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. In addition, acknowledgement is made to the instant applications status as a 371 of PCT/CN2023/075649, and therefore the earliest date of priority of 08/31/2022 is granted to the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “end face of the single iron core,…, is an arcuate surface” as claimed in dependent claim 2, and the “positioning installation part” of dependent claim 7, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-10 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, “wherein the distance L from a center of the electromagnetic resistance module to a center of the damping wheel is less than the distance M from an inner surface of the damping wheel to the damping wheel's center; a difference between M and L is a fixed value” on lines 6-8. The distances represented by the variable L and M respectively are not defined by the specification. In addition, the limitation that the difference between M and L is a fixed value is undefined as this could be any value since a rigid structure will only have fixed value measurements when constructed.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein a positional tolerance between the countersunk holes and an axis of the bearing position does not exceed α” on lines 1-3. The specification does state that α cannot exceed 0.05, however this value of 0.05 is undefined as no units of measurement are presented and therefore it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the limitation are, as the tolerance could be measured in millimeters, inches, feet etc.
In addition, claim 6 recites the limitation, “a positional tolerance between the countersunk holes and an outer arc surface of the single iron core does not exceed β” on lines 3-4. The specification does state that β cannot exceed 0.05, however this value of 0.05 is undefined as no units of measurement are presented and therefore it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the limitation are, as the tolerance could be measured in millimeters, inches, feet etc.
Dependent claims 2-5, and 7-10 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) 1-4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins III et al. US 9999818 B2, and further in view of Lin US 7732961 B2.
Regarding claim 1:
Hawkins teaches an embedded single-core variable resistance cycling platform, characterized in that the embedded single-core variable resistance cycling platform comprises: a main beam (main frame member 28) with a belt pulley (pulley 16) installed on the main beam's top (See figure 1); a damping wheel (flywheel 48) connected to the belt pulley via a small belt pulley (flywheel pulley 74) and a belt (belt 76); an electromagnetic resistance module connected to the main beam using a fixed component (“The fixed internal components of the flywheel assembly 68 may include a plurality of electromagnetic members 105 mounted on a core 92, and provide a magnetic flywheel brake” See col. 7 lines 40-44); wherein the distance L from a center of the electromagnetic resistance module to a center of the damping wheel is less than the distance M from an inner surface of the damping wheel to the damping wheel's center; a difference between M and L is a fixed value (The examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, and that the specification of the instant application states, in paragraph [0049], “The difference between M and L is a fixed value, meaning the electromagnetic resistance module 700 is positioned inside the damping wheel 200, as shown in Figure 3.” Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, with no further structural or functional limitation the core of Hawkins being positioned inside the damping wheel as depicted in figure 8 is being considered as fulfilling the requirements of the claimed L and M distances.)
Hawkins fails to teach the electromagnetic resistance module comprises a single iron core coil. The examiner notes that Hawkins does teach that there is only a single core within the flywheel assembly, but it fails to teach that it is a single iron core coil.
Lin, however, teaches a combined generator with built-in eddy-current magnetic resistance including a rotor and a stator iron core with generating coils winding therearound (See abstract) and further teaches that the electromagnetic resistance module comprises a single iron core coil (stator iron core 50, “The stator iron core 50 includes current-generating coils 51 on an external circumference thereof.” See col. 4 lines 42-43).
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 core of Hawkins to be a single iron core coil as taught by Lin, as the iron core creates a stronger electromagnetic field and more control over the energy storage and release.
Regarding claim 2:
Hawkins as modified discloses the embedded single-core variable resistance cycling platform of claim 1, wherein an end face of the single iron core, which is farthest from a central axis of the damping wheel, is an arcuate surface (See figure 8 where the core is depicted as being circular and therefore both inner and out end faces are arcuate. The examiner notes that due to the lack of direction from the drawings, see drawing objection above, that col. 7 lines 46-48 discuss that the core has an annular body and defines six T-Shaped portions 94, and that as depicted all of the structures have arcuate shapes).
Regarding claim 3:
Hawkins as modified teaches the embedded single-core variable resistance cycling platform of claim 2 but fails to teach wherein the damping wheel has a bearing position, a center of which is concentric with a center of an inner circle of the damping wheel and a center of the circle formed by the arcuate surface.
The examiner notes that Hawkins does teach a flywheel axle 72 placed centrally in the damping wheel as depicted in figure 8, and that while the claim requires a bearing position, no bearings have been claimed, however, Hawkins does not teach bearings in any case so it would not be proper to consider the central position where the axle is held to be a bearing position.
Lin, however, teaches a combined generator with built-in eddy-current magnetic resistance including a rotor and a stator iron core with generating coils winding therearound (See abstract) and further teaches wherein the damping wheel has a bearing position, a center of which is concentric with a center of an inner circle of the damping wheel and a center of the circle formed by the arcuate surface (“According to the embodiment, the bearing unit includes a unidirectional bearing 42 mounted on a middle section 41 of the rotational shaft 40 having a greater diameter and two ball bearings 43 mounted on a section adjacent to both sides of the middle section 41.” See col.4 lines 37-41 and figure 3).
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 central axle of Hawkins to have a bearing position as taught by Lin, as the damping wheel can rotate around the axle and if a bearing needed to be included to increase the ease of movement of the wheel it would not need further modifications to be added.
Regarding claim 4:
Hawkins as modified discloses the embedded single-core variable resistance cycling platform of claim 3, wherein the fixed component comprises a positioning part (torque bracket 106) and a connecting part (mounting plate 102); the connecting part is clearance-fitted with the positioning part and the single iron core (“While the mounting plate 102 is rotationally mounted, it is rotationally fixed by a torque bracket 106 connected between the main frame member 28 and the mounting plate 102.” See col. 8 lines 5-8, where the examiner notes that the mounting plate is fixed around the torque bracket to then be mounted to the main beam).
Regarding claim 7:
Hawkins as modified teaches the embedded single-core variable resistance cycling platform of claim 4, wherein the single iron core is an axially symmetric structure (See annotated figure 8 where the lines depicted vertical and horizontal axes and show that the core 92 is symmetrical); but fails to teach the single iron core comprises a winding part and a positioning installation part; the winding part is located at a center of the positioning installation part and is wound with a coil; a shape of the positioning installation part matches a shape of the positioning part.
Lin, however, teaches a combined generator with built-in eddy-current magnetic resistance including a rotor and a stator iron core with generating coils winding therearound (See abstract) and further teaches the single iron core comprises a winding part (solenoid 80) and a positioning installation part (receiving portion 55.The examiner notes that due to the lack of direction from the drawings, see drawing objections above, and since there is no description for the positioning installation part other than a repetition of the claim language the receiving portions of Lin which are shaped to receive the coiled solenoids 80 and hold them in place to generate the magnetic resistance is being considered as the positioning installation part.); the winding part is located at a center of the positioning installation part (See figure 3A) and is wound with a coil (“The design of the built-in eddy-current magnetic resistance of the invention ensures that the iron core of the current-generating coils 51 and the solenoids 80 are integrally formed as the stator iron core 50.” See col.6 lines 50-53); a shape of the positioning installation part matches a shape of the positioning part (the examiner notes that due to the lack of direction from the drawings, see drawing objection above, that as stated in MPEP chapter 2144.04, section IV., subsection B, merely changing the shape of a structure does not create a patentably distinct invention. Furthermore, the positioning part is a squared bracket as discussed and depicted above, and the receiving portions of Lin are also squared and therefore they have matching shapes.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the iron core of Hawkins to include a winding part and a positioning installation part as taught by Lin, as this would allow the device to have a smaller construction since the electromagnetic resistance generating structures would be housed within the core and damping wheel structure allowing for a more compact construction of the device as a whole.
Claim(s) 5-6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins III et al. US 9999818 B2, in view of Lin US 7732961 B2, and further in view of Gibson et al US 10391348 B2.
Hawkins as modified teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 5:
Hawkins as modified teaches the embedded single-core variable resistance cycling platform of claim 4 but fails to teach wherein the positioning part has multiple countersunk holes.
Gibson, however, teaches an adjustable resistance system for use with an indoor cycle comprising a magnetic resistance assembly, a friction brake assembly, and a resistance adjustment assembly (See abstract), and further teaches wherein the positioning part has multiple countersunk holes (“Holes 44 may be counter-sunk to allow the heads of screws 46 to fit flush with the counter-sunk area of holes 44 such that the outer right surface of lip 40 is smooth and free of sharp edges.” See col.17 lines 49-52). In addition, Gibson teaches wherein a positional tolerance between the countersunk holes and an axis of the bearing position does not exceed α (The examiner notes that paragraph [0067] of the instant application’s specification states that α is 0.05, however no units are used to define this ideal tolerance as noted in the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) presented above. Furthermore, placing a hole or drilling it in such a way to get a desired tolerance amounts to no more than routine optimization, which as stated in MPEP chapter 2144.05, section II. subsection A., routine optimization through routine experimentation does not create a patentably distinct invention. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural or functional limitations, the countersunk holes of Gibson are being considered to have a positional tolerance to the axis of the bearing position not exceeding α.); a positional tolerance between the countersunk holes and an outer arc surface of the single iron core does not exceed β (The examiner notes that paragraph [0068] of the instant application’s specification states that β is 0.05, however no units are used to define this ideal tolerance as noted in the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) presented above. Furthermore, placing a hole or drilling it in such a way to get a desired tolerance amounts to no more than routine optimization, which, as stated in MPEP chapter 2144.05, section II. subsection A., routine optimization through routine experimentation does not create a patentably distinct invention. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural or functional limitations, the countersunk holes of Gibson are being considered to have a positional tolerance to the outer arc surface of the single iron core not exceeding β.); and wherein the connecting part is a positioning bolt, and a bottom of the countersunk hole has threads that match the positioning bolt (“Holes 44 may be counter-sunk to allow the heads of screws 46 to fit flush with the counter-sunk area of holes 44 such that the outer right surface of lip 40 is smooth and free of sharp edges. While FIG. 23 shows the use of six screws 46 utilized to secure the inner radial element 34 within the outer radial element 32, other numbers of screws may be used. In addition, other fastening methods such as welding, rivets, clamps, clips or other fastening methods maybe used to secure these elements together.” See col. 17 lines 49-58. The examiner notes that the only difference between a screw and a bolt is that a bolt requires a nut in order to be fastened, and that while a nut is not claimed nor depicted the fact that Gibson mentions that other conventional fasteners can be used, shows that a bolt can be the connecting part.).
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 positioning part to have multiple countersunk holes, whose positions are within a desired tolerance relative to the other structures of the device and to use bolts to fasten the structures together as taught by Gibson, as this would allow for more secure fastening of the structures to both each other, and the main frame structure, and countersinking the holes would allow the fasteners to sit more flush against the surfaces removing any chance of structures imp[leading movement of each other when the fasteners are used.
Regarding claim 6:
Hawkins as modified by Gibson teaches the embedded single-core variable resistance cycling platform of claim 5, wherein a positional tolerance between the countersunk holes and an axis of the bearing position does not exceed α(See rejection of claim 5); a positional tolerance between the countersunk holes and an outer arc surface of the single iron core does not exceed β (See rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 8:
Hawkins as modified teaches the embedded single-core variable resistance cycling platform of claim 4 but fails to teach wherein the positioning part is welded and fixed to the main beam.
Gibson, however, teaches an adjustable resistance system for use with an indoor cycle comprising a magnetic resistance assembly, a friction brake assembly, and a resistance adjustment assembly (See abstract), and further teaches wherein the positioning part is welded and fixed to the main beam (“Pivot block 440 may be formed of any suitably strong material such as steel, aluminum or other materials, and may be secured to frame 14 with bolts, welding, or other suitable fastening methods.” See col. 19 lines 31-34).
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 cycling platform of Hawkins to weld the positioning part to the main beam as taught by Gibson, as welding the positioning part to the beam would create a strong permanent bond between the structures, and would eliminate any chance of unwanted movement of the positioning part during use.
Regarding claim 9:
Hawkins as modified by Gibson teaches the embedded single-core variable resistance cycling platform of claim 5, wherein the connecting part is a positioning bolt, and a bottom of the countersunk hole has threads that match the positioning bolt (See rejection of claim 5).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins III et al. US 9999818 B2, in view of Lin US 7732961 B2, and further in view of Yu et al. CN 211863687 U.
Hawkins as modified teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 10:
Hawkins as modified teaches the embedded single-core variable resistance cycling platform of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein an outer side of the damping wheel is equipped with a heat dissipation cover to dissipate heat generated by the electromagnetic resistance module and the damping wheel.
Yu, however, teaches the utility model relates to the technical field of riding table, specifically claims an intelligent riding table with electromagnetic resistance, comprising a main beam frame, an inertia wheel, an electromagnet core and a transmission device (See abstract), and further teaches wherein an outer side of the damping wheel is equipped with a heat dissipation cover (heat dissipation aluminum shell 6) to dissipate heat generated by the electromagnetic resistance module and the damping wheel (“By providing a heat-dissipating aluminum shell 6 on the outside of the electromagnet core 3, the electromagnet core 3 can be dissipated, and the heat-dissipating aluminum shell 6 has a multilayer sheet structure to increase its heat dissipation effect, thereby ensuring the use of the electromagnet core 3.” See page 4 of the translated description.)
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 damping wheel of Hawkins to have a heat dissipation cover as taught by Yu, as this would prevent the magnetic resistance from overheating and causing inaccuracies to the performance of the device since heat would affect the electromagnet’s performance and responses to control inputs.
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:
Chen US 20210106863 A1: Electromagnetic Resistance Feedback System for Bicycle Training Device, which teaches an electromagnetic resistance feedback bicycle training device including a bicycle trainer frame, an electricity generator, and a resistance feedback system. The electricity generator and the resistance feedback system are mounted on the bicycle trainer frame.
Lee et al. US 20100069205 A1: Magnetic Resistance Device for Exerciser, which teaches a magnetic resistance device for an exerciser including a flywheel rotatably attached to a base with a spindle, a number of magnetic members attached to an outer peripheral rim of the flywheel, a carrier attached to the base, a magnetic attractive arm having one end attached to the carrier, and a handle actuatable cable coupled to the other end of the magnetic attractive arm for pivoting and moving the magnetic attractive arm toward and away from the magnetic members and the flywheel and for adjusting a magnetic retarding force applied to the flywheel, and for allowing the heat generated by the magnetic members to be easily and quickly dissipated.
Hsu US 6084325 A: Brake Device with a Combination of Power-Generating and Eddy-Current Magnetic Resistance, which teaches a brake device with a combination of power-generating and eddy-current magnetic resistance having an outer ]-shaped fly wheel fastened on a central axle of a frame and fitted with a permanent magnet on the inner circular edge to form a rotor type, and the fly wheel is connected with a stator core fastened on the frame; moreover, one end of the central axle is stretching out of the frame and fitted with a belt wheel; the front end of the frame is fitted with a brake core adjacent to the outer edge of the fly wheel to supply a planned eddy current magnetic resistance to the fly wheel; in accordance with such design, the device generates power by means of the exercise force of users to drive the fly wheel to rotate.
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