Detailed Action
This is the Final Rejection based on application 18/998,888 filed on 01/27/2025, and which claims as amended on 07/31/2026 have been considered in the ensuing 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made to the instant application’s status as a 371 of PCT/IT2023/050183. Furthermore, receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. As such the earliest date of priority of 07/28/2022
Response to Amendment
The amendments have been sufficient to overcome the original claim objections, and most of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) present in the Non-Final Action.
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a kinematic transmission means … able to transmit a determinate torque and a determinate rotation speed to said winding member” in claim 8.
Furthermore, 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: “rapid type coupling devices able to allow the selective association of said containing body with a support” in claim 2, “a device for storing the energy produced” in claim 12, and a “device for dissipating the energy produced” in claim 13.
In regards to the rapid type coupling devices of claim 2, the specification of the instant application on page 17 states, “According to one possible embodiment, it can be a coupling device 16 of the bayonet type, that is, with combined axial and rotary insertion; however, it is not excluded that it can be of the pressure, spring, ball, screw, or other known type that does not require tools to guarantee the solidity of the coupling to a special and mating coupling element 34. According to possible variants, the coupling device 16 can comprise a plate or other element suitable to cooperate with known fastening elements of the screw or bolt type, or suchlike, to allow a fixed and stable connection with mating support flanges.”
With respect to claim 8, page 11 describes possible “motion transmission members” as being of the gear, chain, or belt types. Page 20 describes how the movement means 14 comprise at least one rod 39, configured to transmit the torque from the electric motor 20a to the winding member 19, however, the examiner notes that the movement means and the transmission means are separate structures as claimed
In regards to claim 12, page 13 lines 15-19 state, “The feed means 50 can also comprise a device 40 for storing the energy produced by the user. The storage device can be of the type with batteries or supercapacitors, preferably comprising a plurality of storage cells/batteries and devices 44 for managing and balancing the charge between the cells, generally known as Battery Management Systems (BMS)…”
In regards to claim 13, page 14 lines 4-8 state, “The dissipation device 47 can be made in the form of a resistor, optionally associated with a cooling fan. The dissipation device 47 allows to dispose of any excess energy which cannot be stored or used, so as to prevent possible overheating while maintaining reduced overall bulk and sizes.”
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.
The examiner notes that in regards to the cable traction means of claim 1, this limitation is not being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), as throughout the specification of the instant application the reference numeral (12) used in the claim is defined as a traction cable/cable as shown on page 9 where it states, “With reference to fig. 1, a machine 10 according to the present invention essentially comprises a containing body 11, a traction cable 12 and a grip handle 13, which is disposed outside the containing body 11, through which a user can pull the cable 12 in order to perform a certain muscular or rehabilitative exercise.” The examiner suggests amending the claim language to remove the phrase means in order to keep the language consistent throughout the claims and specification. Claim 1 lines 2-3, should be amended similar to –connected to an electrically controllable actuator member, by a traction cable, which is provided with at least a first segment…--
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 1-15 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In regards to the limitation of claim 1 specifically the term “substantially” is causing the limitation of “substantially at any angle” to be indefinite, as i
The term “substantially cylindrical” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially cylindrical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the applicant considers "substantially cylindrical", therefore the metes and bounds of the limitation of the containing body having a substantially cylindrical tubular conformation are undefined.
Dependent claims 2-3, and 5-15 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 recites the limitation, “wherein said containing body has a prevalent extension along said longitudinal axis” where the exact same language is found in newly amended claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-5,9-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akeel et al. US 20210339078 A1, in further view of Kang et al. US 20240408436 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
Akeel teaches an exercise machine (Compact high resistance fitness device 10) comprising a grip handle (handles 14) connected to a winding member (cord storage spool 58), connected to an electronically controllable actuator member (brushless DC motor 510, which paragraph [0100] states is in each side of the base unit as the force-producing element), by means of a traction cable (resistance cord 16) provided with at least a first segment of the traction cable defined between said winding member and a transmission member (See annotated figure 5. The examiner notes that the transmission member), and a feeder (The examiner notes that the specification of the instant application on page 13 lines 11-14, states “the feeder 46 can comprise suitable adapter/converter devices suitable to convert the electric energy supplied by the electric network 45 into energy with suitable values of voltage and current”, and therefore the battery connecter 136 which is used to charger the rechargeable battery 132 is a feeder), wherein the exercise machine comprises a containing body (rotatable barrel 26) which extends along a longitudinal axis (See annotated figure 5), inside which at least said actuator member associated with a control card (“Each Motor Drive Circuit 500 on the base unit controls the movement of each brushless DC/BLDC Motor 510.” See paragraph [0100]), said winding member and said transmission member are able to be housed, and disposed between at least one coupling end and one head end (See annotated figure 5), wherein said containing body has a prevalent extension along said longitudinal axis (See figure 5. The examiner notes that the definition of prevalent as provided by Merriam-Webster dictionary is “existing or occurring frequently” and therefore since the body is a 3-dimensional shape and as discussed above has a dimension in the longitudinal axis it has a prevalent extension.), the transmission member is configured for passively guiding and orienting the outgoing cable branch substantially at any angle with respect to the device, thereby preventing rope abrasion (The examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, the exit hole stated to be the transmission member of the device which appears to have a grommet or some similar structure at the edge thereof does passively guide the cable out of the body of the device and would prevent cable abrasion and allows the user to pull the cable in any direction along the surface of the exit hole, which as depicted is a circle and therefore under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural or functional limitations is being considered as guiding the cable at any angle with respect to the device).
Akeel fails to teach that the transmission member is mounted on a rotatable support having an axis substantially parallel or coaxial to said longitudinal axis, and a guide device is provided inside said containing body, interposed between said winding member and said transmission member, and configured to guide winding of said first segment of the cable onto said winding member.
Kang, however, teaches and further teaches that the transmission member is mounted on a rotatable support having an axis substantially parallel or coaxial to said longitudinal axis (“The handle cover 510 may be installed inside the device body 100 such that the handle cover 510 can rotate relative to a first direction as an axis. Furthermore, the handle cover 510 may guide the movement of the cable 200 in a second direction intersecting with the first direction. In the embodiment of the present disclosure, the first direction is the width direction, and the second direction is the longitudinal direction, but the first and second directions are not limited thereto.” See paragraph [0139]), and a guide device (guide module 500, which comprises handle cover 510, discharge cover 520, handle shaft members 530, shaft support members 540, handle body 550, weight 560, and guide wheels 570) is provided inside said containing body (“The pair of cable guide wheels 570 may be installed on the handle body 550 such that the pair of cable guide wheels 570 is located between the handle cover 510 and the handle shaft member 530.” See paragraph [0151]), interposed between said winding member and said transmission member (See citation of paragraph [0151] above), and configured to guide winding of said first segment of the cable onto said winding member (“Additionally, the cable guide wheels 570 may guide the movement of the cable 200, with the cable 200 extending to the handle cover 510 being placed between the cable guide wheels 570.” See paragraph [0151]. The examiner notes that the as also stated in paragraph [0073] the guide handle module 500, which guide wheels 570 is a part of, guides the cable 200 from the reel out the handle installation hole, and therefore the guide wheels would also inherently guide the cable back onto the reel when retracted).
PNG
media_image1.png
322
264
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
464
280
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission member of Akeel, to be mounted on a rotatable support having an axis substantially parallel or coaxial to said longitudinal axis, and to include a guide device as taught by Kang, as this would make sure that not only is the cable guided by the surface of the exit hole, but that also the movement of the cable is supported by the structures that lead to the winding reel, in order to prevent tangling, or stress on the cable, from motion in directions not exactly matching the direction of the reel.
Regarding claim 2:
Akeel as modified discloses the exercise machine as in claim 1, wherein said at least one coupling end is provided with rapid type coupling devices (module hinge connector 34), able to allow the selective association of said containing body with a support (support plate 28).
Regarding claim 3:
Akeel as modified discloses the exercise machine as in claim 1, wherein said head end comprises at least one rotatable cap (barrel adjustment knob 24), rotatable with respect to said longitudinal axis (See figure 4A, which depicts adjustment knob 24 being rotated with respect to the longitudinal axis of the housing).
Regarding claim 4:
Akeel as modified discloses the exercise machine as in claim 1, wherein said containing body has a substantially cylindrical tubular conformation (See figure 1. The examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, the claimed limitation is being interpreted to mean that the containing body has a cylindrical tubular conformation and therefore the cylindrical body of the each resistance module is shown in figure 1.).
Regarding claim 5:
Akeel as modified discloses the exercise machine as in claim 4, wherein said containing body has a prevalent extension along said longitudinal axis (See rejection of claim 1 above, and the rejection presented under 35 USC 112(d) above).
Regarding claim 9:
Akeel as modified discloses the exercise machine as in claim 1, wherein it comprises, installed in said containing body, at least one control unit able to command the operation of said actuator member, in such a way as to supply a determinate resistance force to the traction exerted by the user on said gripping member (“Any of the compact high resistance fitness device aspects herein can include electronic sensors, circuitry, a CPU and communication devices that allow the Compact high resistance fitness device to record the number and length of pull strokes, set the resistance force of each stroke and compile these values from each of the two resistance modules and transmit this information to a receiving device that will record and display the information to the user.” See paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 10:
Akeel as modified by Kang teaches the exercise machine as in claim 1, wherein it comprises a guide device disposed in said containing body between said winding member and said transmission member (See rejection of claim 1), and the guide device the guide device comprises movement means (handle shaft member 530), and the guide device is configured to guide the winding of said first segment of the cable on said winding member (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11:
Akeel as modified by Kang teaches the exercise machine as in claim 10, wherein said movement means comprises at least one support element horizontally pivoting with respect to a first axis substantially orthogonal with respect to said axis of rotation of said winding member (“The pair of shaft support members 540 may support the handle shaft member 530 such that the handle shaft member 530 rotates relative to the first direction as an axis.” See paragraph [0148]).
Regarding claim 13:
Akeel as modified discloses the exercise machine as in claim 1, wherein it comprises a dissipation device (heat sink 134) for dissipating the energy produced, during use, by a user, disposed inside said containing body (See figure 16).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akeel et al. US 20210339078 A1, in view of Kang et al. US 20240408436 A1, and further in view of Chi US 5304104 A.
Akeel as modified teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 6:
Akeel teaches the exercise machine as in claim 3, wherein said actuator member comprises an electric motor (The examiner notes that as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the actuator member includes a brushless DC motor).
Akeel fails to specifically discuss that the electric motor is disposed with an axis of rotation thereof substantially orthogonal with respect to said longitudinal axis of said containing body, wherein said winding member is disposed with an axis of rotation thereof substantially parallel with respect to said axis of rotation of said electric motor.
Chi, however, teaches a dynamic resistance device wherein the resistance can be pre-determined through a computerized panel (See col. 1 lines 36-38), and further teaches that the electric motor (motor 20) is disposed with an axis of rotation thereof substantially orthogonal with respect to said longitudinal axis of said containing body (See annotated figure 2), wherein said winding member (winding drum 30) is disposed with an axis of rotation thereof substantially parallel with respect to said axis of rotation of said electric motor (See annotated figure 2).
[AltContent: textbox (Motor axis of rotation)][AltContent: textbox (Winding member axis of rotation)][AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal Axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
680
392
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the motor and the winding member of Akeel, to have the arrangement taught by Chi, in order to maintain a compact construction and small size, in addition a different arrangement of parts is not a patentably distinct invention, see MPEP chapter 2144.04, section VI, subsection C. Rearrangement of parts.
Regarding claim 8:
Akeel teaches the exercise machine as in claim 6, but fails to teach wherein it comprises kinematic transmission means disposed in cooperation with said electric motor and with said winding member, and able to transmit a determinate torque and a determinate rotation speed to said winding member.
Chin, however, teaches a dynamic resistance device wherein the resistance can be pre-determined through a computerized panel (See col. 1 lines 36-38), and further teaches wherein it comprises kinematic transmission means (first and second timing wheels with timing belt 42 are the transmission means) disposed in cooperation with said electric motor and with said winding member (See figure 2), and able to transmit a determinate torque and a determinate rotation speed to said winding member (“Said timing wheel 40 is fixed on the output shaft 21 of said motor 2, and said second timing wheel 41 is fixed on the first rotating shaft 300 connected with said winding drum 30. As said motor 2 rotates, said winch 3 will be driven to rotate via the connection mechanism constructed by said first timing wheel 40, said second timing wheel 41 and said timing belt 42.” See col.2 lines 51-57).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exercise device of Akeel, to include a transmission means connecting the motor and the winding drum as taught by Chi, as this is a common configuration to transmit the forces generated by a motor to a reel of an exercise device as a user works out, and using a belt or rod connecting the motor to the spool would allow for better control of the forces the user experiences while exercising.
Claim(s) 7, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akeel et al. US 20210339078 A1, in view of Kang et al. US 20240408436 A1, and further in view of Rubin et al. US 20190344123 A1.
Akeel as modified teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 7:
Akeel as modified teaches the exercise machine as in claim 3, wherein said actuator member comprises an electric motor (The examiner notes that as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the actuator member includes a brushless DC motor).
Akeel fails to specifically teach that the electric motor is disposed with an axis of rotation thereof substantially parallel with respect to said longitudinal axis of said containing body, wherein said winding member is disposed with an axis of rotation thereof substantially coaxial to said axis of rotation of said electric motor.
Rubin, however, teaches an exercise device including a base defining an inner volume and a top supported by the base, the top defining an aperture, where the exercise device further includes a force sensor configured to measure force on the top and a motor disposed within the base and below the top, the motor including a cable extendable through the aperture (See abstract), and further teaches that the electric motor (motor 302) is disposed with an axis of rotation thereof substantially parallel with respect to said longitudinal axis of said containing body (See annotated figure 6), wherein said winding member is disposed with an axis of rotation thereof substantially coaxial to said axis of rotation of said electric motor(See annotated figure 6, which depicts the spool 304 coupled to the motor 302, and therefore they share the same axis of rotation. ).
[AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal axis of body)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Axis of rotation M and X)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image4.png
465
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the motor and the winding member of Akeel, to have the arrangement taught by Rubin, in order to maintain a compact construction and small size, in addition a different arrangement of parts is not a patentably distinct invention, see MPEP chapter 2144.04, section VI, subsection C. Rearrangement of parts.
Regarding claim 12:
Akeel as modified teaches the exercise machine as in claim 1, but fails to teach wherein it comprises a device for storing the energy produced, during use, by a user, comprising a plurality of storage cells and devices for managing and balancing the charge between the cells, said storage device being configured to store and release energy to and from said actuator member or other electrical circuits, disposed inside said containing body.
Rubin, however, teaches an exercise device including a base defining an inner volume and a top supported by the base, the top defining an aperture, where the exercise device further includes a force sensor configured to measure force on the top and a motor disposed within the base and below the top, the motor including a cable extendable through the aperture (See abstract), and further teaches wherein it comprises a device for storing the energy produced, during use, by a user (motor controller 1134, which paragraph [0112] discusses as being able to operate the system in a regenerative power mode, where during the concentric phase of exercise the cable is extended rotating the shaft and thereby generating power for the battery pack), comprising a plurality of storage cells (battery 1161) and devices for managing and balancing the charge between the cells, said storage device being configured to store and release energy to and from said actuator member or other electrical circuits (battery management system 1112. “In certain implementations, for example, the charge/discharge system 1122 may be adapted to be connected to a standard 120 VAC or similar power source and may include a trickle charger or similar device for providing current to and charging the battery pack 1116 while also providing power to the other components of the dynamic force module 1104.” See paragraph [0106])), disposed inside said containing body (See figure 11 which is a block diagram depicting the structures of the power system within exercise platform 1101).
PNG
media_image5.png
530
714
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exercise device of Akeel to include a device which stores energy produced by the user during exercise which comprises a storage device including a plurality of cells housed within the housing as taught by Rubin, as this would allow the exercise device to have a longer usage life between charges, and would allow it to maintain its compact nature.
Regarding claim 14:
Akeel as modified discloses the exercise machine as in claim 12, further comprising a dissipation device (heat sink 134) for dissipating the energy produced, during use, by a user, disposed inside said containing body (See figure 16), wherein said storage device and said dissipation device are housed in said containing body (See rejection of claim 12), (“Battery connector 136 is in electrical communication with sensor 138 and printed circuit board 140, which is also in electrical communication with microUSB cable 142.” See paragraph [0088] and figure 14 of Akeel. The examiner notes that all USB cable connections require connection pins.).
[AltContent: textbox (a perspective view of the inner workings of a resistance module made in accordance with the present invention )]
PNG
media_image6.png
418
526
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akeel et al. US 20210339078 A1, in view of Kang et al. US 20240408436 A1, and further in view of Hsieh US 7682287 B1.
Regarding claim 15:
Akeel teaches the exercise machine as in claim 1, but fails to teach wherein it comprises a housing separated from said containing body and connected thereto, wherein in said housing there are disposed said feeder able to be connected to an electric network and at least one of either a storage device or a device for dissipating the energy produced by a user.
The examiner notes that Akeel teaches the feeder as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and a device for dissipating the energy produced by a user (heat sink 134), but that it is housed in a separate housing from the containing body is not taught.
Hsieh, however, teaches a powered strength trainer that uses the torque of a motor output shaft to replace a conventional iron weight plate (See col. 2 lines 21-23), and further teaches wherein the exercise machine comprises a housing separated from the containing body and connected thereto, wherein in said housing there are disposed said feeder able to be connected to an electric network and at least one of either a storage device or a device for dissipating the energy produced by a user (See figure 2, which depicts a housing surrounding controller 40, and fig. 5 which shoes the DC power supply 41 hosed within the body of controller 40 and connected to the other structures of the device via wires. The examiner notes that the phrase “or” in the limitation requires that only one of the options are necessary for the invention. ).
[AltContent: textbox (Controller housing separate from the body of the motor and winding drums)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image7.png
608
464
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
734
466
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separate the feeder, and the energy dissipating device from the main containing body as taught by Hsei, as making structures separable is not a patentably distinct invention as noted in MPEP chapter 2144.04 section V subsection C, Making Separable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/31/2026 have been fully considered, and the argument with respect to the rejection of claim 7 in regards to the rejection previously presented under 35USC 112(b) is persuasive and the corresponding rejection has been withdrawn, however, the arguments with respect to the prior art rejections, and the rejection of claim 4 are not persuasive, therefore the rejection of claim 4 under 35 USC 112(b) has been maintained above.
In regards to the arguments with respect to the rejections presented under 35 USC 102(a)(1) in view of the Akeel reference, the amendments made to the claims required a new search and consideration, and as a result the newly presented rejection under 35 USC 103 in view of the combination of Akeel and Kang has been presented above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN ANGELO DICUIA whose telephone number is (703)756-4713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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.
/JONATHAN A DICUIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
