Detailed Action
This is the Final Rejection based on application 19/039,171 filed on 01/28/2025, and which claims as amended on 07/17/2026 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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. As such the earliest date of priority of 01/29/2024 has been granted to the instant application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments have not been sufficient to overcome the original claim objections, present in the Non-Final Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, “a treadmill device” should be –the treadmill device--. The examiner notes that since claim 11 is dependent on claim 1 due to the limitation “a running belt according to claim 1”, the preamble of claim 1 already establishes a treadmill device even though it is not positively recited. The examiner suggests maintaining proper antecedent basis to avoid any possible rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2,and 4-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “in a same additive manufacturing process” on line 10. The limitation is unclear as a first additive manufacturing process has not yet been claimed, so how the tread is integrally formed with the lattice in the same process is unclear.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “in a same additive manufacturing process” on line 10. The limitation is unclear as a first additive manufacturing process has not yet been claimed, so how the tread is integrally formed with the lattice in the same process is unclear.
Dependent claims 2, and 4-11, are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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) 1-2, and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. US 20220355160 A1, in further view of Fedriga US 20210236882 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
Chang teaches a running belt (track belt 30) for a treadmill device (treadmill 1), comprising a tread portion (stepping part 611) including a running surface for a user to tread upon(“The stepping part 611, on which the exerciser may directly step, may have predetermined length and width, and the load of the user may be applied to the stepping part 611.” See paragraph [0040]), a support portion (see annotated figure 6), and a connecting portion (see annotated figure 6) between the tread portion and the support portion (see annotated figure 6), wherein the tread portion is connected to the support portion by the connecting portion (see annotated figure 6), wherein the connecting portion comprises a lattice structure (truss part 62, see annotated figure 6) including a plurality of struts (diagonal members 624a/b,625a/b,626a/b, and 627a/b) defining a plurality of cells of the lattice structure (See annotated figure 7), and wherein the lattice structure is a three-dimensional lattice structure (The examiner notes that as depicted in figure 4, the lattice structure of the truss 62 in Chang is a 3-dimensional structure).
[AltContent: textbox (Support portion)][AltContent: textbox (Connecting portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
214
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Cells)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
308
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (A perspective bottom view illustrating the slat.)]
PNG
media_image3.png
354
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Chang fails to teach that the tread portion is integrally formed with the lattice structure in a same additive manufacturing process.
Fedriga, however, teaches selectively adjustable resistance assemblies and methods of use for bicycles, and selectively adjustable speed and incline levels for treadmills (See abstract), and further teaches that the tread portion is integrally formed with the lattice structure in a same additive manufacturing process (“Any and/or all elements, as disclosed herein, can be formed from a same, structurally continuous piece, such as being unitary, and/or be separately manufactured and/or connected, such as being an assembly and/or modules. Any and/or all elements, as disclosed herein, can be manufactured via any manufacturing processes, whether additive manufacturing, subtractive manufacturing and/or other any other types of manufacturing.” See paragraph [0127]. Furthermore, the examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, that under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural or functional limitations, the claim language is being interpreted to simply mean that the tread and lattice structures are formed as a single piece using an additive manufacturing process).
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 tread of Chang, to be formed using an additive manufacturing process as taught by Fedriga, as additive manufacturing allows for more customization for each part, lower manufacturing costs, better control over structural properties and parts can be produced faster.
Regarding claim 2:
Chang as modified discloses the running belt according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of cells includes first cells and second cells (See annotated figure 6), wherein the first cells are arranged between the running surface and the second cells (See annotated figure 6).
[AltContent: textbox (1st cells)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd cells)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
214
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8:
Chang as modified discloses the running belt according to claim 1,wherein the lattice structure comprises first lattice points (See annotated figures 6 and 4) and second lattice points (See annotated figures 6 and 4), wherein the first lattice points define a first lattice plane (See annotated figures 6 and 4) and the second lattice points define a second lattice plane (See annotated figures 6 and 4), wherein the second lattice plane extends parallel to the first lattice plane (See annotated figures 6 and 4).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st lattice points)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd lattice points)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
214
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (1st lattice plane)][AltContent: textbox (2nd lattice plane)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
354
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9:
Chang as modified discloses the running belt according to claim 1, wherein the running belt is designed as a slatted running belt including a plurality of slats(slats 60, see figure 1), wherein preferably at least one of the slats comprises the tread portion, the support portion and the connecting portion (See rejection of claim 1, where the examiner further notes that each slat of the slat belt of Chang includes all of the structures discussed).
PNG
media_image4.png
559
430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10:
Chang as modified discloses the running belt according to claim 1, wherein (a) the tread portion is mechanically coupled to the support portion exclusively by the connecting portion, exclusively by the lattice structure, or exclusively by each of the connecting portion and the lattice structure (The examiner notes that the inclusion of the phrase “or” requires that only one of the optional limitations are necessary for the invention. Furthermore, the examiner notes that as stated above in claim 1, the connecting portion is comprised of the lattice structure and connects the tread portion to the support portion. See rejection of claim 1 above), (b) the support portion is connected to the connecting portion by a non- destructively detachable connection, by a positive material connection, or by each of the non- destructively detachable connection and the positive material connection (The examiner notes that the inclusion of the phrase “or” requires that only one of the optional limitations are necessary for the invention. In addition, as shown in the rejection of claim 1, the support portion is directly connected to the connecting portion, which as described on page 5 lines 16-17 of the instant application’s specification is a positive material connection.), (c) the support portion has a reinforcement device on its rear side opposite to the connecting portion, (a) and (b), (b) and (c), (a) and (c), or (a), (b), and (c) (The examiner notes that the inclusion of the phrase “or” throughout the list of options, requires that only one of the optional limitations are necessary for the invention.).
Regarding claim 11:
Chang as modified discloses a treadmill device (treadmill 1), comprising the running belt according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1), and a frame (body 10) upon which the running belt is revolvingly supported (“The track belts 30, each of which is disposed at one side of the body, connect both ends of the first roller 20a and the second roller 20b. The track belts 30 may be moved in the body 10 by rotation of the first roller 20a and the second roller 20b.” See paragraph [0034])
Regarding claim 12:
Chang teaches a slat (slats 60) for a running belt (track belt 30), comprising a tread portion (stepping part 611) including a running surface for a user to tread on (“The stepping part 611, on which the exerciser may directly step, may have predetermined length and width, and the load of the user may be applied to the stepping part 611.” See paragraph [0040]), a support portion (see annotated figure 6), and a connecting portion (see annotated figure 6) between the tread portion and the support portion (see annotated figure 6), wherein the tread portion is connected to the support portion by the connecting portion (see annotated figure 6), wherein the connecting portion comprises a lattice structure (truss part 62, see annotated figure 6) including a plurality of struts (diagonal members 624a/b,625a/b,626a/b, and 627a/b) defining a plurality of cells of the lattice structure (See annotated figure 7), wherein the lattice structure is a three-dimensional lattice structure (The examiner notes that as depicted in figure 4, the lattice structure of the truss 62 in Chang is a 3-dimensional structure).
Chang fails to teach that the tread portion is integrally formed with the lattice structure in a same additive manufacturing process.
Fedriga, however, teaches selectively adjustable resistance assemblies and methods of use for bicycles, and selectively adjustable speed and incline levels for treadmills (See abstract), and further teaches that the tread portion is integrally formed with the lattice structure in a same additive manufacturing process (“Any and/or all elements, as disclosed herein, can be formed from a same, structurally continuous piece, such as being unitary, and/or be separately manufactured and/or connected, such as being an assembly and/or modules. Any and/or all elements, as disclosed herein, can be manufactured via any manufacturing processes, whether additive manufacturing, subtractive manufacturing and/or other any other types of manufacturing.” See paragraph [0127]. Furthermore, the examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, that under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural or functional limitations, the claim language is being interpreted to simply mean that the tread and lattice structures are formed as a single piece using an additive manufacturing process).
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 tread of Chang, to be formed using an additive manufacturing process as taught by Fedriga, as additive manufacturing allows for more customization for each part, lower manufacturing costs, better control over structural properties and parts can be produced faster.
Regarding claim 13:
Chang teaches a method of producing a running belt, comprising the steps of: providing a support portion(See annotated figure 6); forming a connecting portion on the support portion (See annotated figure 6) such that the connecting portion includes a three-dimensional lattice structure (truss part 62, see figure 4 and annotated figure 6. The examiner notes that as depicted in figure 4, the lattice structure of the truss 62 in Chang is a 3-dimensional structure), the lattice structure including a plurality of struts (diagonal members 624a/b,625a/b,626a/b, and 627a/b) defining a plurality of cells (See annotated figure 7) of the lattice structure; and forming a tread portion (stepping part 611) on the connecting portion connected to the support portion by the connecting portion (See figure 6).
Chang fails to teach that the lattice structure is formed in an additive manufacturing process, and that the struts are in the same additive manufacturing process as the three-dimensional lattice structure so that the tread portion is integrally formed with the lattice structure and
Fedriga, however, teaches selectively adjustable resistance assemblies and methods of use for bicycles, and selectively adjustable speed and incline levels for treadmills (See abstract), and further teaches that the tread portion is integrally formed with the lattice structure in a same additive manufacturing process (“Any and/or all elements, as disclosed herein, can be formed from a same, structurally continuous piece, such as being unitary, and/or be separately manufactured and/or connected, such as being an assembly and/or modules. Any and/or all elements, as disclosed herein, can be manufactured via any manufacturing processes, whether additive manufacturing, subtractive manufacturing and/or other any other types of manufacturing.” See paragraph [0127]. Furthermore, the examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, that under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural or functional limitations, the claim language is being interpreted to simply mean that the tread and lattice structures are formed as a single piece using an additive manufacturing process).
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 tread of Chang, to be formed using an additive manufacturing process as taught by Fedriga, as additive manufacturing allows for more customization for each part, lower manufacturing costs, better control over structural properties and parts can be produced faster.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. US 20220355160 A1, in view of Fedriga US 20210236882 A1, and in further view of Corbalis et al. US 20180361194 A1.
Chang as modified teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 4:
Chang teaches the running belt according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the lattice structure is more flexible than the support portion, the tread portion, or each of the support portion and the tread portion.
Corbalis, however, teaches a treadmill including a frame, a suspension connector connected to the frame, and a flexible deck connected to the suspension connector, wherein the flexible deck is configured to flex in response to a load applied by a user striding on the treadmill (See abstract), and further teaches wherein the lattice structure is more flexible than the support portion, the tread portion, or each of the support portion and the tread portion (“In one embodiment, the intermediate support 806 progressively resists flexion of the flexible deck 802 in response to an applied force on the flexible deck 802, such as the weight of a user standing or striding on the treadmill 800. In certain embodiments, the intermediate support 806 dampens movement of the flexible deck 802.” See paragraph [0056], with the examiner noting that Corbalis also states the flexibility/stiffness of the intermediate support can be adjusted to the user’s needs and can be made softer to absorb more of the impact force from the user as stated in paragraphs [0059] and [0061]).
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 lattice of Chang to be more flexible than the support and tread portions as taught by Corbalis as the lattice/truss structure of Chang is already designed to absorb the impacts of the user’s forces while running, and making it more flexible would increase the shock absorbing nature of the tread belt and allow the user to have more of a cushion when running on the treadmill.
Regarding claim 5:
Chang teaches the running belt according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the plurality of cells includes third cells and fourth cells, wherein the third cells are more flexible than the fourth cells.
Corbalis, however, teaches a treadmill including a frame, a suspension connector connected to the frame, and a flexible deck connected to the suspension connector, wherein the flexible deck is configured to flex in response to a load applied by a user striding on the treadmill (See abstract), and further teaches wherein the plurality of cells includes third cells and fourth cells (See annotated figure 12B), wherein the third cells are more flexible than the fourth cells (The examiner notes that due to the construction of the honeycomb lattice of Corbalis, the fourth cells which are placed on the rigid bottom support would inherently be less flexible than the 3rd cells which are formed between the layers of flexible material with no rigid structure stopping their compression).
[AltContent: textbox (1st set of cells)][AltContent: textbox (3rd set of cells)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (4th set of cells)][AltContent: textbox (2nd set of cells)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
156
708
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 lattice of Chang to include more sets of cells and where the third set of cells are more flexible than the fourth set of cells as taught by Corbalis, as this no more than a duplication of the struts of the lattice/truss structure of Chang to add more cells, and having the intermediate 3rd set of cells being more flexible than a fourth set of cells which are located on a rigid bottom structure would increase the shock absorbing properties of the lattice/truss structure.
Regarding claim 6:
Chang teaches the running belt according to claim 1, wherein the lattice structure comprises a first region (See annotated figure 6) and a second region (See annotated figure 6, wherein the first region and the second region each extend transversely to the running surface from the support portion to the tread portion(See annotated figure 6).
[AltContent: textbox (2nd region)][AltContent: textbox (1st region)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
214
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chang fails to teach wherein the lattice structure is more flexible in the first region than in the second region.
Corbalis, however, teaches a treadmill including a frame, a suspension connector connected to the frame, and a flexible deck connected to the suspension connector, wherein the flexible deck is configured to flex in response to a load applied by a user striding on the treadmill (See abstract), and further teaches wherein the lattice structure is more flexible in the first region than in the second region (“In one embodiment, the intermediate support 806 progressively resists flexion of the flexible deck 802 in response to an applied force on the flexible deck 802, such as the weight of a user standing or striding on the treadmill 800. In certain embodiments, the intermediate support 806 dampens movement of the flexible deck 802.” See paragraph [0056], with the examiner noting that Corbalis also states the flexibility/stiffness of the intermediate support can be adjusted to the user’s needs and can be made softer to absorb more of the impact force from the user as stated in paragraphs [0059] and [0061]).
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 lattice/truss structure of Chang, to have different flexibilities in different sections as taught by Corbalis, as having the flexibility of the connecting structure be different allows for the center region of the tread belt to have more damping/ shock absorption than the outer region(s) which would be where the most force from the user is applied, thereby increasing the shock absorbing nature of the truss/lattice structure.
Regarding claim 7:
Chang as modified discloses the running belt according to claim 6, wherein the lattice structure in the first region differs from the lattice structure in the second region by at least one of the following parameters: a geometry of the lattice structure, a length of the struts, a cross- section of the struts, a material of the struts, and a size of the cells (See annotated figure 6, where the size of the cells in the second region are depicted as much larger than the size of the cells in the outer first regions. The examiner notes that since the cells are larger as depicted, this includes a difference in the geometry of the lattice structure, and further notes that the phrase “at least one of the following” preceding a list of limitations requires that only on out of the multiple options is necessary for the invention).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/20226 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to the applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim objection for claim 11 presented in the previous Non-Final action, the objection has been maintained and a clarification for the objection has been provided above, the examiner objected to the limitation of “a treadmill device” in claim 11, since due to its dependency on claim 1 a treadmill device has already been established.
With respect to the arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) of claims 1-3, and 8-13 the examiner notes that the newly added limitation of the additive manufacturing process not being an optional limitation due to the removal of the phrase “or” from canceled claim 3, which the subject matter therefrom has been included in the independent claims of the application, required the newly presented rejection under 35 USC 103 in view of the combination of Chang and Fedriga, which also required the newly presented rejection of claims 4-7 as discussed 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
