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 Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “child;” in line 7 of each of these claims, needs to be changed to “child,”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “belt;” in line 8, needs to be changed to “belt,”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “subject; and” in line 3, needs to be changed to “subject, and”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “detect if the object close” in line 3, needs to be changed to either “detect if the object is close” OR “detect the object close”. 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 9-15 and 17 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 9 recites the limitation "the endless belt " in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the motorized treadmill" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the motorized treadmill" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "the motorized treadmill" in line 3 and "the endless belt " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the subject" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (Applicant is suggested to change the phrase “the subject” to “the object” to overcome this rejection).
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 1-2, 4, 7-10, 12, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watterson et al. (US 2010/0093492 A1) in view of Tang (CN105094009 A, a translated copy of this document has been provided with this Office Action. The cited paragraphs are with respect to the translated copy).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Watterson teaches a motorized treadmill (10)/an exercise apparatus (10), comprising: a base (16/18, Fig. 1, ¶ [23]); an endless belt (30)/an operating unit (30) movable relative to the base for allowing a user to exercise thereon (Fig. 1, ¶ [23]); a motor (100, Fig. 5) coupled to the endless belt/operating unit for driving the endless belt/operating unit to rotate (¶ [23]); a sensor (36) configured to detect if an object approaches the motorized treadmill/exercise apparatus (Figs. 1, 2A and 3A, ¶ [20]-[22], [28]-[30], [60]-[61]); and a controller (102 as part of the console 14) in communication with the motor and the sensor (¶ [26]), the controller configured to determine whether an object is detected by the sensor (¶ [32]-[33]); wherein when the sensor detects that the object approaches the motorized treadmill/exercise apparatus, the controller is operable to stop rotation of the motor to slow down or stop rotation of the endless belt/operating unit (¶ [31]-[35], [37]-[39], [48]-[50], [56]-[58]).
Watterson teaches that any reference point associated with an exercise device may be used to define the spatial zones of proximity; for example, spatial zones of proximity may be defined by distance from an exercise device or associated reference point, direction from an exercise device or associated reference point, different detection zones of multiple sensors, elevation, etc. (see ¶ [31]), and that the sensor (36) can be of any different types including infrared sensor, video camera, proximity sensor, etc. (see ¶ [28], [61]). Although Watterson is capable of detecting a child (as an object) is approaching the motorized treadmill, Watterson does not specifically teach determining that the object (detected) is a child.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Tang teaches a system comprising: a sensor (camera (130), ¶ [75]) configured to detect if an object approaches a source of danger (hazard source (120), ¶ [9], [18]-[19], [27], [71]), and a controller in communication with the sensor and the source of danger, configured to determine whether the object detected by the sensor is a child and in response thereto, stopping/cutting off power supply to the source of danger (¶ [10]-[11], [21], [28]-[29], [44]-[45], [52], [90]-[99], [111]-[112], an image is obtained by the camera, and analyzed to determine that the dangerous source is approached by a person and whether the person is a child. When analyzing an image, since the height of the adult is higher than that of the child, it is possible to determine whether the person is a child based on the height of the person in the image taken by the camera. Please note that upon modification of Watterson’s invention with features of Tang, the sensor can detect that the object approaching the motorized treadmill/exercise apparatus (a hazard source) is a child and stop rotation of the motor to slow down or stop rotation of the endless belt/operating unit).
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 Watterson’s invention configured to determine whether the object detected by the sensor is a child and in response thereto, stopping/cutting off power supply to the device/hazard source/exercise apparatus/motorized treadmill as taught by Tang in order to control the motorized treadmill/exercise apparatus more efficiently and avoid unnecessary interruptions in the user’s exercise, through determination that the object approaching is a child and controlling the motorized treadmill/exercise apparatus accordingly to prevent injuries to the child and the user.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Watterson in view of Tang teaches wherein the sensor is configured to detect a height of the object to allow the controller to identify whether the object approaching the motorized treadmill/exercise apparatus is a child (Watterson: ¶ [31], any reference point associated with an exercise device may be used to define the spatial zones of proximity; for example, spatial zones of proximity may be defined by distance from an exercise device or associated reference point, direction from an exercise device or associated reference point, different detection zones of multiple sensors, elevation, etc.; Tang: ¶ [90]-[99]).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Watterson in view of Tang teaches wherein the sensor is operable to detect a height of the object, if the sensor detects that the height of the object is less than a predetermined height, the controller determines that the object approaching the motorized treadmill/exercise apparatus is a child and is programmed to slow down or stop rotation of the endless belt/operating unit (Watterson: ¶ [31]-[35], [37]-[39], [48]-[50], [56]-[58]; Tang: ¶ [10]-[11], [21], [28]-[29], [44]-[45], [52], [90]-[99], [111]-[112]; Watterson teaches the proximity zones can be defined based on elevation, the sensor is operable to detect an object and the controller determine that an object approaching the motorized treadmill and is programmed to slow down or stop rotation of the endless belt (see above for details), Tang teaches wherein the sensor is operable to detect a height of the object, if the sensor detects that the height of the object is less than a predetermined height, the controller determines that the object approaching the hazard source is a child and is programmed to cut off power to the hazard source (see above for details). Upon modification of Watterson’s invention with features of Tang, the controller would determine that the object approaching the motorized treadmill is a child and would be programmed to slow down or stop rotation of the endless belt or shut down the treadmill).
Regarding claim 7, Watterson in view of Tang teaches wherein the base has a front roller and a rear roller (Watterson: Figs. 1 and 7A, ¶ [23], [25]), the endless belt mounted around the front roller and the rear roller (Watterson: ¶ [23], [25]), the sensor (Watterson: 36) being located on a rear side of the base near the rear roller to detect the object close to the rear side of the base (Watterson: Figs. 1, 3-3A, 7A-7B).
Regarding claim 8, Watterson in view of Tang teaches wherein the sensor comprises an optical sensor, a camera, an infrared sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a thermal sensor, or any combination thereof (Watterson: ¶ [28], [61]).
Regarding claim 15, Watterson in view of Tang teaches wherein the sensor (Watterson: 36) is mounted on a rear end of the base for detecting if an object approaches the rear end of the base, preventing the object from getting stuck by the operating unit (Watterson: Figs. 1, 3-3A, 7A-7B).
Regarding claim 16, Watterson teaches a motorized treadmill (10), comprising: a base (16/18, Fig. 1, ¶ [23]); an endless belt (30) movable relative to the base for allowing a user to exercise thereon (Fig. 1, ¶ [23]); a motor (100, Fig. 5) coupled to the endless belt for driving the endless belt to rotate (¶ [23]); a sensor (36) configured to detect if an object approaches the motorized treadmill (Figs. 1, 2A and 3A, ¶ [20]-[22], [28]-[31], [60]-[61]); and a controller (102 as part of the console 14) in communication with the motor and the sensor (¶ [26]), configured to control operation of the motor to control rotation of the endless belt (¶ [32]-[33]); wherein when the sensor detects that the object approaches the motorized treadmill, the controller is programmed to slow down or stop rotation of the endless belt (¶ [31]-[35], [37]-[39], [48]-[50], [56]-[58]).
Watterson teaches that any reference point associated with an exercise device may be used to define the spatial zones of proximity; for example, spatial zones of proximity may be defined by distance from an exercise device or associated reference point, direction from an exercise device or associated reference point, different detection zones of multiple sensors, elevation, etc. (see ¶ [31]), and that the sensor (36) can be of any different types including infrared sensor, video camera, proximity sensor, etc. (see ¶ [28], [61]). Watterson is silent about the sensor configured to detect a height of the object, and wherein when the sensor detects that the height of the object is less than a predetermined height, the controller is programmed to slow down or stop rotation of the endless belt.
Regarding claim 16, Tang teaches a system comprising: sensor (camera (130), ¶ [75]) configured to detect if an object approaches a source of danger (hazard source (120), ¶ [9], [18]-[19], [27], [71]), and to detect a height of the object (¶ [98]-[99]), a controller in communication with the sensor and the source of danger, configured to control the operability of the hazard source, wherein when the sensor detects that the height of the object is less than a predetermined height, the controller is programmed to stop/cut power supply to the source of danger (¶ [10]-[11], [21], [28]-[29], [44]-[45], [52], [90]-[99], [111]-[112], an image is obtained by the camera, and analyzed to determine that the dangerous source is approached by a person and whether the person is a child. When analyzing an image, since the height of the adult is higher than that of the child, it is possible to determine whether the person is a child based on the height of the person in the image taken by the camera. Please note that upon modification of Watterson’s invention with features of Tang, when the sensor detects that the height of the object is less than a predetermined height (hence a child is present), the controller would be programmed to slow down or stop rotation of the endless belt (or shut down the treadmill)).
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 Watterson’s invention wherein the sensor is configured to detect a height of the object, and wherein when the sensor detects that the height of the object is less than a predetermined height, the controller is programmed to cut off power supplied to the device/hazard source/treadmill, as taught by Tang in order to prevent a child from coming into contact with an operating treadmill, thereby provide a safer treadmill.
Regarding claim 20, Watterson in view of Tang teaches wherein the base has a front roller and a rear roller (Watterson: Figs. 1 and 7A, ¶ [23], [25]), the endless belt mounted around the front roller and the rear roller (Watterson: ¶ [23], [25]), the sensor (Watterson: 36) being located on a rear side of the base near the rear roller to detect if the object close to the rear side of the base (Watterson: Figs. 1, 3-3A, 7A-7B).
Claims 3, 5-6, 11, 13-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watterson in view of Tang as applied to claims 1, 4, 9, 12 and 16 above, and further in view of Bradley (US 2018/0243611 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 5-6, 11, 13-14, and 17-19, Watterson in view of Tang teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the object detected by the sensor is a child according to the height of the subject/wherein when the sensor detects that the height of the object is less than a predetermined height, the controller determines that the object approaching the motorized treadmill is a child, and wherein when the controller determines that (the object is) a child approaches the endless belt/motorized treadmill, the controller is operable to stop operation of the motor to slow down or stop rotation of the endless belt, preventing the child from getting stuck under the endless belt (Watterson: ¶ [31]-[35], [37]-[39], [48]-[50], [56]-[58]; Tang: ¶ [10]-[11], [21], [28]-[29], [44]-[45], [52], [90]-[99], [111]-[112]).
It is Office’s position that Watterson as modified by Tang teaches wherein when the controller determines that the child approaches the endless belt/wherein when the sensor detects that the height of the object is less than a predetermined height, the controller determines that the object approaching the motorized treadmill is a child, the controller is operable to shut off power to the motor to stop operation of the motor to slow down or stop rotation of the endless belt, preventing the child from getting stuck under the endless belt (Watterson: ¶ [31]-[35], [37]-[39], [48]-[50], [56]-[58]; Tang: ¶ [10]-[11], [21], [28]-[29], [44]-[45], [52], [90]-[99], [111]-[112]; Watterson teaches the proximity zones can be defined based on elevation and the controller can stop operation of the motor to slow down or stop rotation of the belt, when an object is detected in a proximity zone (see above for details), Tang teaches determining that a child is approaching a hazard source and based on such determination, cutting power to the hazard source (see above for details) and as such, upon modification of Watterson’s invention with features of Tang, when the controller determines that a child approaches the treadmill/endless belt (hazard source), the controller would shut/cut off power to the motor to stop operation of the motor to slow down or stop rotation of the endless belt). However, if Applicant is not in agreement with the Offices position, regarding the controller being operable to shut off power to the motor to stop operation of the motor to slow down or stop rotation of the endless belt, Bradley teaches such.
Regarding claims 3, 5-6, 11, 13-14, and 17-19, Bradley teaches a treadmill comprising: a base (15, Figs. 1-2, ¶ [14]), an endless belt (14) movable relative to the base for allowing a user (19) to exercise thereon (Figs. 1-2, ¶ [14]), a motor (16, Figs. 1-2, ¶ [14]), a height detection sensor (12, Figs. 1-2, ¶ [15]), and a controller (Fig. 5), the controller is operable to shut off power to the motor to stop operation of the motor to slow down or stop rotation of the endless belt, based on data from the height detection sensor (¶ [12], [14]).
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 Watterson’s invention in view of Tang such that the controller is operable to shut off power to the motor to stop operation of the motor to slow down or stop rotation of the endless belt as taught by Bradley in order to prevent both the user and the child from being injured and thereby providing a safer apparatus for the user.
Watterson in view of Tang and Bradley teaches the invention as substantially claimed. See above. Watterson in view of Tang and Bradley teaches that the proximity zones can be defined based on elevation and include user defined values (see ¶ [31], [50] of Watterson), and that the sensor can detect that the height of the object is less than that of an adult, who would have a (higher) predetermined height (see ¶ [98]-[99] of Tang). Although Watterson in view of Tang and Bradley does not specifically teach the height of the object being less than 120 cm or between 60 cm and 120 cm, 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 Watterson’s invention in view of Tang and Bradley such that the sensor can detect the height of the object being less than 120cm or between 60 cm and 120 cm, in order to better determine that the object approaching the treadmill is a child, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05) (Claims 5-6, 13-14 and 18-19).
Note to Applicant:
Please see PTO-892 for a list of further pertinent prior art references.
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