Detailed Action
This is the Final Rejection based on application 18/633,474 filed on 04/11/2024, and which claims as amended on 01/14/2026 have been considered in the ensuing 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. As such the earliest date of priority of 12/15/2023 has been granted to the instant application.
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.
Claim(s) 1,5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber US 20240009522 A1, and further in view of Mooney et al. US 20250041647 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
Huber teaches a cable-motion fitness equipment (“The invention further relates to a system and a method.” See abstract), comprising: an exercise assembly (exercise equipment 1), wherein the exercise assembly includes an angle sensor (Paragraph [0024] states that a tilt sensor in the form of a gyroscope may be provided, which is an angle sensor) that is configured to sense an offset angle of the exercise assembly (The examiner notes that paragraph [0122] outlines how the tilt/angle sensor when attached to the load cell of the damping/resistance mechanisms is used, it determines the angle of the bar and the forces applied to the bar to ensure they are at a proper angle for the desired exercise to avoid shearing forces and improper use which would include an offset angle of the exercise device. Further, the limitation is intended use. It makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use.); and a first damping module (first load unit 7’) and a second damping module (Second load unit 7’’) connected to the exercise assembly (See figure 1), wherein each of the first damping module and the second damping module includes a resistance sensor (load sensor 6, see figure 1), and the resistance sensor is configured to sense a resistance that is applied to the exercise assembly by each of the first damping module and the second damping module (“Optionally it is provided that the device comprises a load sensor, wherein the load sensor is adapted to measure the load applied to the exercise equipment by the driving means, and wherein the load sensor is connected to the control means.” See paragraph [0065]); wherein the first damping module is communicatively connected to the exercise assembly and the second damping module for forming a synchronous network (“One electronic control unit may control two motors. To do that the two motor control units are communicating.” See paragraph [0123], and the examiner notes that paragraph [0159] further specifies, “Each load unit 7′, 7″ further comprises a data transfer unit 8 operating by means of a wireless data transfer protocol, such that the load units 7′, 7″ may communicate without being in mechanical connection with each other.”); wherein, when the angle sensor detects that the offset angle of the exercise assembly exceeds an angle threshold (The examiner notes that paragraph [0025] discusses how the control means communicating with the trolley of the drive system selects a suitable or desired tilt, which sets an angle threshold, and that paragraph [0024] discusses maintaining the desired angle through the use of the tilt/angle sensor and the trolley module of the driving means).
PNG
media_image1.png
290
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Huber, fails to teach that the first damping module controls a magnitude of the resistance provided by the second damping module.
Mooney, however, teaches a resistance training machine, a method of providing custom workouts, and a method of providing feedback on user form and user balance (See abstract), and further teaches the first damping module controls a magnitude of the resistance provided by the second damping module (“For example, where a symmetric exercise is provided, the machine controller 250 may provide commands to the ‘lead’ motor 255 only, which may be then be replicated by the ‘follower’ without direct input from the machine controller 250.” See paragraph [0051]. The examiner notes that the first lead motor being what provides the instructions to the follower motor without the machine controller 250 communicating to the second motor, shows that the resistance of the second motor is influenced solely on the instructions and parameters of the first lead motor).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controls of Huber to have one of the two driving means communicate with the other and provide instructions regarding the magnitude of resistance to provide without the main controller influencing the second as taught by Mooney, in order to allow the exercise apparatus to provide synchronized/symmetrical resistance and to still have the main controller monitor the various sensors and maintain control of the overall system.
Regarding claim 5:
Huber as modified teaches the cable-motion fitness equipment according to claim 1, wherein each of the first damping module and the second damping module further includes a rope (connection means 5, which paragraph [0152] states can be a rope), a motor (driving means 2’/ 2’’ respectively, which paragraph [0152] states are motors), and a rope displacement sensor (length sensor 17), the rope is connected to the exercise assembly and the motor (See figure 1), the motor is configured to output the resistance and control an extended length of the rope (“The device comprises two separate load units 7′, 7″. Each of the load units 7′, 7″ is equipped with a separate driving means 2′, 2″, wherein each driving means is a motor which is adapted to apply a certain load to the exercise equipment 1.” See paragraph [0152]), and the rope displacement sensor is configured to sense the extended length of the rope (The examiner notes that paragraph [0155] states that the free length of the connection means, which is the available length of the connection means connected to the exercise assembly 1);
Huber fails to teach wherein each of the exercise assembly, the first damping module, and the second damping module further includes a communication module, and the first damping module, the exercise assembly, and the second damping module are communicatively connected to each other via the respective communication module; wherein the process of the first damping module controlling the magnitude of the resistance provided by the second damping module includes: sending, by the first damping module, an information request to the second damping module, so that the second damping module provides information that includes a current resistance output by the second damping module and the extended length of the rope of the second damping module; forwarding, by the second damping module, the information to the first damping module; and comparing, by the first damping module, a current resistance output by the first damping module and the extended length of the rope of the first damping module with the information forwarded by the second damping module, so as to determine whether or not the current resistance output by the first damping module is greater than the current resistance output by the second damping module, and whether or not the extended length of the rope of the first damping module is greater than the extended length of the rope of the second damping module; wherein, in response to determining that the current resistance output by the first damping module is greater than the current resistance output by the second damping module, and that the extended length of the rope of the first damping module is greater than the extended length of the rope of the second damping module, the first damping module sends an adjustment request to the second damping module, so that the second damping module decreases a rotational speed and a torque of the motor of the second damping module; wherein, in response to determining that the current resistance output by the first damping module is not greater than the current resistance output by the second damping module, and that the extended length of the rope of the first damping module is not greater than the extended length of the rope of the second damping module, the first damping module sends another adjustment request to the second damping module, so that the second damping module increases the rotational speed and the torque of the motor of the second damping module.
The examiner notes that Hubert does teach each damping module/ load unit 7’ and 7’’ includes a data transfer unit operating by means of a wireless transfer protocol, which allows each load unit to communicate with the other without being in mechanical connection to each other.
Mooney, however, teaches a resistance training machine, a method of providing custom workouts, and a method of providing feedback on user form and user balance (See abstract), and further teaches wherein each of the exercise assembly, the first damping module, and the second damping module further includes a communication module (The examiner notes the exercise machine includes machine controller 250, and it is stated in paragraph [0007] that each left and right motor 255A/B respectively includes its own integrated motor controller), and the first damping module, the exercise assembly, and the second damping module are communicatively connected to each other via the respective communication module (“Moreover, the motor 255 may be capable of providing independent closed-loop control of a position, speed, acceleration, torque, and current outputted by its shaft. Moreover, the machine controller 250 may be in bi-directional communication with the motor 255, and both operatively control its operation and receive feedback therefrom.” See paragraph [0042]); wherein the process of the first damping module controlling the magnitude of the resistance provided by the second damping module includes: sending, by the first damping module, an information request to the second damping module, so that the second damping module provides information that includes a current resistance output by the second damping module and the extended length of the rope of the second damping module (The examiner notes that the communication protocol of Mooney uses bi-directional communication as stated in paragraph [0051], between the machine controller 250 and the motors 255A/B, which includes information regarding position, current, torque and/or force parameters of each motor); forwarding, by the second damping module, the information to the first damping module ( The examiner notes that bi-directional communication inherently includes when in the symmetrical exercise mode mentioned above in claim 1, the lead motor uses the information from the second motor to control the resistance magnitude of the second motor when driving the resistance assemblies under the main instruction from the machine controller 250); and comparing, by the first damping module, a current resistance output by the first damping module and the extended length of the rope of the first damping module with the information forwarded by the second damping module, so as to determine whether or not the current resistance output by the first damping module is greater than the current resistance output by the second damping module, and whether or not the extended length of the rope of the first damping module is greater than the extended length of the rope of the second damping module (The examiner notes that paragraph [0055] discusses how user form and balance in relation to them pulling on the cables is collected where it states, “For example, net force data from the load cells 299 may be measured against a net force outputted by the motors 255. The comparison therein may be used to calculate a distribution of vertical (Z-axis) and horizontal (X-axis, Y-axis) force vectors, thereby arriving at a simulated pulling angle of one or both cables 140.”, which would allow the system to determine if the user is favoring the left or right side, and if there is a correction that needs to be made during use.) ; wherein, in response to determining that the current resistance output by the first damping module is greater than the current resistance output by the second damping module, and that the extended length of the rope of the first damping module is greater than the extended length of the rope of the second damping module, the first damping module sends an adjustment request to the second damping module, so that the second damping module decreases a rotational speed and a torque of the motor of the second damping module (The examiner notes that paragraph [0078] outlines the process where the pulley systems, cables, motors, and the controller(s) of the exercise machine and the motors themselves utilize various sensors to determine the amount of torque/force provided by the motors to the cables as the user exercises, whether in a symmetric or asymmetric exercise mode, and wherein it specifically states that according to the tensions sensors housed in each respectively pulley assembly, if too much rope/cord is let out from either or both of the left and right assemblies, the system provides instruction to slow/stop, or speed up, the respective motor in order to prevent the cables from becoming tangled. Furthermore, the examiner notes that paragraph [0055] as noted above, the motors and load cells provide data regarding the user’s balance and force exerted on the motor(s) to determine if relevant safety protocols need to take effect to prevent injury.) ; wherein, in response to determining that the current resistance output by the first damping module is not greater than the current resistance output by the second damping module, and that the extended length of the rope of the first damping module is not greater than the extended length of the rope of the second damping module, the first damping module sends another adjustment request to the second damping module, so that the second damping module increases the rotational speed and the torque of the motor of the second damping module (The examiner notes that paragraphs [0046]-[0047] outline the different operating modes that motors can execute depending on the user’s choice/ commands from the machine controller 250, including where the motor must provide less or more torque depending on the motion of the user, which includes faster/slower rotations respectively, and that the second motor can act in a follower mode, where depending on the adjustments made by the first motor the second motor provides the information and makes necessary adjustment to exert he same force in order to provide a symmetric workout for the user).
PNG
media_image2.png
548
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
594
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controls of Huber allow the motors to provide/request feedback from one another in order to dynamically adjust the resistance and amount of cable let out by the resistance assemblies as taught by Mooney, as this allows the system to provide more variation in each exercise and allows the system to adjust itself according to the performance of the user in order to prevent possible injuries or improper use of the system. .
Regarding claim 6:
Huber teaches a cable-motion fitness method of a cable-motion fitness equipment (“The invention further relates to a system and a method.” See abstract), wherein the cable-motion fitness equipment includes an exercise assembly (exercise equipment 1), a first damping module (first load unit 7’), and a second damping module (second load unit 7’’), the exercise assembly includes an angle sensor (“A tilt sensor may be provided, possibly in the form of a gyroscope, which tilt sensor is connected to the control means.” See paragraph [0024]), and the first damping module and the second damping module are connected to the exercise assembly (See figure 1), the cable-motion fitness method comprising: activating the exercise assembly, the first damping module, and the second damping module (The examiner notes that paragraphs [0035]-[0040], outline the basic steps of operating the exercise machine according to the method, which includes the machine being put in its first use position which engages the length sensors of the driving means, and thereby inherently activates them), so that the first damping module is communicatively connected to the exercise assembly and the second damping module for forming a synchronous network (“One electronic control unit may control two motors. To do that the two motor control units are communicating.” See paragraph [0123], and the examiner notes that paragraph [0159] further specifies, “Each load unit 7′, 7″ further comprises a data transfer unit 8 operating by means of a wireless data transfer protocol, such that the load units 7′, 7″ may communicate without being in mechanical connection with each other.”); detecting, by the angle sensor, whether or not an offset angle of the exercise assembly when being operated by a user exceeds an angle threshold assembly (The examiner notes that paragraph [0122] outlines how the tilt/angle sensor when attached to the load cell of the damping/resistance mechanisms is used, it determines the angle of the bar and the forces applied to the bar to ensure they are at a proper angle for the desired exercise to avoid shearing forces and improper use which would include an offset angle of the exercise device).
Huber fails to teach controlling, by the first damping module, a magnitude of a resistance provided by the second damping module when the offset angle exceeds the angle threshold, so as to adjust a resistance balance state of the exercise assembly. The examiner notes that as stated above the controller does provide instructions to control the driving means/damping modules based on the detected angles from the gyroscope as mentioned in the rejection above, but that specifically the first damping module controlling the second is not taught.
Mooney, however, teaches a resistance training machine, a method of providing custom workouts, and a method of providing feedback on user form and user balance (See abstract), and further teaches controlling, by the first damping module, a magnitude of a resistance provided by the second damping module when the offset angle exceeds the angle threshold, so as to adjust a resistance balance state of the exercise assembly (“For example, where a symmetric exercise is provided, the machine controller 250 may provide commands to the ‘lead’ motor 255 only, which may be then be replicated by the ‘follower’ without direct input from the machine controller 250.” See paragraph [0051]. The examiner notes that the first lead motor being what provides the instructions to the follower motor without the machine controller 250 communicating to the second motor, shows that the resistance of the second motor is influenced solely on the instructions and parameters of the first lead motor).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controls of Huber to have one of the two driving means communicate with the other and provide instructions regarding the magnitude of resistance to provide without the main controller influencing the second as taught by Mooney, in order to allow the exercise apparatus to provide synchronized/symmetrical resistance and to still have the main controller monitor the various sensors and maintain control of the overall system.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber US 20240009522 A1, in view of Mooney et al. US 20250041647 A1, and further in view of Rubin et al. US 20180214729 A1.
Huber as modified teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 2:
Huber as modified teaches the cable-motion fitness equipment according to claim 1, wherein the exercise assembly further includes an acceleration sensor (“Also, an accelerometer can be used to measure barbell position.” See paragraph [0109]); wherein, when the acceleration sensor detects that a moving speed of the exercise assembly exceeds a speed threshold (“If the bar speed drops to a certain point for a certain time the invention can reduce the load individually and dynamically to provide the most stimulus for hypertrophy ever felt. It could also be possible to regulate it manually via remote control.” See paragraph [0137], where the “certain point” is a threshold.)
Huber fails to teach that the exercise assembly sends a warning message as a result of the speed threshold being exceeded.
Rubin, however, teaches systems and methods for dynamic resistance training including the use of a dynamic force module (See abstract), and further teaches the exercise assembly sends a warning message as a result of the speed threshold being exceeded (“In certain implementations, additional feedback may be provided to the user in the form of a haptic pulse or visual/audio feedback that provides warnings or other indications if the user falls outside of the ideal speed range.” See paragraph [0113]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Huber to have the exercise assembly provide a warning based on the speed of the user during exercise as taught by Rubin, as this would increase the safety of the machine past simply making dynamic adjustments to the forces, and would allow the user to feel/see/hear necessary feedback and make the necessary changes to their performance, or stop the session if needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, and 7-10 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record fails to teach or disclose either alone or in combination a cable-motion fitness equipment with the subject matter of dependent claims 3 and 7, specifically the limitations regarding wherein a procedure for forming the synchronous network includes: establishing a whitelist, wherein a plurality of damping modules and the exercise assembly are listed on the whitelist; and activating one of the damping modules to search a surrounding environment for another one of the damping modules that is on the whitelist and already activated; wherein, in response to not detecting the another one of the damping modules, the one of the damping modules becomes a coordinator, and is communicatively connected to other ones of the damping modules that are on the whitelist and activated at a later time, so as to jointly form the synchronous network; wherein, in response to detecting the another one of the damping modules, the one of the damping modules becomes an end device, and is communicatively connected to the another one of the damping modules that is already activated, so as to jointly form the synchronous network; wherein the damping module that acts as the coordinator is the first damping module, and the damping module that acts as the end device is the second damping module.
The closest prior art of record includes Huber US 20240009522 A1, Mooney et al. US 20250041647 A1, Rubin et al. US 20180214729 A1, Kinsella et al. US 20190168098 A1, and Harvey et al. US 6280361 B1.
The examiner notes that the prior art references of Huber, Mooney, and Rubin have been fully discussed in the rejections above.
Kinsella et al. US 20190168098: Systems and Methods for Electronic Targeting or Hit/Touch Detection, which teaches systems and methods for electronic targeting, and hit or touch detection of projectiles or objects, such as from some type of gun, bow (archery), ball, human touch, animal touch, including targets/nodes that have hit/touch/contact detection implements and are in radio communication with a gateway, which may be standalone or integrated into a master target, and the gateway is in radio communication with an app on a smart device and also includes the capability for data connectivity to the cloud (See abstract), and further teaches wherein a procedure for forming the synchronous network includes: establishing a whitelist (“At step 142, the app sends one or more command to the MT to add this particular ST to the “whitelist” (the approved list) stored in the MT. As is known in the art, such a whitelist entry includes identification information (e.g., such as a MAC address, serial number, etc.) of the particular device so that it may be uniquely identified from all other potential devices that might be added to the network.” See paragraph [0055]). Furthermore, Kinsella teaches how the master target when activated and used with other “smart targets” (ST) the user can begin the process of linking the targets together by turning on the master target (MT) and once the MT is successfully connected to the network the user may turn on the ST via a power switch at which point the ST will attempt to connect to the network and register to the whitelist (See paragraph [0054]).
Kinsella fails to teach that the established whitelist can be used for damping devices, and only teaches a plurality of targets connected to each other, and fails to teach any of the coordinator or end device limitations.
Harvey et al. US 6280361 B1:Computerized Exercise System and Method, which teaches a computerized exercise system and method allowing exercising in both a gravity field and a gravity free environment, where the exercise system includes one or more exercise modules positioned at specific locations and coupled to an exercise member through an extendable cable extending between each exercise module and one or more exercise members (See abstract), and further teaches multiple exercise modules 12, which are connected together and to a control structure 19, which can send independent control signals 32, to each exercise module of the plurality of modules (See col. 9 line 64-col. 10 line 11 which outlines an example of multiple exercise modules connected together). Furthermore, Harvey discusses how user inputs can be entered into the control structure via a communication link 38, which may include radio, wire, or telephone links, and can encompass digital computer networks such as the Internet (See col. 9 lines 60-63).
PNG
media_image4.png
560
484
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Harvey fails to teach establishing a whitelist, wherein a plurality of damping modules and the exercise assembly are listed on the whitelist; and activating one of the damping modules to search a surrounding environment for another one of the damping modules that is on the whitelist and already activated; wherein, in response to not detecting the another one of the damping modules, the one of the damping modules becomes a coordinator, and is communicatively connected to other ones of the damping modules that are on the whitelist and activated at a later time, so as to jointly form the synchronous network; wherein, in response to detecting the another one of the damping modules, the one of the damping modules becomes an end device, and is communicatively connected to the another one of the damping modules that is already activated, so as to jointly form the synchronous network; wherein the damping module that acts as the coordinator is the first damping module, and the damping module that acts as the end device is the second damping module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As no amendments to the claims were made, the rejections from the previous Non-Final have been maintained, with the examiner’s responses to the arguments presented by the applicant noted below.
In response to applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 6 in view of the combination of Huber and Mooney the examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above in the rejections of claims 1 and 6, Huber discloses that a gyroscope is included in the exercise assembly to act as a tilt sensor which monitors the tilt of the load sensor connected to the barbell in order to monitor for excessive angles causing sheering forces on the cable, which would be the system determining an offset as the gyroscope detects an angle outside of the accepted range in order to determine that there are sheering forces and the load requires adjustment. The specification of the instant application states in paragraph [0020] that the exercise assembly 1 includes an angle sensor 11, and that the angle sensor can be a gyroscope. Where paragraph [0021] further states “At this time, the angle sensor 11 senses an offset angle of the exercise assembly 1, the first resistance sensor 21 senses the resistance applied to the exercise assembly 1 by the first damping module 2, and the second resistance sensor 31 senses the resistance applied to the exercise assembly 1 by the second damping module 3”. Therefore Huber teaches the same structures used in the same ways and the applicant’s arguments are a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention which must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's arguments that the references fail to show the first damping module controlling a magnitude of the resistance provided by the second damping module, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., independent direct capability to control the second damping module. ) 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). The lead motor of Mooney which receives the instructions for load changes to execute from the main controller, and then provides the instructions to the follower motor, without direct input from the machine controller is the lead motor controlling the magnitude of the resistance of the follower motor.
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 JONATHAN ANGELO DICUIA whose telephone number is (703)756-4713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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.
/JONATHAN A DICUIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784