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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20, as filed on 06/18/2024, are currently pending and considered below.
Claim Objections
Claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities (appropriate correction is required):
Claim 1, line 8 amend: “the output” to ---an output---.
Claim 2, line 18 amend: “the desired power setting” to ---the desired power output setting---.
Claim 8 amend to be dependent on claim 7.
Claim 14, lines 1-2 amend claim to: ---wherein the computerized device monitors an electrical power outputted by the exercise apparatus and provides other training statistics---.
Claim 15, line 22 amend: “the mechanical energy” to ---mechanical energy---.
Claim 20, line 11-12 amend: “the generated AC current” to ---a generated AC current---.
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.
Claim 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claim 1, lines 7-9 recites: “generating an electrical output signal; a power electrical converter connected to the output of the generator to convert the electrical power signal into an electrical output signal.” The electrical output signal is generated by the electric generator and then also generated by the converter converting the power signal. It is unclear if these are two different signals. There is also a lack of antecedent basis for “the electric power signal”. Applicant is suggested to amend “an electrical output signal” on line 7 to ---an electrical power signal---.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by US 20130252786 A1 (Escobedo et al; henceforth Escobedo).
Regarding Independent Claim 15, Escobedo discloses a method to convert rotary movement into electrical power and to feed an electrical network comprising:
setting a desired power output setting (“computer 5 is configured to allow the resistant load 3 to be adjusted as a function of the power value selected by the user” Paragraph 96);
rotating a rotary element (“a pair of pedals which the user drives in rotation to perform the workout.” Paragraph 21);
varying an electronic resistance (“resistance load”) of the rotatory element based on the desired power output setting (“This allows the resistant load to be varied as a function of a selection made by the user” Paragraph 97);
converting the mechanical energy produced by the rotation of the rotatory element into an electrical power signal based on the desired power output setting (“electric generator 15 is configured to convert the mechanical power applied by the user to the device 2 into electrical power” Paragraph 93 and “the graphical representation of the electric household appliance on the display 7 represents the electric power generated by the user and made available to the user device 14” Paragraph 98; said signal is the represented electric power generated by the user sent to computer 5);
and synchronizing the electrical power signal with a signal of an electrical network (“computer 5 can be configured to compare the nominal operating powers of all the electric household appliance stored in the memory with the detected power value and to generate on the display the graphical representation of the electric household appliance/appliances whose nominal operating power is greater than the power generated by the user” Paragraph 55; said electrical network is the electronical network within computer 5 wherein the signal sent to the computer from the user’s generation is synced within the computer network and displayed on the display).
Regarding Claim 17, Escobedo further discloses the method of claim 15 further comprising rotating pedals of the rotary element to generate the mechanical energy (“the device 2 is a pair of pedals which the user drives in rotation to perform the workout” Paragraph 21; said pedals generate power via generator 15).
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 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 1-2, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130252786 A1 (Escobedo et al; henceforth Escobedo) in view of US 9067099 B2 (Beard et al; henceforth Beard).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Escobedo discloses an exercise apparatus (Figure 1 in the form of a stationary bicycle) comprising:
a frame (device 2, Figure 1; in the form of an exercise bicycle);
a rotating component (“the device 2 is a pair of pedals which the user drives in rotation to perform the workout.” Paragraph 21) rotatably connected to the frame (pedals are configured to rotate relative to the device 2), the rotating component rotating in response to operation of the apparatus by a user (see Figure 1 wherein the user’s legs are rotating the pedals);
an electric generator (electrical generator 15) operatively connected to the rotating component for generating an electrical output signal (resistance load 3; “electric generator 15 is configured to convert the mechanical power applied by the user to the device 2 into electrical power” Paragraph 93 and “generator 15, when it is coupled to an electric load, generates on the device 2 a resistant load 3” Paragraph 94);
a sensor (detection means 4) for measuring an output signal of the generator (“compare the power detected by the detection means 4 with one (or more) of the power values stored in the memory” Paragraph 36; power detected is a power current of the resistance load 3);
a computerized device (computer 5) configured to set a desired power output setting of the exercise apparatus (“computer 5 is configured to allow the resistant load 3 to be adjusted as a function of the power value selected by the user” paragraph 96);
and a servo controller (“the computer 5 is configured to allow the resistant load 3 to be adjusted as a function of the power value selected by the user” Paragraph 96 and “resistant load 3 applied to the device 2 may be... …a mechanical brake” Paragraph 23; servo is the mechanical brake with the electrical control between the computer 5 and the mechanical brake) configured to vary a value of the output signal of the generator as a function of the set desired power output setting (“resistant load 3 applied to the device 2 may be a gravitational load (for example, a stack of weights), a load defined by a mechanical friction force (for example, a mechanical brake on an exercise bike)” Paragraph 23; said resistance load 3 is adjusted by the computer 5 adjusting the mechanical brake allowing for change in resistance created by the resistance load 3).
Escobedo does not disclose a power electrical converter connected to the output of the generator to convert the electrical power signal into an electrical output signal matching voltage, frequency and phase of an electrical network and the sensor being a current sensor.
Beard teaches an analogous exercise device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
an electric generator (generator 1204) operatively connected to a rotating component (wheel 1206) for generating an electrical output signal (“the generator 1204 provides an alternating current (AC) signal to the computer 824” Col. 16, lines 28-29);
a computerized device (computer 824) configured to set a desired power output setting of the exercise apparatus (“the variable electrical load device 2508 is controlled by the computer 824. The computer 824 may direct the variable electrical load device 2508 to increase or decrease an electrical applied to the generator 1204 to increase or decrease the amount of work required to operate the exercise equipment system 2500” Col. 24, line 66 – Col. 25, line 4);
a current sensor (“the generator 1204 provides an alternating current (AC) signal to the computer 824” Col. 16, lines 28-29; the current sensor is the detector of the generator 1204 for collecting the current signal for the generator 1204) for measuring a current of the output signal of the generator (Col. 16, lines 28-29);
a power electrical converter (rectifier 2502 with voltage regulator 2504) connected to the output of the generator to convert the electrical power signal into an electrical output signal matching voltage (“voltage regulator 2504 manages the variable voltage provided by the rectifier 2502” Col. 26, lines 47-48), frequency and phase of an electrical network (“rectifier 2502 may also convert multi-phase AC power to single-phase DC power” Col. 24, lines 19-20; converting multi-phase AC into single-phase DC normalizes the frequency and phases of the electricity).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Escobedo’s electrical system to include a rectifier/voltage regulator and modify the detection means to include measuring a current signal generated by the generator as taught by Beard in order to standardize the operational power supply to avoid overheating or malfunction of electronic devices.
Regarding Claim 2, Escobedo as modified further discloses the exercise apparatus of claim 1, the computerized device comprising a user interface (control means/user interface 12; “ control means 12 may be touch-screen buttons (for example, built into the display 7 itself) or buttons of another type” Paragraph 60) in data communication with the servo controller and configured to set the desired power setting (“user interface 12 defining control means allowing the user to select from the plurality of power values stored in the memory the power value (that is, the electric household appliance) on which the comparison is to be performed and whose graphical representation is to be shown” Paragraph 59; said interface 12 is configured to control the desired power settings wherein said control is by physically change by said mechanical brake).
Regarding Claim 5, Escobedo further discloses the exercise apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a case housing the rotating component and the electric generator (see Figure 1 wherein the stationary bicycle has a housing containing all the electronics therein).
Regarding Claim 7, Escobedo discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Escobedo does not give the generator a physical shape and does not disclose the generator being a disk-type generator.
Beard teaches an analogous exercise device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
an electric generator (generator 1204) operatively connected to a rotating component (wheel 1206) for generating an electrical output signal (“the generator 1204 provides an alternating current (AC) signal to the computer 824” Col. 16, lines 28-29); wherein the generator is a disc-type generator (see Figure 12 wherein the generator 1204 is in the form a disc making it a disc-type generator); wherein the generator is generating three-phase current (“coils may be arranged such that the magnets are slightly out of phase with the coils, and the generator may produce three-phase power” Col. 23, lines 57-59; said power is in the form of alternating current). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the generator to be a disc type generator generating three phase AC current, as taught by Beard, in order to be directly attached to the pedal mechanism of the bicycle.
Regarding Claim 8, Escobedo as modified further discloses the exercise apparatus of claim 6, the disk-type generator generating a three-phase AC current (“three-phase power” Col. 23, lines 57-59; three phase power of the generator is three signals of AC current).
Regarding Claim 10, Escobedo as modified further discloses the exercise apparatus of claim 1, the computerized device comparing the measured output of the electrical generator to the desired power output setting (“computer 5 which is programmed to compare the power detected by the detection means 4 with one (or more) of the power values stored in the memory” Paragraph 36 and “computer 5 is configured to allow the resistant load 3 to be adjusted as a function of the power value selected by the user” paragraph 96; at least one of the power values stored in memory is the power value set by the user which is the desired power output setting).
Regarding Claim 11, Escobedo as modified discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Escobedo does not disclose an injection circuit matching the phase of the output signal to the phase of the voltage of the electrical network.
Regarding Claim 13, Escobedo discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Escobedo does not disclose an electronic circuit to convert the output signal into a sine wave output power.
Beard further teaches the analogous exercise device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
an electric generator (generator 1204) operatively connected to a rotating component (wheel 1206) for generating an electrical output signal (“the generator 1204 provides an alternating current (AC) signal to the computer 824” Col. 16, lines 28-29); wherein the generator comprises an electrical circuit (generator 1204 is converting and transmitting AC signal to the computer and thus has an electric circuit) to convert an output signal into a sine wave output power (“ a sine wave produced by the generator 1204. In another embodiment, the speed output 2510 conditions the waveform produced by the generator to produce a related waveform” Col. 25, lines 49-53). it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the generator to include electrical circuits converting the output signal into a sine wave output power format, as taught by Beard, in order to provide a smooth and continuous signal without abrupt changes and limited signal noise.
Regarding Claim 14, Escobedo as modified further discloses the exercise apparatus of claim 1, wherein the computerized device monitors an electrical power outputted by the apparatus (“comparing the power detected by the detection means” Paragraph 8) and provides other training statistics (“ the computer being programmed for: comparing the power detected by the detection means and at least one of the power values contained in the memory; and for generating on the display, depending on said comparison, a graphical output of said comparison, comprising a graphical representation of at least one of the electric household appliances, generated based on the digital data.” Paragraph 8; said other training statistics are comparisons of power generation against household appliances).
Regarding Claim 16, Escobedo discloses the method as substantially claimed, see above. Escobedo further discloses setting the desired power output settings via a display (“control means 12 may be touch-screen buttons (for example, built into the display 7 itself) or buttons of another type” Paragraph 60).
Escobedo does not disclose remotely setting the desired power output setting.
Beard teaches an analogous exercise device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
converting rotary movement into electrical power to feed an electrical network 9” generator 1204 may be any type of device capable of converting mechanical energy into electrical energy” Col. 16, lines 13-14) and a remote display (“display may use a user's personal electronic device, such as a cellular phone or a digital media player, to display force and/or power.” Col. 13, lines 3-5). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the display to be a remote display in the form a cellular phone, as taught by Beard, in order for the display to be transportable and usable when not on the exercise device.
Escobedo as modified further discloses setting the desired power output remotely (said display is the user’s cellphone which is remote and how the user inputs their chosen settings).
Regarding Claim 19, Escobedo discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Escobedo further discloses wherein the mechanical energy is converted into electrical power via conversion means (“means 13 for converting the mechanical energy (of the muscles) into electricity, said means being mechanically connected to the device 2 for converting into electricity the energy produced by the user while driving the device 2” Paragraph 87). Escobedo does not disclose said conversion performed by generating three phase AC current.
Beard teaches an analogous exercise device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
an electric generator (generator 1204) operatively connected to a rotating component (wheel 1206) for generating an electrical output signal (“the generator 1204 provides an alternating current (AC) signal to the computer 824” Col. 16, lines 28-29); wherein the generator is generating three-phase current (“coils may be arranged such that the magnets are slightly out of phase with the coils, and the generator may produce three-phase power” Col. 23, lines 57-59; said power is in the form of alternating current). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the conversion means to include converting via three-phase AC current, as taught by Beard, in order to provide a balanced electrical load and minimize energy losses.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130252786 A1 (Escobedo et al; henceforth Escobedo) in view of US 9067099 B2 (Beard et al; henceforth Beard) in further view of US 20020032104 A1 (Rosenow et al; henceforth Rosenow).
Regarding Claim 6, Escobedo discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Escobedo further discloses using a brake to control resistance of the rotating component (“mechanical brake” Paragraph 23). Escobedo does not disclose a magnetic brake.
Rosenow teaches an analogous exercise ergometer device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
A magnetic brake (“eddy brake” Paragraph 40; eddy brakes function using electromagnetism) controlling a resistance of a rotating component (“a brake to apply a controllable resistive force to the movement of the pedal 32” Paragraph 40). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the brake to be an eddy brake, as taught by Rosenow, in order to provide induction braking controlled by electricity.
Regarding Claim 12, Escobedo discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Escobedo does not disclose a digital signal processor to generating pulse-width-modulated signals.
Rosenow teaches an analogous exercise ergometer device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
a digital signal processor (microprocessor 504) to generating pulse-width-modulated signals (“A pulse width modulated output signal on a line 510 from the power control board 506 is controlled by the microprocessor 504 and varies the current applied to the field of the alternator 42 by a predetermined field control signal on a line 512, in order to provide a resistive force which is transmitted to the pedal 32 and to the arm 110” Paragraph 87; see Figure 15 wherein the signal is translated into the power control board 506 which is within the microprocessor network 504) configured to control power to the circuitry (Paragraph 87). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the device to include a digital signal processor to generating pulse-width-modulated signals, as taught by Rosenow in order to control the average power delivered to modules in order to prevent shorting or overvolting.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130252786 A1 (Escobedo et al; henceforth Escobedo) in view of US 20020032104 A1 (Rosenow et al; henceforth Rosenow).
Regarding Claim 18, Escobedo discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Escobedo further discloses varying a resistance of the rotary element to vary the mechanical resistance of the rotary element (“the computer 5 is configured to allow the resistant load 3 to be adjusted as a function of the power value selected by the user” Paragraph 96 wherein the resistance load is set by the mechanical brake). Escobedo does not disclose vary a magnetic resistance.
Rosenow teaches an analogous exercise ergometer device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
A magnetic brake (“eddy brake” Paragraph 40; eddy brakes function using electromagnetism) controlling a resistance of a rotating component (“a brake to apply a controllable resistive force to the movement of the pedal 32” Paragraph 40). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the brake to be an eddy magnetic brake, as taught by Rosenow, in order to provide induction braking controlled by electricity.
Regarding Claim 20, Escobedo discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Escobedo does not disclose wherein the synchronization of the electrical power signal with a signal of an electrical network further comprises processing the generated AC current into a pulse-width-modulated signal and injecting said signal into the electrical network.
Rosenow teaches an analogous exercise ergometer device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
a digital signal processor (microprocessor 504) to generating pulse-width-modulated signals (“A pulse width modulated output signal on a line 510 from the power control board 506 is controlled by the microprocessor 504 and varies the current applied to the field of the alternator 42 by a predetermined field control signal on a line 512, in order to provide a resistive force which is transmitted to the pedal 32 and to the arm 110” Paragraph 87; see Figure 15 wherein the signal is translated into the power control board 506 which is within the microprocessor network 504) configured to control power to the circuitry (Paragraph 87). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the method to include processing the generated AC current into a pulse-width-modulated signal and injecting said signal into the electrical network, as taught by Rosenow in order to control the average power delivered to modules in order to prevent shorting or overvolting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9, and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art of record US 20130252786 A1 (Escobedo et al; henceforth Escobedo) fails to teach or render obvious the device in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
the current sensor being in communication with the servo controller to communicate the sensed current to the servo controller
The prior art of record teaches the current sensor in communication with the computer, which are not considered equivalent to applicant’s invention as the current sensor was taught by a teaching reference. Therefore, it would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the current sensor to perform the function of communicating with the servo controller without modifying a teaching reference.
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art of record US 20130252786 A1 (Escobedo et al; henceforth Escobedo) fails to teach or render obvious the device in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
the power electrical converter being a pair of buck/boost converters in a Flyback configuration.
The prior art of record does not disclose a power electrical convert without a teaching reference and it would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the converter without modifying a teaching reference.
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art of record US 20130252786 A1 (Escobedo et al; henceforth Escobedo) fails to teach or render obvious the device in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
an injection circuit matching the phase of the output signal to the phase of the voltage of the electrical network.
The prior art of record does not disclose an injection circuit. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the device to include an injection circuit without improper hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-0063. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00am - 4:00pm EST.
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.
/ZACHARY T MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3784