DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits based on the 18/963,592 application filed on 11/28/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The effective filing date of the present application is 11/30/2023. Claims 1-6, as originally filed, are currently pending and considered below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of undue length and the use of legal phraseology often used in patent claims, see below, and informalities.
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).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the specification, as originally filed, page 4, lines 1-2, “The handlebar 2 comprises a first 21 and a second 22 handle arranged on opposite ends of said handlebar 2.” should be --- The handlebar 20 comprises a first 21 and a second 22 handle arranged on opposite ends of said handlebar 20. ---. Refer to Figure 1.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: --- Method of Operation of an Exercise Bike ---.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 1-7, should be amended as follows:
--- A method of operation of an exercise bike, the exercise bike comprising a system for applying a force exerted by a user when performing a cycling exercise; a brake system to exert a brake action in response to the force exerted by the user; a transmission group to transmit the force exerted by the user to the brake system; at least one detection system to detect the force exerted by the user when performing the cycling exercise; and at least one logic control unit (U) connected to the brake system and to the at least one detection system; the method comprising the steps of: ---.
In claim 1, line 13, “the machine” should be --- the exercised bike ---.
In claim 1, line 16, “in a first passage mode (MODE 0), the logic control unit” should be --- in a first passage mode (MODE 0) of the passage mode, the at least one logic control unit (U) ---.
In claim 1, lines 16-17, “a brake parameter” should be --- a brake parameter (P) ---.
In claim 1, line 18, “the detection system;” should be --- the at least one detection system; and ---.
In claim 1, lines 19-20, “in a second passage mode (MODE 1, MODE 2, MODE 3), the control logic unit” should be --- in a second passage mode (MODE 1, MODE 2, MODE 3) of the passage mode, the at least one logic control unit (U) ---.
In each of claims 2-6, line 1, “Method” should be --- The method ---.
In claim 2, line 1, “comprising” should be --- further comprising ---.
In claim 2, line 2, “the machine” should be --- the exercise bike ---.
In claim 2, line 4, “a response coefficient value (K1, K2, K3);” should be --- a response coefficient value (K1, K2, K3); and ---.
In claim 2, line 5, “-calculating” should be --- - calculating ---.
In claim 2, line 6, “the value of the coefficient (K1, K2, K3) set” should be --- the response coefficient value (K1, K2, K3) ---.
In claim 3, lines 3-4, “- calculating a brake parameter (P) as a function of at least said first target (Target_1) and second target (Target_2);” should be --- - calculating the brake parameter (P) as a function of at least the first target (Target_1) and the second target (Target_2); and ---.
In claim 3, lines 5-7, “-maintaining the brake parameter (P) at a constant value (P_const) equal to the calculated value, during the operation of the exercise machine, for a predefined period of time (T)” should be --- - maintaining the brake parameter (P) at the constant value (P_const) equal to the calculated value, during the operation of the exercise bike, for the predefined period of time (T) ---.
In claim 4, lines 3-4, “- calculating the percentage difference (∆Target%) between said first target (Target_1) and said second target (Target_2),” should be --- “- calculating a percentage difference (∆Target%) between the first target (Target_1) and the second target (Target_2); and ---.
In claim 4, line 5, “-calculating” should be --- - calculating ---.
In claim 4, line 6, “said percentage difference (∆Target%)” should be --- the percentage difference (∆Target%) ---.
In claim 5, line 1, “comprising” should be --- further comprising ---.
In claim 5, lines 2-3, “a feedback control (MI) as a function of at least one signal from the detection system (6)” should be --- the feedback control (MI) as the function of the at least one signal from the at least one detection system (6) ---.
In claim 5, line 5, “- receiving the second (Target_2) in the logic control unit;” should be --- - receiving the second target (Target_2) in the at least one logic control unit (U); ---.
In claim 5, lines 8-9, “- detecting the reaching of the second target (Target_2) by means of the detection system;” should be --- - detecting a reaching of the second target (Target_2) by the at least one detection system; and ---.
In claim 6, line 1, “comprising” should be --- further comprising ---.
In claim 6, lines 2-3, “a feedback control (MI) as a function of at least one signal from the detection system” should be --- the feedback control (MI) as the function of the at least one signal from the at least one detection system ---.
In claim 6, line 5, “- receiving the second one (Target_2) in the logic control unit;” should be --- - receiving the second target (Target_2) in the at least one logic control unit (U); ---.
In claim 6, line 7, “a constant value (P_const)” should be --- the constant value (P_const) ---.
In claim 6, lines 9-10, “-maintain the brake parameter (P) at a constant value (P_const) during the operation of the exercise machine for a predefined period of time (T);” should be --- - maintaining the brake parameter (P) at the constant value (P_const) during the operation of the exercise bike for the predefined period of time (T); and ---.
In claim 6, line 11, “the end of the predefined period of time (T)” should be --- an end of the predefined period of time (T) ---.
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 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:
In claim 1, lines 1-2: “a system for applying a force exerted by a user when performing a gymnastic exercise.”
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 (see MPEP § 2183).
Such corresponding structure is/are:
Regarding the system for applying a force exerted by a user when performing a gymnastic exercise, the specification, as originally filed, page 3, lines 18-19, discloses: “a system 2 for applying a force exerted by a user when performing a gymnastic exercise.” In Figure 1, reference character “2” appears to identify the pedals 411 of a stationary bike.
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 1-6 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.
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are recited in lines 8-12:
“- selecting a training program that comprises the passage from at least one first target (Target_1) to at least one second target (Target_2) or setting in the machine at least one first target (Target_1) and at least one second target (Target_2), wherein the target is the value of a parameter associated with the gymnastic exercise;”.
The limitations render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the first and second targets are the same as, different from, in addition to, and/or part of “the target” that is “the value of a parameter associated with the gymnastic exercise.”
Applicant is suggested to amend the limitations to:
--- - receiving at least one target set in the exercise bike, the at least one target being a value of a parameter associated with the cycling exercise;
- selecting a training program that comprises a passage from a first target (Target_1) of the at least one target to a second target (Target_2) of the at least one target or setting in the exercise bike at least the first target (Target_1) and at least the second target (Target_2); and ---.
Refer to the specification, as originally filed, page 3, lines 24-28, and page 15, line 24, through page 16, line 14. Refer as well to Figure 5.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency on claim 1, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, see above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 and 16-18 of co-pending Application No. 18/963,596 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, the reference application discloses a method of operation of a gymnastic machine comprising a system for applying a force exerted by a user when performing a gymnastic exercise (claim 13, lines 1-3: “Method of operation of a gymnastic machine comprising a system for applying a force exerted by a user when performing a gymnastic exercise”); a brake system to exert a brake action in response to the force exerted by the user (claim 13, lines 3-4: “a brake system to exert a brake action in response to the force exerted by the user”); a transmission group of the force exerted by the user to the brake system (claim 13, lines 4-6: “a transmission group of the force exerted by the user to the brake system”); at least one detection system of the force exerted by a user when performing the gymnastic exercise (claim 13, lines 6-7: “at least one detection system of the force exerted by a user when performing the gymnastic exercise”); and at least one logic control unit connected to said brake system and to said detection system (claim 13, lines 8-9: “and at least one logic control unit (U) connected to said brake system and to said detection system”); the method comprising the step of (claim 13, lines 9-10: “the method being characterized by the steps of:”):
- selecting a training program that comprises the passage from at least one first target to at least one second target (claim 16, lines 3-6: “selecting at least one training program in the gymnastic machine that comprises the passage from at least one first target (Target_1) to at least one second target (Target_2)”) or setting in the machine at least one first target and at least one second target, wherein the target is the value of a parameter associated with the gymnastic exercise (claim 13, lines 11-14: “setting in the machine at least a first target (Target_1) and at least a second target (Target_2), where the target is the value of a parameter associated with the gymnastic exercise”);
- selecting or setting in the machine a passage mode from the first target to the second target (claim 16, lines 7-9: “selecting at least one passage mode (MODE 0, MODE 1, MODE 2, MODE 3) from the first target (Target_1) to the second target (Target_2)”), wherein:
in a first passage mode, the logic control unit adjusts a brake parameter corresponding to the brake action exerted by the brake system with a feedback control as a function of at least one signal from the detection system (claim 17, lines 1-4: “Method according to claim 16, wherein in a first passage mode (MODE 0), the logic control unit (U) adjusts the brake parameter (P) with a feedback control according to the first control mode (MI)”; claim 13, lines 15-17: “adjusting a brake parameter (P) with a feedback control as a function of at least one signal of the detection system in a first control mode”);
in a second passage mode, the control logic unit maintains the brake parameter at a constant value for a predefined period of time or until the second target is reached (claim 17, lines 5-7: “in a second passage mode (MODE 1, MODE 2, MODE 3), the logic control unit activates the second control mode (MFF)”; claim 13, lines 21-22: “upon receiving of the second (Target_2), activating a second control mode (MFF) including the steps of:”; claim 13, lines 25-29: “maintaining the brake parameter (P) at a constant value (P_const) equal to the calculated value, during the operation of the exercise machine, for a predefined period of time or until the second target (Target_2) is reached”).
Regarding claim 2, the reference application further discloses the steps of:
- selecting or setting a training option in the machine in the second passage mode, wherein the selected or set training option corresponds to a response coefficient value (claim 18, lines 1-8: “Method according to claim 17, wherein it comprises the steps of: selecting or setting a training option (MODE 1, MODE 2, MODE 3) in the second passage mode, wherein the selected or set training option corresponds to a value of the response coefficient (K1, K2, K3) of the machine in the passage from the first target (Target_1) to the second target (Target_2)”);
-calculating the value of the brake parameter to be kept constant as a function of the value of the coefficient set (claim 18, lines 9-11: “calculating the value of the brake parameter (P_const) to be kept constant as a function of the value of the coefficient (K1, K2, K3) set”).
Regarding claim 3, the reference application further discloses wherein the second passage mode comprises the steps of (claim 17, lines 5-7: “in a second passage mode (MODE 1, MODE 2, MODE 3), the logic control unit activates the second control mode (MFF)”; claim 13, lines 21-22: “upon receiving of the second (Target_2), activating a second control mode (MFF) including the steps of:”):
- calculating a brake parameter as a function of at least said first target and second target (claim 13, lines 23-25: “calculating the value of a brake parameter (P) as a function of at least said first target (Target_1) and said second target (Target_2)”);
-maintaining the brake parameter at a constant value equal to the calculated value, during the operation of the exercise machine, for a predefined period of time or until the second target is reached (claim 13, lines 25-29: “maintaining the brake parameter (P) at a constant value (P_const) equal to the calculated value, during the operation of the exercise machine, for a predefined period of time or until the second target (Target_2) is reached”) if the second target is reached in a lower time than the predefined period of time.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections, 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 (Cei (US 2021/0106874)) fails to teach or render obvious a method of operation of a gymnastic machine in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
in a second passage mode, the control logic unit maintains the brake parameter at a constant value for a predefined period of time or until the second target is reached (claim 1).
The prior art of record (Hawkins, III (US 10,576,348); Cristofori (US 2018/0036586)), alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious a method of operation of a gymnastic machine in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
selecting or setting in the machine a passage mode from the first target to the second target, wherein: in a first passage mode, the logic control unit adjusts a brake parameter corresponding to the brake action exerted by the brake system with a feedback control as a function of at least one signal from the detection system; in a second passage mode, the control logic unit maintains the brake parameter at a constant value for a predefined period of time or until the second target is reached (claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY D URBIEL GOLDNER whose telephone number is (313)446-6554. The examiner can normally be reached between 9AM and 5PM, Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
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 B 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. Visit https://patentcenter.uspto.gov to file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. For information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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.
/GARY D URBIEL GOLDNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights