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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 filing of International Application PCT/BR2020/050513, filed on 12/03/2020, and claims the benefit of foreign application BR1020199255722, filed on 12/03/2019.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/07/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4, “in selectively slidable manner” should read ---in a selectively slidable manner---
Claim 14, line 4, “at one of its ends” should read ---at one end of the spring element---
Claim 14, line 5, “by its other opposite end” should read ---by an opposite second end of the spring element---
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
The limitation “support means (100B)” in claim 2 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of “a handle or a support projection that projects from profile 100” or equivalents thereof, as defined in paragraph [00125].
The limitation of “at least one attachment means (33)” of claim 6 and “the fastening means (33)” of claims 8-9 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of “any suitable means that are able to fasten to the profile 100” including a “material capable of generating high friction on any portion of the surface of the profile 100,” “a set of elements capable of generating a magnetic field to configure a magnetic attraction between the fastening means 33 and the profile 100,” or “a combination between a pin and a set of friction elements composed of material that generates high friction on a surface of the profile 100” and equivalents thereof, as defined in paragraph [00147]. See also 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below for claims 8-9.
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.
Claims 5 and 8-14 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 5 recites the limitation “the device (1) being configured to selectively attach itself” in lines 5-6. It is unclear if this limitation is stating that the device itself is configured to perform the action of selective attachment or if this limitation should read similar to ---the device (1) configured to be selectively attached---.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the fastening means” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the previously recited at least one attachment means.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a bodybuilding device” in lines 7-8. It is unclear if this limitation is introducing a materially new bodybuilding device or is intended to refer to the previously recited bodybuilding equipment.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the fastening means” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the previously recited at least one attachment means.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a profile” in line 11. It is unclear if this limitation is introducing a materially new profile or is intended to refer to the previously recited profile.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a bodybuilding equipment” in line 11. It is unclear if this limitation is introducing a materially new bodybuilding equipment or is intended to refer to the previously recited bodybuilding equipment.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the support” in line 3. It is unclear which support this limitation is referring to.
Claim 10 recites “a plate” in line 3. However, claim 9 previously introduced a plate associated with each support. It is unclear if the recited plate is introducing a materially new plate or is referring to one of the previously recited plates.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a profile” in line 5. It is unclear if this limitation is introducing a materially new profile or is intended to refer to the previously recited profile.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the lever” in line 3. It is unclear which lever this limitation is referring to.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the plate” in line 4. It is unclear which plate this limitation is referring to.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the support” in line 3. It is unclear which support this limitation is referring to.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the plate” in line 5. It is unclear which plate this limitation is referring to.
Claim 13 recite the limitation “the lever” in line 4. It is unclear which lever this limitation is referring to.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the support” in line 4. It is unclear which support this limitation is referring to.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the plate” in lines 4-5. It is unclear which plate this limitation is referring to.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (US 9,662,529).
Regarding independent claim 1, Miller discloses a bodybuilding apparatus (2) comprising a profile (lever arm 10) with a coupling course (gear tracks 18) on which a weight element (resistance wheel 16) is associated in selectively slidable manner along its linearity (col. 8 lines 41-44, “A knob 22 is also provided on the resistance wheel 16 so that a user may manually vary the position of the resistance wheel 16 along the lever arm 10 and gear tracks 18”), the coupling course of the profile being directly pivotable by a user in relation to any point of the bodybuilding equipment to perform an exercise (col. 8 lines 46-47, “The lever arm 10 rotates about a pivot point 26” and rotatable by a user via handle 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Miller further discloses wherein the direct pivoting of the profile (10) by the user is configured through at least one support means (handle 12, equivalent to the support means as defined by applicant).
Regarding independent claim 3, Miller discloses a bodybuilding apparatus (2) comprising a profile (lever 10) on which a weight element (resistance wheel 16) rests, the weight element being selectively attachable to the profile by means of an action, by the user, that moves at least a portion of the weight element (col. 10 lines 3-9, “a user may pull on the knob 22 which is disposed on the end of the knob lever to manually retract the latch bars 38 within the housing and place the resistance wheel 16 in an unlocked state. Once the cable 20 pulls the disconnect pawl 34 a certain distance, the disconnect pawl releases the pivot arm 34, and the latch bars 38 retract back into the housing”, i.e., a user releasing knob 22 attaches the resistance wheel 16 to the gear tracks 18).
Regarding claim 4, Miller further discloses wherein the weight element (16) is selectively detachable from the profile (10) by repeating the action, or by performing the action in a reverse direction to the direction of carrying out the action for fixing the weight element on the profile (i.e., a user pulling on knob 22 releases resistance wheel 16 from the gear tracks 18).
Regarding independent claim 5, Miller discloses a weight adjustment device (resistance wheel 16) applicable to a bodybuilding equipment (2), wherein said weight adjustment device is configured to be selectively slidable along the linearity of a coupling course (gear tracks 18) of a profile (lever arm 10) of the equipment (col. 8 lines 41-44, “A knob 22 is also provided on the resistance wheel 16 so that a user may manually vary the position of the resistance wheel 16 along the lever arm 10 and gear tracks 18”), the profile being pivotable in relation to any point of the equipment (col. 8 lines 46-47, “The lever arm 10 rotates about a pivot point 26” and rotatable by a user via handle 12), the device being configured to selectively attach itself along the linearity of the coupling course through an attachment element (formed by knob 22, latch bars 38, and roller bushings 40).
Regarding claim 6, Miller further discloses wherein the attachment element (22, 38, 40) is at least one attachment means (latch bars 38) configured to immovably associate the device (16) to the coupling course (18) of the profile (10) of the bodybuilding equipment along its linearity (col. 9 lines 50-60, “Two latch bars 38 and four roller bushings 40 are disposed on the resistance wheel 16, and these elements dictate whether the resistance wheel 16 is in a locked state (unable to move along the lever arm 10) or unlocked state (able to move along the lever arm 10). When the latch bars 38 extend outward from a housing and contact one or more of the roller bushings 40, then the resistance wheel is in a locked state. When the latch bars retract within the housing, then the roller bushings 40 do not prevent the resistance wheel 16 from rotating, and the resistance wheel 16 is in an unlocked state”).
Regarding claim 7, Miller discloses wherein the selective attachment of the device (16) to the coupling course (18) of the profile (10) is configured through a rotation movement of the device in relation to the profile (knob 22 rotates relative to lever 10 to selectively move the resistance wheel 16; resistance wheel 16 rotates along gear tracks 18 of lever arm 10 to selected position).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to each of claims 8 and 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a weight adjustment device in combination with all of the structural and functional limitations, and further comprising a lever concentrically and rotatably associated with a support, and a plate eccentrically and rotatable associated with the support, the lever being selectively rotatable, the lever being configured to, through its own rotation, rotate the plate, the plate being configured to, through its own rotation, attach or detach the fastening means (interpreted as equivalent to the previously recited at least one attachment means of claim 6) to or from the profile.
The closest prior art of record includes Miller (US 9,662,529), Towley et al. (US 7,387,595), and Johnson (US 6,074,328).
Miller teaches a weight adjustment device (16) configured to be selectively slidable along the linearity of a coupling course (18) of a profile (10), the weight adjustment device further comprising a lever (22) rotatable relative to the weight adjustment device, two latch bars (38), and four roller bushings (40), wherein rotation of the lever moves the latch bars to lock or unlock movement of the weight adjustment device by selectively engaging with the roller bushings (see col. 9 lines 50-60).
Towley et al. teaches a weight adjustment device (56) configured to be selectively slidable along the linearity of a coupling course of a profile (42), the weight adjustment device further comprising a lever (pivotal release member 94) rotatable relative to a wheeled truck (80) of the weight adjustment device and configured to selectively release a locking pin (90) to unlock the weight adjustment device for movement along the coupling course of the profile (see col. 9 line 56 – col. 10 line 3).
Johnson teaches a weight adjustment device (movable mass 24) configured to be selectively slidable along the linearity of a coupling course of a profile (34), the weight adjustment device further comprising a selection pin (44) for selectively unlocking the weight adjustment device for movement along the coupling course of the profile (col. 8 lines 6-12).
None of the prior art of record alone or in combination reasonably teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claims 8 or 9 including the lever, the plate, and the support with the structural and functional relationships as claimed. Any modifications to the prior art of record to achieve the claimed limitations would require improper hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN FISK whose telephone number is (571)272-1042. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM M-F (Central).
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.
/KATHLEEN M FISK/Examiner, Art Unit 3784