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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Replacement drawing sheets for Figures 3A-3E were received on 24 February 2026 and have been approved by the Office. The drawing objections have been obviated in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been obviated in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 24 February 2026 and are withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 1-6 and 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been obviated in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 24 February 2026 and are withdrawn.
Claims 7-8, 12-14, and 19-20 have been canceled. New claims 21-25 have been added.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, 15-18, and 21-25 are still pending. An action on the merits follows.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“wherein the method is carried out while the user is sitting in place or while the user is lying flat on the back” in claim 4 and “wherein the hollow hoop is coupled to ankles or feet of a user of the hoop lying flat on the back” in claim 9. The drawings do not show wherein the hoop is coupled to the user’s ankles/feet and the user is either sitting in place or lying flat on their back.
“wherein the plurality of straps are held together by a fastener including a button, a hook and fastener, a zipper, an adhesive, or a stitch” in claim 23.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4, 9, 15, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, each instance of “the hoop” should read --the hollow hoop--
Claim 2, line 3, “the ball” should read --the at least one ball--
Claim 4, line 2, “the back” should read --their back--
Claim 9, line 4, “the hoop” should read --the hollow hoop--
Claim 9, line 4, “the back” should read --their back--
Claim 9, line 11, “the hoop” should read --the hollow hoop--
Claim 15, each instance of “the hoop” should read --the hollow hoop--
Claim 15, line 6, “the ankle or foot” should read --the ankles or feet--
Claim 22, line 2, “the hoop” should read --the hollow hoop--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2, 4-5, 9-11, 15-18, 22, and 24-25 are 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 2 recites the limitation “adjusting a position of a part of the body other than the ankles or feet responsive to or during the moving” in lines 5-6. This limitation was not properly described in the original disclosure and is considered new matter. The original specification describes “adjusting a position of the body responsive to or during the moving” (see paragraph [0037]), but does not describe the position of a specific part of the body, particularly not the ankles or feet, as being adjusted.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the method is carried out while the user is sitting in place or while the user is lying flat on the back” in lines 1-2. This limitation was not properly described in the original disclosure and is considered new matter. The original specification does not describe wherein the hoop is coupled to the ankles or feet of the user and the user is moving their ankles or feet to continuously move the at least one ball, as required by claim 1, and wherein this is happening while the user is sitting or lying flat on their back. It is unclear how a user would carry out the method while in these positions.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the hollow hoop is coupled to ankles or feet of a user of the hoop lying flat on the back” in lines 3-4. This limitation was not properly described in the original disclosure and is considered new matter. The original specification does not describe wherein the hoop is coupled to a user’s ankles or feet while the user is moving their ankles or feet to move the at least one ball, as required by the rest of claim 9, and wherein this is happening while the user is lying flat on their back. It is unclear how a user would carry out the method while in this position.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “adjusting a position of a part of the body other than the ankles or feet responsive to or during the moving” in lines 4-5. This limitation was not properly described in the original disclosure and is considered new matter. The original specification describes “adjusting a position of the body responsive to or during the moving” (see paragraph [0037]), but does not describe the position of a specific part of the body, particularly other than the ankles or feet, as being adjusted.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “positioning a part of the body other than the ankles or feet to cause the part of the body other than the ankles or feet to adopt a different configuration” in lines 11-13. This limitation was not properly described in the original disclosure and is considered new matter. The original specification describes “positioning a part of the body or the entire body to cause the part of the body or the body to adopt a different configuration” (see paragraph [0018]), but does not describe the position of a specific part of the body, particularly other than the ankles or feet, adopting a different configuration.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “adjusting a position of a part of the body other than the ankles or feet responsive to or during the moving” in lines 5-6. This limitation was not properly described in the original disclosure and is considered new matter. The original specification describes “adjusting a position of the body responsive to or during the moving” (see paragraph [0037]), but does not describe the position of a specific part of the body, particularly other than the ankles or feet, as being adjusted.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the positioning includes balancing or stretching the part of the body other than the ankles or feet” in lines 1-2. This limitation was not properly described in the original disclosure and is considered new matter.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of straps are attached to a plurality of points along an outer circumference of the hoop” in lines 1-2. This limitation was not properly described in the original disclosure and is considered new matter. The original specification describes wherein the “strap can be attached to any point along the outer circumference of the hoop” (see paragraph [0030]) and “a strap being fixed to one point on the hoop’s outer circumference” (see paragraph [0035]), but does not describe wherein the straps are attached to a plurality of points.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 is 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 23 recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of straps are held together by a fastener including a button, a hook and fastener, a zipper, an adhesive, or a stitch” in lines 1-2. It is unclear how the plurality of straps are “held together.” Are the straps being held to each other by a fastener? Are the straps being held to the hoop by a fastener? Are the straps being individually held together by a fastener? The claim language is unclear which renders the claim indefinite.
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 1-6, 15-18, 21-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Domenge (US 6,500,102).
Regarding claim 1, Domenge teaches a method comprising:
providing a closed, hollow hoop (exerciser 65) that houses at least one ball (spherical weight 38) within an interior hollow channel of the hoop (Fig. 23 shows the exerciser 65 being a hoop that has a hollow channel that houses a spherical weight 38.);
coupling the hoop to ankles or feet of a user of the hoop via a plurality of straps coupled to the hoop (Annotated Fig. 24 below shows a strap as part of foot pad 66a. Fig. 23 shows two foot pads 66a on the left control plate 66, so there must be two straps, one for each foot pad, for attaching to the ankles/feet of the user. Col. 5, lines 14-18: “A user or users of the exerciser 65 could be seated with the exerciser 65 placed on at a substantially flat surface. The user/users insert his/their feet in the foot pads or rests 66a, 66b and impart motion to the exerciser 65.”); and
moving the ankles or feet in a movement path to cause the at least one ball within the interior hollow channel to move continuously in a circumferential path about the interior hollow channel such that the at least one ball makes a 360° motion in the interior hollow channel while the movement path is maintained (Col. 15, lines 1-25: “For example, the user could roll the device in at a linear direction while imparting a circular motion to the exerciser so as to cause the weight or weights therein to roll/slide within the recess…As the exerciser 65 is provided with the wheel arrangement of FIGS. 21 and 22, similar movements can be imparted to the exerciser. However, all of the movements are imparted by use of leg and foot muscles. The movement may be an orbital, substantially elliptical movement or linear reciprocating movement.” Domenge teaches moving the user’s legs and feet in an orbital movement, which would cause the weight 38 to roll such that it makes a 360° motion in the recess of the hoop.).
PNG
media_image1.png
539
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Domenge teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
responsive to the moving, changing the moving to change the movement path to a second movement path to cause the at least one ball to reverse direction as the ball moves continuously about the interior hollow channel (Col. 13, lines 10-15: “In order to control movement of the weights 38, 39, the user must exert force to stop the rolling/sliding motion of the weights. This controlled movement may be in the form of stopping movement of the weights and/or reversing movement of the weights.” The movement path would need to be reversed in order for the movement of the weights to be reversed.); and
adjusting a position of a part of the body other than the ankles or feet responsive to or during the moving while keeping the at least one ball in continuous movement in the circumferential path (Col. 15, lines 8-25: “The user/users insert his/their feet in the foot pads or rests 66a, 66b and impart motion to the exerciser 65. As the exerciser 65 is provided with the wheel arrangement of FIGS. 21 and 22, similar movements can be imparted to the exerciser. However, all of the movements are imparted by use of leg and foot muscles.” When the user is seated, in order to make orbital motions with their feet, a position of the lower legs and the knees would adjust. That is, a position of the lower legs would change in order to keep the weight 38 moving in the recess of the hoop.).
Regarding claim 3, Domenge teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the moving includes changing a rate of the movement path, stopping the movement path, or changing a direction of the movement path to cause the at least one ball to speed up, slow down, or change direction inside the interior hollow channel (Col. 13, lines 10-15: “In order to control movement of the weights 38, 39, the user must exert force to stop the rolling/sliding motion of the weights. This controlled movement may be in the form of stopping movement of the weights and/or reversing movement of the weights.” Movement would need to be reversed in order for the movement of the weights to be reversed.).
Regarding claim 4, Domenge teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method is carried out while the user is sitting in place or while the user is lying flat on the back (Col. 15, lines 14-16: “A user or users of the exerciser 65 could be seated with the exerciser 65 placed on at a substantially flat surface.”).
Regarding claim 5, Domenge teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the movement path is one of clockwise or counterclockwise, and the second movement path is the other of clockwise or counterclockwise (An “orbital movement” would be clockwise or counterclockwise and to reverse the direction of the weight 38, the movement would need to change to the other of clockwise or counterclockwise.).
Regarding claim 6, Domenge teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one ball includes one of a metal ball, a plastic ball, or a lighted ball (Col. 21, lines 5-7: “In all variants of the invention, the spherical shaped weights may be made of any suitable plastic material, iron, steel or other metals.”).
Regarding claim 15, Domenge teaches a method comprising:
providing a closed, hollow hoop (exerciser 65) that houses at least one ball (spherical weight 38) within an interior hollow channel of the hoop Fig. 23 shows the exerciser 65 being a hoop that has a hollow channel that houses a spherical weight 38.);
coupling the hoop to ankles or feet of a user of the hoop via a plurality of straps (Annotated Fig. 24 above with regards to claim 1 shows a strap as part of foot pad 66a. Fig. 23 shows two foot pads 66a on the left control plate 66, so there must be two straps for attaching to the foot of the user. Col. 5, lines 14-18: “A user or users of the exerciser 65 could be seated with the exerciser 65 placed on at a substantially flat surface. The user/users insert his/their feet in the foot pads or rests 66a, 66b and impart motion to the exerciser 65.”); and
moving the ankle or foot in a movement path to cause the at least one ball within the interior hollow channel to move continuously in a circumferential path about the interior hollow channel such that the at least one ball makes a 360° motion in the interior hollow channel while the movement path is maintained (Col. 15, lines 1-25: “For example, the user could roll the device in at a linear direction while imparting a circular motion to the exerciser so as to cause the weight or weights therein to roll/slide within the recess…As the exerciser 65 is provided with the wheel arrangement of FIGS. 21 and 22, similar movements can be imparted to the exerciser. However, all of the movements are imparted by use of leg and foot muscles. The movement may be an orbital, substantially elliptical movement or linear reciprocating movement.” Domenge teaches moving the user’s legs and feet in an orbital movement, which would cause the weight 38 to roll such that it makes a 360° motion in the recess of the hoop.); and
positioning a part of the body other than the ankles or feet to cause the part of the body other than the ankles or feet to adopt a different configuration while causing the at least one ball to move continuously about the interior hollow channel (Col. 15, lines 8-25: “The user/users insert his/their feet in the foot pads or rests 66a, 66b and impart motion to the exerciser 65. As the exerciser 65 is provided with the wheel arrangement of FIGS. 21 and 22, similar movements can be imparted to the exerciser. However, all of the movements are imparted by use of leg and foot muscles.” When the user is seated, in order to make orbital motions with their feet, a position of the lower legs and the knees would adjust. That is, a position of the lower legs would change while keeping the weight 38 moving in the recess of the hoop. The configuration of the lower legs/knees would be constantly changing to a “different configuration” in order to keep the ankles/feet moving in an orbital motion.).
Regarding claim 16, Domenge teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising:
responsive to the moving, changing the moving to change the movement path to cause the at least one ball to reverse direction as the at least one ball moves in the circumferential path (Col. 13, lines 10-15: “In order to control movement of the weights 38, 39, the user must exert force to stop the rolling/sliding motion of the weights. This controlled movement may be in the form of stopping movement of the weights and/or reversing movement of the weights.” The movement path would need to be reversed in order for the movement of the weights to be reversed.); and
adjusting a position of the part of the body other than the ankles or feet responsive to or during the moving while keeping the at least one ball in continuous movement in the circumferential path (Col. 15, lines 8-25. As discussed above with regards to claim 15, the position of the legs would be constantly changing or “adjusting” in order to keep the ankles/feet moving in an orbital motion. The position of the lower legs would adjust in order to reverse a movement of the weight 38 within the hoop.).
Regarding claim 17, Domenge teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the moving includes changing a rate of the movement path, stopping the movement path, or changing a direction of the movement path to cause the at least one ball to speed up, slow down, or change direction inside the interior hollow channel (Col. 13, lines 10-15: “In order to control movement of the weights 38, 39, the user must exert force to stop the rolling/sliding motion of the weights. This controlled movement may be in the form of stopping movement of the weights and/or reversing movement of the weights.” The movement path would need to be reversed in order for the movement of the weights to be reversed.).
Regarding claim 18, Domenge teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the positioning includes balancing or stretching the part of the body other than the ankles or feet (Movement of the lower legs would stretch the lower legs.).
Regarding claim 21, Domenge teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of straps are affixed around the ankles or feet of the user (Fig. 23: The user places their feet in the foot pads 66a and places the strap around their ankles/feet.).
Regarding claim 22, Domenge teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of straps are attached to a plurality of points along an outer circumference of the hoop (Fig. 23: The straps are attached to a plurality of points along an outer circumference of the hoop via the control plate 66.).
Regarding claim 25, Domenge teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the plurality of straps are placed around or on the ankles or feet (Fig. 23: The user places their feet in the foot pads 66a and places the strap around their ankles/feet.).
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 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domenge (US 6,500,102) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wessels et al. (US 2009/0325768, hereinafter Wessels).
Regarding claim 23, Domenge teaches the method of claim 1.
Domenge does not teach wherein the plurality of straps are held together by a fastener including a button, a hook and fastener, a zipper, an adhesive, or a stitch.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Wessels teaches an exercise device comprising a foot platform, wherein the foot platform comprises a plurality of straps for coupling to a user’s ankles or feet, wherein the plurality of straps are held together by a fastener including a button, a hook and fastener, a zipper, an adhesive, or a stitch (Fig. 1. Para. [0031]: “Straps 26 may comprise, for example, buckles, button snaps, Velcro, laces that can be tied together by the user, or any other known methods for securing the top of a foot.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
281
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the straps of Domenge by including the fastener of Wessels with the predicted result of providing straps that can be adjusted for various user’s foot/ankle sizes (see MPEP 2141(III)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 and 103 rejections of the claims 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.
Examiner’s Notes
Claims 9-11 and 24 have not been rejected with prior art but are rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Catrina A Letterman whose telephone number is (303)297-4297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8am - 4pm MT.
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.
/C.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights