DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his 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.
Independent claims 1, 6 and 10 recite “an electro-mechanical device powering the exercise machine that has sufficient dynamic response such that a user feels only the commanded force plus the minimized error determined by a minimum resistance setting for the machine and maximum acceleration for which the machine is used or specified to be used” which generally unclear and indefinite. It is unclear what is a “sufficient dynamic response” to effectuate the function of a user feeling “only the commanded force plus the minimized error determined by a minimum resistance setting for the machine and maximum acceleration” which appears to be an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 6 and 10 recites the limitation "the commanded force" and “the minimized error” in line 3 of claims 1, 6 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 5 recites the phrase “the sensor remains sufficiently accurate over the course of an exercise session” which is generally unclear and indefinite. It is unclear what amount or degree is “sufficiently” accurate.
Claim 5 recites the phrase “when the signal is used to compensate for system inertial effects.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Peal et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0339481, Oc.t 27, 2022) (herein “Peal”).
Regarding claim 1, Peal teaches an exercise machine, comprising: an electro-mechanical device (see Fig. 1A below system including motor, cable, handle, controller, and filter) powering the exercise machine (i.e., where a power source powers the motor, see para. [0263]).
PNG
media_image1.png
641
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Peal is silent in explicitly teaching that exercise machine has sufficient dynamic response such that a user feels only the commanded force plus the minimized error determined by a minimum resistance setting for the machine and maximum acceleration for which the machine is used or specified to be used
Peal, however, teaches a filter 1002 (see Fig. 1A above, see para. [0091]) that controls the motor 1006 to produce a certain amount of tension on a cable/actuator (1008/1010), varied over time to accomplish a certain goal including a given feel for the user. Peal teaches that the filter 1002 compensates for momentum/inertia as a function of acceleration (see paras. [0197]-[0203]) and resistance setting.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Peal such that that exercise machine has sufficient dynamic response such that a user feels only the commanded force plus the minimized error determined by a minimum resistance setting for the machine and maximum acceleration for which the machine is used or specified to be used as suggested by Peal in order to provide dynamic resistance (see Peal, para. [0256]) and adjust torque on the motor to make physical exercise more efficient.
Regarding claim 2, Peal teaches the exercise machine of claim 1, further comprising: a pulley (see para. [0198]); and a cable 1008 configured to be at least partially wound around the pulley and to be connected to the electro-mechanical device.
Regarding claim 3, Peal teaches or suggests the exercise machine of claim 2, further comprising: a grip (i.e., handle/actuator 1010), wherein a first end of the cable 1008 is connected to the electro-mechanical device (i.e., motor 1006) and a second end of the cable 1008 is connected to the grip 1010; and an inertial measurement unit (IMU) provided in the grip 1010 (see para. [0290], sensors in the handle/actuator 1010 including position sensor or accelerometer) and configured to measure specific force applied to the grip, angular rates of the grip and orientation of the grip.
Regarding claim 4, Peal teaches or suggests the exercise machine of claim 3, further comprising a hardware embedded processor (see paras. [0042],[0339]) configured to: receive the specific force of the grip 1010, the angular rates of the grip and the orientation of the grip from the IMU via an electrical connection with the IMU, and control the electro-mechanical device (i.e., motor) based on the specific force of the grip 1010, the angular rates of the grip and the orientation of the grip 1010 to counteract inertia in the system (see para. [0197],[0202-[0203]) by adjusting a torque outputted by the electro-mechanical device (i.e., motor) to provide a more linear feel to the user applying a force to the cable 1008.
Regarding claim 10, Peal teaches an exercise machine, comprising: an electro-mechanical device (see Fig. 1 above system including motor, cable, handle, controller, and filter) powering the exercise machine (i.e., where a power source powers the motor, see para. [0263]); and a flat plate force sensor (i.e., load cell, see paras. [0070],[0165]) that is attached to a pulley (see para. [0198]) over or under which a cable passes, where said cable is at least part of the load path between the electro-mechanical device and physical user implement (i.e., actuator/handle).
Peal is silent in explicitly teaching that exercise machine has sufficient dynamic response such that a user feels only the commanded force plus the minimized error determined by a minimum resistance setting for the machine and maximum acceleration for which the machine is used or specified to be used
Peal, however, teaches a filter 1002 (see Fig. 1A above, see para. [0091]) that controls the motor 1006 to produce a certain amount of tension on a cable/actuator (1008/1010), varied over time to accomplish a certain goal including a given feel for the user. Peal teaches that the filter 1002 compensates for momentum/inertia as a function of acceleration (see paras. [0197]-[0203]) and resistance setting.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Peal such that that exercise machine has sufficient dynamic response such that a user feels only the commanded force plus the minimized error determined by a minimum resistance setting for the machine and maximum acceleration for which the machine is used or specified to be used as suggested by Peal in order to provide dynamic resistance (see Peal, para. [0256]) and adjust torque on the motor to make physical exercise more efficient.
Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Peal et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0339481, Oc.t 27, 2022) (herein “Peal”) in view of Valente et. al. (US PG Pub. No. 2019/0099637, April 4, 2019) (herein “Valente”).
Regarding claim 6, Peal teaches an exercise machine, comprising: an electro-mechanical device (see Fig. 1 below system including motor, cable, handle, controller, and filter) powering the exercise machine (i.e., where a power source powers the motor, see para. [0263]); a frame (see Fig. 35, and para. [0333]); an arm 3540,3542 through which the cable 3506/3508 passes (see Fig. 35 below, and para. [0333])
PNG
media_image1.png
641
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
676
525
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Peal is silent in explicitly teaching that exercise machine has sufficient dynamic response such that a user feels only the commanded force plus the minimized error determined by a minimum resistance setting for the machine and maximum acceleration for which the machine is used or specified to be used
Peal, however, teaches a filter 1002 (see Fig. 1A above, see para. [0091]) that controls the motor 1006 to produce a certain amount of tension on a cable/actuator (1008/1010), varied over time to accomplish a certain goal including a given feel for the user. Peal teaches that the filter 1002 compensates for momentum/inertia as a function of acceleration (see paras. [0197]-[0203]) and resistance setting.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Peal such that that exercise machine has sufficient dynamic response such that a user feels only the commanded force plus the minimized error determined by a minimum resistance setting for the machine and maximum acceleration for which the machine is used or specified to be used as suggested by Peal in order to provide dynamic resistance (see Peal, para. [0256]) and adjust torque on the motor to make physical exercise more efficient.
Peal is silent in teaching a locking plate attached to the frame; and a vertical locking mechanism configured to lock the arm 3540,3542 relative to the locking plate.
Valente, however, in an analogous art teaches an exercise machine having arms 700, locking plate 403 attached to a frame; and a vertical locking mechanism 431,722 (see para. [0173]-[0177], and Fig. 6-7 below) configured to lock arm 702 relative to the locking plate 403.
PNG
media_image3.png
468
216
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
526
530
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
356
568
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Peal to include locking plate 403 attached to the frame; and a vertical locking mechanism 431,722 configured to lock the arm 3540,3542 relative to the locking plate as taught by Valente in order to keep the arm in a fixed vertically pivoted position (see para. [0172]).
Regarding claim 7, Peal as modified by Valente teaches the exercise machine of claim 6, wherein the locking plate 403 includes a plurality of teeth 421,422,423 and is fixed to the frame, and wherein the vertical locking mechanism 431,722 includes a locking tooth 422 that engages a space between two adjacent teeth 421,423 among the plurality of teeth to lock the arm vertically (see paras. [0172]-[0174).
Regarding claim 9, Peal as modified by Valente teaches the exercise machine of claim 7, wherein the vertical locking mechanism 431,722 further includes a spring 733 (see para. [0176], and Fig. 7A above) connected to the locking tooth 422, the spring 733 being configured to apply a preload to the locking tooth in order to minimize relative movement between the arm 702 and the locking plate 403.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S LO whose telephone number is (571)270-1702. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. (9:30 am - 5:30 pm 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 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.
/ANDREW S LO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights