Detailed Action
This is the Final Rejection based on application 19/038,228 filed on 01/27/2025, and which claims as amended on 07/05/2026 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
The instant application claims priority to provisional applications 63/550,211, and as such the earliest priority date of 02/06/2024 has been granted to the instant application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments have been sufficient to overcome the original claim objections, and rejections under 35 USC 112(b) present in the Non-Final Action.
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) 1-4, 6, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. US 20220387870 A1, and further in view of Iverson et al. US 20210362000 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
Yu teaches a bike trainer (“The present disclosure relates to the field of cycling training equipment, and in particular, to a flexible trainer stand for indoor cycling.” See paragraph [0002]), comprising: a rocking base (flat plate 2) having a bottom surface with at least one arc shaped rocking surface (Paragraph [0034] states, “On the basis of the above technical solution, a contact point of the first guide portion 3 and the second guide portion 4 has a cross section arranged in available forms such as an arc shape, a V shape, or a reuleaux triangle shape.” ) configured to engage a floor (The examiner notes that the claim language does not require the arc shaped rocking surface to directly engage the floor, and therefore as depicted in figure 3, the rocking base does engage the floor via intermediate structures.); a pair of support legs (See annotated figure 3) each connected to a side of the rocking base (See annotated figure 3. The examiner notes that as claimed the limitations require that the supported legs be connected to any side of the base, the front top side of the base is a side of the base.) by a respective tilt mechanism (lifting device 6); a main frame extending upward from the rocking base (See annotated figure 3) and supporting a seat (See annotated figure 3); a pedal assembly rotatably mounted to the main frame (See annotated figure 3).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Handlebars)][AltContent: textbox (Horizontal extension)][AltContent: textbox (Seat)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pedal assembly)][AltContent: textbox (Support legs)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Main frame)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
416
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yu fails to explicitly teach that the pedals are drivingly connected to a flywheel assembly. The examiner notes however that Yu does discuss, via general recitations, that the invention is for indoor cycling, which commonly include pedals drivingly connected to flywheels.
Iverson, however, teaches an exercise equipment system with a movable support that is movable in a lateral direction, a sensor adapted to generate a lateral tilt signal, and a processor for generating a left or right turn output signal to a ride simulation in response to tilting of the exercise equipment during use (See abstract) and further teaches, pedals drivingly connected to a flywheel (“Typically, the crank arms 54 are connected to an input ring or gear, and a drive member, such as a chain or belt, rotates a flywheel associated with the resistance mechanism in response to application of pedaling forces by the user.” See paragraph [0034]).
Iverson, further teaches wherein the main frame is supported on the base by a glide assembly (first and second engagement areas 146 and 148, and the first and second grooved rollers 128 and 130 together comprise the glide assembly. The examiner notes that paragraph [0046] of Iverson discusses how the engagement areas and the rollers allow movement of the base in fore and aft directions in response the user’s pedaling.), and wherein the glide mechanism includes a lockout assembly (The lockout assembly is inherently included in the first and second engagement areas as the end of the curved surface which would stop the movement of the platform at a maximum distance is a lockout assembly with no further structural or functional limitations.).
[AltContent: textbox (Side elevation view of the movable exercise equipment support receiving an exercise cycle.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
308
514
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 indoor cycling system to include a flywheel connected to the pedals, and a glide assembly with a lockout assembly as taught by Iverson, as a flywheel on an indoor cycle is a common structure in the field of exercise cycles, and adding a glide assembly that allows movement in the fore and aft directions, not just tilting as taught by Yu, would increase the realistic nature of the indoor cycling system for the user, as they can feel the momentum generated from their pedaling in addition to being able to lean side-to-side.
Regarding claim 2:
Yu as modified discloses the bike trainer according to claim 1, further comprising a horizontal extension (see annotated figure 3) extending from an upper end of the main frame (see annotated figure 3) and a handle bar mounted to the horizontal extension (see annotated figure 3.
Regarding claim 3:
Yu as modified by Iverson teaches the bike trainer according to claim 1, wherein the main frame is supported on the rocking base by a glide assembly (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4:
Yu as modified by Iverson teaches the bike trainer according to claim 3, wherein the glide assembly includes a lockout assembly (See rejection of claim 1, which claim 3 depends on, which claim 4 depends on).
Regarding claim 6:
Yu as modified discloses the bike trainer according to claim 1, wherein the pair of support legs are each pivotally connected to the rocking base by a hinge (fixing member 7, which the supporting legs must pivot around as the lifting device simulates elevation changes).
Regarding claim 11:
Yu as modified discloses the bike trainer according to claim 1, wherein the arc shaped rocking surface is defined by a plurality of arc shaped bars secured to a bottom of the rocking base (See the rejection of claim 1, which discusses that the first and second guide portions of the invention of Yu are arc shaped bars).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-20 include allowable subject matter.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to teach or disclose the bike trainer of dependent claim 5 including a damper mechanism for adjustable controlling friction of the glide assembly. Furthermore, it fails to teach or disclose the bike trainer of dependent claim 7, including that each respective tilt mechanism includes a spring that biases the pair of support legs in a downward direction.
In regards to independent claim 12, the prior art fails to teach or disclose a bike trainer comprising a base; a pair of support legs connected to the base; a glide assembly supported within the base by a pair of front rollers and a pair of rear rollers each received in a respective curved track; a main frame extending upward from the glide assembly and supporting a seat; a pedal assembly rotatably mounted to the main frame and drivingly connected to a flywheel assembly; and a glide damper assembly having a pad adjustably engaging a friction surface of the glide assembly.
The closest prior art of record includes Caccia US 20250177811 A1, Lucas US 20230405397 A1, Yu et al. US 20220387870 A1, Iverson et al. US 11400339 B2, Chen US 20210052937 A1.
The closest prior art of record has been fully discussed in the previous Non-Final Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to the applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4,6, and 11 under 35 USC 103 in view of the combination of Yu and Iverson the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the rejections presented in the previous Non-Final Action have been maintained as discussed above, as the amendments introduced have resolved the claim objections and rejections presented under 35 USC 112(b) and have not created any new issues requiring correction, but due to the previously indicated allowable subject matter not being rewritten in independent form in the amendments filed on 07/05/2026 in which the instant action is in response to, a new rejection has been presented in response to the amendments filed. The examiner suggests amending independent claim 1 to include the indicated allowable subject matter noted above, as well as any intervening claims the limitations depend upon to avoid possible rejection under 35 USC 112(b).
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
Prosecution Insights