DETAILED 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-11, 18-20, drawn to authorization of exercise device operation in response to connecting with a third-party device, classified in 726/21.
II. Claims 12-17, drawn to exercise device locking in response to a detected disconnect, classified in 726/17.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination II has separate utility such as a locking mechanism for the exercise device when disconnection is detected. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and/or the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Jeremy Spiezio (Reg. No. 80,856) on 30 June 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-11, 18-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 2. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watterson, U.S. Publication No. 2022/0342969. Referring to claim 1, Watterson discloses controlling access to an exercise machine using a server 112 that includes a processor and memory storing instructions ([0135] & [0137]), which meets the limitation of one or more processors, and one or more memories comprising instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to. The server 112 receives a request from the treadmill ([0071]: Examiner notes that the content of the request is never functionally utilized by the claims. Therefore, the specifying that the request is “to connect a third-party device to an exercise device” represents non-functional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04-2111.05), which meets the limitation of receive a connection request to connect a third-party device to an exercise device. The server 112 determines whether a user device listed in the user’s profile is current paired with the treadmill ([0077]: user device listed in the user’s profile shows that the device is authorized), which meets the limitation of determine whether the third-party device is authorized to operate the exercise device. If none of the devices from the user’s profile are current paired with the treadmill, the server 112 automatically keeps the running belt and running deck locked ([0077]), which meets the limitation of prevent operation of the exercise device when the third-party device is not authorized to operate the exercise device.
Referring to claims 2, 3, Watterson discloses that if none of the devices from the user’s profile are current paired with the treadmill, the server 112 automatically keeps the running belt and running deck locked ([0077]), which meets the limitation of wherein, to prevent the operation of the exercise device, the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to physically lock a movable element of the exercise device.
Referring to claim 4, Watterson discloses that the lock can be an electrical lock such that a circuit to power the motor may be closed ([0124]), which meets the limitation of wherein, to prevent the operation of the exercise device, the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to disconnect a power connection to the exercise device.
Referring to claim 5, Watterson discloses that the lock procedures can include the deactivation of physical buttons/switches/dials ([0088]: buttons/switches/dials would represent input mechanisms as claimed), which meets the limitation of wherein to prevent the operation of the exercise device, the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to disconnect one or more input mechanisms from the exercise device.
Referring to claim 7, Watterson discloses that the server 112 determines whether a user device listed in the user’s profile is current paired with the treadmill using device identifiers ([0077]), which meets the limitation of wherein, to determine whether the third-party device is authorized to operate the exercise device, the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to compare identification information for the third-party device to a pre-approved list.
Referring to claim 8, Watterson discloses that the server 112 receives a request from the treadmill ([0071]) over a wireless network ([0051] & Figure 1, 118), which meets the limitation of wherein, to receive the connection request, the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to receive a wireless connection request.
Referring to claim 9, Watterson discloses that the server 112 receives a request from the treadmill ([0071]) such that an automatic determination is performed that determines that users are proximate to treadmill by determining whether any of the user devices are paired with the treadmill ([0077]: proximate enough to pair devices would be considered a threshold distance), which meets the limitation of determine that the third-party device is within a threshold distance of the exercise device, wherein the connection request is received when the third-party device is within the threshold distance.
Referring to claim 10, Watterson discloses that if the user device is listed in the user’s profile, the server 112 automatically unlocks the running belt and running deck of the treadmill ([0077]), which meets the limitation of authorize the operation of the exercise device when the third-party device is authorized to operate the exercise device, and wherein, to authorize the operation of the exercise device, the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to physically unlock one or more moving elements of the exercise device.
Referring to claim 11, Watterson discloses that the exercise device could be a treadmill ([0055]), elliptical ([0056]), stationary bicycle ([0057]), or rower ([0058]), which meets the limitation of wherein the exercise device includes a treadmill, an elliptical device, a stationary bicycle, a rower.
Referring to claim 18, Watterson discloses controlling access to an exercise machine using a server 112 that receives a request from the treadmill ([0071]: Examiner notes that the content of the request is never functionally utilized by the claims. Therefore, the specifying that the request is “to connect a third-party device to an exercise device” represents non-functional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04-2111.05), which meets the limitation of receiving a connection request to connect a third-party device to an exercise device. The server 112 determines whether a user device listed in the user’s profile is current paired with the treadmill ([0077]: user device listed in the user’s profile shows that the device is authorized), which meets the limitation of determining whether the third-party device is authorized to operate the exercise device. If none of the devices from the user’s profile are current paired with the treadmill, the server 112 automatically keeps the running belt and running deck locked ([0077]), which meets the limitation of preventing operation of the exercise device when the third-party device is not authorized to operate the exercise device.
Referring to claim 19, Watterson discloses that if the user device is listed in the user’s profile, the server 112 automatically unlocks the running belt and running deck of the treadmill ([0077]), which meets the limitation of authorizing the operation of the exercise device when the third-party device is authorized to operate the exercise device. The user device may function as a console for the exercise machine and controls one or more moveable members of the exercise machine using control commands ([0052]) wherein the controls include speed adjustment ([0055]), resistance adjustments ([0056]-[0058]), and incline of the running deck ([0055]), which meets the limitation of adjusting at least one operating parameter of the exercise device using the third-party device when the third-party device is authorized to operate the exercise device, wherein adjusting the at least one operating parameter of the exercise device comprises adjusting at least one of a speed, resistance level, or an incline of the exercise device.
Referring to claim 20, Watterson discloses that the user device may function as a console for the exercise machine and controls one or more moveable members of the exercise machine using control commands ([0052]), which meets the limitation of wherein the exercise device does not include a display.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watterson, U.S. Publication No. 2022/0342969, in view of Aument, U.S. Patent No. 11,182,794. Referring to claim 6, Watterson does not disclose preventing connection between the user device and the treadmill. Aument discloses initiating a disconnection between two previously paired devices based upon an authorization decision (Col. 5, line 52 – Col. 6, line 26), which meets the limitation of wherein, to prevent the operation of the exercise device, the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to not connect the third-party device to the exercise device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the server of Watterson to have initiated a disconnection between the user device and the treadmill upon determining that the user device is not in the user’s profile, because the user device could be a fraudulent device as suggested by Aument (Col. 6, lines 14-17).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Burke, U.S. Patent No. 11,925,834, discloses a mobile cycling apparatus that is locked until a user is authenticated.
Fima, U.S. Patent No. 10,758,775, discloses a treadmill that will unlock upon input of a code.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN E LANIER whose telephone number is (571)272-3805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 5:30-4:00.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 5712705143. 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.
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights