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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US 2017/0274238) in view of Buchanan (US 5,443,434).
Chou teaches an exercise bike comprising: a frame configured to rest on a ground surface and having a seat configured to support a user (see Fig. 1-3); a rotor (see Fig. 8) supported by the frame, the rotor comprising a hub (34) supported by the frame for rotation on a first axis, a pulley (35) operably connected to the hub, a plurality of blades (72, 90) connected to the hub, and a plurality of connectors (91) connecting the blades to the hub, wherein the hub, the pulley, and the plurality of blades are configured to rotate together about the first axis, and wherein the plurality of blades includes a first blade having a proximal end connected to the hub and an elongated body extending outward from the hub to a distal end (see Fig 8); and a drive assembly operably connected to the rotor to drive rotation of the rotor, wherein the drive assembly comprises a pulley assembly supported by the frame operably connected to the pulley of the rotor and a pedal assembly connected to the pulley assembly to drive rotation of the rotor through the pulley assembly [0043].
Chou teaches the rotor having a pulley rather than a sprocket as claimed. Buchanan teaches an exercise bike comprising a rotor with a hub (11), sprocket (17), and a plurality of blades (16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a sprocket, as taught by Chou, for the pulley taught by Buchanan. Such a modification involves the mere substitution of one well-known component for another to yield predictable results which fail to distinguish the invention over the prior art (See MPEP 2143)
Chou is silent as to the weight distribution of the rotor, and does not specifically disclose 70-90% of a weight of the rotor is located within 75% of a maximum diameter of the rotor, but teaches adjustable length blades, adjustment of which inherently alters the weight distribution of the rotor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the dimensions of the blades of the device taught by Chou such that 70-90% of a weight of the rotor is located within 75% of a maximum diameter of the rotor, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV, A). In the instant case, the device of Chou would not operate differently with the claimed weight distribution, as this distribution would be suitable for the functioning of the exercise bike.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,155,132. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the present claims are all recited by the patent claims. The patent claims therefore anticipate the present claims.
Claim 21 of the patent claims requires the limitations exercise bike comprising: a frame configured to rest on a ground surface and having a seat configured to support a user; a rotor supported by the frame, the rotor comprising a hub supported by the frame for rotation on a first axis, a sprocket operably connected to the hub, a plurality of blades connected to the hub, and a plurality of connectors connecting the blades to the hub, wherein the hub, the sprocket, and the plurality of blades are configured to rotate together about the first axis, and wherein the plurality of blades includes a first blade having a proximal end connected to the hub and an elongated body extending outward from the hub to a distal end; and a drive assembly operably connected to the rotor to drive rotation of the rotor, wherein the drive assembly comprises a pulley assembly supported by the frame operably connected to the sprocket of the rotor and a pedal assembly connected to the pulley assembly to drive rotation of the rotor through the pulley assembly. Claim 22 of the patent claims requires wherein 70-90% of a weight of the rotor is located within 75% of a maximum diameter of the rotor
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,946,237. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the present claims are all recited by the patent claims. The patent claims therefore anticipate the present claims.
Claim 1 of the patent claims recites all of the limitations of the present claim.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,439,866. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the present claims are all recited by, or obvious over, the patent claims.
The patent claims require exercise bike comprising: a frame configured to rest on a ground surface and having a seat configured to support a user (claim 1); a rotor supported by the frame, the rotor comprising a hub supported by the frame for rotation on a first axis, a sprocket operably connected to the hub, a plurality of blades connected to the hub, and a plurality of connectors connecting the blades to the hub, wherein the hub, the sprocket, and the plurality of blades are configured to rotate together about the first axis (claim 1), and wherein the plurality of blades includes a first blade having a proximal end connected to the hub and an elongated body extending outward from the hub to a distal end (claim 1), a drive assembly operably connected to the rotor to drive rotation of the rotor, wherein the drive assembly comprises a pulley assembly supported by the frame operably connected to the sprocket of the rotor and a pedal assembly connected to the pulley assembly to drive rotation of the rotor through the pulley assembly (claim 6).
The patent claims are silent as to the weight distribution of the rotor, and does not specifically disclose 70-90% of a weight of the rotor is located within 75% of a maximum diameter of the rotor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the dimensions of the blades of the device of the patent claims such that 70-90% of a weight of the rotor is located within 75% of a maximum diameter of the rotor, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV, A). In the instant case, the device of the patent claims would not operate differently with the claimed weight distribution, as this distribution would be suitable for the functioning of the exercise bike.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,059,592. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the present claims are all recited by the patent claims. The patent claims therefore anticipate the present claims.
Claim 6 of the patent claims recites all of the limitations of the present claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William L Boddie whose telephone number is (571)272-0666. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4:15 M-F.
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, Alford Kindred can be reached on 571-272-4037. 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.
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625