DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits based on the 18/765,693 application filed on 07/08/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The effective filing date of the present application is 07/07/2023 for claims 1-12. The effective filing date of the present application is 07/08/2024 for claims 13-20. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are currently pending and considered below.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of undue length, see below, and informalities. Applicant is suggested to amend the abstract of the disclosure as follows:
--- A variable load unilateral and bilateral trap bar deadlift machine comprising: a frame having a base platform; a controller in communicationlever arm; wherein the controller is adapted to receive load input, determine a corresponding load setting for the load controller, transmit the load setting to the load controller, receive performance information such as grip strength, lift speed, power, weight, etc., and display the performance information on the display. Capabilities of the machine include: analyzing performance data from each side of the body independently; use in combination with external devices such as force plates for further time series performance evaluation; and neuromuscular evaluation and training
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 3, “in communications” should be --- in communication ---.
In each of claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18-20, line 1, “The system” should be --- The machine ---.
In claim 3, line 2, “the workout plan according to the performance information and” should be --- the initial workout plan according to the performance information, and ---.
In claim 3, line 3, “a user” should be --- the user ---. Refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claim 1, see below.
In claim 4, line 2, “as graph” should be --- as a graph ---.
In claim 5, line 2, “from remote user” should be --- from a remote user ---.
In claim 5, line 3, “a third-party performance data” should be --- the third-party performance data ---.
In claim 9, lines 1-2, “fluid reservoir in fluid communications” should be --- a fluid reservoir in fluid communications ---.
In claim 10, line 2, “in communications” should be --- in communication ---.
In claim 11, lines 1-2, “including sensors for measuring weight, load, lift speed, drop speed, range of motion, grip strength” should be --- further comprising sensors for measuring the weight, the load, the lift speed, drop speed, the range of motion, and grip strength ---.
In claim 12, line 1, “including” should be --- further comprising ---.
In claim 12, line 2, “the system” should be --- the machine ---.
In claim 15, line 1, “including” should be --- further comprising ---.
In claim 16, line 1, “where in” should be --- wherein ---.
In claim 17, line 3, “in dependent” should be --- independent ---.
In claim 17, line 5, “the loads” should be --- the load ---. Refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 17, see below.
In claim 18, line 2, “a load assemble” should be --- a load assembly ---.
In claim 19, line 1, “include” should be --- further comprising ---.
In claim 19, line 2, “the lever arm” should be --- the lever arms ---.
In claim 20, line 1, “including” should be --- further comprising ---.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations “a first handle attached to each lever arm adapted to increase the load when actuated; a second handle attached to each lever arm adapted to decrease the load when actuated” are recited in lines 4-7. The claim fails to comply with the written description requirement, see above, because there is no support in applicant’s specification, as originally filed, for a variable load bilateral deadlift machine comprising two handles on each lever arm, wherein a first handle of the two handles is adapted to increase a load when actuated, and a second handle of the two handles is adapted to decrease the load when actuated.
However, there is support in applicant’s specification, as originally filed, for a variable load bilateral deadlift machine comprising a single handle on each lever arm (refer to Figures 1-3B), wherein each handle is capable of comprising buttons to manually adjust the load/weight (refer to applicant’s specification, as originally filed, paragraphs 0024 and 0026). Specifically, according to applicant’s specification, as originally filed, paragraph 0043:
Button 312 allows the user to manually increase or decrease the load placed on the machine. With button 312 depressed, handle 308b can be shifted in a first direction to increase the load or shifted in a second direction to decrease the load. Shifting the handle in this manner provides input to load assembly 106a. The chosen load can be displayed on computer device 102. Disengaging button 312 allows the handles to be used to exert force on lever 122 and for use of the machine for exercise, training, or treatment.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, by virtue of their dependency on claim 13, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, see above.
Regarding claim 14, which depends from claim 13, the limitations “wherein the handles are connected to the lever arms with a variable height connector” are recited in lines 1-2. The claim fails to comply with the written description requirement, see above, because there is no support in applicant’s specification, as originally filed, for a variable load bilateral deadlift machine comprising two handles on each lever arm (as recited in claim 13, lines 4-7), and wherein the first and second handles are connected to the lever arms with a variable height connector. Refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 14, see below.
However, there is support in applicant’s specification, as originally filed, for a variable load bilateral deadlift machine comprising a single handle on each lever arm (refer to Figures 3A and 3B), wherein each handle (the handles 308A, 308b; Figures 3A and 3B) is respectively connected to the lever arms (each arm of the lever 122; Figures 3A and 3B) with a variable height connector (there appears to be a structure capable of being identified as a variable height connector (no reference number provided in the drawings or the specification, as originally filed) located between each arm of the lever 122 and the corresponding handle 308a, 308b; Figure 3B).
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 1-20 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 load applied to the load assembly” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a load applied to the load assembly ---.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each side of the body independently” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- each side of a body of a user independently, ---.
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency on claim 1, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, see above.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 5, the limitation “an initial workout plan according to physical characteristics of the user” is recited in lines 1-2. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the limitation is the same as, different from, in addition to, and/or part of “an initial workout plan according to a third-party performance data” recited in claim 5, lines 2-3. Applicant is suggested to amend claim 6 such that it depends from claim 1 instead of from claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 5, the limitation “an initial workout plan according to a baseline measurement of the user” is recited in lines 1-2. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the limitation is the same as, different from, in addition to, and/or part of “an initial workout plan according to a third-party performance data” recited in claim 5, lines 2-3. Applicant is suggested to amend claim 7 such that it depends from claim 1 instead of from claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations “a first handle attached to each lever arm adapted to increase the load when actuated; a second handle attached to each lever arm adapted to decrease the load when actuated” are recited in 4-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the load” in these limitations in the claim. In addition, the limitations render the claim indefinite because it is unclear which structure(s) applicant intends to claim is/are activated to correspondingly increase and decrease the load(s). Refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections of claim 13, see above.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “each side of the body independently” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- each side of a body of a user independently, ---.
Regarding claim 14, which depends from claim 13, the limitation “wherein the handles are connected to the lever arms with a variable height connector” is recited in lines 1-2. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether or not “the handles” refers to the first handle and/or the second handle recited in claim 13, lines 4-7. Refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections of claim 14, see above.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the force” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a force ---.
Regarding claim 15, which depends from claim 13, the limitation “when the handles are lifted” is recited in line 2. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether or not “the handles” refers to the first handle and/or the second handle recited in claim 13, lines 4-7. Refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections of claim 13, see above.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the force” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend claim 15 as suggested immediately above in order to overcome this rejection of claim 16. Refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 15, see above.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the load” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a load ---.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency on claim 17, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, see above.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the force” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a force ---.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the force” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a force ---.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record (Small (US 2023/0110120)) fails to teach or render obvious a variable load bilateral deadlift machine in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
a load controller adapted to receive the load applied to the load assembly; wherein the controller is adapted to receive load input, determine a corresponding load setting for the load controller, transmit the load setting to the load controller, receive performance information including lift speed, power, weight, and range of motion of each side of the body independently and display the performance information on the display (claim 1); and
a handle attached to each lever arm adapted to increase the load in a first actuation and to decrease the loads in a second actuation (claim 17).
The prior art of record teaches an isokinetic bilateral deadlift machine “for delivering constant speed or velocity within” the machine (Small: paragraph 0013) wherein “the dynamic nature of the machine maintains a consistent tension or force on the targeted muscles” (Small: paragraph 0022), which are not considered equivalent to applicant’s invention.
The prior art of record (Albert (DE 102021005483 A1) in view of Ellis (2011/0118090)) fails to teach or render obvious a variable load bilateral deadlift machine in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
a set of independent lever arms pivotally carried by the frame (claims 1 and 17).
Note to Applicant
Although no prior art was identified to reject claims 13-16, claims 13-16 are nonetheless not allowable because of the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections, see above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY D URBIEL GOLDNER whose telephone number is (313)446-6554. The examiner can normally be reached between 9AM and 5PM, Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
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 B 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. Visit https://patentcenter.uspto.gov to file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. For information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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.
/GARY D URBIEL GOLDNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights