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 .
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is in response to the RCE filed on 06/18/2026. Claims 1-9 are pending in the application. Claims 1-9 have been rejected as set forth below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the newly added Figure 8, shows a two way communication/connection (double headed arrow) between the cranks (51,52) and the command and control system (8), while such is not supported by the original specification, and therefore is considered New Matter. 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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the gymnastic apparatus comprises” in line 9, needs to be changed to “the gymnastic apparatus further comprises”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“contrast unit” exerting a braking torque/action on said shaft in claim 1,
“motion reversing means” which force them [the cranks] to rotate simultaneously in the opposite direction, in claim 1, and
“motion transmission system” which can vary the ratio of transmission, in claim 8.
In these limitations, the terms “unit”, “means” and “system”, are generic placeholders, respectively, that are coupled with functional language of: exerting a braking torque/action on said shaft (the braking torque exerted on said shaft by at least one contrast unit/the actions exerted by said contrast unit), force them [the cranks] to rotate simultaneously in the opposite direction, and vary the ratio of transmission, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited functions and the generic placeholders are not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. According to the specification (including the originally filed claims):
“contrast unit” has been considered to include one of: an electric servomotor, a circular hydraulic actuator (see ¶ [0046], [0048] of the specification and the original claims 4-5), and equivalents thereof.
“motion reversing means” has been considered to include: hydraulic piston / cylinder assemblies in hydraulic communication by a non-expandable duct (see original claim 2 and ¶ [0040] of the specification), and equivalents thereof.
“motion transmission system” has been considered to include: a belt, a chain or a series of gears (see ¶ [0041] of the specification), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 1 recites: “wherein the gymnastic apparatus comprises an automatic command and control device configured to detect an angular position and a load to which each of said cranks is subjected”. However, nowhere in the original specification, support has been provided regarding the automatic command and control device being configured to detect an angular position and a load to which each of said crank is subjected. Applicant has cited paragraph [44] of the originally filed specification (paragraph [48] of the substitute specification), where support for such limitation is provided. However, paragraph [44] of the original specification recites: “The present gymnastic apparatus includes a command and control system (8) of electronic type, functionally connected to means for detecting in real time both the position of each crank and the effort exerted on it”, and paragraph [48] of the substitute specification recites: “Thanks to the possibility of detecting both the position of and the force on the cranks in real time, the command and control system can give a feedback to the contrast unit in real time, according to any preset function”. However, neither of these paragraphs recites the command and control system being configured to detect a(n) (angular) position and a load on each of the cranks. In fact, paragraph [44] of the original specification, clearly states that position and effort/load on each crank is detected by “means for detecting…the position of each crank and the effort exerted on it” and that the command and control device is functionally connected to such means for detecting. Paragraph [48] of the substitute specification, does not describe that detecting both the position of and the force on the cranks in real time, is being performed by the command and control device. No other paragraph within the original specification, provides support for the recited limitation. As such, this limitation is considered New Matter. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claims 2-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claim 1.
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 1-9 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 1 recites: “wherein the gymnastic apparatus comprises an automatic command and control device configured to detect an angular position and a load to which each of said cranks is subjected”. However, it is unclear how an automatic command and control device detects an angular position and a load to which each of said cranks is subjected. According to paragraph [45] of the original specification (paragraph [46] of the substitute specification), the command and control unit includes both data processing means and a user interface. (Also as mentioned above, paragraph [44] of the original specification, clearly states that the command and control device/system (8) is functionally connected to means for detecting in real time the position of each crank and the effort exerted on it). As such, it is unclear how such command and control unit (data processing means and a user interface) detects an angular position and a load to which each of said cranks is subjected. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claims 2-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered. Although the amendments made to the specification, drawings and the claims, have overcome some of the previous objections and rejections, they have introduced new issues that resulted in new objections and rejections (see above for details).
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the newly added limitations of claim 1 reciting: “wherein the gymnastic apparatus comprises an automatic command and control device configured to detect an angular position and a load to which each of said cranks is subjected”, and stating: “A person of ordinary skill would understand the specific structure (e.g.., sensors, electronic devices, etc.) included in the automatic command and control device for such detection functions, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The original specification, paragraph [45], recites: “The command and control unit is functionally connected with the contrast unit (7) and includes both data processing means and a user interface, the latter of which may be a dedicated touch panel or may be replaced by a computer or smartphone”. As such, the original specification clearly states that the command and control unit includes data processing means and a user interface. Based on this paragraph and other paragraphs in the specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not conclude that the command and control unit (further) includes other undisclosed parts such as sensors, etc. or that a processing means and/or a user interface (i.e., touch panel, computer or smartphone) include(s) such sensor(s) to detect the angular position and the load of the cranks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 pm.
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.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights