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 12/16/2025. Claims 1-7 and 10-12 are pending in the application. Claims 1-7 and 10-12 have been examined as set forth below.
NOTE: Claim 1, as currently presented, includes the limitations of previous claims 8-9, which were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Chen in view of McGrotty. Applicant’s arguments regarding McGrotty have been considered and found persuasive. Thereby, such previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made and included in this Office Action. As a result, the following Office Action is a Second Non-Final rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “positions;” in line 7, needs to be changed to “position,”, and the term “sleeve;” in line 9, needs to be changed to “sleeve, and”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “such that” in each of lines 2 and 5, needs to be changed to “such that when”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “adjust position” in line 4, needs to be changed to “adjust a position”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 1 recites: “wherein the positioning pin comprises…a rod section in engagement with each positioning hole of the plurality of positioning holes”. However, it is unclear how the rod section of the positioning pin is in engagement with each positioning hole of the plurality of holes. It appears that the rod section is configured to engage one positioning hole of the plurality of holes at a time. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. Claims 2-7 and 10-12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 12 recites: “an inner end of the positioning pin is inserted into a positioning hole of the plurality of positioning holes, to adjust position of the strut unit”, while claim 1, upon which claim 12 depends, recites: “wherein the positioning pin comprises…a rod section in engagement with each positioning hole of the plurality of positioning holes”, and it is unclear whether the “inner end” of the positioning pin is the same as or different from the “rod section”. In other words, it is unclear whether the “inner end” of the positioning section is inserted into/in engagement with a positioning hole of the plurality of positioning holes or the “rod section”. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested.
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 each 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 each 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 each 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 an inner end of the positioning pin (Chen: Fig. 2; Hsu: end of 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 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 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, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks (pg. 8-9), filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the rejection of previous claims 8-9 (limitations of which have been placed in current claim 1), under Chen in view of McGrotty have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Hsu (see above for details).
Furthermore, in response to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1, stating:
“Chen's support frame 2 cannot be equivalent to the strut unit 2 of the present application. Firstly, the supporting function of Chen's lifting structure is jointly achieved by the support frame 2 and the support part 3. Secondly, the support frame 2 and the support part 3 are in a U-shape, which is obviously different from the shape of the strut unit 2 in the present application. More importantly, since the support frame 2 and the support part 3 are U-shaped, that is, the connection part of the support frame 2 and the support part 3 is curved, the length of the support frame 2 and the support part 3 in the longitudinal direction cannot be as short as that of the strut unit 2 of the present application. Since the strut unit 2 of the present application can be made very short, an inclination angle as small as possible can be achieved. Chen's treadmill obviously cannot achieve an inclination angle as small as that of the present application, so the lifting structure of the present application can be applied to a wider range of treadmills”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the following. Nowhere in claim 1, has applicant recited any limitations specifying a shape, length, range of motion or any other characteristics/features of the strut unit. As such, applicant is arguing narrower than claimed. Chen’s support frame (2) (with or without support part (3)), therefore, can still be considered a strut unit as much as applicant has claimed.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1, stating:
“Therefore, it can be determined from the disclosure of Chen that Chen fails to disclose at least the following technical features:
"a strut unit, rotatably arranged on the positioning unit or the treadmill frame, having a first folded state and a second unfolded state for lifting a height of a front end of the treadmill;
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;
wherein the positioning pin comprises a threaded section in threaded engagement with the internally threaded sleeve and a rod section in engagement with each positioning hole of the plurality of positioning holes".”,
the Examiner would like to mention that Claim 1 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103. The limitations of claim 1, as currently presented, are taught by Chen in view of Hsu (see above for details).
Applicant’s similar arguments regarding Zhai failing to disclose the above distinguishing technical features (of claim 1), are moot, as Zhai has not been relied upon to teach any of the limitations of claim 1 (see above for details).
Applicant’s similar arguments regarding Hammer failing to disclose the above distinguishing technical features (of claim 1), are moot, as Hammer has not been relied upon to teach any of the limitations of claim 1 (see above for details).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (Chen, Zhai, Hammer, etc.), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
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