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 .
Status of Claims
This is a FINAL Rejection to Amendments and Arguments filed by Applicant on 09/27/2025. Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 12, 14, and 15 have been amended. Currently pending for review are Claims 1-16.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the Drawing and Claim Objections made in the Office Action filed on 03/25/2025. Amendments/Remarks & Arguments filed by Applicant on 09/27/2025 correct the objection/rejection and/or are persuasive. Therefore, the Drawing and Claim Objections made in the Office Action filed on 03/25/2025 has been withdrawn unless otherwise indicated below.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejection made in the Office Action filed on 03/25/2025. Amendments/Remarks & Arguments filed by Applicant on 09/27/2025 correct the rejection and/or are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejection made in the Office Action filed on 03/25/2025 has been withdrawn unless otherwise indicated below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dauben (US 7955226 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Dauben teaches a swim trainer comprising: an elongated cylindrical body 18,25,36 in an orientation perpendicular to a long axis of the body; having two ends and two float mounts penetrating through the body 18 (Refer to annotated Fig. 4 below & Fig. 3..The Office takes the position that Applicant indicates that the “mounts” may be holes or voids in Applicants paragraph [0037] and therefore the Office takes the position that the void/holes through the ends of member 36 considered to be part of the elongated cylindrical body are considered the mounts); and
PNG
media_image1.png
626
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an elongated float 20,38,40,42 coupled to the body at each of the two float mounts 36, wherein the elongated float penetrates the body in an orientation perpendicular to long axis of the body at each of the two float mounts 36, wherein the body 18 constrains the float 20 in a U-shaped configuration coplanar with the body, and wherein the body separates the float into a head section 20 and two flank sections 40.
Regarding Claim 2, Dauben continues to teach wherein the two float mounts 36 are oriented perpendicular to a long axis of the body 18.
Regarding Claim 3, Dauben continues to teach wherein the elongated float 20,38,40,42 is removably coupled to the body 18 (Refer to Figs 3&4).
Regarding Claim 4, Dauben continues to teach wherein the elongated float is adjustably positioned with respect to the body 18 such that a head section 20 length and a flank section 40 length are adjustable (Refer to Figs. 3&4 the Office takes the position that the length are adjustable based on how much they are slid onto member 38&42).
Regarding Claim 5, Dauben continues to teach wherein the body 20 comprises a central support surface 18 disposed between the two float mounts 36.
Regarding Claim 6, Dauben continues to teach wherein the body comprises an arm support surface 25 formed between each of the float mounts 36 and the ends (Refer to Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
504
622
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Dauben continues to teach further comprising a grip 16 formed at each end of the body 18 (Refer to Fig.2 to depict the grips are indirectly formed on the end of the body 18).
Regarding Claim 8, Dauben continues to teach wherein each grip comprises a step 30.
Regarding Claim 9, Dauben continues to teach wherein each grip comprises a plurality of steps 30,32 (Refer to Figs2-4..The Office takes the position that the members 30,32 are considered steps since they are raised surfaces to form steps)
Regarding Claim 10, Dauben teaches swim trainer comprising: an elongated cylindrical body 18 having a long axis; two float mounts 36, each float mount comprising a hole penetrating through the body in a direction perpendicular to the long axis of the body 18 (Refer to annotated Fig. 4 above & Fig. 3..The Office takes the position that Applicant indicates that the “mounts” may be holes or voids in Applicants paragraph [0037] and therefore the Office takes the position that the void/holes through the ends of member 36 considered to be part of the elongated cylindrical body are considered the mounts); wherein each of the two float mounts 36 is configured to receive a float 20,42, and wherein the float 40,42 is retained by the float mounts 36 in a configuration coplanar with the body (Refer to Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 11, Dauben continues to teach wherein the elongated float 20,42 adjustably coupled to the body 18.
Regarding Claim 12, Dauben teaches a method of using a swim trainer an elongated cylindrical body 18,25,36 having two ends and two float mounts penetrating through the body 18 in an orientation perpendicular to a long axis of the body (Refer to annotated Fig. 4 below & Fig. 3..The Office takes the position that Applicant indicates that the “mounts” may be holes or voids in Applicants paragraph [0037] and therefore the Office takes the position that the void/holes through the ends of member 36 considered to be part of the elongated cylindrical body are considered the mounts); and
PNG
media_image1.png
626
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an elongated float 20,38,40,42 coupled to the body at each of the two float mounts 36, wherein the elongated float penetrates the body in an orientation perpendicular to long axis of the body at each of the two float mounts 36, wherein the body 18 constrains the float 20 in a U-shaped configuration coplanar with the body, comprising: entering a body of water holding a swim trainer 10 (Refer to Figs. 1&2); grasping the swim trainer 10; and rolling onto the swim trainer wherein the buoyancy of the swim trainer facilitates support of the user in a horizontal position with respect to a surface of the body of water (Refer to Figs 1&2).
Regarding Claim 13, Dauben continues to teach wherein the grasping step comprises grasping each of two flank sections 16 of the float 18 with a body 20 of the swim trainer 10 against the back of the shoulders; and the rolling step comprises lying supine on the swim trainer to float face-upward (Refer to Figs. 1&2).
Regarding Claim 14, Dauben continues to teach further comprising resting the head on a central support surface 22 disposed on the body 20 of the swim trainer 10.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 15 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dauben (US 7955226 B2) in view of Greenan et al (US 20150298780 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Dauben teaches the claimed method as noted above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the horizontal position is a prone position. Greenan teaches a floatation device in which a user may use the device in a body of water in a variety of positioned in which a horizontal position is a prone position (Refer to Figs. 5A-C). Greenan et al is from the same field of endeavor as Applicants invention and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the method of Dauben to be in view of Greenan et al such that there is a horizontal position being a prone position seen Greenan et al teaches that such position is common in swimming and therefore does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts.
Regarding Claim 16, Dauben in view of Greenan et al teaches the claimed method as noted above but fails to teach a step resting the forehead on a central support surface disposed on a body of the swim trainer. The Office takes the position that it would have been obvious to provide the step of resting the forehead on a central support surface disposed on a body of the swim trainer since resting and/or facedown swimming would have been capable since the device comprises a central support surface disposed on the end of the body 102 after member 106 and therefore such method step does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Wherein Applicant argues that the mounts of Dauben lacks two float mounts penetrating through an elongated cylindrical body perpendicular to a long axis of a body. The Office respectfully disagrees with Applicants arguments that Dauben does not teach such limitation since Applicant indicates that the “mounts” may be holes or voids in Applicants paragraph [0037] and therefore the Office takes the position that the void/holes through the ends of member 36 considered to be part of the elongated cylindrical body are considered the mounts, and therefore Applicants arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NYCA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7168. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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.
/NYCA T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784