Detailed Action
This is the Final Rejection based on application 18/744,011 filed on 06/14/2024, and which claims as amended on 01/26/2026 have been considered in the ensuing 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 .
Priority
The instant application claims priority to provisional applications 63/508,262, and as such the earliest priority date of 06/14/2023has been granted to the instant application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments have been sufficient to overcome the original rejections under 35 USC 112(b) present in the Non-Final Action.
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, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campanaro et al. WO 2022103759 A1, in view of Fisbein US 20130225369 A1, and further in view of Maugeri et al. US 11446549 B2.
Regarding claim 1:
Campanaro discloses an exercise system (The abstract describes the invention as an exercise device system) comprising: an exercise machine (inclinable exercise device 100) having a chassis (support structure 130) that defines an incline (see figure 1) and a sliding platform (user support platform/guideboard 180) configured to support a user thereon and that translates along the incline (See paragraph [0034] which outlines how the user performs exercises by sitting or lying on the support platform 180 and using the handles to pull on the cables in order to move the support platform along the rails at the set incline.), the exercise machine being configured for the user to perform resistance exercises therewith (The examiner notes that this limitation is merely stating the function of an exercise device and to see paragraph [0034] as noted above); and a sensor system having a position sensor that measures a distance between the sliding platform and the chassis (“Since the inclinable exercise device system 530 is constrained to simple linear motion along the rails 140, position of the user support platform 180 can be derived observation by the depth camera(s) 700.” See paragraph [0048]. The examiner notes that paragraph [0043] discusses the different model versions of the exercise device and states that they are the same as or similar to the base model exercise device 100 above, and simply include further computer systems and sensing systems of various types/combinations.), wherein inclination of the incline is adjustable relative to ground level (See figure 1, and paragraph [0004] which discusses how the support structure can be inclined at different angles relative to the tower, which inherently causes the incline to be adjustable relative to ground level since the exercise machine is on the ground.).
[AltContent: textbox (front perspective view of an embodiment of an inclinable exercise device)]
PNG
media_image1.png
422
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Campanaro fails to teach the sensor system includes an accelerometer as an inclination sensor configured to determine the inclination of the incline, a sensor system module having a housing containing the position sensor and the inclination sensor, and further including a computer system that is configured to determine resistance of the resistance exercises performed by the user according to the inclination determined by the inclination sensor and at least a first weight of the user and a weight of the sliding platform.
Fisbein, however, teaches systems and processes for simulating exercise in an interactive virtual environment comprised of a minicomputer configured with course data from a course server to render a virtual environment on a coupled video display (See abstract), and further teaches that the sensor system further includes an accelerometer as an inclination sensor (“The exercise device 10 sensors may include magnets, speed sensors, solenoids, accelerometers, inclinometers, and other sensors to measure exercise parameters.” See paragraph [0022]) configured to determine the inclination of the incline (“The sensors enable monitoring of exercise device 10 conditions such as information relating to speed, resistance, incline, time, temperature, angular orientation, and other similar operating parameters and conditions.” See paragraph [0022]).
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 the sensor system of Campanaro to include an accelerometer inclination sensor as taught by Fisbein, as Campanaro already uses sensors to monitor the exercise machine, and the user while they exercise, so the data from the inclination sensor would only provide more information for the system to make better determinations regarding the user’s performance.
Campanaro as modified by Fisbein still fails to teach a sensor system module having a housing containing the position sensor and the inclination sensor, and further including a computer system that is configured to determine resistance of the resistance exercises performed by the user according to the inclination determined by the inclination sensor and at least a first weight of the user and a weight of the sliding platform.
The examiner notes that Companaro does teach a computer system (System 2000, which includes platform 1010, user system(s) 1030, external system 1040, and/or various other processing devices) that is configured to determine resistance of the resistance exercises performed by the user according to the inclination determined by the inclination sensor (“The angle of the rails 140, which may be adjusted by adjusting the height of the carriage 110 with respect to the tower 110 as described above, determines the amount of resistance (percentage of user’s body weight) the user must overcome to pull the user support platform 180 and user up the inclined rails 140.” See paragraph [0034]), and a first weight of the user (The examiner notes that as stated in the citation of paragraph [0034] above, the percentage of the user’s body weight being used as the resistance for the exercises shows that the weight of the user is used by the system). Furthermore, the examiner notes that paragraph [0003] and figure 19, of Campanaro discuss/depict sensor modules 700 as well as sensors 720 at various positions in the exercise device. The mounting point and housing of the LiDAR cameras discussed in paragraph [0003] is a sensor system module having a housing containing the position sensor, and the inclination sensor as introduced in the combination with Fisbein which must be housed within the frame of the invention can be placed in the same housing noted above.).
Companaro specifically, fails to teach using a weight of the sliding platform to determine the resistance.
Maugeri, however, teaches a digitally enhanced exercise system including a proximal section comprising a first structural member and a platform; a distal section comprising a second structural member and an interface, wherein the interface is attached to the second structural member by a mount (See abstract), and further teaches using a weight of the sliding platform to determine resistance ( “In FIG. 10, the carriage sensor array 903 is shown to include six load cells 1011 that sit under the platform 501, such that the load cells 1011 may be zeroed or tared so as to measure the relative difference in weight applied to the carriage 115 relative to when the carriage 115 is carrying no load.” See col. 12 lines 34-38 with col. 13 lines 49-53 further specifying how this weight is used where it states, “For example, the system controller 1212 may collate the sensor data relating to weight across the system 101 to determine the total weight of the user and the weight distribution of the user while the user is engaged with the system 101”).
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 the system of Campanaro to use the initial weight of the sled in addition to the weight of the user, as this would allow the system to more accurately track the actual weight the user is exercising against, and would allow the feedback to more accurately reflect their performance in the exercises.
Regarding claim 5:
Campanero as modified discloses the exercise system according to Claim 1, wherein the position sensor is a light detection and ranging detection system (The examiner notes Paragraph [0046] discusses that the cameras 700 mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 can be LiDAR cameras. The examiner further notes that the acronym LiDAR refers to a light detection and ranging system)
Regarding claim 13:
Campanaro as modified discloses the exercise system according to Claim 1, wherein the sliding platform includes rollers that roll along the incline for the sliding platform to translate along the incline (“A user support platform or glideboard 180 with rollers (not shown) rolls along the rails 140.” See paragraph [0030]).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campanaro et al. WO 2022103759 A1, in view of Fisbein US 20130225369 A1, and in view of Maugeri et al. US 11446549 B2, and further in view of Lin CN 217526282 U.
Campanero as modified teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 2:
Campanaro as modified teaches the exercise system according to Claim 1, wherein one of the sensor system and the computer system in communication with the sensor system is configured to determine, according to the position measured by the position sensor over time, a number of repetitions of a set of one of the resistance exercises performed by the user.
The examiner notes that Campanaro does teach both a sensor system (See rejection of claim 1) and a computer system in communication with the sensor system (System 2000, which includes platform 1010, user system(s) 1030, external system 1040, and/or various other processing devices), but fails to specifically teach that they determine, according to the position measured by the position sensor over time, a number of repetitions of a set of one of the resistance exercises performed by the user.
Lin, however, teaches a monitoring fitness equipment, comprising a bracket, a cushion plate and a traction rope and an electric control detection system; the seat cushion plate is obliquely and upwards set on the bracket, and an electric control detecting system comprises a power supply, a coordinate sensor, a micro-control processor and a wireless communication module (See abstract), and further teaches according to the position measured by the position sensor over time, a number of repetitions of a set of one of the resistance exercises performed by the user (“ The micro-control processor calculates the movement data such as the movement speed and the number of movements of the personnel through the coordinate change, and then transmits the movement data to the client terminal through the wireless communication module and presents it to the user to observe the current amount of movement” See page 1 of the translated description provided from Espacenet).
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 the system of Campanaro to include the ability to track repetitions as taught by Lin, as Campanaro already uses sensors and a computer system to monitor the position of the moving sled, as well as the position and movements of the user during exercise, and has the capability to present training information to the user, so including the number of repetitions is a common practice in the field of electronic exercise devices, and would allow the user to keep track of where they are in the exercise routine more easily.
Regarding claim 3:
Campanaro as modified discloses the exercise system according to Claim 2, wherein the position sensor is a light detection and ranging detection system (The examiner notes Paragraph [0046] discusses that the cameras 700 mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 can be LiDAR cameras. The examiner further notes that Light Detection and Ranging is what the acronym LiDAR refers to).
Regarding claim 4:
Companaro as modified discloses the exercise system according to Claim 3, wherein the chassis includes a rail structure (rails 140) that defines the incline (See figure 1) and that includes a lower end (See annotated figure 1) that is configured to be supported by a ground level (See figure 1 which depicts the lower end of the rails on the ground), and the light detection and ranging detection system is coupled to the sliding platform and measures the position of the sliding platform by measuring a distance between the light detection and ranging detection system and the lower end of the rail structure (The examiner notes that paragraph [0048] outlines how the LiDAR cameras interact with the IR LEDs they use to detect the depth/movement of the support platform 180 during use to track the motion/performance of the user. It further states that the sensors may be carried directly by the support platform with various parameter such as distance traveled, velocity and acceleration being used from the captured sequential frames. The examiner further notes that the acronym LiDAR refers to a Light Detection and Ranging system).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to the arguments presented with respect to the rejection of claims 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1), the examiner notes that the newly added limitations of the sensor system including an accelerometer as an inclination sensor configured to determine the inclination of the incline, a sensor system module having a housing containing the position sensor and the inclination sensor, and further including a computer system that is configured to determine resistance of the resistance exercises performed by the user according to the inclination determined by the inclination sensor and at least a first weight of the user and a weight of the sliding platform, were not originally present in claim 1 and were found in dependent claims 6-12, which have been canceled and incorporated into independent claim 1. However, the argument that the reference Maugeri, which was used to reject claim 9 in the previous non-final action, was not used to teach an accelerometer as an inclination sensor, or a housing for the sensor. The prior art references of Fisbein and Companaro taught these limitations when combined. Therefore simply moving the dependent claim limitations into the independent claim only required a re-ordering of the combinations of references and the subsequent rejection presented above under 35 USC 103. Please see the rejection above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN ANGELO DICUIA whose telephone number is (703)756-4713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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.
/JONATHAN A DICUIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/LOAN B JIMENEZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights