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 .
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is in response to amendments filed on 04/01/2026. Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are pending in the application. Claims 1-14 and 16-21 have been examined as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the term “attached,” in line 9, needs to be changed to “attached; and”,
the term “resistance;” in each of lines 11 and 14, needs to be changed to “resistance,”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the term “attached;” in line 8, needs to be changed to “attached; and”,
the term “resistance; and” in line 10, needs to be changed to “resistance,”.
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” (claim 13), having corresponding structure of: communication unit (see ¶ [0050] of specification), and equivalents thereof.
“means for providing an input signal to the external device” (claim 14), having corresponding structure of: a communication unit (see ¶ [0131] and [0135] of the specification), and equivalents thereof.
This application further 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 16. 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.
Claim 18 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 18 recites: “wherein the electromechanical resistance module comprises a cuboid-shaped housing”, while claim 16, upon which claim 18 depends, recites: “f. wherein the electromechanical resistance module comprises a housing”. However, it is unclear whether “a cuboid-shaped housing” recited in claim 18, is referring to “a housing” recited in claim 16 or to another additional housing. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. For the purposes of examination, claim 18 has been considered “as best understood”, whereby the cuboid-shaped housing is referring to the housing recited in claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draper et al. (US 2014/0274566 A1) in view of Claudio et al. (US 2021/0220704 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Draper 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]);
f. wherein the adapter (i.e., 25) is caused to move translationally relative to the body in a first direction (i.e., upward) when the force applied at the user interface exceeds the single output resistance (Fig. 2, ¶ [16], since the adapter (25) is connecting cables (92) and (16), when a force that exceeds the single output resistance is applied at the user interface (95), the adapter is caused to move translationally relative to the body in a first direction (i.e., the upward direction)),
g. wherein the first resistance source (94) is configured to provide a respective resistance force opposing the force applied at the user interface and directed opposite to the first direction (Fig. 2, ¶ [15], when force is applied at the user interface, a selected number of weight plates are lifted. The weight plates that are lifted, provide a resistance force that opposes the force applied at the user interface and is directed (i.e., downward) opposite to the first direction (i.e., upward)).
Draper uses an electromagnetic force source (i.e., a motor (18) and a drum pulley (17)), to provide the user with variable resistance force, by applying assistance force. Draper is silent about the electromagnetic force source providing resistance force, and wherein the second resistance source is configured to provide a respective resistance force opposing the force applied at the user interface and directed opposite to the first direction.
Regarding claim 1, Claudio teaches an exercise machine (10), comprising:
a. a body (frame assembly including 11a-11c, Fig. 1, ¶ [22]); b. a physical weight (12) providing a first resistance source for a cable (14, Figs. 1 and 4-5, ¶ [24]-[26]); c. an electromechanical resistance module (i.e., motor 19 (connected to a control unit) , motor 19 (connected to a control unit) provides for a motorized system that uses electromagnetic braking to adjust resistance (as interpreted under 112(f), see above for details)) providing a second resistance source for the cable (¶ [8], [30] and [40], the motor (19) is capable of providing both resistance force and assistance force); d. a pulley system (15) attached to the body configured to integrate the resistance from the first and second resistance sources into a single output resistance (Figs. 1 and 4-5, abstract, ¶ [40], claims 1 and 9-10); e. a user interface (16) connected to the cable for applying a force against the single output resistance (Figs. 1 and 4-5, ¶ [26]); and g. wherein each of the first resistance source (12) and the second resistance source (19 (connected to a control unit)) is configured to provide a respective resistance force opposing the force applied at the user interface (16) and directed opposite to a first direction (abstract, ¶ [8], [24]-[26], [40], claims 1 and 10, i.e., first direction being the upward direction of the weights being lifted/raised, when force is applied at the user interface (Figs. 1 and 4-5). When force is applied at the user interface, a number of selected weight plates/first resistance source (12) are lifted/raised. The lifted/raised weight plates (first resistance source) provide a resistance force opposing the force that is applied at the user interface (16) and is directed (i.e., downward direction) opposite to the first direction. When the motor (19 (connected to a control unit)) (second resistance source) is activated to apply (additional) resistance force, such force would also be opposing the force that is applied at the user interface (16) and directed (i.e., downward direction) opposite the first direction. Please note that upon modification of Draper’s inventio with features of Claudio, the resistance force provided by the second resistance source would be directed opposite the first direction which is the direction the adapter is caused to move translationally relative to the body when force is applied at the user interface exceeds the single output resistance).
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 with an electromechanical resistance module/source that provides resistance (and assistance), as the second resistance source, wherein the second resistance source is configured to provide a resistance force opposing the force applied at the user interface and directed opposite to the first direction, as taught by Claudio in order to provide for an exercise machine with a wider range of resistance forces for the user to exercise against and providing assistance force for the user when needed, and enable use of the exercise machine for both exercise and rehabilitation purposes.
Regarding claim 2, Draper in view of Claudio 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 in view of Claudio 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 in view of Claudio 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 in view of Claudio 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 in view of Claudio teaches wherein the electromechanical resistance module comprises a control unit (Claudio: 20) with a data processing unit (Draper: 22; Claudio: 21, Fig. 2) for controlling the second resistance source and a communication unit (Claudio: 24) 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; Claudio: Fig. 2, abstract, ¶ [32], [34], [37], claims 1, 7 and 10).
Regarding claim 13, Draper in view of Claudio 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 (Draper: ¶ [18], [21]-[22]; Claudio: i.e., 17a with 17b and 18, abstract, ¶ [7]-[8], [27]-[29], [43]-[44], i.e., acquiring resistance of the first source, movement of the physical weight, movement of the cable), wherein the sensor system comprises means for providing acquired data to the control unit (Claudio: ¶ [36], the component interface unit (23) functions to provide a communicative link between the processing unit (21) of the control unit (20) and the sensor system (thereby providing for two-way communication). As such, the sensor system has to have a communication unit to communicate with the processing unit (21) of the control unit (20) to provide the acquired data to the control unit).
Claims 3, 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draper alone or in view of Claudio as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Habing (US 2013/0274075 A1).
Draper in view of Claudio 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 in view of Claudio 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 in view of Claudio 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 in view of Claudio 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 in view of Claudio 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 in view of Claudio 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 in view of Claudio 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 in view of Claudio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lalaoua (US 2013/0157818 A1).
Draper in view of Claudio 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 in view of Claudio 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 in view of Claudio 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).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draper in view of Claudio as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Lacey (US 2018/0243599 A1).
Draper in view of Claudio is silent about wherein the user interface comprises means for providing an input signal 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]).
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 Claudio wherein the user interface comprises means for providing an input signal 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draper in view of Claudio as applied to claims 1, 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Lacey (US 2018/0243599 A1) and Mallard et al. (US 2022/0296967 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Draper in view of Claudio teaches wherein the electromechanical resistance module is in data communication with an external device having a data processing unit and a communication unit (Claudio: ¶ [36]-[37], the external device can be a remote computing device such as a smartphone. A smartphone, inherently includes a data processing unit and a communication unit), wherein the 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 (Claudio: ¶ 37], i.e., via an application installed on the external device/smartphone, to allow a user monitor workout progress and track metrics obtained from the exercise machine, store and retrieve previous exercises which can restore previously used system setting).
Although the sensor system of Claudio can be in data communication with the external device, indirectly, through the control unit (20, ¶ [36]-[37]), Draper in view of Claudio is silent about wherein the sensor system is in data communication with the external device, wherein the sensor system comprises a battery, a data processing unit, a memory and a communication unit for providing acquired data to the external device.
Regarding claim 14, Lacey teaches an exercise machine comprising: an electromechanical resistance module (132, motorized spool/winch, (interpreted under 112(f), see above for details), ¶ [24], [36], [115], [134]), and a sensor system (¶ [121], [124]-[125], [127], [129]-[130], [141], [145], [151]-[152], [164]), 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 (¶ [151], [164], [166]), wherein the sensor system comprises a battery, a data processing unit, a memory and a communication unit for providing acquired data to the external device (¶ [151], [153]), wherein the 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 (¶ [151], [164], [166]).
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 Claudio wherein the sensor system is in data communication with the external device, and wherein the sensor system comprises a battery, a data processing unit, a memory and a communication unit for providing acquired data to the external device, as taught by Lacey in order to ensure the accuracy of a user’s workout progress.
Draper in view of Claudio and Lacey is silent about wherein the user interface comprises means for providing an input signal to the 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 Claudio and 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.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draper et al. (US 2014/0274566 A1) in view of Claudio et al. (US 2021/0220704 A1) and Ryan (US 5,048,826).
Regarding claim 16, Draper teaches a power rack, 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]); and
f. wherein the electromechanical resistance module comprises a housing (24) which serves as a structural component of the body (Figs. 2-4, ¶ [14]).
Draper uses an electromagnetic force source (i.e., a motor (18) and a drum pulley (17)), to provide the user with variable resistance force, by applying assistance force. Draper is silent about the electromagnetic force source providing resistance force.
Regarding claim 16, Claudio teaches a power rack (10), comprising:
a. a body (frame assembly including 11a-11c, Fig. 1, ¶ [22]); b. a physical weight (12) providing a first resistance source for a cable (14, Figs. 1 and 4-5, ¶ [24]-[26]); c. an electromechanical resistance module (i.e., motor 19 (connected to a control unit) , motor 19 (connected to a control unit) provides for a motorized system that uses electromagnetic braking to adjust resistance (as interpreted under 112(f), see above for details)) providing a second resistance source for the cable (¶ [8], [30] and [40], the motor (19) is capable of providing both resistance force and assistance force); d. a pulley system (15) attached to the body configured to integrate the resistance from the first and second resistance sources into a single output resistance (Figs. 1 and 4-5, abstract, ¶ [40], claims 1 and 9-10); and e. a user interface (16) connected to the cable for applying a force against the single output resistance (Figs. 1 and 4-5, ¶ [26]).
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 with an electromechanical resistance module/source that provides resistance (and assistance), as the second resistance source, as taught by Claudio in order to provide for an exercise machine with a wider range of resistance forces for the user to exercise against and providing assistance force for the user when needed, and enable use of the exercise machine for both exercise and rehabilitation purposes.
Draper teaches that in an embodiment, the operative components of the system (10), which includes the electromechanical resistance/force module having the housing (24), may directly be mounted onto the body/frame (96, ¶ [16]). However, Draper in view of Claudio is silent about wherein the housing forms a crossbar of the power rack.
Regarding claim 16, Ryan teaches a power rack, comprising: a body (30 and 32, Fig. 1); a physical weight (12) connected to a cable (26, Figs. 1-2), an electromechanical force module/source (motor 60 with winch 24 within 61, Fig. 2); wherein the electromechanical force module/source comprises a housing (61 with 34, Figs. 1-2), which serves as a structural component of the body (Fig. 1), and wherein the housing forms a crossbar of the power rack (Fig. 1).
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 Claudio wherein the housing forms a crossbar of the power rack, as taught by Ryan in order to save space and provide for a more compact exercise machine.
Regarding claim 17, Draper in view of Claudio and Ryan teaches wherein the body comprises a first upright member and a second upright member (Draper: upright members of 96, Fig. 2; Ryan: 30 on each side, at the front and back, Fig. 1) and wherein the housing (Ryan: 61 with 34, Figs. 1-2) extends horizontally between the first upright member and the second upright member (Ryan: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, (claim 18 “as best understood”) Draper in view of Claudio and Ryan teaches wherein the electromechanical resistance module comprises a cuboid-shaped housing (Draper: Fig. 2; Ryan: Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 19, although Draper in view of Claudio and Ryan is silent about wherein the housing is constructed from metal, steel, fiber-reinforced plastic, or a high-strength composite material, 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 Claudio and Ryan to have the housing constructed from metal, steel, fiber-reinforced plastic, or a high-strength composite material, in order to provide for a more durable device, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 20, Draper in view of Claudio and Ryan teaches wherein the electromechanical resistance module is mounted overhead such that a lower region of the power rack remains free for receiving a bench or other exercise equipment (Ryan: Fig. 1).
Claims 16-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draper et al. (US 2014/0274566 A1) in view of Claudio et al. (US 2021/0220704 A1) and Stevens (US 4,949,959).
Regarding claim 16, Draper teaches a power rack, 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]); and
f. wherein the electromechanical resistance module comprises a housing (24) which serves as a structural component of the body (Figs. 2-4, ¶ [14]).
Draper uses an electromagnetic force source (i.e., a motor (18) and a drum pulley (17)), to provide the user with variable resistance force, by applying assistance force. Draper is silent about the electromagnetic force source providing resistance force.
Regarding claim 16, Claudio teaches a power rack (10), comprising:
a. a body (frame assembly including 11a-11c, Fig. 1, ¶ [22]); b. a physical weight (12) providing a first resistance source for a cable (14, Figs. 1 and 4-5, ¶ [24]-[26]); c. an electromechanical resistance module (i.e., motor 19 (connected to a control unit) , motor 19 (connected to a control unit) provides for a motorized system that uses electromagnetic braking to adjust resistance (as interpreted under 112(f), see above for details)) providing a second resistance source for the cable (¶ [8], [30] and [40], the motor (19) is capable of providing both resistance force and assistance force); d. a pulley system (15) attached to the body configured to integrate the resistance from the first and second resistance sources into a single output resistance (Figs. 1 and 4-5, abstract, ¶ [40], claims 1 and 9-10); and e. a user interface (16) connected to the cable for applying a force against the single output resistance (Figs. 1 and 4-5, ¶ [26]).
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 with an electromechanical resistance module/source that provides resistance (and assistance), as the second resistance source, as taught by Claudio in order to provide for an exercise machine with a wider range of resistance forces for the user to exercise against and providing assistance force for the user when needed, and enable use of the exercise machine for both exercise and rehabilitation purposes.
Draper teaches that in an embodiment, the operative components of the system (10), which includes the electromechanical resistance/force module having the housing (24), may directly be mounted onto the body/frame (96, ¶ [16]). However, Draper in view of Claudio is silent about wherein the housing forms a crossbar of the power rack.
Regarding claim 16, Stevens teaches a power rack, comprising: a body (3 with 4 and 8, Fig. 1); a physical weight (60) connected to cables (27/28, Fig. 1), an electromechanical force module/source (motor 49 and its components having a housing 6 with 7, Fig. 1); wherein the electromechanical force module/source comprises a housing (6 with 7, Figs. 1 and 6), which serves as a structural component of the body (Fig. 1), and wherein the housing forms a crossbar (at 9, Fig. 1) of the power rack (Fig. 1).
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 Claudio wherein the housing forms a crossbar of the power rack, as taught by Stevens in order to save space and provide for a more compact exercise machine.
Regarding claim 17, Draper in view of Claudio and Stevens teaches wherein the body comprises a first upright member and a second upright member (Draper: upright members of 96, Fig. 2; Stevens: 4 on each side, Fig. 1), and wherein the housing (Stevens: 6 with 7) extends horizontally between the first upright member and the second upright member (Stevens: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, although Draper in view of Claudio and Stevens is silent about wherein the housing is constructed from metal, steel, fiber-reinforced plastic, or a high-strength composite material, 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 Claudio and Stevens to have the housing constructed from metal, steel, fiber-reinforced plastic, or a high-strength composite material, in order to provide for a more durable device, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 20, Draper in view of Claudio and Stevens teaches wherein the electromechanical resistance module is mounted overhead such that a lower region of the power rack remains free for receiving a bench or other exercise equipment (Stevens: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, Draper in view of Claudio and Stevens teaches wherein the housing comprises a support surface (Stevens: 7) configured to be fixed to a top crossbar region of the body (Stevens: 8, Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 and 16-21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the newly added limitations in part g. of claim 1 and that Draper fails to teach such limitations, the Examiner would like to mention that as shown above, Draper teaches f. wherein the adapter (i.e., 25) is caused to move translationally relative to the body in a first direction (i.e., upward) when the force applied at the user interface exceeds the single output resistance (Fig. 2, ¶ [16], since the adapter (25) is connecting cables (92) and (16), when a force that exceeds the single output resistance is applied at the user interface (95), the adapter is caused to move translationally relative to the body in a first direction (i.e., the upward direction)), and g. wherein the first resistance source (94) is configured to provide a respective resistance force opposing the force applied at the user interface and directed opposite to the first direction (Fig. 2, ¶ [15], when force is applied at the user interface, a selected number of weight plates are lifted. The weight plates that are lifted, provide a resistance force that opposes the force applied at the user interface and is directed (i.e., downward) opposite to the first direction (i.e., upward)). However, with respect to the limitations regarding the second resistance source in part g., Claudio has been used to teach such limitations (see above for details).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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