sure the user is not caught off-balance when the change occurs. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Wei et al. as is known in the art for the purpose of ensuring safety.
Regarding claim 17, Wei et al. does not show wherein the operation modification module performs actions to: notify the user of an imminent modification of the current operation of the treadmill; and when the user does not move to a center zone of the multiple detection zones that are mapped to the running surface in response to the notification, modify a current speed of movement of the running surface of the treadmill.
However, it is well known in the art to alert a user when an exercise machine is going to change a setting, as doing so ensures safety and makes sure the user is not caught off-balance when the change occurs. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Wei et al. as is known in the art for the purpose of ensuring safety.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santra et al. (US PGPub. 2019/0240535) in view of Wei et al., herein referred to as Pixart to avoid confusion with the other Wei et al. reference cited elsewhere in the Office Action, (US PGPub. 2017/0225038). Santra et al. describes the invention substantially as claimed, including:
Regarding claim 18, A method performed by a treadmill, the method comprising: tracking movement of legs of a user running on a running surface of the treadmill (para. 53, Fig. 3); and modifying operation of the treadmill
Pixart, from the same field of endeavor, teaches that it is known in the art to modify operation of a treadmill when tracked movement represents an abnormal movement of the legs of the user (Pixart para. 62: a controller (30) determines that object A is moving slower than a treadmill belt (20) operates, and then decreases the operating speed of the treadmill belt (20) such that the treadmill belt (20) is moving at the same rate as the object A so that the object A can stay moving in the middle of the treadmill belt (20)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to modify Santra et al. as taught by Pixart to slow and/or stop the treadmill belt upon detection of an abnormal movement of the legs of the user, as doing so ensures safety of the user and prevents injury. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Santra et al. as taught by Pixart to obtain the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, Santra et al. shows wherein tracking the movement of the legs of the user running on the running surface includes capturing position or speed or acceleration information associated with the movement of the legs of the user using one or more time- of-flight (ToF) sensors of the treadmill (Santra para. 110).
Regarding claim 20, Santra et al. does not show but Pixart teaches: wherein modifying the operation of the treadmill when the tracked movement represents an abnormal movement of the legs of the user includes: accessing a current speed of the running surface of the treadmill; comparing speed information determined from the tracked movement of the legs of the user to a baseline speed of the legs of the user at the current speed and incline of the running surface of the treadmill; and determining the abnormal movement of the legs of the user when the speed information determined from the tracked movement of the legs of the user is below the baseline speed (Pixart para. 62). See rationale in claim 18 above for combining Santra and Pixart.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892 for cited art of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNDHARA M GANESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3340. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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.
/SUNDHARA M GANESAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784