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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“resistance element” in claim 1 line 6, which uses generic placeholder “element” coupled with functional language “[for] resistance” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the term “resistance” preceding the generic placeholder “element” is not a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “resistance element” in claim 1 has been interpreted to cover a flywheel or other mechanical resistance element, a fluid-based resistance element, a hydraulic resistance element, or a magnetic resistance element as described in para [0007] of the specification, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-3, 5-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2018/0214734 (Lammers).
Regarding claim 1, Lammers discloses a rowing device 1 for exercise (exercise device 1 is a rowing simulator or rowing machine - para 0065, FIGS. 1-5), the device comprising:
a lower or base portion 10,20 configured to be positioned along a ground surface, the lower or base portion configured to remain stationary during use (first elongated structural member 10 and second elongated structural member 20 can be interpreted collectively as the lower or base portion and are positioned along a ground surface via vertically arranged legs 12,12’ and horizontal beams 13,13’ - para 0065, FIGS. 1-5; see annotated FIG. 2 below);
an upper portion 81 configured to slidably move relative to the lower or base portion 10,20 during use (housing 81 is moveably attached to the two structural members 10,20 such that the housing 81 may be moved along at least a part of the length of the two structural members 10,20 - para 0065, FIGS. 1-5; see annotated FIG. 2 below);
wherein the upper portion 81 comprises a resistance element 40, a handle assembly 61 and a footrest assembly 80 (resistance element 40 is at least partly accommodated in housing 81 - para 0065; handle 61 is attached to free outer end of second drive 60, which is at least partly accommodated in housing 81 - paras 0065 and 0067; housing 81 includes a foot support or footstretcher 80 - para 0067; see annotated FIG. 2 below); and
a seat assembly 30 coupled to the lower or base portion 10,20 (FIGS. 1-5), wherein the seat assembly 30 is configured to not slidably move relative to the upper portion 81 when the upper portion is moved relative to the lower or base portion 10,20 (seat may be directly connected to the first structure member and may be in a fixed position relative to the first structural member - para 0010; see annotated FIG. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
499
943
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lammers teaches the device of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the upper portion 81 is configured to slidably move relative to the lower or base portion 10,20 using a rail system (housing 81 is moveably attached to the two structural members 10,20 such that the housing 81 may be moved along at least a part of the length of the two structural members 10,20, which can be interpreted as forming a rail system - para 0065, FIGS. 1-5; guiding wheels may be part of the resistance element and may be arranged in a guiding rails of the structural member or vice versa - para 0010).
Regarding claim 3, Lammers teaches the device of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the upper portion 81 is configured to slidably move relative to the lower or base portion using at least one wheel or other movable member (housing 81 is moveably attached to the two structural members 10,20 such that the housing 81 may be moved along at least a part of the length of the two structural members 10,20 - para 0065, FIGS. 1-5; guiding wheels may be part of the resistance element and may be arranged in a guiding rails of the structural member or vice versa - para 0010; see annotated FIG. 5 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
594
701
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Lammers teaches the device of Claim 3, and further discloses wherein the at least one wheel or other movable member is configured to be positioned along the upper portion 81 (housing 81 is moveably attached to the two structural members 10,20 such that the housing 81 may be moved along at least a part of the length of the two structural members 10,20 - para 0065, FIGS. 1-5; guiding wheels may be part of the resistance element and may be arranged in a guiding rails of the structural member or vice versa - para 0010; see annotated FIG. 5 above).
Regarding claim 6, Lammers teaches the device of Claim 5, and further discloses wherein the at least one wheel or other movable member is configured to at least partially mate with a corresponding element or feature of the lower or base portion 10,20 (housing 81 is moveably attached to the two structural members 10,20 such that the housing 81 may be moved along at least a part of the length of the two structural members 10,20 - para 0065, FIGS. 1-5; guiding wheels may be part of the resistance element and may be arranged in a guiding rails of the structural member or vice versa - para 0010; see annotated FIG. 5 above).
Regarding claim 8, Lammers teaches the device of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the seat assembly 30 is directly coupled to the lower or base portion 10,20 (seat may be directly connected to the first structure member and may be in a fixed position relative to the first structural member - para 0010).
Regarding claim 9, Lammers teaches the device of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the seat assembly 30 is coupled to the lower or base portion 10,20 using at least one hinge, joint or other movable connection (the seat may be moveably attached to the two structural members 10,20 - para 0065; the seat may be moveably connected to the structural member, for example by means of guiding wheels or any other suitable means, which can be interpreted as the movable connection - para 0010).
Regarding claim 10, Lammers teaches the device of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the resistance element 40 comprises a flywheel or other mechanical resistance element (resistance element is a flywheel 40 - para 0065).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lammers in view of US 2,714,507 (Goodrich).
Regarding claim 4, Lammers teaches the device of Claim 3 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection above), but Lammers does not disclose wherein the at least one wheel or other movable member comprises at least one grooved or recessed wheel.
Goodrich teaches an analogous rowing device for exercise (Col 1:15-16, FIGS. 1-2), wherein a structure 34 is configured to slidably move relative to a lower or base portion 15 using at least one wheel 37 or other movable member, wherein the at least one wheel or other movable member comprises at least one grooved or recessed wheel 37 (grooved wheels 37 rest on the rails 15 and side plates are also connected by tie rods 38 which extend between the plates and under the rails 15 to prevent wheels 37 from accidentally becoming disengaged from said rails - Col 2:41-50, see annotated FIG. 1 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lammers’ invention with the grooved wheels and side plates as taught by Goodrich in order to prevent wheels from accidentally becoming disengaged from the rails (Goodrich: Col 2:41-50).
PNG
media_image3.png
683
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Lammers teaches the device of Claim 6 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection above), but Lammers does not disclose wherein the corresponding element or feature comprises an elongated member with a rounded or curved surface.
Goodrich teaches an analogous rowing device for exercise (Col 1:15-16, FIGS. 1-2), wherein a structure 34 is configured to slidably move relative to a lower or base portion 15 using at least one wheel 37 or other movable member, wherein the at least one wheel or other movable member 37 is configured to at least partially mate with a corresponding element or feature of the lower or base portion 15, wherein the corresponding element or feature 15 comprises an elongated member with a rounded or curved surface (grooved wheels 37 rest on the rails 15, which are cylindrical rails inherently elongated and inherently comprising a rounded or curved surface, and side plates are also connected by tie rods 38 which extend between the plates and under the rails 15 to prevent wheels 37 from accidentally becoming disengaged from said rails - Col 2:41-50, see annotated FIG. 1 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lammers’ invention with the cylindrical rails and grooved wheels and side plates as taught by Goodrich in order to prevent wheels from accidentally becoming disengaged from the rails (Goodrich: Col 2:41-50).
PNG
media_image4.png
685
731
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm Eastern.
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.
/Joshua Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784