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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-31, as filed on 10/31/2024, are currently pending and considered below.
Claim Objections
The following Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8 amend: “adjacent the” to ---adjacent to the---.
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) 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: “a tensioning mechanism configured to alter a tension provided by the cable” “tensioning mechanism” is the generic placeholder (A). For “tension the respective cable” is the functional language (B). The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (C).
For “tensioning mechanism” paragraph 5 recites: “tensioning mechanism can include at least one of a spring, a magnet, a weight, an electronic resistance device, a motor, and an elastic cable”. The tensioning mechanism is interpreted to be at least one of a spring, a magnet, a weight, an electronic resistance device, a motor, and an elastic cable.
Claim 18: “a tensioning mechanism configured to alter a tension provided by the cable” “tensioning mechanism” is the generic placeholder (A). For “tension the respective cable” is the functional language (B). The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (C).
For “tensioning mechanism” paragraph 5 recites: “tensioning mechanism can include at least one of a spring, a magnet, a weight, an electronic resistance device, a motor, and an elastic cable”. The tensioning mechanism is interpreted to be at least one of a spring, a magnet, a weight, an electronic resistance device, a motor, and an elastic cable.
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
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 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 1, 9-11, 18-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210121315 A1 (Zahynacz) in view of US 4483330 A (Jacobsen).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Zahynacz discloses an exercise kit (weightless traction accessory 106, Figure 2A-2B; the arm is lifted upwards as shown in Figure 1 and thus is exercise), comprising:
a plurality of exercise devices (independently rotatable, coaxially aligned spools 206, see Figure 3 for exploded view), wherein each of the plurality of exercise devices comprises:
PNG
media_image1.png
249
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2B: Zahynacz
a cable (wire rope 124) that is configured to extend from the exercise device between a retracted position and an extended position (leading end 232 of rope 124 is configured to extend and retract relative to spool 206 such that it spools and unspools),
a resistance device (spool 206) positioned in the exercise device and configured to bias the cable into the retracted position (spring 212 is configured to resist rotation of spool 206 and by extension the unspooling of wire 124),
a tensioning mechanism (constant force spring 212) to tension the respective cable (each spooling device 206 has a constant force spring 212),
an opening through which the cable extends (slot openings 204; each of said spools 206 has a slot 204);
Zahynacz discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Zahynacz does not disclose a protective component positioned adjacent the opening and configured to guide the cable through the opening.
Jacobsen teaches an analogous device in the same field of endeavor of spring-loaded spool cables comprising:
Openings (openings 16) through which cables extend (cables 32), and a protective component (rollers 18) positioned adjacent to the opening and configured to guide the cable through the opening (cable 32 extends through respective rollers 18 guiding the cable through the hole 16).
PNG
media_image2.png
259
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify each opening with respective rollers, as taught by Jacobsen, in order to prevent catching or pinching of the cable on the housing.
Regarding Claim 9, Zahynacz as modified further discloses the exercise kit of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of exercise devices further comprises an interchangeable exercise component configured for coupling to the cable (“The quick connector 234 may be a distinct component from the wire rope 124, or alternatively may be integrally formed with the leading end 232” Paragraph 22; each end 232 is configured selectively couple to carabiner 234).
Regarding Claim 10, Zahynacz as modified further discloses the exercise kit of claim 1, further comprising a casing (exterior casing 200) defining a cavity (see Figure 2B wherein the casing 200 is hollow wherein the hollow interior of the casing 200 is the cavity),
Regarding Claim 11, Zahynacz as modified further discloses the exercise kit of claim 10, wherein the cable of each of the plurality of exercise devices extends from the casing when an exercise device of the plurality of exercise devices is positioned in the cavity of the casing (see Figure 2B wherein respective cables extend through the casing 200 when internally within).
PNG
media_image1.png
249
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2B: Zahynacz
Regarding Independent Claim 18, Zahynacz discloses an exercise device an exercise kit (center spool 206 with carriage assembly 214, Figure 3), comprising:
a cable (wire rope 124) that is configured to extend from the exercise device between a retracted position and an extended position (leading end 232 of rope 124 is configured to extend and retract relative to spool 206 such that it spools and unspools),
a resistance device (spool 206) positioned in the exercise device and configured to bias the cable into the retracted (wire rope 124 is configured to be retracted about the spool 206 as shown in Figure 3),
a tensioning mechanism (additional spools 206 shown in Figure 2B with respective springs) configured to alter a tension provided by the cable (“Additional spools can be engaged by attaching their independent quick connects to the object requiring traction… …By attaching or removing spools, the total traction load can be adjusted” Paragraph 6),
an opening through which the cable extends (openings 204).
Zahynacz discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Zahynacz does not disclose a protective component positioned adjacent the opening and configured to guide the cable through the opening.
Jacobsen teaches an analogous device in the same field of endeavor of spring-loaded spool cables comprising:
Openings (openings 16) through which cables extend (cables 32), and a protective component (rollers 18) positioned adjacent to the opening and configured to guide the cable through the opening (cable 32 extends through respective rollers 18 guiding the cable through the hole 16).
PNG
media_image2.png
259
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify each opening with respective rollers, as taught by Jacobsen, in order to prevent catching or pinching of the cable on the housing.
Regarding Claim 19, Zahynacz as modified further discloses the exercise device of claim 18, wherein the exercise device is configured for user adjustable tension (“Additional spools can be engaged by attaching their independent quick connects to the object requiring traction… …By attaching or removing spools, the total traction load can be adjusted” Paragraph 6; attaching different amounts of spools to the cable adjusts the tension).
Regarding Claim 20, Zahynacz as modified further discloses the exercise device of claim 19, wherein user adjustable tension comprises user attachment of at least one of a plurality of interchangeable cables to the exercise device (wires ropes 124 of the other spools 206; “Additional spools can be engaged by attaching their independent quick connects to the object requiring traction” Paragraph 6) wherein the plurality of interchangeable cables comprise different measures of tension (“loads provided may be the same or different, spool to spool” Paragraph 6; each spool has different tensions).
Regarding Claim 21, Zahynacz as modified further discloses the exercise device of claim 19, wherein the tension provided by the cable of the exercise device is adjusted via user manipulation of the tensioning mechanism of the exercise device (the user manipulates the additional spool 206 connections to affect the tension).
Regarding Claim 22, Zahynacz as modified further discloses the exercise device of claim 19, wherein the tension provided by the cable of the exercise device is consistent (wire rope 124 is attached to a constant force spring 212 which provides constant tension).
Regarding Claim 23, Zahynacz as modified further discloses the exercise device of claim 19, wherein the tension provided by the cable of the exercise device is variable (tension provided by the wire rope 124 is variable based on the amount of additional spool 206 ropes 124 are attached).
Regarding Claim 24, Zahynacz as modified further discloses the exercise device of claim 20, wherein the tension provided by the cable of the exercise device is consistent wire rope 124 is attached to a constant force spring 212 which provides constant tension).
Regarding Claim 25, Zahynacz as modified further discloses the exercise device of claim 20, wherein the tension provided by the cable of the exercise device is variable (tension provided by the wire rope 124 is variable based on the amount of additional spool 206 ropes 124 are attached).
Regarding Claim 26, Zahynacz as modified further discloses the exercise device of claim 18, wherein the exercise device further comprises an interchangeable exercise component configured for coupling to the cable (biasing member 126 which is selectively attached to the cable via connector 234; biasing member 126 is capable of being used for exercise, see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 27, Zahynacz as modified further discloses the exercise device of claim 18, further comprising a casing defining a cavity (casing 200 having an internal space, see Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 28, Zahynacz as modified further discloses the exercise device of claim 27, wherein the cable of the exercise device extends from the casing when the exercise device is positioned in the cavity of the casing (see Figure 2)
Claims 15, 17, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210121315 A1 (Zahynacz) in view of US 4483330 A (Jacobsen) in further view of US 20160332019 A1 (Rollins).
Regarding Claim 15, Zahynacz discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Zahynacz does not disclose a sensor.
Rollins teaches an analogous resistance spool cable device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
A cable (cable 6) that is configured to extend from an exercise device (FGU 1) between a retracted position and an extended position (via spool 3 allowing cables 6 to extend and retract from the device), a resistance device configured to bias the cable into the retracted position (motor 8), an opening through which the cable extends (hole 11) , and a sensor (“the FGU monitors the relative position and/or velocity and/or acceleration of the movable connector(s) either through the motor or separate sensor” Claim 5).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the kit to include a sensor that monitors position/velocity/acceleration, as taught by Rollins, in order to collect data for the user for future use.
Regarding Claim 17, Zahynacz as modified further discloses the exercise kit of claim 15, wherein the sensor is an accelerometer (“acceleration of the movable connector(s) either through the motor or separate sensor” Claim 5; said sensor is an accelerometer measuring acceleration).
Regarding Claim 29, Zahynacz discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Zahynacz does not disclose a sensor.
Rollins teaches an analogous resistance spool cable device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
A cable (cable 6) that is configured to extend from an exercise device (FGU 1) between a retracted position and an extended position (via spool 3 allowing cables 6 to extend and retract from the device), a resistance device configured to bias the cable into the retracted position (motor 8), an opening through which the cable extends (hole 11) , and a sensor (“the FGU monitors the relative position and/or velocity and/or acceleration of the movable connector(s) either through the motor or separate sensor” Claim 5).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the kit to include a sensor that monitors position/velocity/acceleration, as taught by Rollins, in order to collect data for the user for future use.
Regarding Claim 31, Zahynacz as modified further discloses the exercise kit of claim 29, wherein the sensor is an accelerometer (“acceleration of the movable connector(s) either through the motor or separate sensor” Claim 5; said sensor is an accelerometer measuring acceleration).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 12-14 are 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 2, the prior art of record US 20210121315 A1 (Zahynacz) fails to teach or render obvious the exercise kit in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
wherein at least one of the plurality of exercise devices is configured for user adjustable tension.
The prior art of record teaches wherein the ends of the cables can be coupled together with different amounts of cables attached to adjust the tension which is different to applicant’s invention as no individual exercise device has an adjustable tensioning mechanism as they all are constant force springs. Therefore, it would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the constant force springs to be adjustable without breaking the intended use of the constant force springs.
Regarding Claims 16 and 30, the prior art of record US 20210121315 A1 (Zahynacz) in view of US 4483330 A (Jacobsen) in further view of US 20160332019 A1 (Rollins) fails to teach or render obvious the exercise kit in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
a distance traveled by of at least one exercise kit component, an energy transfer by of at least one exercise kit component, an altitude of at least one exercise kit component, a location of at least one exercise kit component.
The prior art of record teaches a sensor that measures position, velocity, and acceleration which is not equivalent to applicant’s invention as it does not measure the distance travelled, energy transfer and altitude. It would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the sensor to perform these functions without modifying a teaching reference or without improper hindsight.
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