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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “1121” denoting a “linkage handle” (see pg. 8 line 21 of the original specification). 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “1122” in Fig. 4C. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “weight-bearing element” and “holding element” in claim 1. In these claim limitations, the term “element” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language of “weight-bearing” and “holding”, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to the specification, “weight-bearing element” has a corresponding structure(s) of: bumper plates, and equivalents thereof; and the “holding element” has a corresponding structure(s) of: linkage handle, a left and right handles, connecting rods, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalebout et al. (US 2006/0035755 A1) in view of Romero (US 2019/0070463 A1) and Chen (US 2009/0049950 A1). s
Regarding claim 1, Dalebout teaches an adjustable active and passive exercise training equipment for upper limb weight-bearing in an upright position (100, Fig. 1A-1B), comprising:
an upper limb weight-bearing device (106) comprising a resistance assembly (118) and a holding element (142a-d, Figs. 1A-1B and 9A-9B, ¶ [43], i.e., left and right handles 142c and 142d/142b (Interpreted under 112(f))) connected to the resistance assembly (118, Fig. 1A-1B and 9A-9B), the holding element being configured to be held by a user to apply force to the weight-bearing element (Fig. 1B); and
a pedal device (104) connected to the upper limb weight-bearing device (Figs. 1A-1B and 9A-9B), the pedal device further comprising a plurality of pedals (as shown below) for the user to place the user's feet thereon (Figs. 1A), the pedals being configured to move along at least one direction (Figs. 1A).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pedals
(the colored portions below))]
PNG
media_image1.png
610
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is Office’s position that Dalebout teaches a weight-bearing element, as interpreted under 112(f), since Dalebout teaches that any number of strength training systems such as weight stacks, coil spring, shocks, elastomeric bands, etc., may be substituted for the pulley and cable resistance system (see ¶ [88] of the specification). As such, it would have been obvious in view of Dalebout’s teachings to modify Dalebout’s invention to use weight stacks (weight-bearing element). However, if Applicant is not in agreement with the Office’s position, such limitation is taught by Romero.
Regarding claim 1, Romero teaches an exercise training equipment comprising: an upper limb weight-bearing device (24/44) comprising a weight-bearing element (weight stacks 26 (under 112(f) interpretation), Figs. 5-14) and a holding element (left and right handles 30 (under 112(f) interpretation), Figs. 5-14) connected to the weight-bearing element (26),the holding element being configured to be held by a user to apply force to the weight-bearing element (Figs. 5-14); and a pedal device (22/46/32, Figs. 5-14, abstract) connected to the upper limb weight-bearing device, the pedal device further comprising a plurality of pedals for the user to place the user’s feet thereon (Figs. 5-14), the pedals being configured to move along at least one direction (i.e., 20, Figs. 5-14).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify Dalebout’s invention to use weight stacks as the weight-bearing element as taught by Romero in order to provide for a resistance unit that is easily adjustable by a user, trainer or physician.
Dalebout in view of Romero is silent about the pedals being configured to change a pedaling angle.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a pedal device comprising a pedal (i.e. 5 (attached to the support plate 4), Fig. 3, ¶ [13]) that is configured to change a pedaling angle (Figs. 4-6, upon modification of Dalebout’s invention in view of Romero with features of Chen, both pedals would be configured to change a pedaling angle).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify Dalebout’s invention in view of Romero wherein the pedals are configured to change a pedaling angle, as taught by Chen in order to enable use of the device for various users with different body conditions and rehabilitation purposes.
Regarding claim 2, Dalebout in view of Romero and Chen teaches wherein the pedal device further comprises a plurality of slide rail structures (Dalebout: 108a on both sides, each having a groove, are considered slide rail structures, ¶ [39]), the pedals are connected to the slide rail structures respectively (Dalebout: Figs. 1A and 3), the slide rail structures extend along the at least one direction respectively (Dalebout: Figs. 1A and 3), and the pedals move along the at least one direction through the slide rail structures (Dalebout: Figs. 1A and 3, ¶ [39]).
Regarding claim 4, Dalebout in view of Romero and Chen teaches wherein the pedal device further comprises a linkage bar structure (as shown below) connected to the pedals (Dalebout: Fig. 1A, see below), and the pedals move along the at least one direction through the linkage bar structure (Dalebout: Fig. 1A).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Linkage bars)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pedals
(the colored portions below))]
PNG
media_image1.png
610
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Dalebout in view of Romero and Chen teaches wherein the pedal device further comprises at least one angle adjustment component (Chen: 4 with 6 and 43, ¶ [13]-[15]) connected to the pedals respectively (Dalebout teaches two pedals (see Fig. 1A above); Chen: Figs. 3-6), and the pedals are configured to change the pedaling angle through the at least one angle adjustment component (Chen: Figs. 4-6, ¶ [13]-[15], upon modification of Dalebout’s invention in view of Romero with features of Chen, both pedals would be configured to change a pedaling angle).
Regarding claim 8, Dalebout in view of Romero and Chen teaches wherein the upper limb weight-bearing device further comprises a rope and at least one pulley (Dalebout: Figs. 1A and 6B, ¶ [43]; Romero: pulley system 28, Figs. 7-14, ¶ [31], [42], [68]-[69]), the rope is configured to connect the weight-bearing element and the holding element (Dalebout: Figs. 1A and 6B, ¶ [43]; Romero: Figs. 7-14, ¶ [31], [42], [68]-[69]), and the rope changes a direction of the force applied to the weight-bearing element through the at least one pulley (Dalebout: Figs. 1A and 6B, ¶ [43]; Romero: Figs. 7-14, ¶ [31], [42], [68]-[69]).
Regarding claim 9, Dalebout in view of Romero and Chen teaches wherein the holding element comprises a linkage handle (Dalebout: 142a-d, Figs. 1A-1B and 6B).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalebout in view of Romero and Chen as applied to claims 1-2 and 4 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (CN 116832397 A, a copy of translation of this document has been provided with this Office Action. The cited paragraphs are with respect to the translation).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Dalebout in view of Romero and Chen teaches the pedals moving along the at least one direction through the slide rail structures/linkage bar structure (Dalebout: Figs. 1A (as shown above) and 3, ¶ [39]).
Dalebout in view of Romero and Chen is silent about wherein the pedal device further comprises at least one controller and at least one motor connected to the at least one controller, and the at least one motor is connected to the pedals, wherein the at least one controller is configured to control the at least one motor to drive the pedals moving along the at least one direction.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Zheng teaches a training equipment comprising: a holding element (11, (interpreted under 112(f)), Fig. 2) and a pedal device comprising a plurality of pedals (pedals 8, each connected to a rocker arm 4, Figs. 1-3), wherein the pedal device comprises at least one controller and at least one motor connected to the at least one controller, and the at least one motor is connected to the pedals, wherein the at least one controller is configured to control the at least one motor to drive the pedals moving along at least one direction according to a force applied by the user to the holding element (¶ [8], [28], [33]; upon modification of Dalebout’s invention in view of Romero and Chen, the at least one motor is controlled to drive the pedals (as taught by Zheng) moving along that least one direction through the slide rail structures/linkage bar structure (as taught by Dalebout)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify Dalebout’s invention in view of Romero and Chen wherein the pedal device further comprises at least one controller and at least one motor connected to the at least one controller, and the at least one motor is connected to the pedals, wherein the at least one controller is configured to control the at least one motor to drive the pedals moving along the at least one direction as taught by Zheng in order to provide balanced rehabilitation to each of the lower limbs of the user according to the upper limbs of the corresponding side of the user.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalebout in view of Romero and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moschel (US 9,993,683 B2).
Dalebout in view of Romero and Chen is silent about wherein the upper limb weight-bearing device further comprises a lever structure connected to the weight-bearing element and the holding element, and the lever structure is configured to change a direction of the force applied to the weight-bearing element.
Regarding claim 7, Moschel teaches an exercise training equipment comprising an upper limb weight-bearing device and a pedal device (Figs. 1B-2C, 5B-7D and 9A-10C), wherein the upper limb weight-bearing device further comprises a lever structure (106/206/510/610/710/906, 1006) connected to the weight-bearing element (111/208/511/611/711/908/1008) and the holding element (handles held by user as shown in Figs. 1B-2C, 5B-7D and 9A-10C), and the lever structure is configured to change a direction of the force applied to the weight-bearing element (Figs. 1B-2C, 5B-7D and 9A-10C).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify Dalebout’s invention in view of Romero and Chen wherein the upper limb weight-bearing device further comprises a lever structure connected to the weight-bearing element and the holding element, and the lever structure is configured to change a direction of the force applied to the weight-bearing element as taught by Moschel in order to provide for various designs of the training equipment to accommodate various users and their fitness and/or rehabilitation needs.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalebout in view of Romero and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Young (US 2006/0019804 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Dalebout in view of Romero and Chen teaches wherein the holding element further comprises a left handle (Dalebout: 142d, Fig. 1A) and a right handle (Dalebout: 142c, Fig. 1A).
Dalebout in view of Romero and Chen is silent about wherein the weight-bearing element comprises a left weight-bearing element and a right weight-bearing element, the left handle is connected to the left weight-bearing element and the right handle is connected to the right weight-bearing element.
Regarding claim 10, Young teaches an exercise training equipment comprising: an upper limb weight-bearing device comprising a weight-bearing element (22, Fig. 1, (as interpreted under 112(f))) and a holding element (36, Fig. 1, (as interpreted under 112(f))), the holding element being configured to be held by a user to apply force to the weight-bearing element (Fig. 1, ¶ [12]-[13]); and a pedal device (bicycle B) connected to the upper limb weight-bearing device (Fig. 1), the pedal device further comprising a plurality of pedals (pedals of the bicycle) for the user to place the user’s feet thereon, the pedals being configured to move along at least one direction (Fig. 1, i.e., rotating clockwise), wherein the holding element further comprises a left handle (36 extending from the left upper limb, Fig. 1) and a right handle (36 extending from the right upper limb, Fig. 1), and the weight-bearing element comprises a left weight-bearing element and a right weight-bearing element (weight stack 22 on the left and weight stack 2 on the right, Fig. 1), the left handle is connected to the left weight-bearing element and the right handle is connected to the right weight-bearing element (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify Dalebout’s invention in view of Romero and Chen wherein the weight-bearing element comprises a left weight-bearing element and a right weight-bearing element, the left handle is connected to the left weight-bearing element and the right handle is connected to the right weight-bearing element, as taught by Young in order to enable a user train each of the left arm and right arm against different resistances and according to his/her fitness and/or rehabilitation needs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 pm.
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.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights