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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 has been amended to add “an exertion level indicator coupled to the frame that provides a non-electronic processed indication of felt resistance level to the user.”. There is a lack of support in the original disclosure, at most Applicant indicates that there a felt resistance estimator but does not disclose that it is “non-electronic” in paragraph [0070] that is an exertion level indicator. It is suggested that Applicant use consistent claim language in the original disclosure. Applicant may overcome such rejection by clearly pointing out support in the original disclose, amending, or canceling the claim.
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, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson (US 4638995).
Regarding Claim 1, Wilson teaches an exercise system comprising a frame 13,15,17,19 having a multitude of linked members 20a/b,22a,b the frame comprising a bottom side 15, a back side 19, and a front side 17 in an expanded condition and being configured to be reoriented onto at least the three sides thereof in the expanded condition to provide a user with different groups of weight-bearing 58 exercises for each orientation, the frame being configured to maintain contact with the ground in each orientation during the exercises wherein in a first orientation, the expanded frame is on its back side and at least some of the exercises for the first orientation involving the pivoting of the frame about an end that maintains contact with the ground during the exercises such that the end acts as a pivot point for the entire frame (Refer to annotated Fig. 5 below to depict that there is a pivot point. The Office takes the position that the limitation is considered intended use and that in the first orientation of the device a user may lift the lands 34,32 and pivot the device about the pivot point);
PNG
media_image1.png
162
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein in a second orientation, the expanded frame is on its front side 17 and at least some of the exercises for the second orientation involving sliding of the frame on the ground, the frame configured such that in the second orientation it offers resistance the primary resistance to movement of the frame across the ground while sliding is via provided by sliding friction (Refer to annotated Fig. 11, the Office takes the position that the front side has arm rests 52 made from foam plastic which would provide friction with the ground if pushed, such limitation is considered intended use and the device is capable of performing the intended use by placing the arm rests on the ground for pushing if desired.); and
PNG
media_image2.png
204
286
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, in a third orientation, the expanded frame is upright and comprises a base and a top, the base comprising (Refer to annotated Fig. 1 below) :
PNG
media_image3.png
546
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
two horizontal outer parallel members 22a,b, each base parallel member having a first end and a second end; and a cross member 16 extending between the base parallel members and located between intermediate the first ends and the second ends of the base parallel members; and the top comprising: two horizontal outer parallel members 26a,b, each top parallel member having a first end and a second end; and a cross member 42 extending between the top parallel members and located between the first ends and the second ends of the top parallel members 26a.b.
Regarding Claim 2, Wilson does not expressly disclose wherein at least some of the exercises for the first orientation involve pivoting the frame about a second end that maintains contact with the ground during the exercises such that the second end acts as a pivot point for the entire frame, however, the Office takes the position that there is nothing limiting the device of Wilson to be used in such manner and is capable of performing the intended use as disclose since it meets all the structural limitations as claimed. Refer to MPEP 2114 Apparatus and Article Claims — Functional Language [R-07.2015].
Regarding Claim 4, Wilson does not expressly disclose wherein a first end of the frame is configured to prevent sliding of the frame on the ground for at least some of the exercises for the first orientation and a second end of the frame is configured to assist sliding of the frame on the ground for at least some of the exercises for the second orientation. However, the Office takes the position that the handle ends 32 prevents sliding of the rails 20a,b since it is lifted from the ground in the first orientation and the second end 10,12 of the frame is configured to assist sliding of the frame on the ground for at least some of the exercises for the second orientation since it is curved and smooth to reduce friction on the ground. The Office takes the position that there is nothing limiting the device of Wilson to be used in such manner and is capable of performing the intended use as disclose since it meets all the structural limitations as claimed. Refer to MPEP 2114 Apparatus and Article Claims — Functional Language [R-07.2015].
Regarding Claim 6, Wilson does not expressly disclose at least some of the exercises for the second orientation involve pivoting the frame about a different end that maintains contact with the ground during the exercises such that the different end acts as a pivot point for the entire frame, however, the Office takes the position that there is nothing limiting the device of Wilson to be used in such manner and is capable of performing the intended use as disclose since it meets all the structural limitations as claimed, and the device is capable of being pivoted in another end during exercise. Refer to MPEP 2114 Apparatus and Article Claims — Functional Language [R-07.2015].
Regarding Claim 9, Wilson teaches the frame comprises a cross member 14 (Refer to Fig. 2 to depict the cross member 14) is used to support a user intermediate the ends of the frame Wilson does not expressly disclose the cross member 14 is configured to support a person that is not a user of the exercise system such that the non-using person acts as a weight for a number of exercises. However, the Office takes the position that there is nothing limiting the device of Wilson to be used in such manner and is capable of performing the intended use as disclose since it meets all the structural limitations as claimed, and the cross member 14 is capable of being used to support a person that is not a user of the exercise system such that the non-using person acts as a weight for a number of exercises. Refer to MPEP 2114 Apparatus and Article Claims — Functional Language [R-07.2015].
Regarding Claim 10, Wilson teaches wherein the frame comprises multiple cross members intermediate the ends of the frame 14,16,18 (Refer to Fig. 1). Wilson does not expressly disclose the cross members 14,16,18 are configured to support a non-using person at multiple locations such that the resistance felt by a user of the exercise system due to the non-using person is altered. However, the Office takes the position that there is nothing limiting the device of Wilson to be used in such manner and is capable of performing the intended use as disclose since it meets all the structural limitations as claimed, and the cross members 14,16,18 are configured to support a non-using person at multiple locations such that the resistance felt by a user of the exercise system due to the non-using person is altered. Refer to MPEP 2114 Apparatus and Article Claims — Functional Language [R-07.2015].
Regarding Claim 20, Wilson continues to teach wherein the frame is configured to allow a user to perform pull-ups in the third orientation (Refer to Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 21, Wilson continues to teach wherein the frame comprises: a first set of longitudinal rails 20a,b that engage the ground when the frame is in the first orientation, the rails being pointed at one end to establish a pivot point for the first end of the frame (Refer to annotated Fig. 5 above); and a second set of longitudinal rails 24a,b that engage the ground when the frame is in the second orientation, the rails being curved inward at the second end of the frame such that the curved portions do not touch the ground while leaving a portion of each second longitudinal rail touching the ground, the curved portions configured to assist in the sliding of the frame second set of rails on the ground (Refer to annotated Fig. 11 above and Fig. 1&2 to depict that the ends of rails 24a,b are curved).
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) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US 4638995) in view of Zuckerman et al (US 6248048).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Wilson teaches the claimed invention as noted above but fails to teach wherein the frame is configured to collapse along a single degree of freedom to less than one-half of its expand volume. And wherein the frame is configured to collapse along a single degree of freedom to less than one-third of its expanded volume. Zuckerman et al teaches a portable exercise device comprising multiple orientation for varies different exercises (refer to Figs. 1-6) and wherein the frame is configured to collapse along a single degree of freedom to less than one-half of its expand volume to less than one-third of its expanded volume (Refer to Fig. 7). Zuckerman et al is from the same field of endeavor as Applicants invention and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the frame of Wilson to be in view of Zuckerman et al such that the frame is configured to collapse along a single degree of freedom to less than one-half of its expand volume to less than one-third of its expanded volume for the purpose of being portable for transportation and/or storage. Such size reduction of an exercise devices is known in the art as disclosed by Zuckerman et al and therefore does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts.
Claim(s) 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US 4638995) in view of Cernasov et al (US 20210308524 A1).
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, Wilson teaches the claimed invention as noted above but fails to teach wherein the system includes a mechanical exertion level indicator coupled to the frame that provides a non-electronic indication of user exertion level to the user and the system includes integrated electronics coupled to the frame to detect strain thereon and a transmitter to wirelessly send the detected strain to a remote computing device. Cernavos et al teaches an exercise device comprising weights and an integrated electronics 102 coupled to the frame to detect strain thereon and a transmitter 1314 to wirelessly send the detected strain to a remote computing device 1250 and a mechanical exertion/overload level indicator (Refer to Paragraph [0037]:” Grip device 102 includes at least one force sensor. FIG. 2A depicts an embodiment in which outer half-cylindrical segments 202, 204 accommodate a plurality of force sensors 208 that in disclosed embodiments are force sensing elements and include, but are not limited to piezoelectric load cells, strain gauges, and force sensing resistors. In an embodiment, force sensor 208 comprises a pressure sensor with an integral contact pad of known size. An applied force is calculated by multiplying a measured pressure by the size of the contact area. Other force sensors 208 may determine a change in electrical resistance of a wire when stress is applied to the wire”….[0013]:” Controller board 216 includes a processor 1312 and provides the command and control functions required by RF module 1314 that provides the wireless interface with the external computing device 1250.”..The Office takes the position that the strain/stress sensors measure the mechanical exertion…Paragraph [0068]:” User interface panel 108 provides needed information to the user when an external computing device 1250 is unavailable. In an example, the buzzer may be triggered by an alarm condition such as an unbalanced barbell or high pulse rate, while the LED may signal a low battery or external computing device out of range condition. It can also provide timing cues for the routines. LED/LCD display 1202 may provide raw data including, but not limited to, total weight lifted, the ID of the routine being executed or remaining number of repetitions in a given routine.”..The Office considers “high pulse rate” an exertion/overload). Cernasov et al is analogous with Applicants invention in that they both teach exercise device comprising sensors and use with wireless transmission of data to an external device and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the device of Wilson to be in view of Cernasov et al such that it includes a mechanical exertion/overload level indicator coupled to the frame that provides a non-electronic indication of felt resistance level to the user (the Office considered the strain sensor by itself to be non-electronic in so much as Applicant has disclosed) and the system includes integrated electronics coupled to the frame to detect strain thereon and a transmitter to wirelessly send the detected strain to a remote computing device for the purpose of measuring parameters of a user during exercise and storing/displaying such data for training purposes.
Regarding Claim 16, Wilson in view of Cernasov et al continues to teach wherein the computing device 1250 is configured to receive the strain indications and determine an exertion level for the exercise being performed (Refer to Cernasov et al Paragraph [0085]:” Grip 102 is wrapped substantially around the handlebar 104 of a desired strength training equipment. At blocks 1504, 1506, and 1508, a movement of smart grip 102, and/or detection of a force exerted on sensors 208, 312, 402, 504 wakes-up electrical components of smart grip 102 and establishes wireless communication with the external computing device 1250.”… [0091]:” At the end of the programmed workout (block 1528), with all reps of all routines executed within required parameters, information regarding the workout, including actual measurements of forces and torques, are uploaded to the external computing device 1250 for further analysis. As an example, the uploading process may be done through a direct Bluetooth connection, via a local Wi-Fi router or through the cloud 1256. In an embodiment, external computing device 1250 may log the workout information or analyze and report the effort expenditures of each muscle and muscle group.”).
Regarding Claim 17, Wilson in view of Cernasov et al continues to teach wherein the computing device 1250 is programmed to provide exercise instructions to a user (Refer to Cernasov et al Paragraph [0082]-[0084]:” [0084] Each workout session entered by the user is converted into low level commands by the external computing device 1250. External computing device 1250 communicates the low level commands to processor 1312 on smart grip 102 via wireless interface 1314. In turn processor 1312 of smart grip 102 supplies the external computing device 1250 with information it needs to make necessary calculations and perform reporting functions.”..The Office takes the position that such low level commands are considered instructions).
Regarding Claim 18, Wilson in view of Cernasov et al continues to teach wherein the system includes light emitting electronics 1202 integrated into the frame to provide instruction and safety features for the exercise being performed (Refer to Cernasov et al Fig. 12A Paragraph [0067]:” FIG. 12A is a detailed depiction of user interface panel 108 depicted in FIG. 1. User interface panel 108 is recessed into an outer surface of smart grip 102 and in disclosed embodiments includes input devices 1206 and output devices 1202 and 1204. Input devices 1206 include switches, pushbuttons, and/or microphone devices that allow a user to control an operation of smart grip 102. Output devices, include, but are not limited to, LED/LCD displays 1202 and speakers and haptic actuators (buzzer or vibration shaker) 1204 to provide the user with real time status information of smart grip 102. “…[0090]:” If the sensors indicate a dangerous condition, such as abnormal pulse rate, an alarm condition is triggered which may include an alarm report and a request for assistance via the network connected external processor 1250 (blocks 1520 and 1522).”).
Regarding Claim 19, Wilson in view of Cernasov et al continues to teach wherein the system includes audio electronics integrated into the frame to provide instruction and safety features for the exercise being performed (Refer to Cernasov et al Paragraph [0067] FIG. 12A is a detailed depiction of user interface panel 108 depicted in FIG. 1. User interface panel 108 is recessed into an outer surface of smart grip 102 and in disclosed embodiments includes input devices 1206 and output devices 1202 and 1204. Input devices 1206 include switches, pushbuttons, and/or microphone devices that allow a user to control an operation of smart grip 102. Output devices, include, but are not limited to, LED/LCD displays 1202 and speakers and haptic actuators (buzzer or vibration shaker) 1204 to provide the user with real time status information of smart grip 102.”..[0068]:” It can also provide timing cues for the routines. LED/LCD display 1202 may provide raw data including, but not limited to, total weight lifted, the ID of the routine being executed or remaining number of repetitions in a given routine.”..The Office takes the position that the remaining number of repetitions indicates an instruction).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 13, and 22-24 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Wilson is the closest prior art to the claimed invention but fails to teach the claimed invention as a whole further comprising wherein the frame comprises a base, a vertical section, and a top section when in an upright orientation, the vertical section being hingedly attached to the base and hingedly attached to the top section such that the frame collapses at both hinge locations to collapse the frame; wherein the system includes an overload indicator coupled to the frame that provides a visual, non-electronic indication of frame overload to the user; wherein the base further comprises a second cross member extending between the base parallel members and located between the first ends and the second ends of the base parallel members, the second cross member being adjustable in position between the first ends and the second ends of the base parallel members; wherein, in the third orientation, the frame comprises: four members extending vertically upward from each of the ends of the base parallel members; and a cross member extending between two of the vertical members; wherein, when the frame is in the first orientation, a person that is not the user may stand on the cross member and use the two vertical members not having the cross member as handrails; and/or wherein, in the third orientation, the frame comprises: four members extending vertically downward from each of the ends of the top parallel members; and a cross member extending between two of the vertical members; wherein, when the frame is in the first orientation, a person that is not the user may stand on the cross member and use the two vertical members not connected to the cross member as handrails.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 01/27/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Amendments filed by Applicant on 01/27/2026 changes the scope of the claims and a new grounds of rejection has been disclosed above.
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