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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that Examiner has not shown the performance data of environmental conditions measured by boat sensors, specifically the weather sensor readings, are used to generate performance data (Remarks, filed 5/19/2026, pg. 6-7). Examiner respectfully refutes this. In 0040 of US Publication 2005/0170711 A1 Spenser et al. (hereinafter Spenser), Examiner points to two different environmental measurements captured by the boat sensors – weather data from the weather sensor and positioning data from the positioning system. The positioning system is elaborated on in 0035 of Spenser. The positioning data, including GPS and radar measurements, are used to evaluate the fidelity of the rower to their set path and the rower’s standing to other rowers while engaging in competition. This positioning data from the sensors is stated by Applicant’s specifications to be environmental sensors, see 0055 of Applicant’s specifications (“one or more environmental sensors such as a global positioning system and/or an inertial measurement unit including, for example, a gyroscope and/or an accelerometer”). Even when assuming, arguendo, that the weather sensor data is not used to generate performance data, the positioning system generating performance data that meets the limitation of the performance data being based in part on the at least one environmental condition. The “in part” and “at least one” recitations in the claim, increase the claim’s scope such that the limitation it taught by Spenser. For this reason, the rejections under U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., performance data being generated base on a combination of environmental conditions measured by boat sensors and data collected by a subset of rower sensors (Remarks, filed 5/19/2026, pg. 7)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As currently claimed, the performance data can be data of both environmental boat sensor data and rower data displayed separately.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, US Publication 2018/0221714 A1 to Anderson (hereinafter Anderson) teaches a wearable exercise sensor that can be used for various exercise mediums, including rowing. It further teaches that the data can be normalized for better comparisons. To have normalized performance data would allow for a user to have data, charts, or graphs that are more digestible, easier to read, and make the processing of the data obtained easier to the rower. This would improve the presentation of the performance data from Spenser. Furthermore, as stated in 0068 of Anderson, the measurements taken can be for a boat in water. Colloquially, rowing is also known for both the act of land-based simulation of a boat and water-based usage of a boat, and both are present in Anderson. For this reason, the rejection under U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2005/0170711 A1 to Spencer et al. in view of US Publication 2018/0221714 A1 to Anderson.
Concerning claim 1,
Spenser discloses system, comprising: a memory (0035);
a processor coupled to the memory and coupled to a boat (0016; 0018; Figure 2);
a display (0016; 0018; Figure 2); and
a set of sensors including a subset of rower sensors associated with a rower and a subset of boat sensors associated with the boat, the subset of boat sensors configured to measure at least one environmental condition (0032; 0035; 0040);
the processor configured to generate performance data associated with at least one of the boat and the rower for presentation on the display, the performance data based in part on the at least one environmental condition measured by the subset of boat sensors and based in part on data collected by the subset of rower sensors (0032; 0035; 0040).
Spenser does not disclose the normalization of the performance data generated and displayed.
Anderson teaches the normalization of the performance data generated and displayed (0023; 0068).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the normalization of performance data as shown in Anderson with the rower training apparatus shown in Spenser as both deal with the collection of performance data pertaining to rowing machines. The normalization would improve the processing of the data obtained and make certain relevant fitness related calculations easier for the rower training apparatus of Spenser.
Concerning claim 3,
Spenser discloses the display is viewable by a coach associated with the rower during a rowing movement of the rower (0015; As broadly claimed, any display is viewable by a coach).
Concerning claim 6,
Spenser disclose a hull sensor coupled to the boat and including a global positioning system and an inertial measurement assembly (0035-0036; 0040; Figure 2; As broadly claimed, an inertial measurement assembly is considered to be an accelerometer. The inertial measurement assembly is not clearly defined in the specifications provided. Applicant’s specifications (0086) define a hull sensor “on or near the bow of a boat.” As broadly claimed, a hull sensor is considered to be a sensor coupled to the boat), and
a wind sensor coupled to the boat and configured to measure the wind speed and the wind direction (0040).
Concerning claim 7,
Spenser discloses the global positioning system is configured to measure at least one of a location, a speed, and a heading of the boat (0035-0036).
Concerning claim 8,
Spenser discloses the inertial measurement assembly is configured to measure at least one of a roll, pitch, yaw, acceleration, and a heading of the boat (0035-0036; 0040; Figure 2; the measurement of acceleration is shown herein. For the remaining measurements not taught by Spenser, see US Publication 2017/0242405 A1 to Shirai (hereinafter Shirai)).
Concerning claim 9,
Spenser discloses at least one wireless communication router coupled to the boat, the set of sensors being configured for wireless communication with the processor via the at least one wireless communication router (0015; 0020).
Concerning claim 10,
Spenser discloses the set of sensors are configured for wireless communication with the processor (0016, 0020).
Concerning claim 11,
Spenser does not disclose the normalized performance data includes at least one of a speed of the boat, an acceleration of the boat, a drag of the boat, and a momentum of the boat.
Anderson teaches the normalized performance data includes at least one of a speed of the boat, an acceleration of the boat, a drag of the boat, and a momentum of the boat (0023, 0068).
Concerning claim 12,
Spenser discloses the processor is configured to generate rower performance data for presentation on the display, the rower performance data including at least one of rower power, rower impulse, rower acceleration, and rower timing (0039).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2005/0170711 A1 to Spencer et al. in view of US Publication 2018/0221714 A1 to Anderson further in view of GB 2337333 A to Miller (hereinafter Miller) and further in view of US Patent 8968041 B2 to Rubbo (hereinafter Rubbo).
Concerning claim 4,
Spenser discloses an oarlock sensor coupled to an oarlock and configured to measure an angle of movement of an oar and a force of the oar against the oarlock during a rowing movement of the rower (0032).
Spenser does not disclose a foot sensor coupled to the boat and configured to measure a force exerted upon the boat by a foot of the rower during the rowing movement of the rower, and
a seat sensor coupled to a seat of the boat and configured to measure at least one parameter of the seat as the seat translates along a track during the rowing movement of the rower.
Miller teaches a foot sensor coupled to the boat and configured to measure a force exerted upon the boat by a foot of the rower during the rowing movement of the rower (Page 2, paragraph 4; Figure 4).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the foot sensor for a rowing machine disclosed in Miller with the rower training apparatus shown in Spenser as both deal with the collection of performance data pertaining to rowing machines. The collection of data from the footrests as taught in Miller would allow for a more robust set of exercise data to be processed and displayed by the rower machine disclosed in Miller.
Rubbo teaches a seat sensor coupled to a seat of the boat and configured to measure at least one parameter of the seat as the seat translates along a track during the rowing movement of the rower (Col. 4, ln 10-20; Col. 4, 30-35, Col. 5, ln 7-15; Figure 3A).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the seat sensor for a rowing machine disclosed in Rubbo with the rower training apparatus shown in Spenser as both deal with the collection of performance data pertaining to rowing machines. The collection of data from the seat as taught in Rubbo would allow for a more robust set of exercise data to be processed and displayed by the rower machine disclosed in Miller.
Concerning claim 5,
Spenser does not disclose at least one parameter of the seat includes at least one of acceleration, position, or velocity of the seat.
Rubbo teaches at least one parameter of the seat includes at least one of acceleration, position, or velocity of the seat (Col. 4, ln 10-20; Col. 4, 30-35, Col. 5, ln 7-15; Figure 3A).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2005/0170711 A1 to Spencer et al. in view of US Publication 2018/0221714 A1 to Anderson and further in view of US Publication 2017/0242405 A1 to Shirai (hereinafter Shirai).
Concerning claim 13,
Spenser does not clearly disclose the processor is configured to: receive a first set of data from the set of sensors,
provide a first set of information associated with achieving a rowing performance goal via the display based on the received data,
receive a second set of data from the set of sensors,
determine whether or not the first set of information provided was effective in achieving the rowing performance goal based on the second set of data, and
provide a second set of information associated with achieving the rowing performance goal via the display based on the determination of whether or not the first set of information provided was effective.
Shirai teaches the processor is configured to: receive a first set of data from the set of sensors (115-121; Fig. 6),
provide a first set of information associated with achieving a rowing performance goal via the display based on the received data (115-121; Fig. 6),
receive a second set of data from the set of sensors (115-121; Fig. 6),
determine whether or not the first set of information provided was effective in achieving the rowing performance goal based on the second set of data (115-121; Fig. 6), and
provide a second set of information associated with achieving the rowing performance goal via the display based on the determination of whether or not the first set of information provided was effective (115-121; Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensors and processing of data for a rowing machine disclosed in Shirai with the rower training apparatus shown in Spenser as both deal with the collection of performance data pertaining to rowing machines. The collection and processing of data as taught in Shirai would allow for a more robust set of exercise data to be processed and displayed by the rower machine disclosed in Miller.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35-43 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
No outstanding objections or rejections of claims 35-43 have been presented.
US Publication 2012/0276508 A1 to Jacobsen (hereinafter Jacobsen) discloses a removable compartment concerning electronic circuitry and batteries pertaining to an oarlock and US Patent 10807492 B1 to Holland et al. (hereinafter Holland) teaches the electronic contact-based coupling method claimed. US Patent 7114398 B2 to Haines (hereinafter Haines) is also relevant to the claimed inventions. However, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or reasonably suggest an oarlock apparatus comprising, in part, “electronics assembly configured to be releasably coupled to the brace housing such that a set of electrical contacts of the electronics assembly is operably coupled to a set of electrical contacts of the tubular member”, as required by the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights