Detailed Action
This is the Final Rejection based on application 18/561,754 filed on 11/17/2023, and which claims as amended on 11/07/2025 have been considered in the ensuing 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 .
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, wherein: each connector member is positioned adjacent one of the apertures; and each connector member is configured to releasably couple with a connection assembly provided by the elastic resistance band; such that a user is able to selectively manually progress a connection assembly provided by an elastic resistance band through a given one of the apertures, thereby to releasably attach the elastic resistance band to the adjacent connector member, such that when, in use, the user applies a tension force through the elastic resistance band whilst standing on the upper surface, that creates a corresponding compressive force between the platform and the base member which is detected and quantifiable by the one or more sensors, 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, and original rejections under 35 USC 112(b) for claims 50,52,60, and 69 present in the Non-Final Action, however as noted below new rejections and objections were required with the presentation of the newly amended claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “connection assembly”, the “elastic resistance band”, and the “force transmission structure” of claim 50, and the “connection assembly” of claim 62, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 50 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On lines 11-12, “each located adjacent to a corresponding one of the apertures” should be – each connector member of the plurality of connector members are located adjacent to a corresponding one of the apertures of the plurality of apertures --.
On line 12, “each connector member” should be –each connector member of the plurality of connector members--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 50-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 50 recites the limitations “application of tension force through the elastic resistance band by a user standing on the upper surface causes a force to be transmitted from the base member upward toward the platform, resulting in compressive force between the platform and the bas 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 compressive force between the platform and the base member, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect compressive force resulting from both types of force application” on lines 25-30.
This newly added functionality of tension in elastic resistance bands causing the bottom base member to be pulled upward towards the platform creating an upward compressive force on the force sensors is not discussed anywhere in the specification, nor shown in the drawings of the instant application. The specification does discuss that when the user performs exercises with resistance bands acting against the upward forces of the user as they stand, press, push, or squat into the top platform the tension causes the user to push downward and the resulting compressive force is measured. Furthermore, throughout the specification it is stated that the function of the force sensors is for impact measurements or weight sensing purposes when the user strikes downward on the platform, or exerts forces downward while resisting tension from resistance bands, or lifts free weights. Only one type of compression force, or one direction of compressive force, is discussed throughout the specification this new upward pulling tension/compressive force from the resistance bads, is supported in the specification, nor were any of these new limitations previously presented in the original filing of the application.
In addition on lines 4-5, the new limitation of “such that the platform and base define a force transmission structure” is not mentioned anywhere in the specification, and how the top and bottom surface are made to transmit forces is not discussed or shown in the specification or drawings.
Dependent claims 51-70 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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 50-70 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 50 recites the limitation “the one or more elastic resistance bands” on lines 36-37. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as only a single elastic resistance band has been claimed thus far.
In addition, claim 50 recites the limitation “mechanically coupled” on line 4. There is no definition in the specification as to what the applicant is considering as a “mechanical coupling”, therefore it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the limitation are. The specification in paragraph [00192] does define the term “coupled” as "Coupled" may mean that two or more elements are either in direct physical or electrical contact, or that two or more elements are not in direct contact with each other but yet still co-operate or interact with each other.”, but that specifically the phrase “mechanically coupled” is not found in the specification.
Claim 61 recites that “the feedback data represents one or more of the following” on line 8. The examiner notes that how the data displayed can be multiple of the possible options is unclear, the examiner notes that the specification states that the display 110 “ enables for the display of a range of information” in and that “In some cases a user can switch between different metric display options, as is common in known workout equipment.” However, as claimed the display must be able to include one, multiple, or all of the options simultaneously.
Claim 62 recites the limitation “a connection assembly” on line 2. It is unclear if this is the same as the connection assembly previously claimed in claim 50, or a separate different connection assembly.
Claim 70 recites the limitation “a device according to claim 50”. It is unclear how the claimed limitations which relate to a new secondary platform, and be the same device as that claimed in claim 50.
Claim 70 also recites the limitation “a secondary platform for supporting a user” on lines 1-2. It is unclear if this user is the same as the user claimed in claim 50 or if this is a second separate user from the one throughout the independent claim, it is further unclear how many users are necessary for the invention if the instant user is different from the previously claimed user.
Furthermore, on lines 10-11, each instance of “the medicine ball” has insufficient antecedent basis as a medicine ball has not yet been claimed.
In addition, it is unclear what the claimed limitations throughout claim 70 are attempting to mean. The examiner notes that the claim reads as if the user is standing on a secondary platform with a medicine ball, and both puts the medicine ball on the platform, and lifts/lowers/ the ball during exercises while still carrying the medicine ball, and somehow the system determines a change in weight by comparing the weight of the user during lowering and lifting. However, this is unclear because if the user is carrying the ball the weight of the user and ball does not change based on whether the ball is raised or lowered, but the forces applied during say a squat may differ, and if the user is putting the ball solely on the secondary platform to measure the ball, and then picking the ball up and being measured what change in weight is actually being determined? Furthermore the examiner notes that paragraph [00128] of the specification of the instant application states “In some embodiments, the device includes a weight sensor, configured to measure weight of a medicine ball in isolation (that may be the same sensor used for measuring athletic performance). This may be integrated into the platform, so that a user rests the ball on the platform initially. In some embodiments, a user stands on a secondary platform, which contains a separate
force sensor. This allows the processing unit to determine weight of a user, weight of a user with the ball, and hence weight of the ball. It will be appreciated that the measured weight varies throughout usage as the user lifts and drops the ball”.
Furthermore the examiner notes that the limitation, “wherein the measured weight changes during use as the user lifts and lowers the medicine ball” on lines 10-11 is unclear. The weight of a person cannot change by lifting and lowering a medicine ball, the weight would stay the same as the user is still holding the ball while the sensors detect the exercise on top of the platform, the force the user exerts onto the platform in order to lift the ball may change, which is still measured by the force sensors, but the weight of the user and the medicine ball is physically consistent throughout an exercise. As stated in paragraph [00128] of the specification of the instant application however, the applicant does mention the user lifting and then dropping the ball and the weight changing which is different from the claimed limitation of lifting and lowering the ball while standing on the platform, so the examiner believes that the applicant is meaning to claim that at some point the user drops the ball, but as stated above this is not the wording used in the claimed limitation.
Dependent claims 51-60, and 63-69 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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) mechanically coupled to the platform (See figure 41. The examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, that with no further structural or functional limitations, “mechanically coupled” is being interpreted to mean coupled as defined in the specification of the instant application and therefore the bottom surface of Oltorik is shown to be coupled to the top surface)), such that the platform and base define a force transmission structure (The examiner notes that due to the new matter rejection and vagueness of the claimed limitation, the fact the user stands on top of the top surface of the platform, and during exercise presses downward while pulling against the tensile forces of resistance bands as shown throughout Oltorik, and discussed below in more detail, the top and bottom surfaces must allow the forces to be dissipated or transmitted in order for the platform not to break or be damaged and for the sensors to determine the exerted forces of the user to provide feedback.); 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), and each located adjacent to a corresponding one of the apertures (See figure 42), each connector member configured to releasably couple with a connection assembly (The examiner notes that due to the lack of direction from the drawings, see drawing objection above, any connection between the elastic resistance band and the attachment member, such as the carabiner connectors 156 depicted in figure 51, are being considered as connection assemblies) of an elastic resistance band (“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), such that the connection assembly is passed through a selected aperture to engage the connector member (The examiner notes that this limitation claiming a user is able to connect the resistance band through the aperture is inherent with the aperture housing the attachment mechanism which is meant to removable couple the resistance band as stated above), wherein during use: application of tension force through the elastic resistance band by a user standing on the upper surface causes a force to be transmitted from the base member upward toward the platform, resulting in , compressive force between the platform and the base member (The examiner notes that due to the introduction of new matter and the lack of definition from the specification and drawings as to how the platform is used as a transmission member, and moves to create an upward compression force from the bottom member moving upward to the top member, the invention of Oltorik discusses the tensile force of the elastic bands when it states, “During a workout, the force sensor 122 can detect and quantify, i.e., measure, the force, such as the tensile force, experienced in resistance band.” See col.9 lines 13-16 and figure 51, which arise from the user exerting a pushing force on the platform and would result in pulling the connector members up from the bottom base, would create a compressive force and is being considered as a force being transmitted from the base member to the platform); 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 one or more compression force sensors disposed between the platform and the base member, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect compressive force generated between the platform and the base member; and where 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 compressive force between the platform and the base member, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect compressive force resulting from both types of force application and an impact or body weight exercise, based on force applied to the upper surface, wherein the same sensors are used to detect compressive force for both types of exercise.
The examiner notes that 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 one or more compression force sensors (force sensitive resistor 70) disposed between the platform and the base member (See figure 4), wherein 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 where 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 compressive force between the platform and the base member, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect compressive force resulting from both types of force application and an impact or body weight exercise, based on force applied to the upper surface (“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.”), wherein the same sensors are used to detect compressive force for both types of exercise (The examiner notes that one force resistive sensor is taught by Hurst which is included between the top and bottom surfaces of the mat, which detects the compressive forces exerted by the user, and that due to the undefined claimed limitations, and new matter introduced which is not found in the specification nor drawings, a compression sensor which detects and measures the impact events, body weight exercises, and how much force is exerted to the platform is being considered as the same sensor detecting all compressive forces on the exercise device.).
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 62:
Oltorik as modified discloses the device according to claim 50, wherein each connector member is configured to releasably couple with a connection assembly provided by the elastic resistance band (See rejection of claim 50), wherein the connection assembly includes a carabiner (“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).
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 and 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.
Claim(s) 70 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 Rubin et al. US 11123609 B2.
Oltorik as modified by Hurst teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 70:
Oltorik as modified teaches a device according to claim 50 (The examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, this limitation is being considered to mean the same device as claimed in claim 50 not yet a second separate device),but fails to teach that the device comprises a secondary platform for supporting a user, wherein: the secondary platform comprises of one or more second force sensors separate from the force sensor of the first platform; the one or more second force sensors are configured to determine the weight of the user; and change in weight is determined by the processing unit by comparing a weight measurement of the user standing on the secondary platform without the medicine ball and a weight measurement of the user standing on the secondary platform while holding the medicine ball, wherein the measured weight changes during use as the user lifts and lowers the medicine ball.
The examiner notes that the invention taught by the combination of Oltorik and Hurst teaches the limitations requiring a medicine ball, and the structures of the platform including the force sensors and weight measurements, but that a second platform for a user, and a weight comparison is not taught.
Rubin, however, teaches an exercise device including a base defining an inner volume and a top supported by the base, the top defining an aperture, where the exercise device further includes a force sensor configured to measure force on the top and a motor disposed within the base and below the top, the motor including a cable extendable through the aperture (See abstract), and further teaches a secondary platform for supporting a user (“In certain implementations, multiple exercise platforms may be communicatively coupled by their respective communications modules 1108 to a single computing device (e.g., a class computer) associated with a large display (e.g., a leaderboard display), where the central computing device is configured to update the large display based on user performance or ranking, among other things.” See col. 18 lines 11-17. The examiner notes that multiple platforms communicatively coupled together shows that there is at least a secondary platform), wherein: the secondary platform comprises of one or more second force sensors separate from the force sensor of the first platform (The examiner notes that the exercise platform of Rubin includes multiple force sensors as discussed in col. 8 lines 32-35, and that as stated above multiple platforms can be connected together would require that the second platform have the same sensors but separate from the first platform) ; the one or more second force sensors are configured to determine the weight of the user (The force sensors in the top plates of the platform structure discussed in col. 8 lines 32-35 noted above, inherently are configured to determine the weight of the user, as they measure the force of the user standing on the platform); and change in weight is determined by the processing unit by comparing a weight measurement of the user standing on the secondary platform without the medicine ball and a weight measurement of the user standing on the secondary platform while holding the medicine ball, wherein the measured weight changes during use as the user lifts and lowers the medicine ball (The examiner notes that as noted in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, the weight of a person cannot change by lifting and lowering a medicine ball, the weight would stay the same as the user is still holding the ball while the sensors detect the exercise on top of the platform, the force the user exerts onto the platform in order to lift the ball may change, which is still measured by the force sensors, but the weight of the user and the medicine ball is physically consistent throughout an exercise. Furthermore, the examiner notes that Rubin does discuss a weight comparison of the total force/weight on the sensors, and the weight of the user, so that the resistance the user is exercising against may be determined, in col.7 lines 8-14, in relation to the tension of the cable/band of the invention, which means it has the capability to determine changes in weight through the use of the sensors and processors of the invention.)
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 device taught by Oltorik and Hurst, to include a second platform the user can stand on, with the same structures and functions as the first, as this accounts to a duplication of parts since the platforms share the same structures and functions and all three of Oltorik, Hurst, and Rubin teach measuring the forces on a platform and processing the data to provide feedback which would indicate a measured weight of the user, and any objects the user carries while standing on the platform.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the arguments with respect to the drawing objections previously presented, and maintained above, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the structures of the connection assembly and elastic resistance bands are not features of the invention, as at least independent claim 50 and dependent claim 62, directly claim the structures, and functions thereof and as stated in MPEP section 608.02 “The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.” Therefore the claimed subject matter is required to be shown in the drawings.
In regards to the rejections presented under 35 USC 112(b) the applicant did not sufficiently amend claim 61 to overcome all of the rejections presented and therefore the corresponding rejection has been maintained. Please see above.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually in relation to the rejection presented in regards to independent claim 50, one cannot show nonobviousness 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). The examiner notes that the combination of Oltorik and Hurst was used to teach an exercise platform which included a force sensor housed under the top platform to detect and measure the compressive forces during exercise, either with solely the user standing on top performing body weight exercises, the user exercising against a resistance of elastic resistance bands, or the user creating impacts against the top platform via slamming a medicine ball or sledge hammer to the top platform as discussed above. Please see the rejections above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 on (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