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 is a 371 filing of PCT/EP2023/058700, filed 4/3/2023, and claims the benefit of foreign application GB2204910.0, filed 4/4/2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/2/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drive belt being geared (claim 12)
A gearbox (claim 12)
A bobbin (claim 17)
A recoil unit (claim 17)
An interface (claim 23)
A controller (claim 24)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the reference characters should be removed from the abstract. Additionally, the abstract as filed includes “ABSTRACT (Figure 3)” and “EXERCISE MACHINE” at the top center of the document. Both “(Figure 3)” and “EXERCISE MACHINE” should be removed.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 8, 17, 19, 22 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3, “the at least one rail” should read ---the at least one longitudinal rail---
Claim 3, lines 2-3, “the longitudinal rail” should read ---the at least one longitudinal rail---
The numerical “6” for claim 6 is stricken through and should be re-added.
Claim 8, line 2, “encoder” should read ---an encoder---
Claim 17, line 1, “the cord” should read ---the at least one cord---
Claim 17, line 3, “the cord” should read ---the at least one cord---
Claim 19, line 1, “An machine” should read ---An exercise machine---
Claim 19, line 3, “the at least one rail” should read ---the at least one longitudinal rail---
Claim 19, line 4, “the at least one belt or chain” should read ---the at least one movable belt or chain---
Claim 19, line 9, “the cord” should read ---the at least one cord---
Claim 20, line 4, “the cord” should read ---the respective cord---
Claim 22, line 2, “the cord” should read ---the at least one cord---
Claim 22, line 3, “the cord” should read ---the at least one cord---
Claim 22, line 4, “the cord” should read ---the at least one cord---
Claim 23, line 3, “the belt or chain” should read ---the at least one movable belt or chain---
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.
The limitation of “means for force measurement” in claim 10 has been interpreted to cover “a pair of springs” as defined in the second paragraph of page 9 of the specification.
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 3, 9, 10, 11-12, 14, and 17-24 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 3 recites “the belt” in line 2. However, claim 1 previously recites “at least one movable belt or chain.” It is unclear if claim 3 is positively reciting the at least one movable belt or chain is a movable belt, or should instead read similar to ---the at least one movable belt or chain---.
Claim 3 recites “two rails” in line 3. It is unclear if the two rails includes the previously recited at least one longitudinal rail of claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “the torque applied” in line 2. No torque has been previously claimed, and therefore this limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear to what structure(s) the torque is being applied.
Claim 10 recites “the belt and motor arrangement” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “additional drive ratio” in line 2. No previous drive ratio has been claimed, and therefore it is unclear what this drive ratio is in addition to. Additionally, it is unclear what this limitation imparts to the claimed invention, as a drive ratio is typically defined as a multiplier applied to rotation of a transmission’s gears. Therefore, it is unclear if this limitation imparts any structural or functional limitations to the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites “further comprising a gearbox” in line 3. It is unclear if this limitation is generic to the entire claimed exercise machine or is intended to limit a specific structure, such as the motor further comprising a gearbox.
Claim 12 recites “the toothed belt” in line 4. However, claim 12 previously recites “a gearbox or a toothed belt.” Therefore, it is unclear if the limitation of line 4 is positively claiming the toothed belt as a required structure of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites “the drive belt” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “the belt” in line 3. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the at least one movable belt or chain of claim 1 or the drive belt of claim 14.
Claim 17 recites “a first pulley” in line 3. It is unclear if the first pulley is part of the previously recited pulley mechanism of claim 16.
Claim 18 recites “at least one belt or chain” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if this limitation is intended to refer to the previously recited at least one movable belt or chain of claim 1 or is introducing a new and materially different at least one belt or chain of the invention.
Claim 18 recites “a motor” in line 3. It is unclear if this limitation is intended to refer to the previously recited motor of claim 1 or is introducing a new and materially different motor of the invention.
Claim 19 recites “the carriage or platform of the frame” in line 7. However, claim 19 previously recited “a carriage supporting a platform” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if the limitation of line 7 should instead read ---the carriage or platform--- or if the limitation of line 7 is introducing a new and materially different platform of the frame.
Claim 20 recites “a pair of cords” in line 1. It is unclear if this limitation includes the previously recited at least one cord of claim 19.
Claim 22 recites “the cord or cuff” in line 4. No cuff has previously been claimed, and therefore this limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 23 recites “positional sensing of the carriage along the platform” in line 2. However, claim 1 previously recites “a carriage supporting a platform moveable along the at least one rail.” It is unclear how the position of the carriage changes along the platform.
Claim 24 recites “the at least one movable belt” in line 3. However, claim 1 previously recites “at least one movable belt or chain.” It is unclear if claim 24 is positively reciting the at least one movable belt as a required structure of the claimed invention, or should instead read similar to ---the at least one movable belt or chain---.
Claim 24 recites “the carriage and/or cords” in line 4. No cords have been previously claimed, therefore this limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 16, 18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Villency et al. (US 11406858).
Regarding independent claim 1, Villency et al. discloses an exercise machine (200) comprising a frame (201) having at least one longitudinal rail (204, 205) extending between a first support member (207) and a second support member (211), a carriage (12) supporting a platform (206) moveable along the at least one rail (col. 6 lines 6-8, “Carriage 12 is operable to move longitudinally between first end 202 and second end 203”) and at least one movable belt or chain (28, 28’, and belt/chain connecting pulley 27a to pulley 27b, Fig. 3A) attached to the carriage (by connector 250, Fig. 3A), movement of the at least one belt or chain being controlled by a motor (26) to apply resistance to movement of the carriage along the at least one longitudinal rail (via controller 20, col. 6 lines 36-38, “A controller 20 may be connected to a user interface 223 which allows a user to program controller 20 to provide a certain resistance or run a resistance routine” and see col. 10 line 64 – col. 11 line 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
442
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Villency et al. further discloses wherein the at least one movable belt or chain is a continuous loop (28, 28’ and belt/chain connecting pulleys 27a to 27b are continuous loops), with each end of the loop mounted on a pulley (pulleys 27a-27f).
Regarding claim 3, Villency et al. further discloses wherein the carriage is attached to the belt by a connector (250) extending through a slot in the longitudinal rail (channel 221) or in a gap provided between two rails (gap formed between rails 204, 205).
Regarding claim 4, Villency et al. further discloses wherein voltage supplied to the motor controls the resistance to movement of the carriage along the at least one rail (motor operation controlled by controller 20, see col. 10 line 64 – col. 11 line 16) and at least one sensor (24) is provided to monitor the resistance applied (col. 4 line 62 – col. 5 line 3, “a user may perform a movement in which the user provides force against outer structure 16, which causes outer structure 16 to move relative to inner structure 14. Sensors 24 will report such force to controller 20 and controller 20 may be programmed to either allow such force at a certain magnitude (in the case of a positive portion of an exercise movement) or to resist such movement and drive carriage 12 in the opposite direction and at a certain magnitude (in the case of negative movement).”).
Regarding claim 6, Villency et al. further discloses wherein the at least one moveable belt or chain comprises a drive belt or chain (28, 28’) connected to a return belt or chain (belt/chain connecting pulleys 27a and 27b), the return belt or chain being anchored to the machine (see Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 8, Villency et al. further discloses wherein the at least one sensor (24) is selected from at least one of a position sensor, encoder on the motor and a load cell (see col. 4 lines 39-57, sensors 24 can be a slide potentiometer to measure displacement, i.e. position, an angle potentiometer, or sensors used to measure force).
Regarding claim 10, Villency et al. further discloses wherein the belt and motor arrangement (interpreted as referring to the previously claimed at least one movable belt or chain and motor; 28, 28’, and belt/chain connecting pulleys 27a and 27b) are mounted on a support having means for force measurement (see Fig. 3B-3D, sensors 24 on frame 320 which connect with belts 28, 28’, belt/chain connecting pulleys 27a and 27b, and motor 26).
Regarding claim 11, insomuch as applicant has disclosed and illustrated the motor being provided with additional drive ratio, the Office holds Villency et al. similarly discloses wherein the motor (26) is provided with additional drive ratio (via pulleys 27a, 27b, and shafts 33, 33’ connecting to pulleys 27c, 27e).
Regarding claim 16, Villency et al. further discloses at least one cord extending between the carriage to an end of the machine via a pulley mechanism for enabling a user to move the carriage by pulling on the at least one cord (pulley system 219 at second end of machine 203 includes at least one cord connected to carriage 12).
Regarding claim 18, Villency et al. further discloses wherein resistance to movement of the at least one cord is provided by movement of at least one belt or chain being controlled by a motor (interpreted as referring to the previously recited at least movable belt or chain 28, 28’, and belt/chain connecting pulleys 27a and 27b, and previously recited motor 26; resistance of movement of the at least one cord provided by resistance of motor 26 and the belts/chains 28, 28’ and belt/chain connecting pulleys 27a and 27b imparted on carriage 12).
Regarding claim 24, Villency et al. further discloses a controller (20) to control and monitor the voltage and current supplied to the at least one movable belt to control the resistance applied to movement of the carriage and/or cords (col. 4 line 58 – col. 5 line 3, “controller 20 may be programmed to instruct motor 26 to move loop element 28 in a first direction when a certain force is imparted by outer structure 16 on inner structure. For instance, a user may perform a movement in which the user provides force against outer structure 16, which causes outer structure 16 to move relative to inner structure 14. Sensors 24 will report such force to controller 20 and controller 20 may be programmed to either allow such force at a certain magnitude (in the case of a positive portion of an exercise movement) or to resist such movement and drive carriage 12 in the opposite direction and at a certain magnitude (in the case of negative movement)”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villency et al. (US 11406858) and further in view of Bauer et al. (US 20160158620).
Regarding claim 9, Villency et al. further teaches sensors (24) positioned to measure displacement between an inner structure (14) and an outer structure (16) to measure the force exerted therebetween (col. 4 lines 39-41, “controller 20 and sensors 24 in one example are utilized to measure the force exerted between inner structure 14 and outer structure 16”), but does not teach wherein the motor is provided with a torque arm to measure the torque applied and wherein a spring of a controlled stiffness is attached to the torque arm allowing displacement to be measured.
Bauer et al. teaches a force sensor (170) configured to measure a torque applied to the motor (par. [0045], “As torque is applied to motor 156 the reaction force of this torque will be measured by force sensor 170 thereby being able to measure instantaneously at any point in time the force being generated by motor 156 against force sensor 170”) via a torque arm (motor base plate 164) and wherein a spring (176) of a controlled stiffness is attached to the torque arm allowing displacement to be measured (par. [0048], “Spring 176 provides the necessary positive force bias and allows the use of a single force sensor to measure tangential force on the roller 152 in both directions without resulting in a negative force on force sensor 170” indicating displacement of the spring by movement of the motor base plate 164 can be measured; see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
356
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motor of Villency et al. to be provided with a torque arm and a spring, as is similarly taught by Bauer et al., for the purpose of allowing a user to determine the amount of force being supplied by the motor to movement of the carriage.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villency et al. (US 11406858) and further in view of Bayerlein et al. (US 10238911).
Regarding claim 12, Villency et al. further teaches wherein the at least one moveable belt or chain comprises a drive belt (28, 28’) and the drive belt is geared (col. 3 lines 32-33, “rotating elements 27a, 27b, 27c, 27d would be gears and loop elements 28, 33 would be chains”), and further teaches a secondary belt (belt/chain connecting pulleys 27a and 27b) mounted on a pulley of the drive belt (see Fig. 3A, mounted to pulleys 27c and 27e via shafts 33, 33’), the secondary belt being controlled by the motor (see Fig. 3A), but does not teach the secondary belt being a toothed belt.
Bayerlein et al. teaches an analogous transmission system for an exercise device (Fig. 5) comprising a toothed belt (155; col. 7 lines 32-33, “For example, in one embodiment, the belt 155 may be structured as a toothed belt.”) mounted on a pulley (72) of a drive belt (running belt 30), wherein the toothed belt is controlled by a motor (151).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the secondary belt of Villency et al. with the toothed belt of Bayerlein et al. as a matter of simple substitution of one known belt type for a transmission assembly for another for the purpose of achieving the same predictable results of providing a smooth means of transmission of rotation between the motor, the secondary belt, and the drive belt.
[NOTE – This rejection only considers the limitation of a toothed belt of instant claim 12, as the claim only requires one of a gearbox or a toothed belt.]
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villency et al. (US 11406858) and further in view of Ehrenfried (US 5180351).
Regarding claim 14, Villency et al. does not teach the exercise machine further comprising a worm and wheel arrangement provided between the motor and drive belt to resist reversal of the belt.
Ehrenfried teaches a transmission assembly including a motor (81) and a drive belt (176) driven by the motor (Fig. 3), and further teaches a worm and wheel arrangement (Fig. 4, worm gear mechanism 87) provided between the motor and the drive belt to resist reversal of the belt (col. 5 lines 47-53, “When rotation of belt drive sprocket 85L stops or drops below the speed of the worm drive output, clutch 84L disengages from drive shaft 83 so that the motion depicted by arrow 86 cannot be transmitted to support step 17. Accordingly, support step 17 is powered only by operator weight and never by the electric motor-worm drive assembly”).
PNG
media_image4.png
612
390
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
362
316
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exercise machine of Villency et al. to further include a worm and wheel arrangement provided between the motor and the drive belt, as is similarly taught by Ehrenfried, for the purpose of driving movement of the drive belt in one direction while resisting movement of the drive belt in a second direction, thereby applying resistance to movement of the carriage along the frame by the user.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villency et al. (US 11406858) and further in view of Merrithew et al. (US 7857736).
Regarding claim 17, Villency et al. teaches wherein an end of the cord terminates in a handle or cuff and wherein the cord passes around a first pulley provided at an end of the machine (see cord and pulley system in Fig. 2 towards second end 203 Fig. 2), but does not teach wherein one end of the cord is wound around a bobbin provided in a recoil unit that is attached to the carriage.
Merrithew et al. teaches a reformer exercise device comprising a carriage (14) and a cord (22) wherein one end of the cord is wound around a bobbin (reel 66) provided in a recoil unit (“cord retraction system”) that is attached to the carriage (see Fig. 6) to pull in slack from the cords (col. 6 lines 4-6).
PNG
media_image6.png
546
416
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
648
274
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exercise machine of Villency et al. to include a recoil unit attached to the carriage for an end of the cord to be wound around a bobbin, as is similarly taught by Merrithew et al., for the purpose of pulling in slack of the cords to maintain the cords in tension and prevent the cord from interfering with other aspects of the device (Merrithew et al. col. 6 lines 22-23, “Pulling in slack maintains the cord 22 in tension and reduces clutter underneath the reformer 10.”).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villency et al. (US 11406858) and further in view of Shavit et al. (US 8585554). Regarding claim 23, Villency et al. does not teach wherein positional sensing of the carriage along the platform, measurement of torque and the resistance on the belt or chain, together with speed of travel enables an interface to be provided detailing performance, including at least one of work rate and energy consumption.
Shavit et al. teaches an analogous exercise machine wherein positional sensing of a carriage (210) along the platform, measurement of torque and the resistance imparted to the carriage, together with speed of travel enables an interface (control panels 312 and 322) to be provided detailing performance, including at least one of work rate and energy consumption (col. 4 lines 31-33, “the control panels 312 and 322 provide a user with various types of information and feedback relating to use of the device 200” and col. 4 lines 43-51, “This information might include, for example, the arrangement of the attached springs 230 and the amount of resistance imparted to the carriage 210, the travel length of the carriage 210, the speed and movement of the carriage 210, time elapsed, distance traveled, as well as personal information about the user relating to calories burned, muscle strain, flexibility, heart rate if equipped with a sensor that is able to communicate with a user's heart rate monitor, and so on.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exercise machine of Villency et al. to further include using positional sensing of the carriage, measurement of torque and the resistance on the belt or chain that is imparted to the carriage, and the speed of travel to provide feedback to a user about the work rate or energy consumption of the user while performing exercises thereon, as is similarly taught by Shavit et al., for the purpose of providing a user with feedback information about performance during an exercise session.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-22 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 an exercise machine in combination with all of the structural and functional limitations, and further comprising a cross bar pivotally connected to an end of the frame by at least one pivot arm and at least one cord extendable from the carriage or platform of the frame around a part of the cross bar via at least one pulley, wherein the at least one cord is selectively positionable between a first position and a second position, wherein in the first position movement of the cord affects movement of the carriage and in the second position movement of the cross bar affects movement of the carriage.
The closest prior art of record to Villency et al. (US 11406858) teaches an exercise machine comprising a frame (201) having at least one longitudinal rail (204, 205) extending between a first support member (207) and a second support member (211), a carriage (12) supporting a platform (206) moveable along the at least one rail, at least one movable belt or chain attached to the carriage (28, 28’, and belt/chain connecting pulley 27a to pulley 27b, Fig. 3A), movement of the at least one belt or chain being controlled by a motor (26) to apply resistance to movement of the carriage along the at least one longitudinal rail, and at least one cord (see pulley system 219) extendable from the carriage or platform of the frame. Villency et al. does not teach a cross bar pivotally connected to an end of the frame by at least one pivot arm and the at least one cord extending around a part of the cross bar via at least one pulley, wherein the at least one cord is selectively positionable between a first position and a second position, wherein in the first position movement of the cord affects movement of the carriage and in the second position movement of the cross bar affects movement of the carriage.
Additional prior art to LaGree (US 7803095) teaches an exercise machine comprising a frame (12) having at least one longitudinal rail (16a, 16b) extending between a first support member (46) and a second support member (48), a carriage (14) supporting a platform (32) moveable along the at least one rail, a cross bar (22) pivotally connected to an end of the frame by at least one pivot arm and at least one cord (28) extendable from the carriage. LaGree does not teach at least one movable belt or chain attached to the carriage, movement of the at least one belt or chain being controlled by a motor to apply resistance to movement of the carriage along the at least one longitudinal rail, the at least one cord extendable from the carriage or platform of the frame around a part of the cross bar via at least one pulley, wherein the at least one cord is selectively positionable between a first position and a second position, wherein in the first position movement of the cord affects movement of the carriage and in the second position movement of the cross bar affects movement of the carriage.
Any modifications to the prior art to meet the limitations of independent claim 19 would require improper hindsight.
Conclusion
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
