DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits based on the 18/963,596 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 1-18, 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. Applicant is suggested to delete the abstract of the disclosure and replace it with the following:
--- A gymnastic machine comprises a frame, a system for applying a force exerted by a user, a brake system, a transmission unit, a detection system, and a control logic unit. The control logic unit is configured for: determining a brake parameter corresponding to a braking action exerted by the brake system and for regulating the brake parameter with a feedback control in operation of at least one signal of the detection system in a first control mode; activating a second control mode to switch from a first target to a second target; calculating a value of the brake parameter as a function of at least the first and second targets; and maintaining the brake parameter at a constant value equal to the calculated value, during an operation of the gymnastic machine, for a predefined period of time or until the second target is reached. ---.
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 3-4, “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.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 1-6, should be amended as follows:
--- A gymnastic machine comprising a frame; 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; 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 gymnastic exercise; at least one logic control unit (U) connected to the brake system and to the at least one detection system; ---.
Claim 1, lines 15-21, should be amended as follows:
--- , in which in the second control mode (MFF) the at least one logic control unit (U) is configured to:
- calculate a value of the brake parameter (P) as a function of at least the first target (Target_1) and the second target (Target_2); and
- maintain the brake parameter (P) at a constant value (P_const) equal to the calculated value, during an operation of the gymnastic machine, for a predefined period of time (T) or until the second target (Target_2) is reached. ---.
In each of claims 2-12, line 1, “Gymnastic machine” should be --- The gymnastic machine ---.
In claim 2, line 1, “the logic control unit (U)” should be --- the at least one logic control unit (U) ---.
In claim 2, line 3, “the machine” should be --- the gymnastic machine ---.
In claim 2, line 5, “-calculate” should be --- - calculate ---.
In claim 2, line 6, “the coefficient (Ki) set” should be --- the response coefficient (Ki) ---.
In claim 3, line 1, “wherein it comprises” should be --- further comprising ---.
In claim 3, line 2, “the selection or the setting” should be --- a selection or a setting ---.
In claim 3, line 3, “the logic control unit (U)” should be --- the at least one logic control unit (U) ---.
In claim 3, line 4, “the training option” should be --- the at least one training option ---.
Claim 4 should be amended as follows:
--- The gymnastic machine according to claim 3, wherein the interface is configured for a selection of at least one training program comprising the passage from at least the first target (Target_1) to at least the second target (Target_2) or for a setting by the user of at least the first target (Target_1) to at least the second target (Target_2). ---.
In claim 5, line 1, the carriage return after the term “wherein” should be removed, and claim 5, lines 1-2, should be amended to --- wherein the at least one logic control unit (U) is configured to: ---.
In claim 5, lines 8-9, “by means of the detection system;” should be --- by the at least one detection system; and ---.
In claim 5, line 11, “the first feedback control mode (MI)” should be --- the first control mode (MI) ---.
In claim 6, line 1, “the logic control unit (U)” should be --- the at least one logic control unit (U) ---.
In claim 6, line 8, “a predefined period of time (T);” should be --- the predefined period of time (T); and ---.
In claim 6, lines 9-10, “the first feedback control mode (MI)” should be --- the first control mode (MI) ---.
In claim 7, line 2, “said brake system” should be --- the brake system ---.
In claim 7, line 3, “said flywheel” should be --- the flywheel ---.
In claim 8, line 2, “a constant value (P_const) the logic control unit (U)” should be --- the constant value (P_const), the at least one logic control unit (U) ---.
In claim 8, lines 3-4, “a constant value the current supplied to said electromagnetic brake (F)” should be --- a constant value for a current supplied to the electromagnetic brake (F) ---.
In claim 9, line 1, “the detection system” should be --- the at least one detection system ---.
In claim 9, line 2, “torque” should be --- a torque ---.
Claim 10, lines 1-8, should be amended as follows:
--- The gymnastic machine according to claim 1, wherein the gymnastic machine is suitable for cycling simulation, wherein the transmission group :
a main shaft[[,]];
cranks configured to be respectively coupled to pedals, the cranks being coupled to the main shaft[[,]];
a crown keyed onto the main shaft[[,]];
a first pulley[[,]];
a secondary shaft, to which the first pulley is keyed[[,]]; and ---.
Refer to the Claim Interpretation section, see above.
In claim 11, lines 1-2, “said transmission group comprises” should be --- the transmission group further comprises: ---.
Claim 13, lines 1-7, should be amended as follows:
--- A method of operation of a gymnastic machine, the 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; 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 gymnastic 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: ---.
Claim 13, lines 11-22, should be amended as follows:
--- - adjusting a brake parameter (P) with a feedback control as a function of at least one signal of the at least one detection system in a first control mode, wherein the brake parameter (P) is a parameter corresponding to the brake action exerted by the brake system;
- receiving the second target in the at least one logic control unit (U); and
- upon receiving target (Target_2), activating a second control mode (MFF) including the steps of:
- calculating a value of the brake parameter (P) as a function of at least the first target (Target_1) and the second target (Target_2); and
- maintaining the brake parameter (P) at a constant value (P_const) equal to the calculated value, during the operation of the gymnastic machine, for a predefined period of time or until the second target (Target_2) is reached. ---.
In each of claims 14-18, line 1, “Method” should be --- The method ---.
In claim 14, line 1, “wherein it comprises” should be --- further comprising ---.
In claim 14, line 2, “the machine in the passage” should be --- the gymnastic machine in a passage ---.
In claim 14, line 4, “-calculating” should be --- - calculating ---.
In claim 14, line 5, “the coefficient (Ki) set” should be --- the response coefficient (Ki) ---.
In claim 15, lines 1-3, “wherein at least one training option (MODE 1, MODE 2, MODE 3) and setting the value of the response coefficient (Ki) according to the training option selected by the user” should be --- further comprising the steps of:
- selecting at least one training option (MODE 1, MODE 2, MODE 3); and
- setting the value of the response coefficient (Ki) according to the at least one training option selected ---.
In claim 16, line 1, “wherein it comprises” should be --- further comprising ---.
In claim 16, line 2, “-selecting” should be --- - selecting ---.
In claim 16, lines 3-4, “the passage from at least one first target (Target_1) to at least one second target (Target_2)” should be --- a passage from at least the first target (Target_1) to at least the second target (Target_2) ---.
In claim 16, line 5, “-selecting” should be --- - selecting ---.
In claim 16, line 7, “the machine” should be --- the gymnastic machine ---.
In claim 16, line 9, “the control unit (U)” should be --- the at least one logic control unit (U) ---.
In claim 16, line 10, “the selected passage mode” should be --- the selected at least one passage mode ---.
In claim 17, lines 1-3, “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);” should be --- wherein in a first passage mode (MODE 0) of the at least one passage mode, the at least one logic control unit (U) adjusts the brake parameter (P) with the feedback control according to the first control mode (MI); and ---.
In claim 17, lines 4-5, “in a second passage mode (MODE 1, MODE 2, MODE 3), the logic control unit” should be --- in a second passage mode (MODE 1, MODE 2, MODE 3) of the at least one passage mode, the at least one logic control unit (U) ---.
In claim 18, line 1, “wherein it comprises” should be --- further comprising ---.
In claim 18, line 2, “-selecting” should be --- - selecting ---.
In claim 18, line 6, “-calculating” should be --- - calculating ---.
In claim 18, line 7, “the coefficient (K1, K2, K3) set” should be --- the response coefficient (K1, K2, K3) ---.
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 each of claims 1 and 13, 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 20-21, 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 1-18 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 7-15:
“said logic control unit (U) being adapted to receive at least one target set in the machine, said target being the value of a parameter associated with the gymnastic exercise; said logic control unit (U) being adapted to determine a brake parameter (P) corresponding to the brake action exerted by the brake system; said logic control unit (U) being adapted to adjust the brake parameter (P) with a feedback control as a function of at least one signal of the detection system in a first control mode (MI); the exercise machine being characterized in that the logic control unit (U) is configured to activate a second control mode (MFF) to pass from a first target (Target_1) to a second target (Target_2).”
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 “at least one target set in the machine.”
Applicant is suggested to amend the limitations to:
--- the at least one logic control unit (U) being adapted to receive at least one target set in the gymnastic machine, the at least one target being a value of a parameter associated with the gymnastic exercise; the at least one logic control unit (U) being adapted to determine a brake parameter (P) corresponding to the brake action exerted by the brake system; the at least one logic control unit (U) being adapted to adjust the brake parameter (P) with a feedback control as a function of at least one signal of the at least one detection system in a first control mode (MI); wherein the at least one logic control unit (U) is configured to activate a second control mode (MFF) to pass from a first target (Target_1) of the at least one target to a second target (Target_2) of the at least one target ---.
Refer to the specification, as originally filed, page 3, lines 26-30, and page 15, line 26, through page 16, line 16. Refer as well to Figure 5.
Claims 2-12 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.
Claim 3, which depends from claim 1, recites the limitation “the response coefficient (Ki)” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to the claim such that it depends from claim 2 instead of from claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of its dependency on claim 3, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, see above.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a first transmission member, such as a belt, a chain or similar, engaged with said crown and with said first pulley” is recited in lines 9-10. The phrase “such as” in the limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase (i.e. “a belt, a chain or similar”) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a first transmission member engaged with the crown and with the first pulley, wherein the first transmission member is a belt or a chain ---.
Claims 11 and 12 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 10, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, see above.
Regarding claim 12, which depends from claims 1 and 10, the following limitations are recited in lines 1-16:
“Gymnastic machine according to claim 10, wherein it comprises an interface for the selection of at least one training program which comprises the passage from at least a first power or slope target to at least a second power or slope target, and for the selection of a mode (MODE 0, MODE 1, MODE 2, MODE 3) of passage from the first target to the second target, wherein
the logic control unit is configured to:
- control according to the first control mode (MI) the maintaining of the first power or slope target;
- receive said second target (Target_2);
- upon receiving the second target (Target_2), activate the second control mode (MFF) to reach the second target (Target_2);
- detect the reaching of the second power or slope target by means of the detection system;
- upon reaching the second target or after a predefined period of time (T), resume control according to the first feedback control mode (MI) to maintain the second power or slope target.”
The limitations render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether or not:
the first target is the same as, different from, in addition to, and/or part of “the first power or slope target”; and
the second target is the same as, different from, in addition to, and/or part of “the second power or slope target.”
Applicant is suggested to amend the limitations to:
--- The gymnastic machine according to claim 10, wherein the first target is a first power or slope target and the second target is a second power or slope target, the gymnastic machine further comprising an interface for a selection of at least one training program which comprises the passage from at least the first power or slope target to at least the second power or slope target, and for a selection of a mode (MODE 0, MODE 1, MODE 2, MODE 3) of passage from the first power or slope target to the second power or slope target, wherein the at least one logic control unit is configured to:
- control a maintaining of the first power or slope target according to the first control mode (MI);
- receive the second power or slope target;
- upon receiving the second power or slope target, activate the second control mode (MFF) to reach the second power or slope target;
- detect a reaching of the second power or slope target by the at least one detection system; and
- upon reaching the second power or slope target or after the predefined period of time (T), resume control according to the first control mode (MI) to maintain the second power or slope target. ---.
Refer to the specification, as originally filed, page 15, line 26, through page 16, line 16, and Figure 5.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations “-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;” are recited in lines 8-10. 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 gymnastic machine, the at least one target being a value of a parameter associated with the gymnastic exercise;
- setting in the gymnastic machine at least a first target (Target_1) of the at least one target and at least a second target (Target_2) of the at least one target; ---.
Refer to the specification, as originally filed, page 3, lines 26-30, and page 15, line 26, through page 16, line 16. Refer as well to Figure 5.
Claims 14-18 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 13, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, see above.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “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);” in lines 3-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the response coefficient (K1 , K2 , K3)” in this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a value of a response coefficient (K1 , K2 , K3) of the gymnastic machine in the passage from the first target (Target_1) to the second target (Target_2); and ---.
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 13-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, and 6 of co-pending Application No. 18/963,592 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 13, 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 1, lines 1-3); a brake system to exert a brake action in response to the force exerted by the user (claim 1, lines 3-4); a transmission group of the force exerted by the user to the brake system (claim 1, lines 4-6), at least one detection system of the force exerted by a user when performing the gymnastic exercise (claim 1, lines 6-7); and at least one logic control unit connected to said brake system and to said detection system (claim 1, lines 8-9); the method being characterized by the steps of (claim 1, lines 9-10):
-setting in the machine at least a first target and at least a second target, where the target is the value of a parameter associated with the gymnastic exercise (claim 1, lines 13-16);
- adjusting a brake parameter with a feedback control as a function of at least one signal of the detection system in a first control mode (claim 1, lines 21-25), wherein the brake parameter is a parameter corresponding to the brake action exerted by the brake system (claim 1, lines 22-23);
-receiving the second target in the logic control unit (claim 5, line 6; claim 6, lines 6-7);
- upon receiving of the second, activating a second control mode including the steps of (claim 5, lines 7-8; claim 6, lines 8-9):
-calculating the value of a brake parameter as a function of at least said first target and said second target (claim 3, lines 1-4); and 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 3, lines 5-9).
Regarding claim 14, the reference application further discloses the steps of:
- setting a value of a response coefficient of the machine (claim 2, lines 1-5) in the passage from the first target to the second target (claim 1, lines 11-13 and 17-19); and
-calculating the value of the brake parameter to be kept constant as a function of the value of the coefficient set (claim 2, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 15, the reference application further discloses wherein at least one training option and setting the value of the response coefficient according to the training option selected by the user (claim 2, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 16, the reference application further discloses the steps of:
-selecting at least one training program in the gymnastic machine that comprises the passage from at least one first target to at least one second target (claim 1, lines 11-13);
-selecting at least one passage mode from the first target to the second target (claim 1, lines 17-20),
- operating the machine in the first control mode to reach the first target (claim 5, lines 1-5; claim 6, lines 1-5);
- receiving the second target in the control unit (claim 5, line 6; claim 6, lines 6-7);
- activating the selected passage mode upon receiving the second target (claim 5, lines 7-8; claim 6, lines 8-9).
Regarding claim 17, the reference application further discloses wherein in a first passage mode, the logic control unit adjusts the brake parameter with a feedback control according to the first control mode (claim 1, lines 21-25);
in a second passage mode, the logic control unit activates the second control mode (claim 1, lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 18, the reference application further discloses the steps of:
-selecting or setting a training option in the second passage mode, wherein the selected or set training option corresponds to a value of the response coefficient of the machine in the passage from the first target to the second target (claim 2, lines 1-5; claim 1, lines 11-13 and 17-20);
-calculating the value of the brake parameter to be kept constant as a function of the value of the coefficient set (claim 2, lines 6-8).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 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, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 13-18 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 prior art of record (Cei (US 2021/0106874)) fails to teach or render obvious a gymnastic machine in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
maintain 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 1).
The prior art of record (Cristofori (US 2018/0036586)) fails to teach or render obvious a gymnastic machine in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
in the second control mode the control logic unit is configured to: calculate a value of the brake parameter as a function of at least said first target and second target; maintain 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 1).
The prior art of record (Langford (US 2019/0192914)) fails to teach or render obvious a gymnastic machine in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
the exercise machine being characterized in that the logic control unit is configured to activate a second control mode to pass from a first target to a second target, in which in the second control mode the control logic unit is configured to: calculate a value of the brake parameter as a function of at least said first target and second target; maintain 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 1).
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:
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).
The prior art of record (Cristofori (US 2018/0036586)) 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:
activating a second control mode including the steps of: calculating the value of a brake parameter as a function of at least said first target and second target; and 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).
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