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 .
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is in response to amendments filed on 06/22/2026. Claims 1-7 and 10-12 are pending in the application. Claims 1-7 and 10-12 have been examined as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “and an upper side wall” in line 5, needs to be changed to “an upper side wall”. Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN212016578U, a copy of this document and its translation have previously been provided. The cited portions are with respect to the translated copy), in view of Hsu (US 2019/0054345 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a lifting structure for a treadmill, comprising: a positioning unit (7), fixedly mounted on a treadmill frame (1), comprising a plurality of positioning holes (8, Figs. 1-3); a strut unit (support frame 2), rotatably arranged on the positioning unit or the treadmill frame (Figs. 1-3), having a first folded state and a second unfolded state for lifting a height of a front end of the treadmill (¶ [10]-[18], [20], [25], [30]-[31]); and a positioning pin (9), movably arranged on the strut unit for cooperating with the plurality of positioning holes to place the strut unit at different positions (Figs. 1-3, ¶ [10]-[18], [20], [25], [30]-[31]).
PNG
media_image1.png
645
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
424
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
583
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Chen is silent about wherein an internally threaded sleeve passes through the strut unit, and the positioning pin passes through the internally threaded sleeve and is in threaded engagement with the internally threaded sleeve, and wherein the positioning pin comprises a threaded section in threaded engagement with the internally threaded sleeve and a rod section in engagement with a positioning hole of the plurality of positioning holes.
Regarding claim 1, Hsu teaches a lifting structure for an exercise apparatus, comprising: a positioning unit (connecting unit 20), fixedly mounted on a frame (10), comprising a plurality of positioning holes (221-224, Fig. 2); a strut unit (sub rod 30), rotatably arranged on the positioning unit or the frame (Figs. 4-7), having a first folded state (Fig. 7) and a second unfolded state (Figs. 4-6); and a positioning pin (i.e., control member 34), movably arranged on the strut unit for cooperating with the plurality of positioning holes to place the strut unit at different positions (¶ [14]-[15]), wherein an internally threaded sleeve (connecting aperture 32) passes through the strut unit, and the positioning pin (34) passes through the internally threaded sleeve and is in threaded engagement with the internally threaded sleeve (¶ [14]-[15], the control member 34 has an inserting pin 342 at one end, a knob 341 at the other end, and a threaded section 343 between the knob 241 and the inserting pin 342, for engaging with the connecting aperture 32. The knob 341 is capable of driving the inserting pin 342 to insert into the any of the apertures 221-224. ¶ [15] recites: “The control member 34 is locked at the connecting aperture 32 of the sub rod 30 with the threaded section 343”. As such, the connecting aperture 32 has to be internally threaded in order to have the threaded section 343 locked therein. Therefore, connecting aperture 32 is considered an internally threaded sleeve); and wherein the positioning pin (34) comprises a threaded section (343) in threaded engagement with the internally threaded sleeve (32) and a rod section (inserting pin 342) in engagement with a positioning hole of the plurality of positioning holes (Figs. 1 and 4-7, ¶ [14]-[15]).
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 Chen’s invention wherein an internally threaded sleeve passes through the strut unit, and the positioning pin passes through the internally threaded sleeve and is in threaded engagement with the internally threaded sleeve, and wherein the positioning pin comprises a threaded section in threaded engagement with the internally threaded sleeve and a rod section in engagement with a positioning hole of the plurality of positioning holes as taught by Hsu in order to provide for a more secure engagement of the positioning pin with the strut unit and the positioning unit and therefore provide for a more secure and stable exercise machine positioned at various angles during exercise.
Regarding claim 3, Chen in view of Hsu teaches wherein a fixing shaft (Chen: 4) is fixed on a side of the treadmill frame (Chen: Figs. 1-3), the positioning unit (Chen: 7) is fixedly mounted on the fixing shaft, and the strut unit (Chen: 2) is rotatably mounted on the fixing shaft (Chen: Figs. 1-3, ¶ [13], [30]-[31]).
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Hsu teaches wherein a fixing shaft (Chen: 4; Hsu: 24) is fixedly mounted on the positioning unit (Chen: 7; Hsu: 20, Figs. 2-3), and the strut unit (Chen: 2; Hsu: 30) is rotatably mounted on the fixing shaft (Chen: Figs. 1-3, ¶ [13], [30]-[31]; Hsu: Figs. 4-7).
Regarding claim 12, Chen in view of Hsu teaches wherein the plurality of positioning holes (Chen: 8, Hsu: 221-224) are arranged on a movement path of the positioning pin (Chen: 9, Figs. 1-3; Hsu: 34, Figs. 2-7), and the rod section (Chen: Fig. 2; Hsu: 342, Figs. 1 and 4-7) is inserted into a positioning hole of the plurality of positioning holes, to adjust position of the strut unit (Chen: Figs. 1-3, ¶ [10]-[18], [20], [25], [30]-[31]; Hsu: Figs. 1 and 4-7, ¶ [14]-[15]).
Claims 2, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhai et al. (CN203677846U, (a copy of this document and its translation have been previously provided. The cited portions are with respect to the translated copy).
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Hsu teaches wherein one end of the strut unit (Chen: 2) is rotatably connected to the positioning unit or the treadmill frame (Chen: Figs. 1-3, ¶ [10]-[18], [20], [25], [30]-[31]).
Chen in view of Hsu is silent about the other end of the strut unit being mounted with a support wheel.
Regarding claim 2, Zhai teaches a lifting structure for a treadmill, comprising: a strut unit (3), wherein one end of the strut unit (3) is rotatably arranged on a treadmill frame (1, Figs. 3-4), and the other end is mounted with a support wheel (8, Figs. 4-5, ¶ [29]-[31]).
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 Chen’s invention in view of Hsu wherein the other end of the strut unit is mounted with a support wheel as taught by Zhai, in order to provide for easier displacement of the treadmill to various locations when desired.
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Hsu and Zhai teaches wherein a fixing shaft (Chen: 4 with 5) is fixed on a side of the treadmill frame (Chen: Figs, 1-3), the positioning unit (Chen:7) is fixedly mounted on the fixing shaft (Chen: Figs, 1-3), and the strut unit (Chen:2;) is rotatably mounted on the fixing shaft (Chen: Figs. 1-3, ¶ [13], [30]-[31]).
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Hsu and Zhai teaches wherein a fixing shaft (Chen: 4 with 5; Hsu: 24) is fixedly mounted on the positioning unit (Chen: 7, Figs. 1-3; Hsu: 20, Figs. 1-7), and the strut unit (Chen: 2; Hsu: 30) is rotatably mounted on the fixing shaft (Chen: Figs. 1-3, ¶ [13], [30]-[31]; Hsu: Figs. 4-7).
Regarding claim 7, Chen in view of Hsu teaches wherein a fixing shaft is fixedly mounted on the positioning unit (Chen: 4 with 5), an outer end of the fixing shaft is threaded (Chen: Fig. 3), and the strut unit (Chen: 3) is rotatably arranged on the fixing shaft (Chen: Figs. 1-3, ¶ [13], [30]-[31]), and transversely limited by a fastener (Chen: fixing nut 11 with gasket 12, Fig. 3) in threaded engagement with the fixing shaft (Chen: Fig. 3, ¶ [32]).
Chen in view of Hsu is silent about an outer end of the fixing shaft comprising an internally threaded hole.
Regarding claim 7, Zhai teaches a fixing shaft (i.e., 7), an outer end of the fixing shaft comprises an internally threaded hole (¶ [9], [30]), and the strut unit (3) is rotatably arranged on the fixing shaft and transversely limited by a fastener (5) in threaded engagement with the fixing shaft (¶ [30]).
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 Chen’s invention in view of Hsu with a fixing shaft having an outer end that comprises an internally threaded hole, as taught by Zhai in order to provide for a more secure connection between the strut unit and the positioning unit.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hammer (US 2007/129225 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Hsu teaches wherein the positioning unit (Chen:7; Hsu: 20) is arranged with a first limiting block (Chen: as shown in Fig. 2 of Chen below; Hsu: stopping panel 25, Figs. 1-2, ¶ [14]) for limiting a movable range of the strut unit (Chen: Figs. 1-2, the first limiting block of Chen is capable of limiting a movable range of the strut unit 2; Hsu: Figs. 1-2, the stopping panel 25 is capable of limiting a movable range of the strut unit 30), the first limiting block being arranged at an upper edge of the positioning unit (Chan: Figs. 1-3).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Limiting block I
(the shaded portion))]
PNG
media_image4.png
390
510
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Chen in view of Hsu is silent about the positioning unit being arranged with a second limiting block for limiting a movable range of the strut unit, the second limiting block being arranged at a lower edge of the positioning unit.
Regarding claim 10, Hammer teaches a positioning unit (120) comprising a plurality of holes (124, 126, 128, 130, Fig, 1), wherein the positioning unit is arranged with a (second) limiting block (134) for limiting a movable range of a strut unit (104/108, ¶ [29], [37]), the (second) limiting block being arranged at a lower edge of the positioning unit (Figs. 1 and 3, ¶ [29], please note that upon modification of Chen’s invention in view of Hsu with the (second) limiting block as taught by Hammer, the (second) limiting block would be positioned opposite of fixing shaft (4) and to the left of pin 9 shown in Fig. 1 of Chen).
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 Chen’s invention in view of Hsu wherein the positioning unit is arranged with a (second) limiting block for limiting the movable range of the strut, the (second) limiting block arranged at a lower edge of the positioning unit as taught by Hammer, in order to prevent the strut unit to excessively rotate in the backward direction when the positioning pin is not fully secured or accidentally comes out from a corresponding positioning hole, thereby reducing risk of user injuries and providing a more secure exercise machine.
Regarding claim 11, Chen in view of Hsu and Hammer teaches wherein an inclination angle of the first limiting block is arranged such that when the strut unit is at a minimum rotation angle (Chen: Figs. 1-2), a lower side wall of the first limiting block is substantially parallel to an upper side wall of the strut unit (Chen: Figs. 1-2), and an inclination angle of the second limiting block is arranged such that when the strut unit is at a maximum rotation angle, and an upper side wall of the second limiting block is substantially parallel to a lower side wall of the strut unit (Hammer: Figs. 1 and 3, ¶ [29], please note that upon modification of Chen’s invention in view of Hsu with the (second) limiting block as taught by Hammer, the (second) limiting block would be positioned opposite of fixing shaft (4) and to the left of pin 9 shown in Fig. 1. As such, when the upper side wall/surface (right side surface) of 134 would be substantially parallel to a lower side wall of the strut unit when the strut unit is at the maximum rotation angle).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument:
“1. The Examiner's Reliance on Hsu is Fundamentally Flawed Because Hsu's Structure Would Not Work in Chen's Device
Hsu's "control member 34" is threadably engaged with the "connecting aperture 32" of the sub rod 30. This structure allows the control member 34 to be axially moved relative to the sub rod 30 by rotation, thereby selectively inserting or retracting the inserting pin 342 from a positioning hole. The threaded engagement is integral to the switching mechanism of Hsu's device-it permits the user to lock the pin at a desired position along the arced slot 211.
In contrast, Chen's lifting structure relies on a quick-release fastener 9 that is manually pulled (via ring 13) to disengage from a hole, then inserted into another hole to lock the support frame 2 at a different angle. Chen's fastener 9 is not designed to be threadably bound to the support frame 2; If Chen's fastener 9 is designed as a threaded bound structure, such a structure would defeat the purpose of rapid, tool-free adjustment.
Applying Hsu's threaded engagement to Chen's device would render Chen's fastener 9 incapable of quick, easy repositioning. Instead of simply pulling the ring 13 to release the pin, a user would need to unscrew the fastener, which significantly slows down the adjustment process and contradicts Chen's stated objective of providing a simple and convenient slope adjustment structure (see Chen, [0006], [0017]). This is not a mere substitution of equivalent structures; it is a fundamental alteration that changes the operational principle of the primary reference.
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to combine Chen with Hsu in the manner proposed by the Examiner, as the combination would destroy the very function that makes Chen's device advantageous. See, e.g., In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (modification of prior art is improper where the prior art would not function in its intended manner).”
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant’s argument cited above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings.
Chen has not recited such purpose of rapid tool-free adjustment for his invention. Paragraphs [6]-[7] of Chen, describe a treadmill of prior art having a slope adjustment mechanism comprising a lifting motor driving a lifting push rod. Chen states that although such slope adjustment is convenient, its structure is complex. Chen is referring to the lifting motor driving a lifting push rod being a complex structure. Nowhere in Chen, a positioning pin comprising a threaded section and a rod section, wherein the threaded section is in threaded engagement with an internally threaded sleeve of the strut unit, and the rod section is in engagement with each positioning hole of the plurality of positioning holes, has been stated to be a complex structure or an inconvenient one. Modifying Chen’s invention with such features of Hsu, does not destroy the functionality of Chen’s device which is manually adjusting the slope of the treadmill, rather, such modification would ensures/provide for a more secure and stable treadmill/exercise machine positioned at a desired angle. Hsu, also teaches manually adjusting a slope of an exercise device. Thereby, modifying Chen’s invention with features of Hsu, is not a fundamental alteration that changes the operational principle of Chen. Upon modification, Chen’s device would operate the same way. Furthermore, Chen does not state or describe that fastener (9) is a quick-release fastener used for quick and easy repositioning. Applicant’s assertions regarding both Chen and Hsu are flawed and not supported by either of these references.
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, such motivation which is to provide for a more secure and stable treadmill/exercise machine positioned at various angles during exercise, is knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant’s argument:
“2. The Structural Configuration of Chen's "Support Frame 2" Distinguishes It from the Claimed "Strut Unit"
While the Examiner noted that claim 1 does not recite specific dimensional limitations, Applicant submits that the structural configuration of the elements can be considered for purposes of determining patentability. Chen's support frame 2 and support part 3 form a U- shaped structure (see Chen, Figs. 1-3). The U-shape inherently has a larger longitudinal length and a fixed angle between its legs, which limits the minimum folding angle and the overall range of motion of the lifting structure.
The present application's strut unit 2 is an elongated, substantially straight member (see FIGS. 2-4). This structural difference allows the strut unit to achieve a more compact folded state and a greater range of adjustable inclination angles without structural interference. This distinction is not a mere matter of degree but a structural feature that provides functional advantages not taught or suggested by Chen.
Even if Chen's support frame 2 can be broadly characterized as a "strut unit," the specific structural arrangement of the present application-which enables a wider range of motion and more compact storage-is not disclosed by Chen and is not rendered obvious by Hsu.”
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant’s argument cited above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings.
Claim 1 does not include any limitations regarding specifics of the strut unit. Applicant’s arguments stating that the structure difference allows the strut unit to achieve a more compact folded state, and a greater range of adjustable inclination angles without structural interference, are not recited in the claims and not supported by the original specification. As such, applicant is arguing narrower than claimed. According to a dictionary definition (Merriam-Webster.com), “strut” is a structural piece designed to resist pressure in the direction of its length. The support frame (2) in Chen is a rigid structural piece that resists pressure in the direction of its length, and therefore can be considered a “strut”. Chen in view of Hsu still teaches the specific structural arrangement as claimed in claim 1. Nowhere in the claims or the original specification, support has been provided for a strut unit which “enables a wider range of motion and more compact storage”. Applicant’s arguments are narrower than claimed. Furthermore, such assertion is considered an intended use. The claims not only lack recitation of such intended use for the strut unit, but also 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, then it meets the claim.
Applicant’s argument:
“3. The Secondary References (Zhai, Hammer) Cannot Cure the Deficiencies of the Primary Combination
Because the combination of Chen and Hsu fails to render claim 1 obvious, the dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11, which depend from claim 1, are also patentable. Zhai and Hammer are relied upon only for additional, secondary features and cannot salvage the core rejection if the primary combination is improper.
Regarding claims 10-11 (Hammer): the Examiner relies on Hammer to teach a "second limiting block." Even if Hammer discloses such a feature, its combination with the Chen-Hsu modification does not overcome the fundamental problem that Chen's device is structurally distinct and would not accommodate the threaded engagement feature of Hsu as discussed above.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 103 rejections.”
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant’s arguments regarding Zai and Hammer, are moot in view of the above provided explanation.
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 SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 pm.
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.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights