DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20, as filed on 09/03/2024, are currently pending and considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/03/2024 complies with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document which are present in the parent applications; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed which are present in the parent applications; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has been considered.
Claim Interpretation
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) because the claim limitations 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 limitations are:
Claim 1 and 13 “motion restricting element”. “Element” is the generic placeholder (A). “Motion restricting is the functional language modifying the generic placeholder (B). The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (C).
For “motion restricting element”, Paragraph 45 recites: “a motion restricting element shown as a one-way bearing” and “the motion-restricting element may be any suitable motion-restricting element (e.g., a cam system, etc.).” The Motion restricting element is interpreted to by a one-way bearing, a cam system, and equivalence thereof.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 12-15, and 17-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 5538489 A (Magid) in view of Neil Sclater, Mechanisms and Mechanical Devices Sourcebook 3rd Edition, Published 2001 (henceforth Sclater) in further view of 8007408 (Moran).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Magid discloses a treadmill (second embodiment, Figure 8; embodiment is a treadmill), comprising;
a treadmill frame (base frame 11);
a running belt supported by the treadmill frame (foot belt 4, 4’; supported on the frame 11 by rollers);
a first rotatable element (front rollers 41) supported by the treadmill frame and rotationally coupled to the running belt (as shown in Figure 8);
a motion restricting element (unidirectional control means 6, 6’) coupled to the first rotatable element such that the motion restricting element restricts relative rotation of the first rotatable element in a first rotational direction and permits relative rotation of the first rotatable element in a second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction (“control means 6, 6' includes a pair of ratchet gears 61 attached to outer ends of the front rollers 41 and mounted rotatably on the first shaft 411, and a pair of pawls 62 secured to the base 11 and engaging one of the ratchet gears 61 to permit only unidirectional rotation of the front rollers 41, thereby preventing bidirectional movement of the foot belts 4, 4” Col. 4, lines 49-54; said control means 6, 6’ is configured to provide unrestricted rotation in a second direction and preventative rotation in a first direction opposite the second direction).
Magid teaches the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Magid does not disclose a brake selectively coupled to the first rotatable element and adapted to selectively restrict a speed of rotation of the first rotatable element depending upon an established limit for a speed of the running belt; and the motion restricting element as interpreted to by a one-way bearing, a cam system, and equivalence thereof.
Moran teaches an analogous exercise device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
a treadmill frame (treadmill frame 20); a running belt (tread 40) supported by the treadmill frame (as shown in Figure 1); a first rotatable element (front roller 42) supported by the treadmill frame and rotationally coupled to the running belt (shown in Figure 4 allowing for rotation of tread 40 about the roller 42);
a brake (“eddy-current braking mechanism” Col. 6, line 32) selectively coupled to the first rotatable element (via belt 52 such that the belt can be removed) and adapted to selectively restrict a speed of rotation of the first rotatable element depending upon an established limit for a speed of the running belt (“an eddy-current braking mechanism can be used in place of the generator 65 to add resistance to the motion of the tread 40” Col. 6, lines 32-34 and “if the speed parameter such as tread speed is determined to be greater than the target speed parameter by a predetermined amount, the controller 75 can activate a braking mechanism to slow the speed of the tread 40 either alone or in combination with a tread angle change” Col. 7, lines 25-29; controller 75 adjusts the speed of rotation via the eddy-current braking mechanism).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the first rotatably element to include an eddy current braking mechanism with controller and belt, as taught by Moran, in order to control the upper speed limit of the device to prevent injury.
Magid as modified does not disclose the motion restricting element as interpreted to by a one-way bearing, a cam system, and equivalence thereof.
Sclater teaches an analogous one way belt over rollers device (“conveyor, Fig. 2) solving the same issue of providing a one way clutch to provide single directional rotation comprising:
A first rotatably element (Figure 2);
A running belt (“belt”, Figure 2) supported by a frame (supported by both the front and rear running belt pulleys at a top and bottom end thereof);
PNG
media_image1.png
409
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a motion restricting element coupled to the first rotatable element (“backstopping clutch” coupled to the front roller),
the motion restricting element comprising an inner ring and an outer ring (Figure 1: Annotated; said clutch comprises an outer and inner rings) such that the motion restricting element is a one-way bearing (see Figure 1 below wherein the device is a bearing),
PNG
media_image2.png
291
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated
such that the motion restricting element restricts relative rotation of the first rotatable element to the brake in a first rotational direction and permits relative rotation of the first rotatable element in a second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction (“the back-stopping clutch will prevent the buckets from running backwards” Fig. 2; said safety device is configured to allow for rotation in one direction and prevent rotation in the other direction).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the safety device to be a backstopping clutch with inner and outer rings with sprags therebetween, as taught by Sclater, in order to have a quieter and more precise clutch mechanism.
Magid as modified further discloses the motion restricting element coupled to the first rotatably element and the brake (both the brake and bearing are attached to the front roller such that they are all coupled together).
Regarding Claim 2, Magid as modified further discloses the treadmill of claim 1, wherein the brake selectively restricts the speed of rotation of the first rotatable element in only the first rotational direction (motion restricting element in the form of the one way bearing prevent rotation in the second direction such that the brake does not function in the second direction).
Regarding Claim 4, Magid as modified further discloses the treadmill of claim 1, wherein the motion restricting element comprises first and second rings (inner and outer rings, Figure 1 above), wherein one of the first and second rings substantially surrounds the other of the first and second rings (as shown in Figure 1 the outer ring substantially surrounds the inner ring such that the rings for a bearing).
Regarding Claim 5, Magid as modified further discloses the treadmill of claim 4, wherein one of the first ring and the second ring is independently moveable relative to the other of the first ring and the second ring (the inner ring is independently movable relative to the outer ring).
Regarding Claim 6, Magid as modified further discloses the treadmill of claim 4, wherein one of the first and second rings is rotatably fixed relative to the first rotatable element and the other of the first and second rings is rotatably fixed relative to the brake (“outer race is restrained by torque-arming the stationary frame of the conveyor” Fig. 2; said outer ring is fixed to the frame with the inner ring rotatable with the roller; the brake and inner ring are fixed to the roller such that they are rotatably fixed together).
Regarding Claim 7, Magid as modified further discloses the treadmill of claim 1, wherein in response to the user reaching or exceeding the established limit for the speed of the running belt in the first rotational direction, the brake restricts the speed of the running belt in the first rotational direction (“if the speed parameter such as tread speed is determined to be greater than the target speed parameter by a predetermined amount, the controller 75 can activate a braking mechanism to slow the speed of the tread 40 either alone or in combination with a tread angle change” Col. 7, lines 25-29; said first directional speed is limited by the controller activating the brake in response to the first directional speed exceeding a targeted speed parameter).
Regarding Claim 8, Magid as modified further discloses the treadmill of claim 1, wherein the brake is an eddy current brake (eddy-current braking mechanism).
Regarding Claim 9, Magid further discloses the treadmill of claim 1, further comprising: a belt (belt 52) that couples the brake to the motion restricting element (both the belt 52 and the one-way bearing are attached to the front roller such that they are indirectly coupled together) such that the brake selectively restricts movement of the motion restricting element which restricts rotation of the first rotatable element and the running belt (the brake controls the rotational speed such that the rotational movement is restricted by the brake onto the one-way bearing; the one-way bearing restricts rotation of the roller and belt to only in the first direction).
Regarding Claim 12, Magid further discloses the treadmill of claim 1, wherein the motion restricting element is a one-way bearing (said inner and outer ring one device is considered a one-way bearing).
Regarding Independent Claim 13, Magid discloses a treadmill (second embodiment, Figure 8; embodiment is a treadmill), comprising;
a treadmill frame (base frame 11);
a running belt (foot belt 4, 4’) coupled to the treadmill frame (via rollers) and adapted for rotation relative to the treadmill frame (belts 4, 4’ move relative to the frame via rollers);
a first shaft (shaft 411) rotatably coupled to the treadmill frame (via brackets 12);
a pulley (roller 41; roller 41 is considered a pulley as it has a planar face between two raised edges) coupled to the first shaft (thereabout).
and a motion restricting element (unidirectional control means 6, 6’) coupled to the frame (via brackets 12) and configured to limit rotation of the pulley relative to the first shaft to only one rotational direction (“control means 6, 6' includes a pair of ratchet gears 61 attached to outer ends of the front rollers 41 and mounted rotatably on the first shaft 411, and a pair of pawls 62 secured to the base 11 and engaging one of the ratchet gears 61 to permit only unidirectional rotation of the front rollers 41, thereby preventing bidirectional movement of the foot belts 4, 4” Col. 4, lines 49-54; said control means 6, 6’ is configured to provide unrestricted rotation in a second direction and preventative rotation in a first direction opposite the second direction).
Magid teaches the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Magid does not disclose a brake coupled to the treadmill frame and the pulley, the brake adapted to selectively restrict rotation of the pulley; and the motion restricting element as interpreted to by a one-way bearing, a cam system, and equivalence thereof.
Moran teaches an analogous exercise device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
a treadmill frame (treadmill frame 20); a running belt (tread 40) supported by the treadmill frame (as shown in Figure 1); a first rotatable element (front roller 42) supported by the treadmill frame and rotationally coupled to the running belt (shown in Figure 4 allowing for rotation of tread 40 about the roller 42);
a brake (“eddy-current braking mechanism” Col. 6, line 32) selectively coupled to the first rotatable element (via belt 52 such that the belt can be removed) and adapted to selectively restrict a speed of rotation of the first rotatable element depending upon an established limit for a speed of the running belt (“an eddy-current braking mechanism can be used in place of the generator 65 to add resistance to the motion of the tread 40” Col. 6, lines 32-34 and “if the speed parameter such as tread speed is determined to be greater than the target speed parameter by a predetermined amount, the controller 75 can activate a braking mechanism to slow the speed of the tread 40 either alone or in combination with a tread angle change” Col. 7, lines 25-29; controller 75 adjusts the speed of rotation via the eddy-current braking mechanism);
and a display (console 70) coupled to the treadmill frame (as shown in Figure 7), the display configured to receive a limit for the speed of the running belt, wherein in response to a speed of the running belt reaching or exceeding the limit for the speed of the running belt, the brake restricts rotation of the running belt (“the target speed can be input by an operator operating the console 70 or a target speed could be entered at the factory as part of a factory predetermined training program” Col. 6, lines 63-65; said controller is controlled by inputs into the console 70).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the first rotatably element to include an eddy current braking mechanism with controller and belt and a control console, as taught by Moran, in order to control the upper speed limit of the device to prevent injury and allow the user to input the target speed.
Magid as modified does not disclose the motion restricting element as interpreted to by a one-way bearing, a cam system, and equivalence thereof.
Sclater teaches an analogous one-way belt over rollers device (“conveyor, Fig. 2) solving the same issue of providing a one way clutch to provide single directional rotation comprising:
A first rotatably element (Figure 2);
A running belt (“belt”, Figure 2) supported by a frame (supported by both the front and rear running belt pulleys at a top and bottom end thereof);
PNG
media_image1.png
409
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a motion restricting element coupled to the first rotatable element (“backstopping clutch” coupled to the front roller),
the motion restricting element comprising an inner ring and an outer ring (Figure 1: Annotated; said clutch comprises an outer and inner rings) such that the motion restricting element is a one-way bearing (see Figure 1 below wherein the device is a bearing),
PNG
media_image2.png
291
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated
such that the motion restricting element restricts relative rotation of the first rotatable element to the brake in a first rotational direction and permits relative rotation of the first rotatable element in a second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction (“the back-stopping clutch will prevent the buckets from running backwards” Fig. 2; said safety device is configured to allow for rotation in one direction and prevent rotation in the other direction).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the safety device to be a backstopping clutch with inner and outer rings with sprags therebetween, as taught by Sclater, in order to have a quieter and more precise clutch mechanism.
Regarding Claim 14, Magid as modified further discloses the treadmill of claim 13, further comprising a display coupled to the treadmill frame (console 70 coupled to the frame), the display configured to receive a limit for the speed of the running belt (“ the target speed can be input by an operator operating the console 70” Col. 6, lines 63-64), wherein in response to a speed of the running belt reaching or exceeding the limit for the speed of the running belt, the brake restricts rotation of the running belt (the controller determines the speed of the belt and compares the speed to the target speed selected by the user with the brake configured to activate for speeds above the target speed).
Regarding Claim 15, Magid as modified further discloses the treadmill of claim 13, wherein the motion restricting element is a one-way bearing (said inner and outer ring one device is considered a one-way bearing).
Regarding Claim 17, Magid as modified further discloses the treadmill of claim 13, wherein the pulley is disposed at or near a front end of the treadmill (See Figure 8 wherein a left end of the device is considered a front end of the device with the roller located at the front end).
Regarding Claim 18, Magid as modified further discloses the treadmill of claim 13, wherein the pulley is disposed at or near a rear end of the treadmill (see Figure 8 wherein a left end of the device is considered a rear end of the device with the roller located at the rear end).
Claims 10-11, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 5538489 A (Magid) in view of Neil Sclater, Mechanisms and Mechanical Devices Sourcebook 3rd Edition, Published 2001 (henceforth Sclater) in further view of 8007408 (Moran) in further view of US 5709632 A (Socwell).
Regarding Claim 10, Magid as modified discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Magid further discloses a plurality of bearings coupled to the frame (shafts 27 with rollers 26) wherein the running belt defines a planar running surface (top surface). Magid does not disclose wherein the running belt defines a non-planar running surface.
Socwell teaches an analogous exercise device in the same field of endeavor solving the same issue of providing bearings to support a running surface comprising:
a frame (support frame 12); at least one running belt pulley coupled to the frame (rollers 86, 88, 78); a plurality of bearings coupled to the frame (rollers 98), wherein the plurality of bearings define a curved top profile (see Figure 2 wherein the rollers 98 define a curved top profile of a belt 16 having a left and right end of the belt higher than a center); a running belt (belt 16) at least partly supported by the at least one running belt pulley and the plurality of bearings (as shown in Figure 2 wherein the belt 16 is fed around the rollers with its curved profile defined by the rollers 98), wherein the running belt comprises a running surface (top surface thereon of belt 16), at least a portion of which comprises a curved running surface corresponding to at least a portion of the curved top profile (a curved portion of the running belt 16 between the rollers is defined by as the curved running surface which corresponds to the curved top profile of the belt 16).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the plurality of bearings to define the running surface as a curved running surface, as taught by Socwell, in order to reduce impact to the joints and muscles of the user (Col. 3, lines 1-4).
Regarding Claim 11, Magid as modified further discloses the treadmill of claim 10, wherein the non-planar running surface includes a curved running surface (said running surface was previously modified to be a curved running surface).
Regarding Claim 16, Magid as modified discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Magid further discloses a plurality of bearings coupled to the frame (shafts 27 with rollers 26) wherein the running belt defines a planar running surface (top surface). Magid does not disclose wherein the running belt defines a non-planar running surface.
Socwell teaches an analogous exercise device in the same field of endeavor solving the same issue of providing bearings to support a running surface comprising:
a frame (support frame 12); at least one running belt pulley coupled to the frame (rollers 86, 88, 78); a plurality of bearings coupled to the frame (rollers 98), wherein the plurality of bearings define a curved top profile (see Figure 2 wherein the rollers 98 define a curved top profile of a belt 16 having a left and right end of the belt higher than a center); a running belt (belt 16) at least partly supported by the at least one running belt pulley and the plurality of bearings (as shown in Figure 2 wherein the belt 16 is fed around the rollers with its curved profile defined by the rollers 98), wherein the running belt comprises a running surface (top surface thereon of belt 16), at least a portion of which comprises a curved running surface corresponding to at least a portion of the curved top profile (a curved portion of the running belt 16 between the rollers is defined by as the curved running surface which corresponds to the curved top profile of the belt 16).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the plurality of bearings to define the running surface as a curved running surface, as taught by Socwell, in order to reduce impact to the joints and muscles of the user (Col. 3, lines 1-4).
Regarding Independent Claim 19, Magid discloses a treadmill (second embodiment, Figure 8) comprising:
a frame (base 11) having a front end and a rear end opposite the front end (front and opposite rear end respectively with respect to Figure 8);
a pulley (front roller 41; considered a wide pulley) coupled to the treadmill frame (via brackets 12);
a running belt (belt 4, 4’) supported by the treadmill frame (see Figure 8),
a safety device (unidirectional control means 6, 6’) coupled to the frame (via brackets 12) and configured to limit rotation of the rotatable element to only one rotational direction (“control means 6, 6' includes a pair of ratchet gears 61 attached to outer ends of the front rollers 41 and mounted rotatably on the first shaft 411, and a pair of pawls 62 secured to the base 11 and engaging one of the ratchet gears 61 to permit only unidirectional rotation of the front rollers 41, thereby preventing bidirectional movement of the foot belts 4, 4” Col. 4, lines 49-54; said control means 6, 6’ is configured to provide unrestricted rotation in a second direction and preventative rotation in a first direction opposite the second direction).
Magid does not disclose the running belt defining an at least partially curved running surface; the safety device as a one-way bearing; and a brake coupled to the rotatable element and adapted to selectively restrict a speed of rotation of the rotatable element.
Sclater teaches an analogous one way belt over rollers device (“conveyor, Fig. 2) solving the same issue of providing a one way clutch to provide single directional rotation comprising:
a front running belt pulley and a rear running belt pulley spaced apart from the front running belt pulley (Figure 2: Annotated);
a belt (“belt”, Figure 2: Annotated) supported by at least one of the front running belt pulley or the rear running belt pulley (supported by both the front and rear running belt pulleys at a top and bottom end thereof)
and a safety device coupled to at least one of the front running belt pulley and the rear running belt pulley (“backstopping clutch” coupled to the front roller; see Figure 1 wherein the clutch is in the form of a one-way bearing),
the safety device comprising an inner and outer race (Figure 1: Annotated; said clutch comprises an outer and inner rings, labelled as races in the Figure description),
PNG
media_image2.png
291
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated
wherein one of the front running belt pulley and the rear running belt pulley and one of the inner ring and the outer ring is restricted from rotation relative to the frame in a first rotational direction, however, in a second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction, the one of the front running belt pulley and the rear running belt pulley and the one of the inner ring and the outer ring freely rotate relative to the frame (“the back-stopping clutch will prevent the buckets from running backwards” Fig. 2; said safety device is configured to allow for rotation in one direction and prevent rotation in the other direction).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the safety device to be a backstopping clutch with inner and outer races with sprags therebetween, as taught by Sclater, in order to have a quieter and more precise clutch mechanism.
Magid further discloses a plurality of bearings coupled to the frame (shafts 27 with rollers 26) wherein the running belt defines a planar running surface (top surface). Magid as modified does not disclose the running belt defining an at least partially curved running surface; and a brake coupled to the rotatable element and adapted to selectively restrict a speed of rotation of the rotatable element.
Socwell teaches an analogous exercise device in the same field of endeavor solving the same issue of providing bearings to support a running surface comprising:
a frame (support frame 12); at least one running belt pulley coupled to the frame (rollers 86, 88, 78); a plurality of bearings coupled to the frame (rollers 98), wherein the plurality of bearings define a curved top profile (see Figure 2 wherein the rollers 98 define a curved top profile of a belt 16 having a left and right end of the belt higher than a center); a running belt (belt 16) at least partly supported by the at least one running belt pulley and the plurality of bearings (as shown in Figure 2 wherein the belt 16 is fed around the rollers with its curved profile defined by the rollers 98), wherein the running belt comprises a running surface (top surface thereon of belt 16), at least a portion of which comprises a curved running surface corresponding to at least a portion of the curved top profile (a curved portion of the running belt 16 between the rollers is defined by as the curved running surface which corresponds to the curved top profile of the belt 16).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the plurality of bearings to define the running surface as a curved running surface, as taught by Socwell, in order to reduce impact to the joints and muscles of the user (Col. 3, lines 1-4).
Magid as modified does not disclose a brake coupled to the rotatable element and adapted to selectively restrict a speed of rotation of the rotatable element.
Moran teaches an analogous exercise device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
a treadmill frame (treadmill frame 20); a running belt (tread 40) supported by the treadmill frame (as shown in Figure 1); a first rotatable element (front roller 42) supported by the treadmill frame and rotationally coupled to the running belt (shown in Figure 4 allowing for rotation of tread 40 about the roller 42);
a brake (“eddy-current braking mechanism” Col. 6, line 32) selectively coupled to the first rotatable element (via belt 52 such that the belt can be removed) and adapted to selectively restrict a speed of rotation of the first rotatable element depending upon an established limit for a speed of the running belt (“an eddy-current braking mechanism can be used in place of the generator 65 to add resistance to the motion of the tread 40” Col. 6, lines 32-34 and “if the speed parameter such as tread speed is determined to be greater than the target speed parameter by a predetermined amount, the controller 75 can activate a braking mechanism to slow the speed of the tread 40 either alone or in combination with a tread angle change” Col. 7, lines 25-29; controller 75 adjusts the speed of rotation via the eddy-current braking mechanism).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the first rotatably element to include an eddy current braking mechanism with controller and belt, as taught by Moran, in order to control the upper speed limit of the device to prevent injury.
Regarding Claim 20, Magid as modified further discloses the treadmill of claim 16, wherein the one-way bearing comprises a first ring and a second ring (inner and outer rings respectively), the first ring being independently moveable relative to the second ring (said inner ring is configured to rotate freely relative to the outer ring).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art of record US 5538489 A (Magid) in view of Neil Sclater, Mechanisms and Mechanical Devices Sourcebook 3rd Edition, Published 2001 (henceforth Sclater) in further view of 8007408 (Moran) fails to teach or render obvious the treadmill in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
wherein the motion restricting element is configured to rotatably couple the brake and the first rotatable element in the first rotational direction and rotatably decouple the brake and the first rotatable element in the second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction.
The prior art of record teaches the motion restricting element as a one-way bearing configured to restrict motion in one direction and allow direction in the opposite and the brake attached to the motion restriction element via a belt and roller shaft, which are not considered equivalent to applicant’s invention as the brake cannot be decoupled from the bearing in a second direction without modifying a teaching reference without improper hindsight.
Regarding Claim 3, Magid as modified further discloses the treadmill of claim 1, wherein the motion restricting element is configured to rotatably couple the brake and the first rotatable element in the first rotational direction and rotatably decouple the brake and the first rotatable element in the second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-0063. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00am - 4:00pm EST.
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 on (571) 272-4966. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. 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.
/ZACHARY T MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights