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 .
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, 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belson et al. (US PGPub. 2021/0394023) in view of Orady et al. (US Pat. 10,661,112). Belson et al. describes substantially the same invention as claimed, including [Note: claim text as filed by applicant appears as plain text, followed by a citation from Belson enclosed in parenthesis. Cited paragraphs in Belson appear quoted in italic, limitations not described in Belson appear with
Regarding claim 1, A control method of an exercise device using cable (Belson et al. cable 1008), the control method comprising: a load input step at which a target load is input (Belson et al. Fig. 2 and para. 108: “In this example, exercise processing engine 208 includes dynamic loading engine 220, which is configured to dynamically determine a load and control the exercise machine by processing and analyzing sensor data (e.g., from accessories and the MCB), as well as user data stored in user data store 218 (e.g., user profile, measurements, goals, suggested weights, etc.), workout data (e.g., current move, load profile for the current move, etc.), camera and microphone information, etc.”); a load increase step at which an exercise load is increased in such a manner that the target load is transmitted through the cable (Belson et al. para. 109: “the load to apply is dynamically determined as a function of the progress within a given state or phase of an exercise that a user is performing.”); a posture detection step at which whether posture is incorrect is detected while the exercise load is increased at the load increase step
[Claim interpretation note: “posture detection step” as described in Applicant’s Specification in para. 16: “At the incorrect-posture determination step, it may be determined that posture is incorrect when the speed of movement of the cable exceeds a preset threshold speed” or para. 18 “In another embodiment of the present disclosure, at the incorrect-posture determination step, it may be determined that a user’s posture is incorrect when a distance between the present position and initial position of the cable exceeds a preset threshold distance.” Therefore, the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the limitation a posture detection step at which whether the posture is incorrect is determined is considered to mean a determination of cable position or speed outside of a preset threshold representative of an incorrect form for performing the exercise] (Belson et al. “[0256] Consider, for example, a scenario where a user is in the middle of a concentric phase and reaches a point where they cannot complete the range of motion because they are fatigued. This is a common scenario in weight lifting, and may be considered poor form because the user cannot complete the range of motion. However, if the system detects this scenario it “spots” the user, analogous to a human spotter for weight lifting, for example: [0257] 1. A user begins by pulling the cable/actuator (1008/1010) through the range of motion; [0258] 2. The user's range of motion is between pre-determined motion thresholds, for example 20% and 80%; [0259] 3. The velocity of the cable drops to zero, or below some pre-determined velocity threshold close to zero; [0260] 4. Even at a low velocity, measured and/or calculated tension applied by the user is found to be above a pre-determined tension threshold, such as 60% of the current m; [0261] 5. The tension and low velocity persists for a pre-determined period of time, for example 1.5 seconds;”); a first load decrease step at which the exercise load is decreased when incorrect posture is detected at the posture detection step (Belson et al. [0262] “6. The system responds by slowly reducing m, for example linearly over the course of 2 seconds from 100% of starting/current m to a pre-determined mass threshold, for example 90% of starting m. As soon as velocity rises above some pre-determined velocity threshold such as 5 cm per second, m stops slowly reducing, and a new function adjusts m through the remainder of the range of motion. Two examples of a new function is a post-spot function or a scaled version of the prior function that the user got stuck on.”);
As indicated by strikethrough above, Belson does not show: a pull detection step at which pulling speed at which the cable is pulled from a user is detected in a process in which exercise is performed in a state in which the exercise load transmitted through the cable reaches the target load, and a damping adjustment step at which damping force applied when winding the cable is increased when the pulling speed exceeds a preset dangerous speed.
Orady et al., from the same field of endeavor, teaches: (Orady et al. col. 12, lines 23-34: “The filter adds tension based on a saturating linear function of speed. For example, the function is a linear transition from 85 lbs to 115 lbs from a cable speed −2 inches per second to 2 inches per second, wherein the linear function saturates to 115 lbs for velocity over 2 inches per second, and saturates to 85 lbs for velocity below −2 inches per second. The thresholds in the example above at +/−2 inches per second may be adjusted based on the amount of tension such as to effect the fastest transition possible, without ever exceeding a maximum allowed slope. For larger tensions the thresholds are increased, and for lower tensions the thresholds are decreased.” In this example, Orady et al. teaches a pull detection step at which pulling speed at which the cable is pulled from a user is detected in a process in which exercise is performed in a state in which the exercise load transmitted through the cable reaches the target load, in the illustrated example the target load could be considered 85 lbs to 115lbs, which is transmitted when the user pulls on the cable at a pulling speed of greater -2 inches per second and less than 2 inches per second. Orady et al. teaches a damping adjustment step at which damping force applied when winding the cable is increased when the pulling speed exceeds a preset dangerous speed by saturating (that is limiting) cable tension to 115lbs for velocities above 2 inches per second and saturating (again, interpreted here as limiting) cable tension to 85 lbs for velocities below -2 inches per second.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to include the filter described by Orady et al. on the device of Belson. Doing so provides the predictable result of ensuring smooth resistance and operation without sudden jerks which could cause injury. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Belson et al. as taught by Orady et al. to obtain the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Belson et al. shows wherein the posture detection step comprises: a speed detection step at which a moving speed of the cable is detected, and an incorrect-posture determination step at which it is determined that posture is incorrect when the moving speed exceeds a preset threshold speed (Belson et al. para. 218: “In some embodiments, instead of, or in addition to adjusting strength loading based on progress within a given state of an exercise, such as range of motion, the strength loading is adjusted based on other measurements such as speed/velocity, acceleration, etc. In some embodiments, these variables, such as speed and acceleration, or compared to expected values. If the actual values for these variables are too high, too low, or not following a threshold correct pattern, then the weight can be adjusted for maximum efficacy and safety.”).
Regarding claim 3. Belson et al. shows wherein the posture detection step comprises: a position detection step at which a present position of the cable is detected (Belson et al. para. 219: “In the above examples of FIGS. 4A-4D, the load curves map resistance force to percentage range of motion, where percentage range of motion is used to measure or otherwise indicate the progress of the user through various phases or states of a repetition (based on cable position measurements, as described above).”), and an incorrect-posture determination step at which it is determined that posture is incorrect when a distance between the present position of the cable and an initial position of the cable exceeds a preset threshold distance (Belson et al. para. 266: “FIGS. 6 and 7 are illustrations of embodiments of user accommodation in repetitions. One example of providing accommodation is spotting the user. For a case where a user is making it past 80% percent range of motion in the concentric phase, but is not completing the full 100%, this may be an indication of bad form and a symptom of fatigue. Adjusting the function after each repetition such that the mass m between 80% and 100% is reduced to accommodate the user is implemented as shown in FIG. 6, and a close-up is shown in FIG. 7 indicating four different repetitions.”).
Regarding claim 4, Belson et al. shows wherein at the first load decrease step, the exercise load is reduced to a pre-registered basic load (Belson et al. para. 262: “[0262] 6. The system responds by slowly reducing m, for example linearly over the course of 2 seconds from 100% of starting/current m to a pre-determined mass threshold, for example 90% of starting m.”).
Regarding claim 5, Belson et al. shows further comprising: an initial detection step at which whether a position of the cable is moved to an initial position of the cable for exercise is detected, wherein the load increase step is performed after movement of the cable to the initial position of the cable for exercise is detected (Belson et al. para. 130: “Further, the phase detection techniques described herein are usable to detect the phase of repetitions for two classes of movements: one class of movement where the repetition starts at the bottom (e.g., where the repetition starts at the bottom, or minimum cable extension boundary, of the range of motion for the exercise), and one class of movement where the repetition starts at the top (e.g., where the repetition starts at the top, or maximum cable extension boundary, of the range of motion for the exercise). Examples of movements that start at the “top” include squats, lunges, and bench presses. For example, in a bench press, the user should start with the arms extended (and the cables are extended to the maximum end of the range of motion). Examples of movements that start from the “bottom” include deadlifts, bicep curls, and tricep extensions.”).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the device is modeled as a mass-damper-spring system (Orady et al. Fig. 1B, physics abstraction filter; Table 2, copied below for reference; the “weight stack” representation in the physics abstraction filter is the “mass”, the modeling of friction, momentum and inertia representing “damping” is described in col. 8, lines 19-25: “With a Constant Torque Filter, when the system is to behave like an ideal strength training machine with a weight corresponding to a mass m, then m is the specified Target Tension described above. The ideal strength training machine is considered ideal in the sense that it exhibits no friction, momentum, or intertia.”; these factors are considered modeling functions of a “damper” as required by the claim, when giving that term its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification; and a spring is described both explicitly, as in col. 13, lines 48-54: “Force may be indirectly controlled if the system includes a spring mechanism. In one embodiment, a linear spring is coupled to the cable (1008). Alternatively, a rotational spring is coupled to the rotation of the motor (1006). With a spring mechanism, controlling force becomes a matter of controlling motor position. Hence, a VUC may be the amount of compression of the spring controlled by motor position.” and also described as a physics model of spring behavior, in Orady et al. col. 7, line 65-col. 8 line 4: “by way of digital control, a digital strength training filter may make the resulting system feel like a weight stack being acted on by gravity on planet Earth, a weight stack being acted on by gravity on the moon, a weight stack connected via a pulley system acted on by gravity on planet Earth, a spring, a pneumatic cylinder, or an entirely new experience.”),
PNG
media_image1.png
364
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and wherein during the damping adjustment step, the damping force is increased by increasing a damping coefficient of the mass-damper-spring system (Orady et al. col. 12 Lines 23-34: “The filter adds tension based on a saturating linear function of speed. For example, the function is a linear transition from 85 lbs to 115 lbs from a cable speed −2 inches per second to 2 inches per second, wherein the linear function saturates to 115 lbs for velocity over 2 inches per second, and saturates to 85 lbs for velocity below −2 inches per second. The thresholds in the example above at +/−2 inches per second may be adjusted based on the amount of tension such as to effect the fastest transition possible, without ever exceeding a maximum allowed slope. For larger tensions the thresholds are increased, and for lower tensions the thresholds are decreased.” Examiner notes that damping can be expressed as a function of desired force and velocity, with a damping coefficient c being the damping force divided by velocity. In the above example, “the filter adds tension based on a saturating linear function of speed” describes adjusting a damping coefficient as required by the claim).
Regarding claim 8, Belson et al. does not show but Orady et al. teaches wherein the dangerous speed is preset in inverse proportion to the target load (spring/damper system would behave in this manner) (Orady et al. “For larger tensions the thresholds are increased, and for lower tensions the thresholds are decreased”). See rationale in claim 1 above for combining Orady et al. and Belson et al.
Regarding claim 9, Belson et al. does not show but Orady et al. teaches wherein the damping force is adjusted in proportion to the target load (Orady et al. col. 12, lines 23-34, quoted in the rejection of claim 7 above). See rationale in claim 1 above for combining Orady et al. and Belson et al.
Regarding claim 10, Belson et al. shows further comprising: a position detection step at which a final position to which a user pulls the cable is detected in a process in which exercise is performed in a state in which the exercise load transmitted through the cable reaches the target load, and a second load decrease step at which the exercise load transmitted to the cable is decreased from the target load when the final position decreases (Belson et al. Fig. 5 and paras. 221-222: “FIG. 5 illustrates an embodiment of an application of a load for isometric exercise at a point where movement pauses briefly prior to a reversal. Referring to the example ascending resistance curve profile of FIG. 4A as a starting point, a user may displace the machine loading mechanism until reaching the full range of motion whereupon the brief cessation of motion allows the exercise machine to increase the force or load immediately prior to the eccentric phase. In one embodiment, the machine may increase the force even if the user is in motion. If, as part of the exercise routine/movement, the user is required to hold that position so that an isometric exercise period is included, then the machine builds the load to a point that is greater than that which is to be used for the eccentric phase. To avoid shock loading, or jerking the user, this load augmentation may be applied smoothly (e.g., using the time-based ramping described above).
[0222] In one embodiment, the increase in loading is continued until the user begins to yield as shown at point “A” (502) in FIG. 5. Once the user yields, then the dynamic loading engine 220 of the exercise machine reduces the load to the scheduled value for the eccentric phase. In another embodiment, the load that is applied for the isometric phase is applied for a prescribed time, which, once elapsed, returns the machine to the scheduled load for the eccentric phase (e.g., the specified mapping between resistance and progress within a given state of an exercise). User cues to signal the end of the isometric phase in the latter implementation may be any of acoustic, visual, haptic, or tactile. This may include the machine detecting the end of an isometric phase by a user's motion. For example, the user yields, and so the trainer (exercise machine) reduces the load automatically.”).
Regarding claim 11, Belson et al. shows wherein the second load decrease step is performed when the final position continuously decreases a preset number of times or more (Belson et al. Fig. 7, repetitions 1-4).
Regarding claim 12, Belson et al. shows wherein at the second load decrease step, the exercise load is decreased in proportion to a rate of the decrease of the final position (Belson et al. para. 154: “In some embodiments, the threshold is a function of range of motion (e.g., position change as a percentage or proportion of range of motion).” And para. 266: “FIGS. 6 and 7 are illustrations of embodiments of user accommodation in repetitions. One example of providing accommodation is spotting the user. For a case where a user is making it past 80% percent range of motion in the concentric phase, but is not completing the full 100%, this may be an indication of bad form and a symptom of fatigue. Adjusting the function after each repetition such that the mass m between 80% and 100% is reduced to accommodate the user is implemented as shown in FIG. 6, and a close-up is shown in FIG. 7 indicating four different repetitions.”).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belson et al. (US PGPub. 2021/0394023), hereinafter referred to as Belson ‘023, ) in view of Orady et al. (US Pat. 10,661,112) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Belson et al. (US PGPub. 2022/0296963), hereinafter referred to as Belson ‘963.
Regarding claim 6, Belson ‘023 does not show: further comprising: an alarm output step at which a guide arm is output to induce posture correction when incorrect posture is detected at the posture detection step
However Belson ‘963, from the same field of endeavor, teaches in Figure 3 and para. 145: “As another example, the rules evaluate variables and parameters related to tempo, which are based on the system monitoring sensor readings such as cable velocity and duration of repetition. For example, one type of bad form that is detected with respect to the deadlift exercise is that they are going too fast, particularly on the eccentric phase of the exercise on the way down. In this example, a rule is configured to determine the duration of the eccentric portion of the repetition and compare the calculated duration against a threshold duration. If the duration falls below the threshold (i.e., is too short), then a type of bad form is detected, and the user is cued/given form feedback.”) The form feedback described in Belson ‘963 is considered a “guide alarm to induce posture correction”.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the guide alarm to induce posture correction as taught by Belson ‘963 on the device of Belson ‘023, as doing so helps the user prevent injury while using the device, thereby enhancing safety during weight training. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Belson ‘023 as taught by Belson ‘963 to obtain the invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not show a pull detection step at which pulling speed at which the cable is pulled from a user is detected in a process in which exercise is performed in a state in which the exercise load transmitted through the cable reaches the target load; and a damping adjustment step at which damping force applied when winding the cable is increased when the pulling speed exceeds a preset dangerous speed. Examiner notes that a pull detection step is taught by Orady et al. (US Pat. 10,661,112), in which cable speed is detected as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. Examiner notes that a damping adjustment step is similarly taught by Orady et al. In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation, the damping adjustment step requires damping force (i.e. resistance or cable tension) to be increased when the pulling speed exceeds a preset dangerous speed. Orady et al. teaches a damping adjustment step at which damping force applied when winding the cable is increased when the pulling speed exceeds a preset dangerous speed by saturating (that is limiting) cable tension to 115lbs for velocities above 2 inches per second and saturating (again, interpreted here as limiting) cable tension to 85 lbs for velocities below -2 inches per second. Therefore, Orady et al. describes the limitation as claimed.
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 SUNDHARA M GANESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3340. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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.
/SUNDHARA M GANESAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784