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 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 limitation(s) is/are: “voice capture module”, “instruction module” in claims 1, 7-8; “user interface module” in claim 2; .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balandis (US 20140213414) in view of Small (US 11458351) and Leslie (US 3358480).
With respect to claim 1, Balandis discloses, an exercise system (fig. 1) having a voice command system (para. 195), comprising:
a knob (para. 195 details a knob type dial);
firmware (fig. 4; para. 76) configured to ascertain a difference between a new workout setting and a current workout setting (i.e. para. 155-157 detail various workout settings); and
the voice command system including:
a voice capture module configured to capture a voice command for the new workout setting (fig. 7f; para. 95); and
an instruction module in communication with the voice capture module and the firmware, the instruction module configured to provide the voice command to the firmware (para. 155-157) to adjust the knob from the current workout setting to the new workout setting when the current workout setting and the new workout setting are different (para. 195 details the knob and workout settings),
wherein the voice command system includes a user interface module in communication with the instruction module and the voice command system configured to convey a status update of the exercise system to a user on the user interface module (para. 195 details a user interface module that provides readouts and other indications about the status of the exercise system).
Balandis does not expressly disclose a motor configured to adjust the knob.
Small discloses a motor configured to adjust a knob (col. 8, lines 47-53 contemplates motorized knobs).
Small and Balandis are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of motorized knobs, taught by Small, to the knobs/dials of Balandis. The result would have been predictable, namely a Balandis knob that is motorized.
Neither Balandis nor Small expressly disclose that the knob is disposed within an interior of the exercise system.
It is first noted that the mere rearrangement of parts of a device are not patentable distinctions. The knob of Balandis will function the same way regardless of whether it is located in the interior or the exterior of the exercise system. As decided in In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), limitations drawn to the positioning of a starting switch were held not given patentable weight because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device. Should the applicant not find the above reasoning persuasive, the Office also provides below an additional 103 combination that discloses to dispose a control knob in the interior of a safety device.
Leslie discloses a control lock (fig. 2) for various mechanical control knobs (i.e. 18 in fig. 1; also see col. 1, lines 33-42). Such a knob upon being locked would be “within an interior” of the locking mechanism.
Small and Balandis are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely mechanical control devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to secure the mechanical knob of Balandis/Small with the locking cover taught by Leslie. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent tampering by unauthorized persons or children (Leslie; col. 1, lines 44-47).
With respect to claim 5, Balandis in view of Small and Leslie disclose, the voice command system of Claim 1 (see above).
Balandis further discloses, wherein the voice command system is configured to recognize a voice command to change to a resistance value (para. 195).
With respect to claim 7, Balandis discloses, a method for using an exercise system (fig. 1) having a voice command system by a user (para. 195), comprising:
providing exercise system having a voice command system including:
a knob (para. 195 details a knob type dial),
firmware (fig. 4; para. 76) configured to ascertain a difference between a new workout setting and a current workout setting (i.e. para. 155-157 detail various workout settings); and
the voice command system including:
a voice capture module configured to capture a voice command for the new workout setting (fig. 7f; para. 95); and
an instruction module in communication with the voice capture module and the firmware, the instruction module configured to provide the voice command to the firmware (para. 155-157) to adjust the knob from the current workout setting to the new workout setting when the current workout setting and the new workout setting are different (para. 195 details the knob and workout settings);
wherein the voice command system includes a user interface module in communication with the instruction module and the voice command system configured to convey a status update of the exercise system to a user on the user interface module (para. 195 details a user interface module that provides readouts and other indications about the status of the exercise system);
performing, by the user, a current workout with the exercise system in the current workout setting;
instructing the exercise system with a voice command to initiate the new workout setting; and
performing, by the user, a new workout with the exercise system in the new workout setting (para. 195 details a use of the device where the user selects the workout resistance, performs a movement, then selects a resistance “for the next exercise movement.” This discussion is seen as disclosing the claimed intended use of the device claimed in the performing/instructing/performing steps).
Balandis does not expressly disclose a motor configured to adjust the knob.
Small discloses a motor configured to adjust a knob (col. 8, lines 47-53 contemplates motorized knobs).
Small and Balandis are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of motorized knobs, taught by Small, to the knobs/dials of Balandis. The result would have been predictable, namely a Balandis knob that is motorized.
Neither Balandis nor Small expressly disclose that the knob is disposed within an interior of the exercise system.
It is first noted that the mere rearrangement of parts of a device are not patentable distinctions. The knob of Balandis will function the same way regardless of whether it is located in the interior or the exterior of the exercise system. As decided in In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), limitations drawn to the positioning of a starting switch were held not given patentable weight because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device. Should the applicant not find the above reasoning persuasive, the Office also provides below an additional 103 combination that discloses to dispose a control knob in the interior of a safety device.
Leslie discloses a control lock (fig. 2) for various mechanical control knobs (i.e. 18 in fig. 1; also see col. 1, lines 33-42). Such a knob upon being locked would be “within an interior” of the locking mechanism.
Small and Balandis are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely mechanical control devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to secure the mechanical knob of Balandis/Small with the locking cover taught by Leslie. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent tampering by unauthorized persons or children (Leslie; col. 1, lines 44-47).
Claim(s) 3, 8-10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balandis (US 20140213414) in view of Small (US 11458351) and Leslie (US 3358480) and further in view of Zhang (US 20220370854).
With respect to claim 3, Balandis in view of Small discloses, the voice command system of Claim 1 (see above).
Neither Balandis or Small expressly disclose an AI chip.
Zhang discloses, wherein the instruction module includes an artificial intelligence (AI) chip configured to capture a user instruction for one of the current workout setting and the new workout setting and communicate the user instruction to the instruction module (para. 29-30).
Zhang, Small and Balandis are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the AI capabilities of Zhang in the Balandis/Small device. The motivation for doing so would have been to offer personalized resistance for the exerciser (Zhang; para. 29).
With respect to claim 8, Balandis discloses, a method for using a voice command system (para. 195) of an exercise system by a user (fig. 1), comprising: providing the exercise system including:
a knob (para. 195 details a knob type dial),
firmware (fig. 4; para. 76) configured to ascertain a difference between a new workout setting and a current workout setting (i.e. para. 155-157 detail various workout settings); and
a voice command system including:
a voice capture module configured to capture a voice command for the new workout setting (fig. 7f; para. 95); and
an instruction module in communication with the voice capture module and the firmware, the instruction module configured to provide the voice command to the firmware (para. 155-157) to adjust the knob from the current workout setting to the new workout setting when the current workout setting and the new workout setting are different (para. 195 details the knob and workout settings);
wherein the voice command system includes a user interface module in communication with the instruction module and the voice command system configured to convey a status update of the exercise system to a user on the user interface module (para. 195 details a user interface module that provides readouts and other indications about the status of the exercise system);
instructing the exercise system with the voice command (para. 155-157, “a command of a specific number of pounds such as “fifty pounds”);
capturing the voice command with the voice capture module (para. 155-157);
determining, by the firmware, a position of a knob of the exercise system relative to the current workout setting (para. 155);
adjusting the position of the knob to the new workout setting (para. 155 “will cause the resistance mechanism 45 to change the exercise resistance delivered to the user.”); and
communicating to the user that the exercise system is in the new workout setting (para. 195; “In this case, the resistance level would best be indicated to the User as a digital number.”).
Balandis does not expressly disclose a motor configured to adjust the knob.
Small discloses a motor configured to adjust a knob (col. 8, lines 47-53 contemplates motorized knobs).
Small and Balandis are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of motorized knobs, taught by Small, to the knobs/dials of Balandis. The result would have been predictable, namely a Balandis knob that is motorized.
Neither Balandis nor Small expressly disclose that the knob is disposed within an interior of the exercise system.
It is first noted that the mere rearrangement of parts of a device are not patentable distinctions. The knob of Balandis will function the same way regardless of whether it is located in the interior or the exterior of the exercise system. As decided in In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), limitations drawn to the positioning of a starting switch were held not given patentable weight because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device. Should the applicant not find the above reasoning persuasive, the Office also provides below an additional 103 combination that discloses to dispose a control knob in the interior of a safety device.
Leslie discloses a control lock (fig. 2) for various mechanical control knobs (i.e. 18 in fig. 1; also see col. 1, lines 33-42). Such a knob upon being locked would be “within an interior” of the locking mechanism.
Small and Balandis are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely mechanical control devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to secure the mechanical knob of Balandis/Small with the locking cover taught by Leslie. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent tampering by unauthorized persons or children (Leslie; col. 1, lines 44-47).
Neither Balandis, Leslie or Small expressly disclose an AI chip.
Zhang discloses, wherein the instruction module includes an artificial intelligence (AI) chip configured to capture a user instruction for one of the current workout setting and the new workout setting and communicate the user instruction to the instruction module (para. 29-30).
Zhang, Small, Leslie and Balandis are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the AI capabilities of Zhang in the Balandis/Small/Leslie device. The motivation for doing so would have been to offer personalized resistance for the exerciser (Zhang; para. 29).
With respect to claim 9, Balandis, Small, Leslie and Zhang disclose, the method of Claim 8 (see above).
Balandis further discloses, wherein the exercise system further includes a sensor and the step of determining the position of the knob relative to the current workout setting further includes a step of determining the position of the knob with the sensor (para. 195; there inherently must exist a sensor to determine knob position as the user is providing inputs into the system via the knob).
With respect to claim 10, Balandis, Small, Leslie and Zhang disclose, the method of Claim 8 (see above).
Balandis further discloses, wherein the voice command to adjust from the current workout setting to the new workout setting includes a change to a resistance value (para. 157).
With respect to claim 18, Balandis, Small, Leslie and Zhang disclose, the method of Claim 8 (see above).
Balandis further discloses, wherein the voice command system further includes a user interface module in communication with the instruction module, the user interface module configured to convey a status update of the exercise system to the user, and the step of communicating to the user that the exercise system is in the new workout setting includes communicating via the user interface module (para. 195 details a user interface module that provides readouts and other indications about the status of the exercise system).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balandis (US 20140213414) in view of Small (US 11458351) and Leslie (US 3358480) and further in view of Zolezzi (US 20210077884).
With respect to claim 4, Balandis in view of Small and Leslie discloses, the voice command system of Claim 1 (see above).
While neither Balandis, Leslie or Small expressly disclose a microphone, such an inclusion would seem somewhat inherent to achieve Balandis’ voice control. Nevertheless to further compact prosecution Zolezzi is combined herein.
Zolezzi discloses, control of an exercise device resistance settings via voice control and specifically using a microphone (para. 89).
Zolezzi, Small, Leslie and Balandis are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a microphone, taught by Zolezzi, to detect exerciser oral inputs in the Balandis/Small/Leslie combination. The result would have been predictable, namely detection of oral inputs.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balandis (US 20140213414) in view of Small (US 11458351) and Leslie (US 3358480) and further in view of Penney (US 20050209066).
With respect to claim 6, Balandis in view of Small and Leslie disclose, the voice command system of Claim 1 (see above).
Neither Balandis, Leslie or Small expressly disclose a pre-programmed cycle.
Penney discloses, wherein the voice command system is configured to recognize a voice command to select a pre-programmed cycle (para. 39 details selection of exercise games (“pre-programmed cycles” that are selectable via voice input).
Penney, Small, Leslie and Balandis are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of pre-programmed cycles, taught by Penney, to the exercise device of Balandis/Small/Leslie. The motivation for doing so would have been to encourage the users.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balandis (US 20140213414) in view of Small (US 11458351), Leslie (US 3358480), Zhang (US 20220370854) and further in view of Sullivan (US 4313602).
With respect to claim 11, Balandis, Small, Leslie and Zhang disclose, the method of Claim 10 (see above).
Balandis and Small further discloses, wherein the voice command to adjust from the current workout setting to the new workout setting includes increasing the resistance value (Balandis; i.e. para. 157; “up ten”) and the step of adjusting the position of the knob relative to the new workout setting (Small; motorized knob will update based on user inputs).
Neither Balandis, Small, Leslie or Zhang expressly disclose further includes a step of rotating the knob clockwise using the motor.
Sullivan discloses clockwise rotation of knob to increase resistance in an exercise device (col. 4, lines 43-50).
Sullivan, Balandis, Small, Leslie and Zhang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to align clockwise rotation of the knob of Balandis with increased resistance as taught by Sullivan. Such an alignment would have had predictable results and a simple motivation of aligning increased parameters with clockwise rotation as is well-established and expected UI behavior.
With respect to claim 12, Balandis, Small, Leslie and Zhang disclose, the method of Claim 10 (see above).
Balandis and Small further discloses, wherein the voice command to adjust from the current workout setting to the new workout setting includes decreasing the resistance value (Balandis; i.e. para. 157; “down five”) and the step of adjusting the position of the knob relative to the new workout setting (Small; motorized knob will update based on user inputs).
Neither Balandis, Small, Leslie or Zhang expressly disclose further includes a step of rotating the knob counterclockwise using the motor.
Sullivan discloses counterclockwise rotation of knob to decrease resistance in an exercise device (col. 4, lines 43-50).
Sullivan, Balandis, Small, Leslie and Zhang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to align counterclockwise rotation of the knob of Balandis with decreased resistance as taught by Sullivan. Such an alignment would have had predictable results and a simple motivation of aligning decreased parameters with counterclockwise rotation as is well-established and expected UI behavior.
Claim(s) 13-14, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balandis (US 20140213414) in view of Small (US 11458351), Leslie (US 3358480) and Zhang (US 20220370854) and further in view of Penney (US 20050209066).
With respect to claim 13, Balandis, Small, Leslie and Zhang disclose, the method of Claim 8 (see above).
Neither Balandis, Small, Leslie or Zhang disclose preprogrammed cycles.
Penney discloses, further including the step of instructing the exercise system with a voice command further includes the steps of:
prompting the user to select a preprogrammed cycle, including weight and duration of the preprogrammed cycle (para. 39; difficulty and type of strike are seen to read on the weight selection; para. 39 also details duration selection);
selecting a preprogrammed cycle (para. 39; discusses the user selecting various games and their parameters by the user’s voice commands); and
playing an instructional video corresponding to the preprogrammed cycle (para. 38 details “workout videos featuring an instructor to be mimicked”).
Penney, Small, Zhang, Leslie and Balandis are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of pre-programmed cycles, taught by Penney, to the exercise device of Balandis/Small/Leslie/Zhang. The motivation for doing so would have been to encourage the users.
With respect to claim 14, Balandis, Small, Leslie, Zhang and Penney disclose, the method of Claim 13 (see above).
Penney further discloses, wherein the step of selecting the preprogrammed cycle includes selecting a fitness level (para. 39 details selecting a difficulty level).
With respect to claim 17, Balandis, Small, Leslie, Zhang and Penney disclose, the method of Claim 14 (see above).
Balandis and Penney further disclose, wherein the voice command system includes a user interface module in communication with the instruction module and user interface module configured to convey a status update of the exercise system to a user (para. 195 details a user interface module that provides readouts and other indications about the status of the exercise system), and the step of prompting the user to select a preprogrammed cycle, including weight and duration of the preprogrammed cycle, further includes prompting the user on the user interface module (Penney; para. 39).
With respect to claim 19, Balandis, Small, Leslie, Zhang and Penney disclose, the method of Claim 13 (see above).
Penney further discloses, further including a step of recording the selected preprogrammed cycle (as the cycles are preprogrammed, they inherently must also be recorded).
With respect to claim 20, Balandis, Small, Zhang and Penney disclose, the method of Claim 13 (see above).
Balandis in view of Small and Penney, further including a step of automatically adjusting the knob using the knob based on the selected preprogrammed cycle (as discussed in the above combination, Balandis discloses voice selection of exercise parameters with knob selection as well; Penney discloses preprogrammed routines, and Small discloses motorized knobs, the resulting combination would yield a device which updates motorized knobs based on preprogramed routines as claimed.).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balandis (US 20140213414) in view of Small (US 11458351), Leslie (US 3358480), Zhang (US 20220370854), Penney (US 20050209066) and Sullivan (US 4313602).
With respect to claims 15-16, Balandis, Small, Leslie, Zhang and Penney disclose, the method of Claim 14 (see above).
Balandis and Small further discloses, wherein the voice command to adjust from the current workout setting to the new workout setting includes increasing/decreasing the resistance value (Balandis; i.e. para. 157; “down five”) and the step of adjusting the position of the knob relative to the new workout setting (Small; motorized knob will update based on user inputs).
Neither Balandis, Small, Leslie, Penney or Zhang expressly disclose further includes a step of rotating the knob clockwise/counterclockwise using the motor.
Sullivan discloses clockwise/counterclockwise rotation of knob to increase/decrease resistance in an exercise device (col. 4, lines 43-50).
Sullivan, Balandis, Small, Leslie, Penney and Zhang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to align clockwise/counterclockwise rotation of the knob of Balandis with increased/decreased resistance as taught by Sullivan. Such an alignment would have had predictable results and a simple motivation of aligning increased/decreased parameters with clockwise/counterclockwise rotation as is well-established and expected UI behavior.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LeGree US 2020/0047051 – details resistance knobs located in an interior cavity of an exercise machine (207 in fig. 9).
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 William L Boddie whose telephone number is (571)272-0666. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4:15 M-F.
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at 571-272-4037. 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.
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625