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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Claim 2 has been amended by applicant. In light of amendments made by applicant, the claim objection has been withdrawn by the examiner.
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 remain rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, line 1, “foot support” should read –elongated foot support—
In claim 5, line 1, “foot support” should read –elongate foot support--.
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 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 limitation(s) of claim 2 is/are:
A/ the generic place holder is member
B/ the functional language is attachment
C/ attachment member is not modified by sufficient “structure, material, or acts”
D/ the attachment member is disclosed in page 5 in the specification: “As shown in FIG. 3, an alternate embodiment of the present invention may be configured to be attached to an existing conventional squat rack. Such embodiments are equipped with a J- Clip (100), a steel tube (110), a formed padded roller (120) supported by a steel rest frame, and bushings (130). The J-clip (100) facilitates connection of the apparatus to the existing squat rack.” The examiner is considering the J-clip (100) to be the corresponding structure for the attachment member.
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.
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
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 2-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aviz88 – Rack Attached Leg Extension, in view of Stealth Strength – Fitness Monsterlite Leg Roller (see links below). http://www.Aviz88.com/r/homegym/comments/k4taxo/rack_attached_leg_extension/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wseq4To2n3U
Regarding claim 2, Aviz88 shows an apparatus configured for use by a person when performing a Bulgarian Squat (Aviz88, Rack Attached Leg Extension, page 11; The comments on page 11 shows the parts of the Rack Attached Leg Extension includes a squat stand hardware kit. In light of the functional claim language, the Rack Attached Leg Extension seen in the screenshot below is capable of being used by a person when performing a Bulgarian squat. The attachment for the weight plates and the weight plates themselves are not only removable but do not take away from or hinder the ability of a person to perform Bulgarian squats with the leg roller of the Rack Attached Leg Extension), the apparatus comprising: an elongate foot support (Aviz88, leg roller, page 11, see screenshot below) that, during said use, is also configured for swinging around a second axis vertically displaced from the first axis (Aviz88, page 11, see annotated screenshot below; The title of the Aviz88 thread is Rack Attached Leg Extension, thereby showing the leg roller is configured for swinging. Furthermore, as can be seen in the screenshot below, the vertical bar is pivotally connected to the J-cup via a pin, thereby showing the leg roller is configured for swinging. See annotated screenshot below for the second axis of the claimed invention being displaced from the first axis of the claimed invention as well); a vertical support member for supporting the horizontal foot support (Aviz88, see annotated screenshot below); and an attachment member (Aviz88, J-cup, page 11, see annotated screenshot below) shaped for selectively attaching the apparatus to, and detaching the apparatus from, a squat rack (Aviz88, see annotated screenshot below).
PNG
media_image1.png
1001
1045
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Aviz88
Although Aviz88 discloses in page 11, “All items are for Rogue Monster Lite racks”, Aviz88 fails to explicitly state the pad of the Rogue Monster Lite Rack is rotatable or revolving. More specifically, Aviz88 fails to explicitly show the elongate foot support, during use, is configured for rotating around a first axis through the foot support.
However, Stealth Strength teaches the elongate foot support, during use, is configured for rotating around a first axis through the foot support (Stealth Strength, see video from 2:48-2:55 in YouTube link above).
PNG
media_image2.png
669
869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Stealth Strength
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the leg roller of the Rogue Monster Lite racks used by Aviz88 to be rotatable like that shown in the video of Stealth Strength as both Aviz88 and Stealth Strength as not only using the same product, but using the product for lower body exercises that benefit from the rotation of the pad of the leg roller attachment.
Regarding claim 3, Aviz88, in view of Stealth Strength, teaches the apparatus of claim 2 where the foot support is laterally supported only by the vertical support member (Aviz88, see annotated screenshot above).
Regarding claim 5, Aviz88, in view of Stealth Strength, teaches the apparatus of claim 2 where the foot support is padded (Aviz88, see annotated screenshot above).
Regarding claim 6, Aviz88, in view of Stealth Strength, teaches the apparatus of claim 2 where the attachment member has a J- shape (Aviz88, J-Cup, page 11, see annotated screenshot above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made with Aviz88 – Rack Attached Leg Extension, in view of Stealth Strength – Fitness Monsterlite Leg Roller.
The examiner relies on Stealth Strength, to teach the amended limitation in question, "an elongate foot support that, during said use, is configured for rotating around a first axis through the foot support” and on Aviz88 to teach the remainder of the limitation “is also configured for swinging around a second axis vertically displaced from the first axis", as explained in the 103 rejection above. Claims 2-3 and 5-6 remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 J NICOLE LOBERIZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4741. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5:30pm.
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, 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.
/JACQUELINE N L LOBERIZA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/LOAN B JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3784