Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/594,247

USER INTERFACE FOR A MOTORIZED ISOKINETIC RESISTANCE EXERCISE MACHINE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Mar 04, 2024
Examiner
LO, ANDREW S
Art Unit
3784
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Schmidt Design LLC
OA Round
4 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
621 granted / 853 resolved
+2.8% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
878
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
37.1%
-2.9% vs TC avg
§102
29.8%
-10.2% vs TC avg
§112
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 853 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim 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. 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 limitation(s) is/are: “isokinetic resistance mechanism” (i.e., nonce term “mechanism” for isokinetic resistance in claim 1 to include a motor 40 as described in Applicant’s paras. [0030], [0040] of the specification. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, 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 § 102/103 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over by Habing et al. (US Pat. No. 5,435,798, July 25, 1995) (herein “Habing”). Regarding claim 1, Habing teaches an exercise apparatus comprising: a motor-driven (see Fig. 1, motor 24), speed controlled isokinetic mechanism (see col. 5, lines 1-13, see Fig. 1 below) configured to move at a predetermined speed in a first direction (i.e., causing movement of a 22 via the motor 24 either clockwise or counterclockwise at a predetermined preset speed, see Fig. 1 below and col. 5, lines 1-13 and col. 4, lines 7-13, where the motor 24 may have a fixed speed or variable); a user engageable grip 12 coupled through a flexible element 14 and an associated force measuring device (i.e., sensor 38 which measures position, speed, and direction, see col. 4, lines 34-44) to said isokinetic mechanism whereby when said user applies a force with a speed greater than said predetermined speed, a resistive force is produced, and when said user applies a force with a speed less than said predetermined speed said resistive force is substantially zero (or reduced) (see col. 5, lines 1-13, where when “isokinetic exercise is desired and an increase in speed is detected during the exercise stroke more than the set speed, the amount of effective resistance may be increased to maintain a preset or computed speed. Conversely, if a decrease in speed is detected, the amount of effective resistance may be reduced until the appropriate speed is regained); and a programmable controller 34 (see col. 5, lines 7-8) configured to automatically vary said predetermined speed of the isokinetic resistive mechanism during a programmed use (i.e., speed of rotation of drum 22 which correlates to resistance, see col. 4, lines 1-61 and any resistance adjustment can be pro-programmed, see col. 6, lines 1-10) during use (including course adjustments made by the controller 34). PNG media_image1.png 472 586 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Habing teaches wherein said speed is changed after each set of exercises (col. 6, lines 4-11, where adjustments to resistance may be pre-programed for successive sets of exercise repetitions, and resistance is directly correlated to speed at which motor 24 turns drum 22 via output shaft 28 and torque transmission device 26). Regarding claim 3, Habing teaches wherein said speed is changed after each repetition of exercise (col. 6, lines 4-11, where adjustments to resistance may be pre-programed for successive sets of exercise repetitions, and resistance is directly correlated to speed at which motor 24 turns drum 22 via output shaft 28 and torque transmission device 26). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on 08/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Habing teaches an electronically variable resistance that selection needs to be adjusted before each time the user desires to change speeds for exercise, whereas Applicant incorporates a force measuring device and programmable speed variation without weight assistance. This is not persuasive because Habing explicitly teaches a sensor 38 (see col. 4, lines 34-44) that provides indications to a programmable controller 34 of the position, speed, and direction of cable/handle 12 and providing the indications to the controller 34 to precisely control an exercise stroke and resistance. The sensor 38 functions as a force sensor that sends the sensed indications to the controller 34 to effectuate the resistance throughout an exercise stroke, so that if increase in speed is detected during the stroke, the effective resistance may be increased to maintain a preset speed (see col. 5, lines 1-13) or permit course adjustments made by the controller 34 (see col. 6, lines 1-4). Applicant argues that selection needs to be adjusted before each time the user desires to change speeds for exercise repetitions, but Habing teaches not only selection can be made before, but that isokinetic speed by the motor can be controlled during use (see col. 6, lines 1-4). Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive, and the rejection of claims 1-3 over Habing are maintained. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S LO whose telephone number is (571)270-1702. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. (9:30 am - 5:30 pm EST). 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. /ANDREW S LO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 04, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 24, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 19, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 11, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 13, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 11, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 15, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599811
Two-Handed Dumbbell Grip
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594456
FREE WEIGHT WITH ROTATING HANDLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582867
UPPER EXTREMITY REHABILITATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582864
MAT-TYPE EXERCISE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576311
COLLABORATIVE EXERCISE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+28.3%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 853 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month