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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alberione (US 2022/0362610, Alber from here on). Alber discloses a mobile-exercise trailer (see figure 1a), comprising:
a platform (1) having at least one exercise equipment (8,12) arranged thereon (see figure 2); two sidewalls (see sidewalls of the trailer in figure 1) that each have a first end joined to the platform,
at least one of the two sidewalls having a window (the opening covered by the doors 16,13,14, see figure 2);
a first door (16,13,14) arranged to cover the window in the at least one sidewall;
a roof (46) attached to a second end of each of the two sidewalls; and
at least a first power rack (see figure 1A and 2 as the power racks extend from all sides of the trailer) configured to retractably extend from one of the two side walls.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (US 2017/0096091). Johnson discloses a mobile-exercise trailer (see figure 3 and 1), comprising:
a platform (floor of the trailer or cargo compartment of the vehicle) having at least one exercise equipment (the weight bar showed in figure 1) arranged thereon;
two sidewalls (see sidewalls of the trailer in figure 3) that each have a first end joined to the platform,
at least one of the two sidewalls having a window (see figure below);
a first door (see figure below) arranged to cover the window in the at least one sidewall;
a roof (133) attached to a second end of each of the two sidewalls; and
at least a first power rack (101) configured to retractably extend from one of the two side walls and roof.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the first door comprises a wing door (see figure below).
Regarding claim 3, further comprising: at least two wheels axially arranged below a portion of the two sidewalls (see figure 3); and a trailer dolly connection (tongue or gooseneck connector or a foldable wheel usually placed on the tongue, see figure 3) extending from a front of the mobile-exercise trailer.
Regarding claim 4, wherein the trailer dolly is manually controlled as the foldable wheel is manually folded.
Regarding claim 5, further comprising a pair of stabilizing jacks (111) arranged below the platform.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the first power rack is pivotable from within the window in the at least one sidewall (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, further comprising a height-adjustable pull-up bar (see figure below) attached to an upper part of the rear of the mobile-exercise trailer.
PNG
media_image1.png
463
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 7,8,14-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Monaco (US 2016/0059104). Regarding claims 7 and 8, Johnson does not mention a monitor and soundbar. However Monaco discloses an exercise trailer with a monitor (see Para. 0027). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson by adding a monitor, or two or three, in order to show work out routines or specific exercises, wherein the monitors can be placed in the sidewalls or the door or the roof, wherever the monitors might be needed. Regarding claim 14, Johnson does not mention a soundbar or speaker, however Monaco discloses speakers (see Para. 0027), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson by adding a soundbar onto the trailer, in order to be able to play music while working out.
Regarding claim 15 and 16, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have the speakers or soundbar be of the exterior type, in order to be able to withstand the elements and weather, wherein the speakers or soundbar can be placed anywhere on the trailer, to include, the door, the window, the sidewalls, under the monitor or monitors.
Regarding claim 20, the manufacturing process of making the trailer disclosed by Johnson when combined with Monaco ends with a trailer with, sidewalls, roof, monitors, doors, window, power rack and at least two wheels.
Claim(s) 12,17,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Calabria (US 2020/0130559). Johnson does not mention a cargo ramp. However, Calabria discloses a mobile fitness device comprising a cargo ramp (32). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson by adding a cargo ramp onto the trailer, in order to be able to carry heavy weights or equipment in and out of the trailer.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Johnson does not mention a strip, hook or ropes to hand equipment. However, Calabria discloses attachment points (37) and a hook to hand a punching bag (36). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson by adding attachment points or strips and a hook and punching bag, in order to hang exercise equipment and a punching bag for exercising, wherein the trailer of Johnson is used as a work out trailer and a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to need hooks, strips, attachment points and a punching bag, for exercising.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Hixson (US 8864207). Johnson does not mention a solar panel and ways to store the power from the solar panel. However, Hixson discloses a trailer with a solar panel (12) and a compartment to store, an inverter (29), a controller (30), batteries (28) (see figure 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson by adding a solar panel with its controller, batteries and inverter, in order to be able to do workouts remotely and, additionally having a way to produce, store and use power when needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marlon A Arce whose telephone number is (571)272-1341. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 4:30PM.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778. 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.
/MARLON A ARCE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/KEVIN HURLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611