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 .
Claims 1-15 have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 4, 5, 7, 9, 11-13, and 15 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.
Claims 5, 7, 9, and 11 recite the limitations "the ring-shaped compression ring" and “the ring-shaped force distribution gasket”, and “the ring-shaped force measuring sensors”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears that these claims should depend from claim 3 (not claim 1). For this Office action only, Examiner will presume that these claims depend from claim 3.
Furthermore, it is unclear as to whether or not claim 11 is a standalone independent claim, or if applicant intended it to refer to the training device of claim 1 (similar to how claim 14 is recited). For this Office action only, Examiner will presume that claim 11 is a standalone independent claim without imparting the device limitations of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cernasov et al (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0308524)
1. Cernasov et al disclose a hand-held physique training device, the hand-held physique training device comprises
a tubular handle (202/204) comprising a first end, a second end, an inner space between the first end and the second end (Figs 2B-2C) adapted to accommodate one or more resistance bands Examiner considers the inner space defined by the adaptor plates 210/212 to be capable of accommodating one or more resistance bands),
a first force measurement means (208) at the first end and a second force measurement means at the second end (Fig 2c), and
a first computing means (216; Par. 0047) connected to the first force measurement means and to the second force measurement means
2. Cernasov et al disclose the hand-held physique training device according to claim 1, wherein the first end comprises a first sudden enlargement portion and the second end comprises a second sudden enlargement portion (Examiner considers the seats in which the sensors 208 are mounted to be ‘sudden enlargement portions’).
4. Cernasov et al disclose the hand-held physique training device according to claim 1, wherein the tubular handle further comprises a longitudinal slit between the first end and the second end (Fig 2A).
6. Cernasov et al disclose the hand-held physique training device according to claim 1, wherein the first end of the tubular handle and the second end of the tubular handle each comprise a curved edge (Fig 1).
8. Cernasov et al disclose the hand-held physique training device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first end of the tubular handle and the second end of the tubular handle comprise enforcing means (Examiner considers the portion of the inner wall between the sensors and the edge to comprise the enforcing means).
10. Cernasov et al disclose the hand-held physique training device according to claim 1, wherein the hand-held physique training device further comprises at least one of an accelerometer, an electrocardiogram measuring apparatus, a bioimpedance analyzer, a feedback system, a charging means (Par. 0047).
11. Cernasov et al disclose a method for physique training, the method comprises measuring a voltage readings of force measuring sensors (208) by a first force measurement means and by a second force measurement means of a hand-held physique training device,
converting the measured voltage readings to a raw resistance values,
calculating the raw resistance values to a training load values (Par. 0037, 0040, 0047, and 0052).
However, Cernasov et al do not disclose the force measuring sensors being ring shaped. Examiner initially reminds applicant that a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regardless, Youngblood et al disclose a similar hand held training device to be used in concert with resistance bands having ring-shaped sensors (114/116; Fig 4) on either side of the hand held device which “measure the force applied when the end-user pulls up on the exercise device 102 while it is secured to the connecting member 104, such as an elastic band. The force sensors 114, 116 may be load cells which are transducers that convert the force applied to them into an electrical signal, which can then be measured and recorded” (Par. 0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the force sensors and corresponding gasket of Cernasov et al to be ring shaped as taught by Youngblood et al to more accurately measure applied forces about the entire inner periphery of the exercise handle.
12. Cernasov et al disclose the method according to claim 11, wherein method further comprises monitoring changes of the training load values, determining repetitions based on the monitored changes of the training load values (Par. 0064).
13. Cernasov et al disclose the method according to claim 11, wherein the method further comprises calibrating the raw resistance values before calculating the raw resistance values to the training load values (Par. 0047).
14. Cernasov et al disclose a physique training kit comprising one or more hand-held physique training devices according to claim 1, together with one or more resistance bands (806).
15. Cernasov et al disclose a computer program for physique training comprising non-transitory machine readable instructions which, when the computer program is executed by a computing means (1250), cause the computing means to carry out the method of claim 11 (Par. 0070-0078).
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.
Claims 3, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cernasov et al in view of Youngblood et al (WO 20203/177762).
3. Cernasov et al disclose the hand-held physique training device according to claim 1, wherein the first force measurement means and the second force measurement means each comprise
a force measuring sensor (208) mounted to the inner surface of the tubular handle (Fig 2A),
a force distribution gasket (226) placed onto the ring-shaped force measuring sensor, and
a ring-shaped compression ring (210/212) placed onto the ring-shaped force distribution gasket.
However, Cernasov et al do not disclose wherein the force measuring sensor and the force distribution gasket being ring shaped. Examiner initially reminds applicant that a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regardless, Youngblood et al disclose a similar hand held training device to be used in concert with resistance bands having ring-shaped sensors (114/116; Fig 4) on either side of the hand held device which “measure the force applied when the end-user pulls up on the exercise device 102 while it is secured to the connecting member 104, such as an elastic band. The force sensors 114, 116 may be load cells which are transducers that convert the force applied to them into an electrical signal, which can then be measured and recorded” (Par. 0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the force sensors and corresponding gasket of Cernasov et al to be ring shaped as taught by Youngblood et al to more accurately measure applied forces about the entire inner periphery of the exercise handle.
5. Cernasov et al disclose the hand-held physique training device according to claim 3, wherein the first end of the tubular handle and the second end of the tubular handle comprise at least one support wall for the ring-shaped compression ring at one or both sides of the longitudinal slit (Examiner considers the portion of the inner wall between the sensors and the edge to comprise the at least one support wall).
7 and 9. Cernasov et al disclose the hand-held physique training device significantly as claimed, including that the compression ring is made from “a thin pliable material on a handlebar 104 facing surface such as to engage, without slippage, onto the handlebar 104” (Par. 0044), but do not explicitly disclose wherein the compression ring has an average roughness of a surface of the ring-shaped compression ring against an inner surface of a cover up to 4 micro meters or wherein the ring-shaped force distribution gasket is made of a synthetic elastic polymer. Examiner reminds applicant that it is well established that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. Therefore, the selection of any of the conventionally known and available pliable materials, such as elastomers, would have been an obvious matter of engineering design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art in consideration of desired gripping performance. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pliable material of the gasket and the ring-shaped force distribution gasket of Cernasov et al to have an average surface roughness of up to 4 micrometers and be made of a synthetic elastic polymer, respectively, to prevent slippage of the member held within the compression ring as this is merely a selection of material providing expected and predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Modieldin et al, Jaquish et al, and Gudmundsson disclose a similar exercise system using force sensors to measure and monitor performance of a resistance band exercise device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)272-8297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7a-4:30p MST.
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.
/JOSHUA T KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784 9/11/2025