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. Therefore, acknowledgement is made to the instant application’s status as a 371 of PCT/US2023/030864 filed 08/22/2023, which further claims priority to provisional application 63/399,888 filed 08/22/2022. As such, the earliest date of priority of 08/22/2022 is granted to the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/21/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 3, “an abnormal movement of the handle with respect to a motor of the strength machine” should be –an abnormal movement of the handle with respect to the motor—as the motor has already been recited above in claim 9.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 7, “a movement sensor of a handle” should be –the movement sensor of the handle—as the movement sensor and the handle were previously claimed on line 3 of the claim.
On line 8, “ a torque sensor of a motor” should be –the torque sensor of the motor—as the torque sensor and the motor were previously claimed on line 5 of the claim.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, “a movement sensor of a handle to the information captured by a torque sensor of a motor” should be – the movement sensor of the handle to the information captured by the torque sensor of the motor—as the torque sensor and the motor were previously claimed in claim 17.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On lines 1-2, “ a movement sensor of a handle to the information captured by a torque sensor of a motor” should be – the movement sensor of the handle to the information captured by the torque sensor of the motor—as the torque sensor and the motor were previously claimed in claim 17.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1,3-4, 6-7, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rubin et al. US 20190344123 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
Rubin discloses an exercise machine (exercise platform 100), comprising: a platform that has a top surface (top 104) upon which a user stands when performing a strength activity using the exercise machine (See figure 2), a motor (motor 302) and a motor controller (motor controller 1134) contained by the platform (See figure 11 which depicts the motor controller 1134 within the exercise platform 1101); an attachment (handle 108. The examiner notes that the specification of the instant application in paragraph [21] states, “the resistance mechanisms are configured and/or controlled to apply a load to an attachment (e.g., a handle or handles)…”. Therefore the handle of Rubin is an attachment.) that is coupled to the motor (“In general, a given exercise includes pulling the cable, e.g., by pulling on the handle, against the force from the motor or countering the force of the cable being retracted. As discussed below in further detail, such force is provided by a dynamic force module 300 (shown in FIG. 3) disposed within the exercise platform 100 to which the cable 106 is coupled.” See paragraph [0059]); and a closed loop control system (System controller 1102) that controls operation of the exercise machine based on information associated with a movement of the attachment and information associated with a rotation of the motor (“In particular, the system controller 1102 may receive readings and data from the force sensors 1107, the power system 1110, the dynamic force module 1104 (including the motor system 1130 thereof) and/or other sensors of the system 1100 and provide commands to direct various functions of the exercise platform 1101.” See paragraph [0097]).
[AltContent: textbox (a front perspective view of an exercise platform)]
PNG
media_image1.png
530
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (a cross-sectional view of the exercise platform of FIG. 1A.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
404
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (a block diagram illustrating a system including an exercise platform)][AltContent: textbox (an environmental view of an exercise platform in accordance with the present disclosure during performance of an exercise by a user.)]
PNG
media_image3.png
732
332
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
526
708
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3:
Rubin discloses the exercise machine of claim 1, wherein the attachment is coupled to the motor via a cable (cable 106), and wherein the closed loop control system applies a control scheme to accelerate an inertia of the motor to align a movement of the cable with a movement of the attachment (“In yet another implementation, the dynamic force module may include control algorithms that limit or otherwise control movement of the cable/drum such that the cable does not go slack.” See paragraph [0136]. The examiner notes that limiting the movement of the cable and drum which is directly acted upon via the motor to eliminate slack in the cable is the system controlling the inertia of the motor to match the cable movement to the handle).
Regarding claim 4:
Rubin discloses the exercise machine of claim 1, wherein the closed loop control system controls operation of the exercise machine by: determining that a comparison of the information associated with the movement of the attachment to the information associated with the rotation of the motor indicates a cable (cable 106) that couples the attachment to the motor has slack (“In yet another implementation, the dynamic force module may include control algorithms that limit or otherwise control movement of the cable/drum such that the cable does not go slack.” See paragraph [0136].The examiner notes that the control system having algorithms to eliminate slack, inherently includes the ability to detect slack in order to execute those functions. ); and causing the motor controller to increase a torque applied to the cable by the motor (The examiner notes that as stated above in the citation of paragraph [0136], the movement of the cable/drum which has been stated to be coupled to the motor is controlled so that slack is eliminated, therefore the torque applied by the motor must be increased in order to retract the unnecessary length of cable)
Regarding claim 6:
Rubin discloses the exercise machine of claim 1, wherein the attachment is a handle (See rejection of claim 1) held by the user when performing the strength activity using the exercise machine (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7:
Rubin discloses the exercise machine of claim 1, wherein the attachment is coupled to the motor via a cable (cable 106) that extends from the motor to the attachment (See rejection of claim 1) via an opening in the platform (“Referring back to FIG. 1A, to facilitate movement of the cable 106, a fairlead 124 or similar guiding structure may be disposed in the top 104 of the exercise platform 100 with the cable 106 run through the fairlead 124.” See paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claim 17:
Rubin discloses a method (In another aspect of the present disclosure a method of operating an exercise device is provided.” See paragraph [0012]) of controlling a motor (motor 302) of a strength machine (exercise platform 100), the method comprising: receiving information captured by a movement sensor of a handle of the strength machine (“For example, in certain implementations, a potentiometer or encoder may be mounted internally near the motor 1131 of the dynamic force module 1104 and an accelerometer may be disposed within a handle or grip coupled to the cable.” See paragraph [0099]); receiving information captured by a torque sensor of a motor of the strength machine that is coupled to the handle (“Such sensors may include, without limitation, one or more of encoders, potentiometers, resolvers, temperature sensors, voltage and/or current sensors, tachometers, Hall Effect sensors, torque sensors, strain gauges, and any other sensor that may be used to monitor characteristics of the motor 1131 and its performance.” See paragraph [0109]); comparing the information captured by a movement sensor of a handle to the information captured by a torque sensor of a motor (“For example, in certain implementations, the reactive force provided by the dynamic force module may vary depending on the position, speed, or acceleration applied by the user as measured by various sensors, including those integrated in the motor.” See paragraph [0089]); and applying a closed loop control scheme (system controller 1102) to a current operation of the motor based on the comparison (“In another example, the dynamic force module may operate at a nominal reactive force but may then increase or decrease the reactive force in response to the user speeding up or slowing down movement, respectively, to encourage the user to perform an exercise at an optimal speed.” See paragraph [0089]).
Regarding claim 18:
Rubin discloses the method of claim 17, wherein comparing the information captured by a movement sensor of a handle to the information captured by a torque sensor of a motor includes determining that a movement of the motor is misaligned with an expected movement of the handle (“In the Spot state 1208, the dynamic force module may lessen the force required to complete the current movement up to and including removing all loading entirely. By doing so, the dynamic force module assists the user in completing the current repetition and/or safely returning to the home position.” See paragraph [0121]. The examiner notes that the expected movement of the handle in the previous example would be the user being able to complete the exercise under the current load, since the system recognizes that that state is not being met and then reduces/removes the load accordingly that is the system determining that the movement of the motor is not aligned with the expected movement of the handle.).
Regarding claim 20:
Rubin discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the handle is coupled to the motor via a cable (cable 106), and wherein applying a closed loop control scheme (“In general, the feedback mechanisms are communicatively coupled to one or more dynamic force modules such that the feedback mechanisms may be used within a control loop for controlling the dynamic force modules and providing feedback to the user.” See paragraph [0145]) to a current operation of the motor based on the comparison includes modifying the current operation of the motor to reduce slack introduced to the cable via a movement of the handle (“In yet another implementation, the dynamic force module may include control algorithms that limit or otherwise control movement of the cable/drum such that the cable does not go slack.” See paragraph [0136].)
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) 2, 9, and 11-16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. US 20190344123 A1, and further in view of Neuhaus US 20230103725 A1.
Rubin teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 2:
Rubin teaches the exercise machine of claim 1, wherein the motor is associated with a torque sensor (“Such sensors may include, without limitation, one or more of encoders, potentiometers, resolvers, temperature sensors, voltage and/or current sensors, tachometers, Hall Effect sensors, torque sensors, strain gauges, and any other sensor that may be used to monitor characteristics of the motor 1131 and its performance.” See paragraph [0109]).
Rubin fails to teach wherein the attachment includes an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and wherein the closed loop control system controls operation of the exercise machine based on a comparison of the data captured by the IMU and the torque sensor.
Neuhaus, however, teaches an exercise apparatus including a first cable, a first motor configured to apply a tension to the first cable, a pair of pulleys, and a terminal (See abstract), and further teaches wherein the attachment includes an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (“the bar 408 includes one or more inertial measurement units (inertial sensors, accelerometers, gyroscopes, etc.) configured sense movement of the bar 408.” See paragraph [0054]) and wherein the closed loop control system controls operation of the exercise machine based on a comparison of the data captured by the IMU and the torque sensor (“The inertial measurement units can be communicable with a controller (e.g., wirelessly) for the first motor 112 and the second motor 114 for use in controlling the first motor 112 and the second motor 114 based on the tracked pose of the bar 408.” See paragraph [0054]).
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 handle of Rubin to include an inertial measurement unit, and to have the control system execute operations based on the data from the inertial measurement unit sensor(s) and the sensors of the motor as taught by Neuhaus as Rubin already includes sensors in the handle, and using the motion data of the handle combined with the data from sensors for the motor would allow for more precise control over the force modules of Rubin.
Regarding claim 9:
Rubin teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium whose contents, when executed by a control system of a strength machine (“It will be appreciated that machine-readable media may include any tangible non-transitory medium that is capable of storing or encoding instructions to perform any one or more of the operations of the present disclosure for execution by a machine or that is capable of storing or encoding data structures and/or modules utilized by or associated with such instructions.” See paragraph [0179]), causes the strength machine to perform a method of controlling operations of a resistance mechanism (dynamic force module 300) of the strength machine (In another aspect of the present disclosure a method of operating an exercise device is provided.” See paragraph [0012]), the method comprising: determining that the captured movement information indicates an abnormal movement of the handle with respect to a motor (motor 302) of the strength machine that is coupled to the handle via a cable (cable 106. “In the Spot state 1208, the dynamic force module may lessen the force required to complete the current movement up to and including removing all loading entirely. By doing so, the dynamic force module assists the user in completing the current repetition and/or safely returning to the home position.” See paragraph [0121]. The examiner notes that the normal movement of the handle in the previous example would be the user being able to complete the exercise under the current load, since the system recognizes that that state is not being met and then reduces/removes the load accordingly that is the system determining that the movement of the handle with respect to the motor is abnormal.); and adjusting operation of the motor based on the determination (“In particular, the system controller 1102 may receive readings and data from the force sensors 1107, the power system 1110, the dynamic force module 1104 (including the motor system 1130 thereof) and/or other sensors of the system 1100 and provide commands to direct various functions of the exercise platform 1101.” See paragraph [0097]).
Rubin fails to teach capturing movement information associated with a handle of the strength machine by one or more inertial measurement units (IMUs) of the handle.
The examiner notes that Rubin does teach capturing movement information associated with a handle of the strength machine (“For example, in certain implementations, a potentiometer or encoder may be mounted internally near the motor 1131 of the dynamic force module 1104 and an accelerometer may be disposed within a handle or grip coupled to the cable.” See paragraph [0099]), but that the handle includes an inertial measurement unit specifically is not taught.
Neuhaus, however, teaches an exercise apparatus including a first cable, a first motor configured to apply a tension to the first cable, a pair of pulleys, and a terminal (See abstract), and further teaches wherein the attachment includes an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (“the bar 408 includes one or more inertial measurement units (inertial sensors, accelerometers, gyroscopes, etc.) configured sense movement of the bar 408.” See paragraph [0054]).
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 handle of Rubin to include an inertial measurement unit, and to have the control system execute operations based on the data from the inertial measurement unit sensor(s) and the sensors of the motor as taught by Neuhaus as Rubin already includes sensors in the handle, and using the motion data of the handle combined with the data from sensors for the motor would allow for more precise control over the force modules of Rubin during exercise and allow the system to better adapt to the user’s movements.
Regarding claim 11:
Rubin as modified discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the abnormal movement of the handle includes an introduction of slack to the cable that couples the motor to the handle (“In yet another implementation, the dynamic force module may include control algorithms that limit or otherwise control movement of the cable/drum such that the cable does not go slack.” See paragraph [0136].The examiner notes that the control system having controls to eliminate/reduce slack, inherently includes the ability to detect slack in order to execute those functions).
Regarding claim 12:
Rubin as modified discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the abnormal movement of the handle includes an acceleration of the handle that is different than an acceleration of the cable (The examiner notes that paragraph [0131] of Rubin discusses various examples of dynamic force output changes according to the speed of the cable and the speed of the user’s actions. Wherein the user’s actions would be the speed the handle moves, which as discussed previously would be detected by the accelerometer or IMU in the handle, which measures the acceleration of the handle. Paragraph [0131] further discusses how the system executes dynamic force adjustments as a result of the determination that the speed of the handle and the speed of the cable unwinding on the drum/spool are different.) .
Regarding claim 13:
Rubin as modified discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein adjusting operation of the motor based on the determination includes increasing a torque applied to the cable via the motor (“If, however, extension or retraction exceeds 120%, the force output of the dynamic force module is increased proportionately up to double the level of the constant force output in order to encourage the user to slow his or her movement.” See paragraph [0131]).
Regarding claim 14:
Rubin as modified discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein adjusting operation of the motor based on the determination includes decreasing a torque applied to the cable via the motor (“Similarly, if the extension or retraction falls below 40%, the force output of the dynamic force module may be proportionately decreased to encourage the user to speed up his or her movement.” See paragraph [0131]).
Regarding claim 15:
Rubin as modified discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein adjusting operation of the motor based on the determination includes modifying a load applied to the motor (See paragraph [0131] which discusses various examples of the system adjusting a force output of the motor, which is a load applied by the motor being changed.).
Regarding claim 16:
Rubin as modified discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein determining that the captured movement information indicates an abnormal movement of the handle with respect to a motor (motor 302) of the strength machine that is coupled to the handle via a cable (cable 106) includes comparing the captured movement information to rotation information captured by a torque sensor of the motor (“Such sensors may include, without limitation, one or more of encoders, potentiometers, resolvers, temperature sensors, voltage and/or current sensors, tachometers, Hall Effect sensors, torque sensors, strain gauges, and any other sensor that may be used to monitor characteristics of the motor 1131 and its performance.” See paragraph [0109]. The examiner notes that as discussed above in the rejection of claim 9 the system compares information captured regarding the motor and the handle respectively in order to determine what adjustments to make in each instance).
Claim(s) 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. US 20190344123 A1, and further in view of Nayak et al. US 12350542 B1.
Regarding claim 5:
Rubin teaches the exercise machine of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the closed loop control system controls operation of the exercise machine by: determining that a comparison of the information associated with the movement of the attachment to the information associated with the rotation of the motor indicates the attachment is in a state of free fall; and causing the motor controller to modify a torque applied to the cable by the motor.
The examiner notes that as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Rubin does modify the torque applied to the cable by the motor via a motor controller according to sensor readings during use, but that specifically the attachment being determined to be in a state of free fall is not taught.
Nayak, however, teaches a dynamic cable-actuated resistance training device comprises a base having first and second side pods at opposite ends of the base (See abstract), and further teaches that the attachment being determined to be in a state of free fall (“If the bar 116 or a handle 114 is dropped at high force, the motor achieves high enough speed while the cable is being spooled in such that the available torque (and hence the available force) drops significantly, which makes the exercise device 102 inherently safer compared to dropping a heavy barbell. Additionally, a current shutoff can be set to trigger if the speed of the motor exceeds a certain limit, indicating that the bar 116 or a handle 114 has been dropped.” See col. 13 lines 5-12. The examiner notes that if the bar is dropped it is in free-fall).
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 system of Rubin to be able to detect that the attachment/handle is in a state of free fall as taught by Nayak, in order to reduce the chance of injury for the user or damage to the exercise machine, as being able to detect drops of the handle/attachment increases the safety of the exercise system.
Regarding claim 19:
Rubin teaches the method of claim 17, but fails to teach wherein comparing the information captured by a movement sensor of a handle to the information captured by a torque sensor of a motor includes determining that the handle is in a state of free fall.
The examiner notes that as discussed above in the rejection of claim 17, Rubin does compare the sensor readings during use, but that specifically the handle being determined to be in a state of free fall is not taught.
Nayak, however, teaches a dynamic cable-actuated resistance training device comprises a base having first and second side pods at opposite ends of the base (See abstract), and further teaches that the handle being determined to be in a state of free fall (“If the bar 116 or a handle 114 is dropped at high force, the motor achieves high enough speed while the cable is being spooled in such that the available torque (and hence the available force) drops significantly, which makes the exercise device 102 inherently safer compared to dropping a heavy barbell. Additionally, a current shutoff can be set to trigger if the speed of the motor exceeds a certain limit, indicating that the bar 116 or a handle 114 has been dropped.” See col. 13 lines 5-12. The examiner notes that if the bar is dropped it is in free-fall).
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 system of Rubin to be able to detect that the attachment/handle is in a state of free fall as taught by Nayak, in order to reduce the chance of injury for the user or damage to the exercise machine, as being able to detect drops of the handle/attachment increases the safety of the exercise system.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. US 20190344123 A1, and further in view of Potash et al. US 5476428 A.
Rubin teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 8:
Rubin teaches the exercise machine of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising: a servo coupled to the motor, wherein the closed loop control system applies a control scheme to apply a load to the motor via the servo based on a comparison of the information associated with the movement of the attachment to the information associated with the rotation of the motor.
The examiner notes that Rubin does teach wherein the closed loop control system applies a control scheme to apply a load to the motor based on a comparison of the information associated with the movement of the attachment to the information associated with the rotation of the motor, but that specifically a servo coupled to the motor, and that the load applied to the motor is via a servo is not taught.
Potash, however, teaches an attachment to a weight stack type exercise machine, for generating greater exercise resistance when the weight stack is moving in one direction, corresponding to eccentric muscle movements, than when the stack is moving in the opposite direction, corresponding to concentric muscle movements(See col. 1 lines 12-17), and further teaches a servo coupled to the motor (“A particular motor/servo amplifier combination can be characterized by a maximum short term acceleration/deceleration rate” See col. 12 lines 48-49), and that the load applied to the motor is via a servo (“The output control signal voltage of the enable circuit 210 is fed via line 215 to the servo amplifier 211, which converts this control signal to the necessary motor drive signal; which motor drive signal is coupled to the motor 109 via line 216.” See col. 9 lines 29-33).
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 motor of Rubin to include a servo in combination with/ included in the motor as taught by Potash, as a servo/motor combination allows for more precise control over the force module of the system, and would allow for the controller to make more precise adjustments to the output of the motor in response to the user’s actions.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. US 20190344123 A1 in view of Neuhaus US 20230103725 A1, and further in view of Nayak et al. US 12350542 B1.
Rubin as modified teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 10:
Rubin as modified teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, but fails to teach wherein the abnormal movement of the handle includes a free fall movement of the handle.
Nayak, however, teaches a dynamic cable-actuated resistance training device comprises a base having first and second side pods at opposite ends of the base (See abstract), and further teaches that the abnormal movement of the handle includes a free fall movement (“If the bar 116 or a handle 114 is dropped at high force, the motor achieves high enough speed while the cable is being spooled in such that the available torque (and hence the available force) drops significantly, which makes the exercise device 102 inherently safer compared to dropping a heavy barbell. Additionally, a current shutoff can be set to trigger if the speed of the motor exceeds a certain limit, indicating that the bar 116 or a handle 114 has been dropped.” See col. 13 lines 5-12. The examiner notes that if the bar is dropped it is in free-fall).
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 system of Rubin to be able to detect that the attachment/handle is in a state of free fall as taught by Nayak, in order to reduce the chance of injury for the user or damage to the exercise machine, as being able to detect drops of the handle/attachment increases the safety of the exercise system.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of the record has not been relied upon but has been found to be pertinent to the content of the applicant’s disclosure:
Huber US 20240009522 A1: Device for Applying a Load to Exercise Equipment, which teaches a device for applying a load to an exercise equipment (1) comprising driving means (2), control means (3) adapted to control the driving means (2), attachment means (4) adapted to attach the device to the exercise equipment (1), and connection means (5) connecting the driving means (2) to the attachment means (4), wherein the device comprises a load sensor (6), wherein the load sensor (6) is adapted to measure the load applied to the exercise equipment (1) by the driving means (2), and wherein the load sensor (6) is connected to the control means (3).
PNG
media_image5.png
348
520
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ferlito et al. US 20230009699 A1: Electromechanical Exercise Machine, which teaches an electro-mechanical displacement exercise apparatus for processing a maximum force potential of an athlete, including a frame a frame including a platform, wherein a section of the platform is connected to a tower, whereby the tower houses control means for manipulating a tension supporting member connected to a force bearing member, a first pull location, whereby the first pull location is positioned on the platform and within the frame and whereby the first pull location is operatively connected with a portion of the tension supporting member, whereby a user may exert a force on the tension supporting member operatively connected to a first actuator; and wherein the first actuator is housed within the tower, and whereby the first actuator includes a motor coupled to a gearbox.
PNG
media_image6.png
436
492
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Valente et al. US 20220184452 A1: Floor-Based Exercise Machine Configurations, which teaches an exercise system including an exercise platform comprising an internal motor coupled to a cable exiting the exercise platform via a portal in an exit direction to transmit force to a remote handle.
PNG
media_image7.png
516
296
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 at (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