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: “motor system” (understood to be a motor), “motor system module” (understood to be a motor control schema) “drive system” (understood to be a motor), “internal control mechanisms” (indefinite, as not disclosed), and “closed loop rope system” (understood to be at least one rope and an associated sensor) in claims 1 and 9; “motor drive module” (indefinite, as not disclosed) in claims 5 and 13.
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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1-16 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. Any claims not specifically addressed are rejected for depending from a rejected parent claim.
See rejected claim language in bold and parenthetical explanations.
Claims: 1 and 9 (text as follows is from claim 1; claim 9 is similar to claim 1, omitting only the second pulley): A multi-motor resistance training motor system with a closed loop rope feedback system for an exercise machine, comprising (it is unclear where the preamble ends and the body of the claims begins; it is unclear what “comprising” modifies – the motor system, the feedback system, or the exercise machine): a closed loop rope system (it is unclear if this is the same element as the closed loop rope feedback system or a separate element) operably coupled to a motor system (it is unclear if this is the same as the resistance training motor system or a separate element), a first pulley, a second pulley and a rope creating (unclear if part of the closed loop rope system or different element) a rope tension; wherein the motor system module (lacks antecedent basis; unclear if the motor system module is the same as one of the motor systems above or a new element) sets a mode of a drive system in an isokinetic mode at varying velocity levels and or a isotonic mode at varying force levels (it is unclear what is meant by “a mode of a dive system . . . in a mode” – this could be interpreted as a mode within a mode, or “sets a mode” could mean selecting between an isokinetic or isotonic mode – clarification is required; it is unclear if “and or” is supped to read “and” “or” or “and/or”); the motor system module (unclear which motor system is being referred to) sets and removes the force for both a right and a left motor systems (unclear if the right and left motor systems are part of the motor system module, one of the other motor systems, or new elements) and operates a first motor in a left drive system and a second motor in a right motor system in parallel (it is unclear if the drive system is the same a motor system; it is unclear if the right motor system and left drive system are the same as the right and left motor systems or new elements); the motor system module (unclear which motor system is being referred to) sets and removes the target velocity for the right and left motor system; and upon receiving a command to set and remove the target velocity, the motor system module independently maintains the commanded velocity through internal control mechanisms (unclear if invoking 112f; associated structure not present in specification) without the need for additional signals from a machine controller or from external encoders; and the closed loop rope system managing rope tension failure if the user fails to keep the rope tension (unclear if this occurs when the user fails to keep the rope tensioned or if there is an alternative meaning) when the motor is letting out rope from the exercise machine.
In claims 5 and 13, “motor drive module” is indefinite, as the language appears to invoke 112f, but the requisite structure is not present in the specification.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art of record does not teach or render obvious the instantly claimed invention as best understood. The closest art of record is Ilfrey et a. (US 10,814,172), which teaches regarding claims 1 and 9: 1. A multi-motor resistance training motor system with a closed loop rope feedback system for an exercise machine, comprising: a closed loop rope system (cable system as seen in FIG 4, sensors, e.g. 211 and 213) operably coupled to a motor system (motors 25), a first pulley, a second pulley and a rope creating a rope tension (see pulleys and additional ropes of FIG 4); wherein the motor system module sets a mode of a drive system in an isokinetic mode at varying velocity levels and or a isotonic mode at varying force levels (per the first paragraph of the summary of the invention “Provided are exercise machines for enhancing physical fitness of human subjects. The machines are selectively operable in any mode selected from the group consisting of: isokinetic mode, isometric mode, isotonic mode, and isoinertial mode; however, hybrid modes incorporating features of the foregoing individual modes are also enabled. In general, the machines comprise a rigid frame, an electrical motor attached to the frame, the motor having a motor shaft. There is a microprocessor having inputs and outputs, and the microprocessor is in effective electrical communication with the motor sufficiently to effect selective control of the direction of rotation, speed of rotation, and torque output of the motor shaft. “); the motor system module sets and removes the force for both a right and a left motor systems and operates a first motor in a left drive system and a second motor in a right motor system in parallel and the motor system module sets and removes the target velocity for the right and left motor system; (motors 25, controllable as claimed to effect the above modes of operation).
Ilfrey does not teach the above further comprising: upon receiving a command to set and remove the target velocity, the motor system module independently maintains the commanded velocity through internal control mechanisms without the need for additional signals from a machine controller or from external encoders; and the closed loop rope system managing rope tension failure if the user fails to keep the rope tension when the motor is letting out rope from the exercise machine. There is no motivation absent improper hindsight to modify the prior art to arrive at the instantly claimed invention.
If the substance of Claims 1 and 9 is not changed, and the language is sufficiently clarified, the claims would be allowable once 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARRETT K ATKINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8117. The examiner can normally be reached 0800-1800 M-F.
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.
/GARRETT K ATKINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784