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 .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 Sept 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner herein.
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-20 were originally filed.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
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 1-2, 4-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al., CN108510866B (“FENG”) in view of Lagree et al., US20230191190 (“LAGREE”).
Re claim 1, FENG discloses, an equipment system test station comprising:
a frame [p.3]; and
a trolley coupled to the frame, the trolley comprising at least one deployable test assembly configured to perform one or more tests on an equipment system positioned within the frame [p.3]
FENG fails to explicitly disclose that the equipment system is an exercise system
However, LAGREE, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an equipment system test station wherein the equipment is exercise equipment [0165], [0198]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify FENG to include the particular equipment of LAGREE. One would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure that all pieces of exercise equipment are operating properly (see at least LAGREE [0165]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LAGREE merely teaches that it is well-known to provide testing on a piece of exercise equipment. Since both FENG and LAGREE disclose similar product testing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 2, FENG/LAGREE renders obvious the test station of claim 1, as shown above. FENG further discloses, a workstation configured to manage the one or more tests on the exercise system [p.3]
Re claim 4, FENG/LAGREE renders obvious the test station of claim 1, as shown above. FENG further discloses, wherein the trolley is slidably coupled to a crossmember of the frame [p.3]
Re claim 5, FENG/LAGREE renders obvious the test station of claim 1, as shown above.
FENG fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one deployable test assembly comprises a spinner assembly configured to drive a portion of a drivetrain of the exercise system
However, LAGREE, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an exercise equipment system test station comprising a test assembly that is configured to test any number of operational features of the equipment [0165], [0198]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify FENG to include the particular testing capability of LAGREE. One would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure that all pieces of exercise equipment are operating properly (see at least LAGREE [0165]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LAGREE merely teaches that it is well-known to provide specific testing on an operating mechanism of a piece of exercise equipment. Since both FENG and LAGREE disclose similar product testing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 6, FENG/LAGREE renders obvious the test station of claim 1, as shown above.
FENG fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one deployable test assembly comprises a knob tester mechanism configured to rotate a knob of the exercise system
However, LAGREE, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an exercise equipment system test station comprising a test assembly that is configured to test any number of operational features of the equipment [0165], [0198]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify FENG to include the particular testing capability of LAGREE. One would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure that all pieces of exercise equipment are operating properly (see at least LAGREE [0165]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LAGREE merely teaches that it is well-known to provide specific testing on an operating mechanism of a piece of exercise equipment. Since both FENG and LAGREE disclose similar product testing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 7, FENG/LAGREE renders obvious the test station of claim 6, as shown above.
FENG fails to explicitly disclose wherein the knob test mechanism is mounted on an adjustment plate, the adjustment plate movable to adjust the knob tester mechanism to a position of the exercise system within the frame
However, LAGREE, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an exercise equipment system test station comprising a test assembly that is configured to test any number of operational features of the equipment [0165], [0198]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify FENG to include the particular testing capability of LAGREE. One would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure that all pieces of exercise equipment are operating properly (see at least LAGREE [0165]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LAGREE merely teaches that it is well-known to provide specific testing on an operating mechanism of a piece of exercise equipment. Since both FENG and LAGREE disclose similar product testing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 8, FENG/LAGREE renders obvious the test station of claim 1, as shown above.
FENG fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one deployable test assembly comprises a sound and vibration test module
However, LAGREE, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an exercise equipment system test station comprising a test assembly that is configured to test any number of operational features of the equipment [0165], [0198]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify FENG to include the particular testing capability of LAGREE. One would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure that all pieces of exercise equipment are operating properly (see at least LAGREE [0165]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LAGREE merely teaches that it is well-known to provide specific testing on an operating mechanism of a piece of exercise equipment. Since both FENG and LAGREE disclose similar product testing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 9, FENG/LAGREE renders obvious the test station of claim 1, as shown above. FENG further discloses, a method comprising: deploying the at least one deployable test assembly from the trolley; and performing the one or more tests on the exercise system [p.3]
Re claim 10, FENG/LAGREE renders obvious the test station of claim 1, as shown above. FENG further discloses, commanding an automated guided vehicle (AGV) to position itself within the equipment system test station, the AGV carrying the equipment system through production [p.3]
Re claims 11-12, 14-15, and 17-20, Applicant recites claim features of the same or substantially the same scope as that of associated claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9-10. Accordingly, claims 11-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9-10.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over FENG/LAGREE in view of Official Notice (“ON”).
Re claim 3, FENG/LAGREE renders obvious the test station of claim 1, as shown above.
FENG fails to explicitly disclose a safety light curtain coupled to the frame
However, the Examiner takes ON that it was old and well-know at the time of filing of the instant invention that a testing apparatus configured to test exercise equipment would include a safety light curtain
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify FENG/LAGREE to include the particular safety feature taught by ON. One would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure that all pieces of exercise equipment are operating properly (see at least LAGREE [0165]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ON merely teaches that it is well-known to provide a specific lighting environment for a testing area. Since both FENG, LAGREE, and ON all disclose features of similar product testing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 13, Applicant recites claim features of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855