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 .
Priority
This application claims the benefit of foreign application CN2024211888152, filed on 05/28/2024.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 3, line 4, “When people is running” should read ---When people are running---
Page 3, line 14, “people is running” should read ---people are running---
Page 6, line 1, “an push bolt” should read ---a push bolt---
Page 8, line 20, “driven by rotating shaft” should read ---driven by the rotating shaft---
Page 11, line 14, “an push bolt” should read ---a push bolt---
Page 12, line 20, “approach and meshed” should read ---approach and mesh---
Page 12, line 23, it is unclear what “the splicing plane” is referring to
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 3, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6, “can approach” should read ---is configured to approach---
Claim 1, line 7, “on the opposite sides” should read ---on opposite sides---
Claim 1, line 8, “a rotating shaft” should read ---the rotating shaft---
Claim 1, line 8, “the central hole” should read ---a central hole---
Claim 1, line 11 “can drive” should read ---is configured to drive---
Claim 1, line 17, “the inner wall” should read ---an inner wall---
Claim 1, line 18, “which can be abutted” should read ---which is configured to be abutted---
Claim 1, line 19, “the outer wall” should read ---an outer wall---
Claim 3, line 2, “the outer wall” should read ---an outer wall---
Claim 9, line 5, “on the opposite side” should read ---on opposite sides---
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The 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.
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(s) is/are: a driving component (claim 1, 7); a pressing member (claim 1); a pressing member (claim 3); and a blocking component (claim 5).
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.
The driving component of claims 1 and 7, with generic placeholder “component” modified by functional language “driving” and “can drive the movable gear plate (3) to mesh with or move away from the fixing gear plate (4) along with the forward and reverse motion” and not modified by sufficient structure, has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of a driving handle as defined in lines 16-18 of page 10 of the specification.
The pressing member of claim 1, with generic placeholder “member” modified by functional language “pressing” and for abutting the abutment plane and not modified by sufficient structure, has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structures of an accommodating hole provided on an inner wall of the central hole of the movable gear plate, a ball telescopically arranged on the accommodating hole, and an elastic member that drives the ball to elastically press against the abutment plane as defined in lines 6-9 of page 11 of the specification.
The pressing member of claim 3, with generic placeholder “member” modified by functional language “pressing” and “that presses against the elastic member and the ball” and not modified by sufficient structure, has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of a push bolt as defined in lines 14-15 of page 11 of the specification. [NOTE – see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 3 below]
The blocking component of claim 5, with generic placeholder “component” modified by functional language “blocking” and “for preventing the ball (7) detaching from the accommodating hole (8)” and not modified by sufficient structure, has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of a blocking ring as defined in lines 17-18 of page 11 of the specification.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the locking component comprises a fixing gear plate (4) fixed to the treadmill body (1) and a movable gear plate (3) which can approach or move away from the fixing gear plate (4) and is respectively provided on the opposite sides of the treadmill body (1) and the column (2)” in lines 4-8. It is unclear what is meant by the underlined portion of this limitation. Specifically, it is unclear if this limitation is stating the locking component is respectively provided on opposite sides of the treadmill body and the column, or if this limitation is stating one or both of the fixing gear plate and the movable gear plate are respectively provided on opposite sides of the treadmill body and the column. Claims 2-10 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “a pressing member” in line 4. It is unclear if this limitation is intending to refer to the previously recited pressing member of claim 1 or is introducing a materially new and different pressing member. Should this limitation be introducing a materially new and different pressing member, the Office suggests clearly differentiating the limitations throughout the claims (for example, “a first pressing member” in claim 1 and “a second pressing member” in claim 3, with changes made to remaining claims for antecedent basis as needed). Claims 4-6 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 3.
Claim 4 recites “the pressing member is a push bolt” in line 3. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the pressing member introduced in claim 1 or the pressing member introduced in claim 3. See rejection above to claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a treadmill capable of reducing column tipping probability in combination with all of the structural and functional limitations, and further comprising a rotatable column, a rotating shaft, a locking component comprising a fixed gear plate fixed to the treadmill body and a movable gear plate configured to approach or move away from the fixing gear plate, the rotating shaft being rotatably inserted into a central hole of the fixing gear plate and the movable gear plate, a driving component which rotates forward and reversely synchronously with the rotating shaft and is configured to drive the movable gear plate to mesh with or move away from the fixing gear plate, and a damping component arranged between the rotating shaft and the movable gear plate including a pressing member elastically arranged on an inner wall of the central hole of the movable gear plate and an abutment plane arranged on an outer wall of the rotating shaft.
The closest prior art of record includes Li et al. (CN 216222762 U), Wu (US 7,942,788), and Wang et al. (US 12,478,829).
Li et al. teaches a treadmill comprising a rotatable column (2), a rotating shaft (3), a locking component comprising a fixing gear plate (4) fixed to the treadmill body and a movable gear plate (5) configured to approach or move away from the fixing gear plate, the rotating shaft being rotatably inserted into a central hole of the fixing gear plate and the movable gear plate (Figs. 1 and 5), and a driving component (mounting block 7 with handle) which rotates forward and reversely synchronously with the rotating shaft and is configured to drive the movable gear plate to mesh with or move away from the fixing gear plate (rotating shaft 3 set with mounting block 7 at one end thereof such that rotating mounting block 7 via handle rotates rotating shaft 3). Li et al. does not teach a damping component arranged between the rotating shaft and the movable gear plate including a pressing member elastically arranged on an inner wall of the central hole of the movable gear plate and an abutment plane arranged on the outer wall of the rotating shaft.
Wu teaches a treadmill comprising a rotatable column (2), a rotating shaft (tubular member 41) around which the rotatable column rotates, a locking component (first securing unit 4) comprising a fixing gear plate (42) and a movable gear plate (43) configured to approach or move away from the fixing gear plate (Figs. 7-8), the rotating shaft being rotatably inserted into a central hole of the movable gear plate, a driving component (lever 451) configured to drive the movable gear plate to mesh with or move away from the fixing gear plate (Figs. 7-8), and a damping component (second securing unit 5) arranged between the rotatable column and the rotating shaft (Figs. 7-9) including a stop link (53) elastically arranged on an inner wall of the rotatable column and a positioning hole (412) arranged on the rotatable shaft such that the stop link is configured to engage with the positioning hole when the rotatable column is in the upright position (Figs. 9-10, col. 4 lines 42-55). Wu does not teach the rotatable shaft being rotatably inserted into a central hole of the fixing gear plate, the driving component rotating forward and reversely synchronously with the rotating shaft, or the damping component being arranged between the rotating shaft and the movable gear plate and including an abutment plane arranged on an outer wall of the rotating shaft.
Wang et al. teaches a treadmill comprising a rotatable column (12), a rotating shaft (112), a locking component comprising a fixing gear plate (first chuck 113) and a movable gear plate (second chuck 122) plate configured to approach or move away from the fixing gear plate, the rotating shaft being rotatably inserted into a central hole of the movable gear plate (via shaft sleeve 123), a driving component (locking member 13) configured to drive the movable gear plate to mesh with or move away from the fixing gear plate by moving in an axial direction within a locking cavity of the rotating shaft, and at least one elastic member (15) configured to ensure the abutting effect of the driving component (13) on the rotatable column (12). Wang et al. does not teach the rotating shaft being rotatably inserted into a central hole of the fixing gear plate, the driving component the driving component rotating forward and reversely synchronously with the rotating shaft, or a damping component arranged between the rotating shaft and the movable gear plate and including a pressing member elastically arranged on an inner wall of the central hole of the movable gear plate and an abutment plane arranged on an outer wall of the rotating shaft.
None of the prior art of record alone or in combination reasonably teach or suggest the combination of structural and functional limitations of instant claim 1, and any modifications to the prior art of record to achieve the claimed invention would require improper hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN FISK whose telephone number is (571)272-1042. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM M-F (Central).
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.
/KATHLEEN M FISK/Examiner, Art Unit 3784