DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the comma “,” at the end of each of lines 2, 3 and 5, needs to be changed to a semicolon “;”, and
the term “attached,” in line 9, needs to be changed to “attached; and”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “wherein in external device” in line 8, needs to be changed to “wherein the external device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the term “Method” in line 1, needs to be changed to “method”,
the comma “,” at the end of each of lines 2, 3, 7, 11, 23, 25, 27, 32, 37 and 39, needs to be changed to a semicolon “;”,
the phrase “control unit,” in line 14, needs to be changed to “control unit; and”,
the term “system,” in line 29, needs to be changed to “system; and”,
the term “interface,” in line 33, needs to be changed to “interface; and”, and
the term “lowered,” in line 41, needs to be changed to “lowered; and”.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
As such, the following claim limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“means for providing an input signal to the control unit” (claim 12), having corresponding structure of: buttons, rotational adjustment rings, touchscreens or microphones (see ¶ [0046] of specification), and equivalents thereof.
“means for providing acquired data to the control unit/external device” (claims 13-15), having corresponding structure of: communication unit (see ¶ [0050] of specification), and equivalents thereof.
This application 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 is: “electromechanical resistance module providing a second resistance source for a second cable” in claims 1 and 15. In this case, the term “module” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language of “providing a second resistance source for a second cable”, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
In this case, “electromechanical resistance module”, has been considered to have a corresponding structure of: motorized systems or flywheels that use electromagnetic braking to adjust resistance, electric motor with a winch (see ¶ [0035]-[0036] of specification), 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.
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 14-15 is 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 limitation “the user interface comprises means for providing an input signal to the external device” in claim 14, 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. Although the specification describes various structures (i.e., buttons, ring, touch screen, etc.,) as the means for providing an input signal (of the user interface) to the control unit, the specification, lacks any description regarding specific structure(s) of the user interface as the means for providing an input signal to the external device. 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 15, line 1, recites: “A Method for adjusting a force to be applied by a user to an exercise machine”, while the body of the claim in lines 2-21, recites various structures and in lines 22-42 recites method steps. As such, it is unclear whether applicant’s intention is to have claim 15 directed towards a method or an apparatus. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. If applicant’s intention is to have claim 15 directed towards a method, applicant is suggested to amend claim 15 to either recite: “A method for adjusting force to be applied by a user to an exercise machine, comprising: providing the exercise machine comprising: a. a body, b. a physical weight…”, OR recite all the structural limitations in lines 2-21, as part of the preamble.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Draper et al. (US 2014/0274566 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lacey (US 2018/0243599 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Draper discloses/teaches an exercise machine, comprising:
a. a body (96 with 12, 13 and 14, Fig. 2, ¶ [13], [15]-[16]),
b. a physical weight (94) providing a first resistance source for a first cable (92, Fig. 2, ¶ [15]),
c. an electromechanical resistance/force module providing a second resistance/force source (i.e. motor 18 with drum pulley 17 (as interpreted under 112(f), see above for details)) for a second cable (16, Figs. 2-3, ¶ [14]),
d. a pulley system (i.e. pulleys 15 and 91) attached to the body (Fig. 2) configured to integrate the resistance from the first and second resistance sources into a single output resistance by guiding the first cable and second cable to an adapter (i.e. 25) to which the first cable and the second cable are attached (Fig. 2, ¶ [16]),
e. a user interface (95) connected (indirectly via cable 92) to the adapter for applying a force against the single output resistance (Fig. 2, ¶ [15]-[16]).
It is Office’s position that the motor (18) with drum pulley (17) of Draper can be considered a resistance module/second resistance source, since it is used to provide variable resistance, by applying assistance force, to the user. For instance, an assistance percentage of 25% may be applied to a selected weight of 200 pounds, meaning that the system, using the motor and drum pulley, provides 50 pounds of lifting assistance such that the user is only lifting equivalent of 150 pounds (see ¶ [7], [19]). As such, variable resistance forces can be provided to the user. However, if applicant is not in agreement with the Office’s position, such limitation is taught by Lacey.
Regarding claim 1, Lacey teaches an exercise machine, comprising:
a. a body (133, Fig. 6, ¶ [103]),
b. a physical weight (128) providing a first resistance source for a first cable (127, Fig. 6, ¶ [107]),
c. an electromechanical resistance module providing a second resistance source (132, motorized spool/winch, (interpreted under 112(f), see above for details), ¶ [24], [36], [115], [134]) for a second cable (i.e. 131, ¶ [108]),
d. a pulley system attached to the body (Fig. 6) configured to integrate the resistance from the first and second resistance sources into a single output resistance (at 121) using an adapter (i.e., 123, Fig. 6),
e. a user interface (1010) connected to the adapter (via 121) for applying a force against the single output resistance (Fig. 6, ¶ [103]-[115]).
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 Draper’s invention such that the electromechanical force module/second force source provides resistance to the second cable as taught by Lacey, in order to provide the user with a wider range of resistances and thereby exercises to target various muscles.
Regarding claim 2, Draper alone or in view of Lacey discloses/teaches wherein the pulley system comprises at least a first pulley (Draper: i.e. one of pulley 91) and a second pulley (Draper: i.e., one of pulley 15), wherein the first pulley guides the first cable (Draper: 92) and the second pulley guides the second cable (Draper: 16) in such way that the first cable and the second cable are oriented parallel to each other (Draper: Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Draper alone or in view of Lacey discloses/teaches wherein the first cable and the second cable are attached to the adapter in such way that the adapter can pull the first cable and the second cable parallel to each other, when force is applied to the adapter (Draper: Fig. 2, ¶ [16], as the user interface 95 is moved, force is applied/transferred to the adapter, and the adapter is capable of pulling the first and the second cables parallel to each other).
Regarding claim 9, Draper alone or in view of Lacey discloses/teaches wherein the electromechanical resistance module comprises an electric motor (Draper: 18) with a winch (Draper: drum pulley 17) on which the second cable (Draper: 16) can be wound and unwound (Draper: ¶ [14]).
Regarding claim 10, Draper alone or in view of Lacey discloses/teaches wherein the electromechanical resistance module comprises a housing (Draper: 24) which serves as a structural component of the body (Draper: Figs. 2-4, ¶ [14]).
Regarding claim 11, Draper alone or in view of Lacey discloses/teaches wherein the electromechanical resistance module comprises a control unit with a data processing unit (Draper: 22) for controlling the second resistance source and a communication unit for data communication (Draper: ¶ [14], since data can be sent to the display panel (23), a communication unit has to exist to send data from the processing unit to the display/control panel; Lacey: ¶ [129], [141], [148], [164]-[165]).
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.
Claims 3, 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draper alone or in view of Lacey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Habing (US 2013/0274075 A1).
Draper alone or in view of Lacey is silent about wherein the first cable and the second cable are continuously attached to the adapter via a double cable coupling, wherein the adapter comprises a force application point for applying a force against the single output resistance, wherein the force application point is located centrally between the parallel-aligned first and second cables, and wherein the user interface is connected to force application point.
Regarding claim 3, Habing teaches an exercise device wherein two ends of a cable (50R) are attached to an adapter via a double cable coupling (bracket 86, Figs. 1-3, ¶ [31], please note that upon modification of Draper’s invention alone or in view of Lacey with features of Habing, the first and the second cables can be attached to the adapter via the double cable coupling).
Regarding claim 5, Habing teaches wherein the adapter comprises a force application point (as shown below) for applying a force against a single output resistance, wherein the force application point is located centrally between the parallel-aligned first and second ends of the cable (50R), and wherein the user interface is connected to force application point (Fig. 1, ¶ [31], please note that upon modification of Draper’s invention alone or in view of Lacey with features of Habing, the force application point would located centrally between the parallel-aligned first and second cables).
[AltContent: textbox (Force application point)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
621
601
media_image1.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 Draper’s invention alone or in view of Lacey wherein the first cable and the second cable are continuously attached to the adapter via a double cable coupling, wherein the adapter comprises a force application point for applying a force against the single output resistance, wherein the force application point is located centrally between the parallel-aligned first and second cables, and wherein the user interface is connected to force application point as taught by Habing in order to provide for a more efficient way of distributing and transmitting required force to the user.
Regarding claim 7, Draper alone or in view of Lacey teaches wherein the pulley system comprises four pulleys (Draper: two of pulley 15 on support 14, and two of pulley 91 on top of 96, Fig. 2), wherein a first pulley (Draper: first one of pulleys 91) and a third pulley (Draper: second one of pulleys 91) guide the first cable (Draper: 92) and a second pulley (Draper: first one of pulleys 15) and a fourth pulley (Draper: second one of pulleys 15) guide the second cable (Draper: 16, Fig. 2).
Draper alone or in view of Lacey is silent about wherein the first pulley and the second pulley are arranged on a first axis, wherein the third pulley and the fourth pulley are arranged on a second axis, the first axis and the second axis being arranged parallel to each other, wherein the first axis and the second axis have a different distance in respect to an attachment surface of the body which is parallel aligned to the first axis and the second axis.
Regarding claim 7, Habing teaches a pulley system, wherein the pulley system comprises four pulleys (Fig. 3), wherein a first pulley (52R) and a third pulley (78R) guide the first cable end (at 84, Fig. 3) and a second pulley (82R) and a fourth pulley (54R) guide the second cable end (at 94, Fig. 3), wherein the first pulley (52R) and the second pulley (82R) are arranged on a first axis (Fig. 3), wherein the third pulley (78R) and the fourth pulley (54R) are arranged on a second axis (Fig. 3), the first axis and the second axis being arranged parallel to each other (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, although Habing in the embodiment shown in Fig. 3, does not specifically show wherein the first axis and the second axis have a different distance in respect to an attachment surface of the body which is parallel aligned to the first axis and the second axis, Habing in the embodiment shown in Figs. 4-5 and 8, shows a pulley system with a first axis and a second axis having a different distance in respect to an attachment surface of the body and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first axis and the second axis have a different distance in respect to an attachment surface of the body which is parallel aligned to the first axis and the second axis as shown in Figs. 4-5 and 8 of Habing, in order to have the first cable end from any of one of pulleys (52R) and (78R) and the second cable end from any one of pulleys (82R) and (54R), clear the other one the pulleys, respectively, during use.
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 Draper’s invention alone or in view of Lacey wherein the first pulley and the second pulley are arranged on a first axis, wherein the third pulley and the fourth pulley are arranged on a second axis, the first axis and the second axis being arranged parallel to each other, wherein the first axis and the second axis have a different distance in respect to an attachment surface of the body which is parallel aligned to the first axis and the second axis as taught by Habing in order to provide for a more compact apparatus and to provide for a more efficient guidance of the cables during various exercises.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draper alone or in view of Lacey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lalaoua (US 2013/0157818 A1).
Draper alone or in view of Lacey is silent about wherein the adapter comprises two sleeves which respectively receive the first and second cables.
Regarding claim 6, Lalaoua teaches an exercise device wherein an adapter comprises two sleeves (620/720 with 830/832) which respectively receive first and second cables (800, 810, Figs. 3-8).
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 Draper’s invention alone or in view of Lacey wherein the adapter comprises two sleeves which respectively receive the first and second cables as taught by Lalaoua in order to protect the cables from wear and tear and thereby provide a more durable apparatus.
It is Office’s position that Lalaoua in embodiments shown in Figures 4 and 6-7, shows wherein the first and second cables, which are guided in parallel, have a maximum distance from one another which lies in a range between 5 mm - 200 mm (see Figs. 4 and 6-7). However, if applicant is not in agreement with such position, 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 Draper’s invention alone or in view of Lacey and Lalaoua such that the first and second cables, which are guided in parallel, have a maximum distance from one another which lies in a range between 5 mm - 200 mm, in order to accommodate various types user interfaces and exercise machines, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05) (Claim 6).
Claims 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draper as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Lacey (US 2018/0243599 A1).
Draper teaches wherein the exercise machine further comprises a sensor system (¶ [18], [21]-[22]) (Claim 13).
Draper is silent about wherein the user interface comprises means for providing an input signal to the control unit, the sensor system configured to acquire the resistance of the first resistance source or the second resistance source or the single output resistance or the movement of the physical weight or the force applied to the adapter or the movement of the first cable, the second cable or the adapter, wherein the sensor system comprises means for providing acquired data to the control unit.
Regarding claim 12, Lacey teaches wherein the user interface comprises means for providing an input signal to the control unit (i.e. switch on the handle 1010, ¶ [130], [145]).
Regarding claim 13, Lacey teaches wherein the exercise machine further comprises a sensor system configured to acquire the resistance of the first resistance source or the second resistance source or the single output resistance or the movement of the physical weight or the force applied to the adapter or the movement of the first cable, the second cable or the adapter, wherein the sensor system comprises means for providing acquired data to the control unit (¶ [121]-[127], [129]-[130], [141], [145], [151]-[152], [164]).
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 Draper’s invention wherein the user interface comprises means for providing an input signal to the control unit, the sensor system configured to acquire the resistance of the first resistance source or the second resistance source or the single output resistance or the movement of the physical weight or the force applied to the adapter or the movement of the first cable, the second cable or the adapter, wherein the sensor system comprises means for providing acquired data to the control unit as taught by Lacey in order to provide for a more user friendly and efficient apparatus whereby user can control the apparatus any time during exercise and to provide the user with wider ranges of performance parameters.
Regarding claim 15, Draper in view of Lacey teaches a method for adjusting a force to be applied by a user to an exercise machine comprising:
a. a body (see rejection of claim 1 above),
b. a physical weight providing a first resistance source for a first cable (see rejection of claim 1 above),
c. an electromechanical resistance module providing a second resistance source for a second cable (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the electromechanical resistance module comprises a control unit with a data processing unit for controlling the second resistance source and a communication unit for data communication (see rejection of claim 11 above),
d. a pulley system attached to the body configured to integrate the resistance from the first and second resistance sources into a single output resistance by guiding the first cable and second cable to an adapter to which the first cable and the second cable are attached (see rejection of claim 1 above),
e. a user interface connected to the adapter for applying a force against the single output resistance (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the user interface comprises means for providing an input signal to the control unit (see rejection of claim 12 above),
f. a sensor system configured to acquire a resistance of the first resistance source or the second resistance source or the single output resistance or a movement of the physical weight or a force applied to the adapter or a movement of the first cable, the second cable or the adapter, wherein the sensor system comprises means for providing acquired data to the control unit (see rejection of claim 13 above),
the method comprising the following steps:
i. applying a force against the single output resistance by the user interface, ii. acquiring the movement of the physical weight, in particular a speed or an acceleration of the movement, by the sensor system, iii. providing the acquired data of the sensor system to the control unit of the electromechanical resistance module, iv. detecting by the control unit of a decrease in the speed or acceleration in relation to previously acquired data by the sensor system, v. adjusting the second resistance source by the control unit,
or
i. applying a force against the single output resistance by the user interface (Draper: Fig. 2, ¶ [14]-[16]; Lacey: Fig. 6, ¶ [103]-[115]),
ii. providing an input signal to the control unit by the user interface (Lacey: i.e. switch on the handle 1010, ¶ [130], [145]),
iii. adjusting the second resistance source by the control unit (Draper: ¶ [7], [14]-[16], [19]-[22]; Lacey: ¶ [103]-[115], [134], [164])
or
i. providing an input signal to the control unit of the electromechanical resistance module which sets the control unit in an automatic training mode, ii. applying a force against the single output resistance by the user interface, causing the physical weight to be lifted, iii. reducing the force against the single output resistance causing the physical weight to be lowered, iv. adjusting the second resistance source by the control unit.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Draper’s invention in view of Lacey such that the electromechanical force module/second force source provides resistance to the second cable, wherein the user interface comprises means for providing an input signal to the control unit, the sensor system configured to acquire the resistance of the first resistance source or the second resistance source or the single output resistance or the movement of the physical weight or the force applied to the adapter or the movement of the first cable, the second cable or the adapter, wherein the sensor system comprises means for providing acquired data to the control unit as taught by Lacey, in order to provide the user with a wider range of resistances and thereby exercises to target various muscles, to provide for a more user friendly and efficient apparatus whereby user can control the apparatus any time during exercise and to provide the user with wider ranges of performance parameters.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draper in view of Lacey as applied to claims 1, 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Mallard et al. (US 2022/0296967 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Draper in view of Lacey teaches wherein the electromechanical resistance module and the sensor system is in data communication with an external device having a data processing unit and a communication unit (Lacey: ¶ [151], [164], [166]), wherein the sensor system comprises means for providing acquired data to the external device (Lacey: ¶ [151]), wherein in external device is configured to process the provided data of the sensor system or the provided input data of the user interface or to transmit control commands to the electromechanical resistance module (Lacey: ¶ [151], [164], [166]).
Draper in view of Lacey is silent about wherein the user interface comprises means for providing an input signal to an external device.
Regarding claim 14, Mallard teaches a user interface (i.e., 105) wherein the user interface comprises means for providing an input signal to an external device (¶ [61]-[62], [83], [156], once the user interface/handle (105) is connected and paired with an exercise apparatus (external device) at a gym, various buttons on the user interface can be used to control different features including increasing/decreasing/muting volume of audio content/channel produced by the exercise apparatus).
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 Draper’s invention in view of Lacey wherein the user interface comprises means for providing an input signal to an external device as taught by Mallard in order to enable the user control various features of an exercise apparatus or appliances in the environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571)272- 4966. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights