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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, and of the status as a 371 of PCT/AU2022/050480.
The examiner notes however, that the subject matter regarding a plurality of apertures formed in the platform though the upper surface; a plurality of connector members provided on the base member, such that the user is able to connect one or more elastic resistance bands to the base member, wherein each connector member of the plurality of connector members is located adjacent to a corresponding one of the apertures, each connector member of the plurality of connector members being configured to releasably couple with a carabiner of a given one of the one or more elastic resistance bands, such that a user is able to selectively manually progress the carabiner provided by the given one of the elastic resistance bands through a given one of the apertures, thereby to releasably attach the elastic resistance band to the adjacent connector member, wherein during use: application of tension force through the elastic resistance band by a user standing on the upper surface causes a corresponding compressive force between the platform and the base member, which is observed in the one or more compression force sensors disposed between the platform and the base member; application of body weight or impact force by the user standing on the upper surface causes a force to be transmitted from the platform downward toward the base, resulting in a corresponding compressive force between the platform and the base member, which is also observed in the one or more compression force sensors disposed between the platform and the base member and the limitations regarding exercise types of independent claim 50 is not supported in the foreign priority documents AU 2021901479, AU 2021221661, or AU 2022900585 only in the AU 2021903980 and PCT/AU2022/050480 documents. As such the earliest date of priority for the claims as a whole is 12/09/2021.
Response to Amendment
The amendments have been sufficient to overcome the original claim objections, drawing objections, and original rejections under 35 USC 112(a)/(b) present in the previous Final Action.
Drawings
The amendment filed 05/15/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Newly added figure 7 introduces new matter not originally disclosed in the specification. Specifically the structure with what appears to be a stitching cross pattern coupling the carabiner 701 to elastic resistance band.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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) 50-66, and 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oltorik et al. US 11260262 B2, in further view of Hurst US 20180369640 A1.
Regarding claim 50:
Oltorik teaches a device configured to measure athletic activity(“The embodiments shown in FIGS. 41-52 can have all the features of the embodiments described above, including a platform base 101 having a top surface 1011, a bottom surface 1012, and a plurality of base attachment mechanisms 103, wherein one or more of the plurality of base attachment mechanisms 103 may be removably coupled with a resistance band 106, and can incorporate force sensors 122 (as described above).” See col.13 line 61- col. 14 line 1), the device comprising: a platform (platform base 101) having an upper surface (top surface 1011) configured to receive an applied force (The examiner notes that the upper surface being what a user stands/exercises upon when using the device means it is configured to receive an applied force); a base member (bottom surface 1012) coupled to the platform (See figure 41); a plurality of apertures (locking grooves 402) formed through the platform (See figure 41); and a plurality of connector members (attachment member 103) disposed on the base member (See figure 42) such that the user is able to connect one or more elastic resistance bands to the base member (“wherein one or more of the plurality of base attachment mechanisms 103 may be removably coupled with a resistance band (described below).” See col. 3 lines 58-61), wherein each connector member of the plurality of connector members is located adjacent to a corresponding one of the apertures (“a plurality of locking grooves 402 extend from peripheral groove 400 toward and to the first surface 1011, such that corresponding base attachment mechanisms 103 can be urged in a pivoting manner into the locking grooves in a substantially vertical position, i.e., orthogonally vertical with respect to the top surface 1011, as depicted in FIG. 50 in which an angle A is shown, with the angle being substantially 90 degrees.” See col. 14 lines 28-35 and figure 42), each connector member of the plurality of connector members being configured to releasably couple with a carabiner of a given one of the one or more elastic resistance bands (“As shown in FIG. 6, a resistance band 106 can be attached to an attachment mechanism 103 by a coupling mechanism 107, such as a clip, carabiner, or the like.” See col. 4 lines 57-60), such that a user is able to selectively manually progress the carabiner provided by the given one of the elastic resistance bands through a given one of the apertures (The examiner notes that this limitation is merely claiming the user connecting the resistance band to the connector member, which is the inherent function of the carabiner and connector member as discussed above), thereby to releasably attach that elastic resistance band to the adjacent connector member (The examiner notes this is merely reciting the function of a carabiner), wherein during use: application of tension force through the elastic resistance band by a user standing on the upper surface causes a corresponding compressive force between the platform and the base member (The examiner notes that col. 9 lines 13-16 discusses how the force sensors 122 can detect and quantify the tensile force experienced in the resistance band(s) during use, which would inherently create a compressive force on the platform as the user pulls up via the band, and simultaneously pushes down on the platform during use.), and a processing unit configured to process data received from the one or more sensors (“The administrative computer system can include a processor for operating the administrative software system and a memory that can be non-transitory computer-readable media, and that can be electronically coupled to other devices, such as an input device, like a keypad, touch screen, or any other suitable input device that can accept and store information, and one or more suitable output devices, such as a computer display, printer, and the like.” See col. 17 lines 16-24. The examiner notes that as depicted in figure 60 the client devices receive data from the sensors which is processed by the administrative system) to derive one or more performance metrics associated with at least: a resistance exercise, based on tension applied through the one or more elastic resistance bands (“In an embodiment, the force sensor 122 can be programmed to detect, measure, store, and/or transmit force values applied to the resistance band.” See col.8 lines 41-43. The examiner notes that the paragraph further specifies that the data includes minimal threshold force values, maximum force values, and/or cyclic force value data on a regular time interval after a minimal threshold force is detected, such as every second (one value per second), every half second (two values per second), every tenth of a second (ten values per second), or every two-tenths of a second (five times per second). Which are all metrics involved with the forces on the platform while the user exerts force/tension to the resistance band(s)).
PNG
media_image1.png
556
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
436
244
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
396
336
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Oltorik fails to teach that the base member is coupled to the platform via one or more compression force sensors disposed between the platform and the base member, such that the one or more sensors are configured to detect compressive force generated between the platform and the base member, and that the compressive force generated between the platform and the base member is observed in the one or more compression force sensors disposed between the platform and the base member; application of body weight or impact force by the user standing on the upper surface causes a force to be transmitted from the platform downward toward the base, resulting in a corresponding compressive force between the platform and the base member, which is also observed in the one or more compression force sensors disposed between the platform and the base member.
The examiner notes that as discussed above Oltorik includes force sensors, and processing the data gather from the force sensors to determine the exercise types, and metrics associated with the exercise and user as noted above , but it fails to specifically teach sensors in the platform and a measurement of the compressive force of the platform.
Hurst, however, teaches an exercise device design for capturing the force dispersed by slamming a weighted exercise ball or similar heavy exercise equipment designed to strike, hit, or throw (See abstract), and further teaches that the base member is coupled to the platform via one or more compression force sensors (force sensitive resistor 70) disposed between the platform and the base member (“Between the bottom durable mat 80 and top durable mat 30 shall be the devices wiring 60 and force sensitive resistor sensor 70.” See paragraph [0018] and figure 4), such that the one or more sensors are configured to detect compressive force generated between the platform and the base member (“A durable mat for absorbing impact force 30 will be located above the force sensitive resistor 70. On the durable mat 30 there will be a target 40 adhered to its surface indicating where to strike the mat to register an impact force on the force sensitive resistor sensor 70.” See paragraph [0018], where the impact force measured is a compressive force of the surface of the mat compressing when struck), and that the compressive force generated between the platform and the base member is observed in the one or more compression force sensors disposed between the platform and the base member (See above citation of paragraph [0018] which states that the force sensors are placed in between the platform and the base and that detect/observe forces applied to the target on the top platform of the device); application of body weight or impact force by the user standing on the upper surface causes a force to be transmitted from the platform downward toward the base, resulting in a corresponding compressive force between the platform and the base member, which is also observed in the one or more compression force sensors disposed between the platform and the base member (“The invention is a force sensing device used on the floor or fastened to the wall to indicate the force generated from an individual throwing a weighted ball, swinging a sledge hammer, or similar equipment and striking the device’s force sensor.” See paragraph [0010], with paragraph [0010] further specifying “Data captured and displayed to the user includes, but is not limited to, the most recent hit force, the amount of hits, the average force of the hits, the total cumulative force from all hits, and a timer.”).
PNG
media_image4.png
277
378
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
616
330
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Oltorik to include one or more sensors in the platform to detect the compressive force of the upper surface of the platform while the user performs a variety of impact exercises and to process related metrics thereof as taught by Hurst, in order to allow the user to receive feedback and exercise by performing a wider variety of movements, which the system of Oltorik already does with the resistance band based exercises.
Regarding claim 51:
Oltorik as modified by Hurst teaches the device according to claim 50, wherein the plurality of distinct exercise types include two or more of: (i) body weight exercises (See rejection of claim 50): (ii) resistance exercises (See rejection of claim 50); and (iii) object impacting exercises (See rejection of claim 50), being object impacting exercises wherein the user throws an object against the upper surface of the platform whilst the user is standing on the platform
Regarding claim 52:
Oltorik as modified by Hurst teaches the device according to claim 50, wherein the one or more sensors configured to monitor force applied to the upper surface of the platform include a sensor configured to measure a metric associated with a force of an object impacting the upper surface (See rejection of claim 50), wherein the object is thrown against the upper surface of the platform whilst the user is standing on the platform (See rejection of claim 50), wherein the upper surface of the platform has a length dimension and width dimension (The examiner notes that since the platform of Oltorik is a physical object it inherently includes a length and width) to allow the object to be thrown and impacted forwards of the user's feet (See rejection of claim 50 which shows the user having room to stand on the platform while exercising, or if the user chose to slam the ball/sledgehammer they can stand near the platform in order to do so).
Regarding claim 53:
Oltorik as modified by Hurst teaches the device according to claim 50, wherein the plurality of connector members enable positioning of the connection of the resistance bands relative to the width and length of the surface of the platform (See rejection of claim 50, which outlines and depicts the user connecting resistance bands along the length and width of the platform to the connector members).
Regarding claim 54:
Oltorik as modified discloses the device according to claim 50, wherein the processing of data received from the one or more sensors, thereby to derive metrics representative of athletic performance includes processing time-series data from the sensors thereby to determine a measure representative of cumulative force over a specified time period (“In general, an application on an external device can report at least four pieces of information: (1) force (resistance) measured at any moment; (2) force (resistance) total per session; (3) time of a session; and, (4) the percent of time of the session that was under force (resistance).” See col.10 line 67-col. 11 line 5. The examiner notes that col. 11 lines 6-10 further state, “In addition to current data, periodic, e.g., daily, data can be transmitted and received. As depicted in FIG. 26, for example, showing two smart phones with data displayed, an indication of total weight, e.g., pounds, 136 for the period can be displayed.” Therefore force per session, and daily total weight lifted during the specified period are both metrics related to cumulative force over a specified time period).
Regarding claim 55:
Oltorik as modified by Hurst teaches the device according to claim 54,wherein processing of data received from the one or more sensors, thereby to derive metrics representative of athletic performance includes processing time-series data from the sensors thereby to determine a measure representative of average impact force over a specified time period (See rejection of claim 50, and the examiner notes that the system of Hurst includes, as noted above, a timer so the user knows what their average force is during the set time).
Regarding claim 56:
Oltorik as modified discloses the device according to claim 50, wherein the predefined category of exercise is an exercise performed repetitively as repetitions (“The transmitted and received data and/or calculated and reported information can also include the number of cycles, or repetitions, commonly called “reps” and the number of calories burned 130, as well as the time of the workout, 132 for an exercise session” See col.10 lines 58-62) , and the metrics representative of athletic performance are calculated for each repetition and for a collection of repetitions (“A “rep” can be correlated with one peak force measurement as measured by the force sensor 122.” See col. 10 lines 62-63), wherein the repetitions are determined via processing of time series derived from the one or more sensors (“the system 200 can utilize one of several algorithms to approximate an accurate measure of force, average force, and/or total force, and each can be visualized with respect to the three representative graphs of FIGS. 55-57, in which individual prospective reps (measured, recorded, and/or reported peak force measures) are shown as peaks A-F progressing from Time=0 to a finish time.” See col.15 line 63-col. 16 line3) .
Regarding claim 57:
Oltorik as modified discloses the device according to claim 50, wherein the sensors record the applied force as time domain information (“The transmitted, received or calculated data can also indicate real time phenomena, such as by indicated by pulsing circles 134 to show that the resistance force being measured is increasing or decreasing. In general, an application on an external device can report at least four pieces of information: (1) force (resistance) measured at any moment; (2) force (resistance) total per session; (3) time of a session; and, (4) the percent of time of the session that was under force (resistance).” See col.10 line 64- col.11 line 5. The examiner notes that per session, time of a sessions, percent of time of the session was under force, and real time are all time domains the information related to the applied force was collected within).
Regarding claim 58:
Oltorik as modified discloses the device according to claim 57, wherein the metrics are derived from the time domain information (See rejection of claim 57 where the measured metrics are processed relative to a number of various time domains).
Regarding claim 59:
Oltorik as modified discloses the device according to claim 50, wherein the tension is an elastic tension (“The force sensing module 1225 can include any of known force transducers, including strain gauge load cells, such as foil strain gauges, semiconductor strain gauges, thin-film strain gauges, and wire strain gauges; piezoelectric crystal, including multi-component piezoelectric force transducers; pressure detectors, such as hydraulic or pneumatic load cells; elastic devices, magneto-elastic devices, vibrating elements, dynamic devices, and plastic deformation.” See col 10 lines 36-43. The examiner notes that strain gauges measures the tension and deformation of an object to measure the force experienced by what is being measured, since the sensors above measure elastic resistance bands, the tension measured would be an elastic tension).
Regarding claim 60:
Oltorik as modified discloses the device according to claim 50 including a visual feedback device (“As depicted in FIG. 25, for example, showing two smartphones with data displayed, an application on the external device can receive data including current data, such as weight, e.g., pounds, lifted 128, and can calculate and report other information, such as maximum pounds, average pounds, or other weight reporting” See col.8 lines 52-58) which is configured to provide to the user a visual indication of a magnitude of force derived from the one or more sensors substantially in real time (“The transmitted, received or calculated data can also indicate real time phenomena, such as by indicated by pulsing circles 134 to show that the resistance force being measured is increasing or decreasing” See col. 8 line 64-67).
Regarding claim 61:
Oltorik as modified discloses the device according to claim 50, wherein the processing unit is configured to execute software instructions representative of one or more predefined workout programs, thereby to, via a display screen (“By way of example, a sample screen shot of a client interface, such as can be displayed on a smartphone I/O device 2004, is shown in FIG. 53.” See col.15 line 49-51): (i) instruct the user to perform athletic activities (See figure 53 which depicts an example screenshot of a client interface showing a predefined workout program including what exercises need to be performed, with how many resistance bands, in a number of sets, with a desired number of repetitions which are all instructions in relation to an exercise to be performed); and (ii) display data derived from the one or more sensors thereby to provide feedback data regarding athletic performance in an executing one of the one or more predefined workout programs (“As depicted in FIG. 25, for example, showing two smartphones with data displayed, an application on the external device can receive data including current data, such as weight, e.g., pounds, lifted 128, and can calculate and report other information, such as maximum pounds, average pounds, or other weight reporting.” See col. 10 lines 52-58 and figure 25), wherein the feedback data is determined based on processing of time series data from the one or more sensors and represents one or more of the following, applied force, time under tension/force, cumulative applied force during a workout period (“In general, an application on an external device can report at least four pieces of information: (1) force (resistance) measured at any moment; (2) force (resistance) total per session; (3) time of a session; and, (4) the percent of time of the session that was under force (resistance).” See col.10 line 67- col. 11 line 5), average per-event force during a workout period (See above citation of col. 10 lines 52-58), effort derived from force normalised for object mass, repetition rate, average effort, object acceleration, lift force metrics, acceleration, total mass lifted (pounds lifted 128), and calories burned (See figure 25).
The examiner notes that the phrase “one or more of the following” preceding the list of data types requires that only one of the options are necessary for the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image6.png
534
680
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
502
744
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 63:
Oltorik as modified teaches the device according to claim 50 but fails to teach a display positioned adjacent the upper surface and positioned for viewing by the user standing on the upper surface.
Hurst, however, teaches an exercise device design for capturing the force dispersed by slamming a weighted exercise ball or similar heavy exercise equipment designed to strike, hit, or throw, and further teaches a display positioned adjacent the upper surface and positioned for viewing by the user standing on the upper surface (“The housing 20 for the display, battery, and processor shall be fastened to the durable mat 30, and wiring shall penetrate through the durable mat 30 and be routed to the force sensitive resistor sensor 70. In the housing 20 will be located the digital display 10, processor for the device 50, and battery with associated wiring. The internal components are mounted to the housing 20. A clear window 90 in the housing 20 will enable the device user to see the digital display 10 during operation.” See paragraph [0018] and figure 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
277
378
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the platform of Oltorik to include a display positioned adjacent the upper surface as taught by Hurst, in order for the user to be able to see the tracked exercise metrics, feedback, or other information already collected and provided by the system of Oltorik without needing to look at a phone, or remote screen and they can continue to perform exercises uninterrupted.
Regarding claim 64:
Oltorik as modified discloses the device according to claim 63, wherein the display is configured to provide instructions in relation to an exercise that is to be performed (See figure 53 which depicts an example screenshot of a client interface showing a predefined workout program including what exercises need to be performed, with how many resistance bands, in a number of sets, with a desired number of repetitions which are all instructions in relation to an exercise to be performed).
Regarding claim 65:
Oltorik as modified by Hurst teaches the device according to claim 64, wherein the display is configured to provide live metrics for an exercise that is being performed (See rejection of claim 50, which claim 63 depends on, which claim 64 depends on which claim 65 depends on, with the examiner noting that paragraph [0185] of the instant application’s specification defines “live metrics” as “Live workout metrics. For example, this may include repetition count, repetition rates, calories burned, calorie burn rate, repetition impact force, average impact force, cumulative impact force, resistance metrics, and so on.” Which as stated above the system of Oltorik already tracks/processes/displays this data).
Regarding claim 66:
Oltorik as modified teaches the device according to claim 65, wherein the live metrics include a measure of cumulative force applied (“In general, an application on an external device can report at least four pieces of information: (1) force (resistance) measured at any moment; (2) force (resistance) total per session; (3) time of a session; and, (4) the percent of time of the session that was under force (resistance).” See col.10 line 67- col. 11 line 5).
Regarding claim 68:
Oltorik as modified disclose the device according to claim 50, wherein there are at least four of the connector members (See figure 42).
Claim(s) 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oltorik et al. US 11260262 B2, in view of Hurst US 20180369640 A1, and further in view of Duffy US 20180043205 A1.
Oltorik as modified teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 67:
Oltorik as modified teaches the device according to claim 50, but fails to teach including a plurality of lights positioned adjacent the upper surface, wherein the lights are configured to provide an indication of an amount of force being applied by the user during an exercise activity.
The examiner notes that the system of Oltorik does include using a plurality lights to provide a visual indication of the amount of force being applied by the user during an exercise activity (“Indicator lights can indicate, for example, the relative force applied to a resistance band and/or the power status of the force sensor power supply. In an embodiment, a plurality of LED lights can be used, with the lights indicating to a user or others increased force (i.e., increased resistance)” See col.10 lines 21-26), but that specifically the lights being positioned adjacent to the upper surface is not taught.
Duffy, however, teaches an interactive exercise mat that provides a user a visual feedback through illumination of a lighting means based on the position of a user's body parts on the mat, and further teaches a plurality of lights positioned adjacent to the upper surface (“The lighting means can be disposed either within the first protective layer, or underneath said layer, and, when illuminated, shines through the top outer layer and is visible by the mat's user. The lighting means preferably includes a plurality of light emitting diodes (LED).” See paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lights of Oltorik to be placed adjacent to the upper surface of the platform as taught by Duffy, in order for the user to be able to see the visual indications/feedback from the system without needing to look at a display screen, or a remote device while they workout.
Claim(s) 69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oltorik et al. US 11260262 B2, in view of Hurst US 20180369640 A1, and further in view of Neuhaus et al. US 20220062738 A1.
Oltorik as modified teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 69:
Oltorik as modified discloses a method of operating a smartphone (See rejection of claim 50), but fails to teach the method including executing computer code which configures the smartphone to deliver a user interface configured to control the device according to claim 50.
The examiner notes that as stated above in the rejection of claim 50, the system of Oltorik does include operating a smartphone to display a user interface (See figures 25 and 53 which depict various examples of user interfaces the system can display for the user on a smartphone) which includes executing computer code such as an application (“As depicted in FIG. 25, for example, showing two smartphones with data displayed, an application on the external device can receive data including current data, such as weight, e.g., pounds, lifted 128, and can calculate and report other information, such as maximum pounds, average pounds, or other weight reporting. “ See col. 10 lines 52-58), but that Oltorik fails to specifically teach that the user interface can control a device.
Neuhaus, however, teaches a method of guiding pacing of a strength training exercise includes receiving a selection of a current exercise from a plurality of available exercises, determining an illumination pattern based on a desired pacing for the current exercise, and controlling a lighting system to display a plurality of repetitions of the illumination pattern, and further teaches executing computer code (“User input devices 406 can include a switch, touchscreen, pedal, buttons (e.g., buttons 114), dials, microphone-based speech-recognition device, gesture-control camera systems, smartphone or tablet interfaces, smart watch interfaces, and/or various other devices configured to accept user input and communicate the user input to the controller 402.” See paragraph [0062]) which configures the smartphone to deliver the user interface configured to control a device according to claim 50 (“For example, if a user plans (e.g., selects via user interface) to perform ten repetitions of a squat exercise, the lighting device 120 may be controlled to repeat the illumination pattern ten times.” See paragraph [0052]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Oltorik to configure the user interface depicted on the smartphone to allow it to control a device as taught by Neuhaus, in order for the user to select desired workout programs, intensity, and feedback configurations so that they can tailor the session to their needs more specifically.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection presented under 35 USC 103 in view of the combination of Oltorik and Hurst for claims 50-66, and 68, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the combination fails to teach the claimed device. As discussed above in the new rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendment Oltorik alone teaches a platform with a base member, resistance band connector members, resistance bands, sensors which detect tensile forces applied via resistance bands, and software functionality to derive performance metrics of a user during exercise, what it fails to teach is that the force detecting sensors are housed in the platform and detect the inherent compressive forces generated by a user standing on/exercising on the platform, which is then taught with the combination of the secondary Hurst reference. In regards specifically to the applicant’s argument that Oltorik cannot be applied to claim 50 for not teaching an indirect measurement of the resistance band tension as a compressive force between the platform and the base member, the examiner notes that this limitation is not claimed, and furthermore would be taught if claimed as the user standing on the platform, which would have the compression detecting sensors as a result of the combination of the references, and pulling or exercising against the force of the resistance bands such as in the squatting exercise example shown in the rejection above, as the user is compressing the platform, even though a movement of the platform downward towards the base is not claimed.
In addition, amended claim 50 recites that one or more sensors compressive force sensors are required for the claimed invention, and therefore the single sensor of Hurst does apply to the claimed limitation, and whether or not multiple types of sensors can or cannot be present in the device overall has not been specified in the claim language.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN ANGELO DICUIA whose telephone number is (703)756-4713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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.
/JONATHAN A DICUIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights