Detailed Action
This is the Final Rejection based on application 18/764,370 filed on 07/05/2024, and which claims as amended on 05/12/2026 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 application 63/525,167, and as such the earliest date of priority of 07/06/2023 is granted to the instant application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments have not been sufficient to overcome all of the original drawing objections and rejections under 35 USC 112(b) present in the Non-Final Action. As such the relevant objections/rejections have been maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 4,6,21,22,23,41,42,43,82,83,84,101.
Furthermore, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the “resistance/braking system”, of claims 4, and 9, and the “means for generating and regulating resistance” of claims 6 and 10, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In independent claim 7 the claim limitations requiring interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) include “means for adjusting the position or height of the ab-push object to fit users of different sizes”. In dependent claims 6 and 10, the limitations requiring interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) include “means for generating and regulating resistance to the movement of the tread belt to simulate different workout intensities.”
This application also includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a resistance/braking system to increase the resistance to move the treadmill belt and safely stop the tread belt when the user stops engaging with the ab-drive object.” in dependent claim 4, and “a resistance/brake system on at least one of the front roller and the rear roller to change a resistance to move the tread belt” in dependent claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In regards to claim 7 the specification of the instant application mentions various possible embodiments of the ab-drive/ab-push object including different height adjustment means. In paragraphs [0008]-[0009] the embodiments shown in figures 1 and 3 state, “Figures 1 and 2 illustrate a treadmill with an ab-roller 68 connected to a telescopic pole 67, which is attached to the treadmill frame via a cantilever 65 and adaptor 61. The roller's height can be adjusted, and it can rotate around the shaft for smooth operation. The user's abdomen pushes against the roller, generating driving force on user's feet to push backward on treadmill belt. Ab-pad can replace ab-roller 68 in this case.”, as stated in paragraph [0008], and paragraph [0009] states “Figures 3 and 4 show a treadmill with an ab-pad 45 connected to the frame handlebar 11 via a cantilever 44. The ab-pad's elevation can be adjusted to fit the user.”. Paragraph [0010] discusses the embodiment shown in figures 5 and 6, and states , “The ab-band 24 is connected to the ends of the handlebar 11 and can be adjusted vertically to fit different users.” , however the actual structure that is involved in the vertical adjustment is not discussed. Paragraph [0011] states “Figures 7 and 8 depict a treadmill with an ab-roller 86 connected to the handlebars 11 via a shaft 85. The elevation of the ab-roller can be adjusted, and the ab-roller 85 can rotate around shaft 85 for smooth running”, however the actual structure that is involved in the vertical adjustment is not discussed. Paragraph [0012] states, “Figures 9 and 10 show a treadmill with an adjustable-height ab-roller 103 connected to the handlebars 11 via a shaft 102.” however the actual structure that is involved in the vertical adjustment is not discussed.
In regards to claims 4,6, 9 and 10, there is no discussion in the specification of the instant application for any “resistance/braking systems”, or “means for generating and regulating resistance to the movement of the tread belt to simulate different workout intensities”. Furthermore there is no discussion, or depiction in the figures, of any friction or magnetic means in the invention.
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 4,6, and 7-11 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 4 recites the limitation “the resistance to move” on line 2, The claimed limitation lacks sufficient antecedent basis as a resistance has not been claimed yet.
Furthermore, claim limitation “a resistance/braking system to increase the resistance to move the treadmill belt and safely stop the tread belt when the user stops engaging with the ab-push object ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no mention of any resistance means in the specification of the instant application. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “means for generating and regulating resistance to the movement of the tread belt to simulate different workout intensities” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no mention of any resistance means in the specification of the instant application. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “means for adjusting a height of the shaft to fit users of different sizes” on lines 9-10. It is unclear if this height of the shaft is different than the height previously claimed on line 7, which is stated as being suitable for user engagement with a user’s abdomen.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a resistance/brake system on at least one of the front roller and the rear roller to change a resistance to move the tread belt”, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no mention of any resistance means in the specification of the instant application. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 10 recites the claim limitation “means for generating and regulating resistance to the movement of the tread belt to simulate different workout intensities” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no mention of any resistance means in the specification of the instant application. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 8, and 11 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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,and 3-6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crist et al. US 11771948 B2, and further in view of Robinson US 20130005541 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
A human-powered treadmill (“The object of the present invention provides a non-electric treadmill for allowing a user to perform exercise of walking, jogging or running with a restricting device” See col.3 lines 13-15) comprising: a frame structure ( support frame 11, left side frame 20, right side frame 30, and front frame 40 together comprise the treadmill frame structure) including a base (platform 10); a front roller (front roller 14) and a rear roller (rear roller 15), supported by said frame structure (“A front roller 14 is rotationally mounted on the support frame 11 in front of the deck 12 and a rear roller 15 is rotationally mounted on the support frame 11 at the rear of the deck 12.” See col.6 lines 12-15); a tread belt (endless belt 16) mounted on said front roller and rear roller (“An endless belt 16 is mounted around the front roller 14 and the rear roller 15 across the top and the bottom of the deck 12 so as to provide a circular plane for a user to exercise thereon.” See col. 6 lines 16-19) wherein when the user leans forward during walking or running on the tread belt, the user's abdomen pushes against the ab-drive object, creating a backward thrust on the user's feet that drives tread belt backward (“As the user is pulled by the rope to restrict the forward motion in the prior art, the present invention uses the restricting device 50 to retain the waist W of the user U for restrict the forward motion. In this manner, the user could run free without hands holding a front handrail, using a reaction force to increase the foot pushing force on the belt 16 for allowing the belt 16 beginning to slide easily from a rest condition and to keep running at a lower speed (in the walking motion).” See col. 9 lines 13-21).
PNG
media_image1.png
610
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
496
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Crist fails to teach a cantilever coupled with a front portion of the frame structure; and an ab-drive object coupled with the cantilever connected to the frame structure such that the cantilever is configured to adjust a height of the ab-drive object to accommodate users of different sizes such that the ab-drive object engages with a user's abdomen.
The examiner notes that Crist does teach an ab-drive object that engages with a user's abdomen (See rejection above), but that specifically the ab-drive object being attached to a cantilever coupled to the front portion of the frame is not taught.
Robinson, however, teaches a high-intensity interval training method comprises supporting an individual upon an upper body engaging element in a forwardly inclined position while the individual is propelling himself in a forward motion on a non-motorized rotatable endless belt (See abstract), and further teaches a cantilever (Arms 108, the examiner notes that the definition of a cantilever as provided by Merriam-Webster is “a projecting beam or member supported at only one end” and that it is known that cantilevers can be braced with an intermediate support as long as the end is unsupported. Therefore the arms 108 which are supported mainly by bar 126 with the cushioning actuator 110 are cantilevers. ) coupled with a front portion of the frame structure(See figure 1); and an ab-drive object coupled with the cantilever connected to the frame structure such that the cantilever is configured to adjust a height of the ab-drive object to accommodate users of different sizes (“Positioning of the arms 108 along the vertical frame component 102 can be adjusted to fit the height of user.” See paragraph [0025]).
PNG
media_image3.png
638
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 support of Crist which corresponds to the height adjustment of the ab-drive object to be a cantilever as taught by Robinson, as this would increase the rigidity of the device, and increase the work the user must exert in order to push into the ab-drive object while still allowing the user to make height adjustments as necessary.
Regarding claim 3:
Crist as modified by Robinson teaches the human-powered treadmill of claim 1, the ab-drive object is connected to the frame structure via the cantilever (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4:
Crist as modified discloses the human-powered treadmill of claim 1, wherein the treadmill includes a resistance/braking system to increase the resistance to move the treadmill belt and safely stop the tread belt when the user stops engaging with the ab-drive object (The examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, that any resistance device is being considered as means for generating and regulating resistance to the movement of the tread belt with no further structural or functional limitations, and therefore the examiner cites col.10 lines 43-45 where it states, “Like conventional non-electric treadmill, the exercise apparatus 100 also has a resistance device for adjusting the movement resistance of the belt 16.”, and col. 11 lines 43-47 further specify, “For example, when the user feels that the belt 16 runs too fast/too slow, the user can turn the resistance up/down appropriately, or by increasing the resistance to enhance the exercise intensity for speeding up calorie consumption.”).
Regarding claim 5:
Crist as modified discloses the human-powered treadmill of claim 1, wherein the treadmill is designed for hands-free operation, with the user propelling the tread belt through abdominal pressure without the need for hand-push motion (“In this manner, the user could run free without hands holding a front handrail, using a reaction force to increase the foot pushing force on the belt 16 for allowing the belt 16 beginning to slide easily from a rest condition and to keep running at a lower speed (in the walking motion).” See col. 9 lines 16-21).
Regarding claim 6:
Crist as modified discloses the human-powered treadmill of claim 1, further comprising means for generating and regulating resistance to the movement of the tread belt to simulate different workout intensities (The examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, that any resistance device is being considered as means for generating and regulating resistance to the movement of the tread belt with no further structural or functional limitations, and therefore the examiner cites col.10 lines 43-45 where it states, “Like conventional non-electric treadmill, the exercise apparatus 100 also has a resistance device for adjusting the movement resistance of the belt 16.”, and col. 11 lines 43-47 further specify, “For example, when the user feels that the belt 16 runs too fast/too slow, the user can turn the resistance up/down appropriately, or by increasing the resistance to enhance the exercise intensity for speeding up calorie consumption.”).
Claims 7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crist et al. US 11771948 B2, and further in view of Wehrell US 20200238127 A1.
Regarding claim 7:
Crist teaches a human-powered treadmill (“The object of the present invention provides a non-electric treadmill for allowing a user to perform exercise of walking, jogging or running with a restricting device” See col.3 lines 13-15) comprising: a frame structure ( support frame 11, left side frame 20, right side frame 30, and front frame 40 together comprise the treadmill frame structure) including a base (platform 10) and a u-shape handrail (The examiner notes that as depicted in annotated figure 1, left and right side frames 20 and 30 are a U-shaped handrail); a front roller (front roller 14) and a rear roller (rear roller 15), supported by said frame structure (“A front roller 14 is rotationally mounted on the support frame 11 in front of the deck 12 and a rear roller 15 is rotationally mounted on the support frame 11 at the rear of the deck 12.” See col.6 lines 12-15); a tread belt (endless belt 16) mounted on said front roller and rear roller (“An endless belt 16 is mounted around the front roller 14 and the rear roller 15 across the top and the bottom of the deck 12 so as to provide a circular plane for a user to exercise thereon.” See col. 6 lines 16-19); such that when the user leans forward during walking or running on the tread belt, the user's abdomen pushes against the ab-drive object, creating a backward thrust on the user's feet that drives the tread belt backward.
Crist fails to teach a shaft coupled with a first side of the u-shape handrail at a first end and a second side of the u-shape handrail at a second end; an ab-drive object connected to the shaft at a height suitable for user engagement with a user's abdomen; and means for adjusting a height of the shaft to fit users of different sizes.
The examiner notes that Crist does teach an ab-drive object (retaining portion 56) and means for adjusting a height of the ab-drive object to fit users of different sizes (“The user can use the hook 54 at the front end of the suspension portion 59 to hook one of the horizontal rods 45 with respect to different heights on the front holding portion 43 so that the vertical height of the retaining portion 56 could be adjusted.” See col. 10 lines 14-20.), but that specifically a shaft coupled with a first side of the u-shape handrail at a first end and a second side of the u-shape handrail at a second end is not taught.
Wehrell, however, teaches an exercise sled and more particularly to an exercise sled which is pushed by a portion of the user's torso (See paragraph [0002]), and further teaches a shaft coupled (cross member 18) with a first side of the u-shape handrail at a first end and a second side of the u-shape handrail at a second end (See figure 17); an ab-drive object (extension member 10) connected to the shaft at a height suitable for user engagement with a user's abdomen (“Member 50 is also designed to accept extension member 10 which is adapted to receive a waist portion or chest portion while the user is pushing the sled” See paragraph [0069]); and means for adjusting a height of the shaft to fit users of different sizes (“FIG. 17 is an overhead perspective while FIG. 18 is a side elevation showing how cross member 18 with attachment means 18A and 18B can be attached at different elevations to push members 2.” See paragraph [0069]. The examiner notes that having the height adjustment as discussed in the previous citation inherently includes the function of connecting the ab-drive object at a height suitable for users of different sizes).
PNG
media_image4.png
292
396
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 ab-drive object support of Crist which corresponds to the height adjustment of the ab-drive object to be a shaft between the u-shaped handrails as taught by Wehrell, as this would increase the rigidity of the device, and increase the work the user must exert in order to push into the ab-drive object while still allowing the user to make height adjustments as necessary.
Regarding claim 9:
Crist as modified discloses the human-powered treadmill of claim 7, further comprising at least a resistance/brake system on at least one of the front roller and the rear roller to change a resistance to move the tread belt (“Therefore, the reluctance member 71 and the metal disc 64 are defined as a magnetic resistance device, such as an eddy current brake (ECB), namely, as the reluctance member 71 is controlled at various angles, the rotational resistance of the metal disc 64 (the flywheel 63, the front roller 14 as well) would be varied.” See col. 11 lines 24-29).
Regarding claim 10:
Crist as modified discloses the human-powered treadmill of claim 7, further comprising means for generating and regulating resistance to the movement of the tread belt to simulate different workout intensities (The examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, that any resistance device is being considered as means for generating and regulating resistance to the movement of the tread belt with no further structural or functional limitations, and therefore the examiner cites col.10 lines 43-45 where it states, “Like conventional non-electric treadmill, the exercise apparatus 100 also has a resistance device for adjusting the movement resistance of the belt 16.”, and col. 11 lines 43-47 further specify, “For example, when the user feels that the belt 16 runs too fast/too slow, the user can turn the resistance up/down appropriately, or by increasing the resistance to enhance the exercise intensity for speeding up calorie consumption.”).
Regarding claim 11:
Crist as modified discloses the human-powered treadmill of claim 7, wherein the treadmill isthrough abdominal pressure without the need for hand-push motion (“In this manner, the user could run free without hands holding a front handrail, using a reaction force to increase the foot pushing force on the belt 16 for allowing the belt 16 beginning to slide easily from a rest condition and to keep running at a lower speed (in the walking motion).” See col. 9 lines 16-21).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crist et al. US 11771948 B2, in view of Robinson US 2013005541, and further in view of the second embodiment of Crist et al. US 11771948 B2.
The first embodiment of Crist teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 2:
Crist teaches the human-powered treadmill of claim 1, but the embodiment discussed in claim 1 fails to teach the human-powered treadmill of claim 1, wherein the ab-drive object is selected from the group consisting of a pad comprising smooth and soft surface, and a rotatable cylinder comprising a smooth and soft surface.
Crist, however, teaches an alternate similar embodiment which does specify that the ab-drive object is a pad with a smooth and soft surface or a rotatable cylinder with a smooth and soft surface (“The restricting device 250 includes a first strap 251, a second strap 252 and a rectangular member 255, wherein the rectangular member 255 is located at the central area of the exercising space and defines a left end and a right end. Specifically, the rectangular member 255 may be a cylindrical tube of rubber material, or a rectangular soft pad filled with foam, etc.” See col. 13 lines 42-49 and figure 10).
PNG
media_image5.png
672
428
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a pad with a smooth and soft surface or a rotatable cylinder with a smooth and soft surface as taught by the second embodiment shown in figure 10 of Crist, as the soft pad or cylinder would be more comfortable for the user to press their abdomen against than the strap portion of the first embodiment.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crist et al. US 11771948 B2, in view of Wehrell US 20200238127 A1, and further in view of the second embodiment of Crist et al. US 11771948 B2.
Regarding claim 8:
Crist as modified teaches the human-powered treadmill of claim 7, but the embodiment discussed in claim 7 fails to teach wherein the ab-drive object is selected from the group consisting of a pad comprising a smooth and soft surface and a rotatable cylinder comprising a smooth and soft surface.
Crist, however, teaches an alternate similar embodiment which does specify that the ab-drive object is a pad with a smooth and soft surface or a rotatable cylinder with a smooth and soft surface (“The restricting device 250 includes a first strap 251, a second strap 252 and a rectangular member 255, wherein the rectangular member 255 is located at the central area of the exercising space and defines a left end and a right end. Specifically, the rectangular member 255 may be a cylindrical tube of rubber material, or a rectangular soft pad filled with foam, etc.” See col. 13 lines 42-49 and figure 10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a pad with a smooth and soft surface or a rotatable cylinder with a smooth and soft surface as taught by the second embodiment shown in figure 10 of Crist, as the soft pad or cylinder would be more comfortable for the user to press their abdomen against than the strap portion of the first embodiment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the drawing objections and rejections presented under 35 USC 112(b) which have been maintained from the previous Non-Final action, the amendments to the drawings, specification, and claims were not sufficient to overcome or resolve the outstanding issues and therefore they have been maintained.
With respect to the rejections presented under 35 USC 102(a)(1) in view of the Crist reference presented in the previous Non-Final action in regards to claims 1 and 7 the amendments to the claims required an updated search and consideration, and the new rejections under 35 USC 103 presented above, as the new limitation of the cantilever coupled with a front portion of the frame structure; and an ab-drive object coupled with the cantilever connected to the frame structure such that the cantilever is configured to adjust a height of the ab-drive object to accommodate users of different sizes such that the ab-drive object engages with a user's abdomen in claim 1, and the shaft coupled with a first side of the u-shape handrail at a first end and a second side of the u-shape handrail at a second end; with the ab-drive object connected to the shaft at a height suitable for user engagement with a user's abdomen; and means for adjusting a height of the shaft to fit users of different sizes were not originally present in the previous action, and therefore required the new rejections.
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
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
