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.
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: 3,4,5,6,7,8,10,21,22,23,41,42,43,62,63,64,66,82,83,84,101,104.
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 “ab-drive object connected directly to the front part of the treadmill's frame” of independent claim 1, the “resistance/braking system”, of claims 4, and 7, the “slat belt” of claims 4,6,7, and 10, the “means for generating and regulating resistance” of claims 6 and 10,and the “friction or magnetic means” of claim 10, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
In addition, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “85” has been used to designate both the ab-roller and the shaft in paragraph [0011].
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 4, “the frame” should be –the frame structure—to avoid a 112(b) rejection by keeping the claim language consistent.
On line 5, “the treadmill’s frame” should be –the frame structure-- to avoid a 112(b) rejection by keeping the claim language consistent.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, “an cantilever” should be –a cantilever--.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On lines 1-2, “the position of the ab-drive object is connected to a cantilever and can be adjusted vertically” should be –the ab-drive object is connected to a cantilever and the position of the ab-drive object can be adjusted vertically--. The examiner notes that the position of something is not a physical structure and therefore cannot be connected to another structure and the claim if left as is, could require a rejection under 35 USC 112(b).
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 3, “intensities. Friction…” should be –intensities; friction…-- as periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations, as stated in MPEP section 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 claims 1 and 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 or slat belt to simulate different workout intensities.” Furthermore in dependent claim 10 “Friction or magnetic means can be used to generate the resistance to increase the resistance to move the treadmill belt and safely stop the tread belt or slat belt when the user stops engaging with the ab-drive object.”, which also requires interpretation under 35 USC 112(f).
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 or slat belt when the user stops engaging with the ab-push object.” in dependent claim 4.
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 claims 1 and 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 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 or slat 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 1-11 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 1 recites the limitation “the user’s body” on line 7. A user has not been claimed yet and therefore there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The examiner suggests changing the language to b –a user’s body--. Furthermore on line 7, “wherein a user leans” if the above change is made should be –wherein the user leans--, in order to correct the possible antecedent basis issue that would result.
In addition, on line 11, “the ab-push object” has insufficient antecedent basis, as an ab-push object has not yet been claimed only an ab-drive object has been claimed thus far.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the tread belt or slat belt" in lines 2-3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as a slat belt has not yet been claimed only a tread belt has been claimed thus far.
Furthermore, on line 2 “the resistance to move” 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 or slat 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 "the tread belt or slat belt" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as a slat belt has not yet been claimed only a tread belt has been claimed thus far.
Furthermore, claim limitation “means for generating and regulating resistance to the movement of the tread belt or slat belt to simulate different workout intensities” 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 "the tread belt or slat belt" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as a slat belt has not yet been claimed only a tread belt has been claimed thus far.
In addition, on line 8, ““the resistance to move” lacks sufficient antecedent basis as a resistance has not been claimed yet.
Furthermore, claim 7 recites “the ab-push object” on line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as an ab-push object has not yet been claimed only an ab-drive object has been claimed thus far.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the tread belt or slat belt" in lines 2-3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as a slat belt has not yet been claimed only a tread belt has been claimed thus far.
Furthermore, claim limitation “means for generating and regulating resistance to the movement of the tread belt or slat belt to simulate different workout intensities” 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 2-3,5, 8-9, and 11 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4-7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crist et al. US 11771948 B2.
Regarding claim 1:
Crist discloses 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);
- a driving device (restricting device 50) coupled to the frame (See figure 1) , the driving device being an ab-drive object (retaining potion 56) connected directly to the front part of the treadmill's frame (See figure 1. The examiner notes that none of the embodiments presented in the instant application depict the ab-drive object directly connected to the front part of the treadmill’s frame, see drawing objection above, every embodiment shown in the figures and discussed in throughout the specification discuss either an adaptor, or via a cantilever, connection to the frame via a secondary structure. Therefore, the retaining portion being coupled to the front side frame through support strap 52 as discussed in col. 8 lines 23-26 of Crist is being considered as the retaining portion being directly connected to the frame as claimed.), positioned in the front and middle part of the user's body at a height or position suitable for user engagement (“All in all, the retaining portion 56 of the restricting device 50 is maintained at the central area of the exercising space S by the left restricting portion 57, the right restriction portion 58 and the suspension portion 59, and located at a corresponding height of a waist of the user.” See col. 8 lines 26-31), wherein when a user leans forward during walking or running on the treadmill's tread belt, the user's abdomen pushes against the ab-drive object, creating a backward thrust on the user's feet, thereby causing the user's feet to push back on the tread belt (“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);
- means for adjusting the position or height of the ab-push 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. The examiner notes that as the claimed limitation requires an interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as discussed above, and the unclear nature of the claim language discussed in the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), since no embodiment is specified in claim 1, any means of adjusting the height of the ab-push object with no further structural or functional limitations is being considered as the means for adjusting the position or height of the ab-push object).
PNG
media_image1.png
610
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
496
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2:
Crist discloses the human-powered treadmill of claim 1, wherein the ab-drive object is band(s)/belt(s) (“Specifically, the first strap 51 comprises a plurality of tough straps (e.g. canvas bands, woven belt) sewn with elastic bands, and two ends are respectively wrapped in connection with vertical rods (not numbered) of the left rear holding portion 24 and the right rear holding portion 34 as the left and right end of the first strap 51. In addition, the first strap 51 is separated into left and right halves by the middle part, and each of the left and right halves has an elastic band 53 to form an elastic section which could be stretchable in a longitudinal direction.” See col. 7 lines 36-45), a pad with a smooth and soft surface, or a rotatable cylinder (roller) with a smooth and soft surface (The examiner notes that the inclusion of “or” in the claim limitation requires that only one of the optional structures are necessary for the invention, however also notes that Crist does discuss various embodiments including ones with a rotatable cylinder or a soft foam pad, see col.13 lines 40-48 which discusses these similar embodiments).
Regarding claim 4:
Crist 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 or slat belt when the user stops engaging with the ab-push 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 discloses the human-powered treadmill of claim 1, wherein the treadmill is designed for hands-free operation, with the user propelling the 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 discloses the human-powered treadmill of claim 1, further comprising means for generating and regulating resistance to the movement of the tread belt or slat 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 7:
Crist discloses 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);
- at least one ab-drive object (retaining portion 56) connected to the frame structure at a height or position suitable for user engagement (See figure 1);
- means for adjusting the position or 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. The examiner notes that as the claimed limitation requires an interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as discussed above, and the unclear nature of the claim language discussed in the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), since no embodiment is specified in claim 1, any means of adjusting the height of the ab-push object with no further structural or functional limitations is being considered as the means for adjusting the position or height of the ab-push object);
- at least a resistance/brake system on the front or rear roller to change the resistance to move the tread belt or slat 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), wherein when a user leans forward during walking or running on the treadmill's tread belt, the user's abdomen pushes against the ab-push object, creating a backward thrust on the user's feet, thereby causing the user's feet to push back on the tread belt and move it 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).
Regarding claim 10:
Crist discloses the human-powered treadmill of claim 7, further comprising means for generating and regulating resistance to the movement of the tread belt or slat 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.”). Friction or magnetic means can be used to generate the resistance to increase the resistance to move the treadmill belt and safely stop the tread belt or slat 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, with no further structural or functional limitations, any friction or magnetic resistance structure is a means to generate resistance for the treadmill, and therefore col.11 lines 24-29 states, “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”).
Regarding claim 11
Crist discloses the human-powered treadmill of claim 7, wherein the treadmill is designed for hands-free operation, with the user propelling the 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).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crist et al. US 11771948 B2, 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 8:
Crist teaches the human-powered treadmill of claim 7, but the embodiment discussed in claim 7 fails to teach wherein the ab-drive object is a pad with a smooth and soft surface or a rotatable cylinder with 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_image3.png
672
428
media_image3.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) 3 and 9 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.
Crist teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 3:
Crist teaches the human-powered treadmill of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the position of the ab-drive object can be adjusted vertically via an cantilever to accommodate different user heights and body types.
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 wherein the position of the ab-drive object can be adjusted vertically via an 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. ), to accommodate different user heights and body types (“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_image4.png
638
488
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 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 9:
Crist teaches the human-powered treadmill of claim 7, but fails to teach wherein the position of the ab-drive object is connected to a cantilever and can be adjusted vertically to accommodate different user heights and body types.
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 wherein the position of the ab-drive object is connected to 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, and the position of the arms directly corresponds to the position of the pads 106.) and can be adjusted vertically to accommodate different user heights and body types (“Positioning of the arms 108 along the vertical frame component 102 can be adjusted to fit the height of user.” See paragraph [0025]).
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.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of the record has not been relied upon but has been found to be pertinent to the content of the applicant’s disclosure:
Root Jr. US 20170312582 A1: Force Profile Control For The Application Of Horizontal Resistive Force, which teaches systems and methods for controlling application of horizontal resistive force to a user walking on a treadmill to provide substantially constant force even if the user changes his or her relative position on the treadmill where the system has a cable, a motor, and a system controller. The cable can be coupled to a harness to apply a horizontal resistive force to a treadmill user, and the motor can be coupled to the cable and configured to apply a motor force to the cable. The cable can have an adjustable operative length.
PNG
media_image5.png
502
382
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Razon US 9498696 B1: Body Support System for Gait Training Exercise on a Treadmill, which teaches a treadmill body support apparatus is provided to assist users in standing, walking and running on a treadmill surface and exercising safely on the treadmill surface with freedom of vertical and lateral gait movement.
PNG
media_image6.png
566
446
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Harney et al. US 6575879 B1: Method and Apparatus for Assessing A User Athlete, which teaches a method and apparatus for assessing a user athlete's prowess at certain athletic skills, the apparatus being treadmill sled having a frame, a rotatable continuous belt mounted on the frame, the belt presenting an upward directed support surface for supporting a user athlete, a blocking dummy supported proximate the continuous belt and being operably coupled to the frame by a dummy support, and a performance measuring system.
PNG
media_image7.png
484
638
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 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.
/J.A.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784