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 .
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is in response to amendments filed on 09/22/2025. Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10 and 13-16 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10 and 13-16 have been examined as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “fitted in” in line 1, needs to be changed to “fitted on”,
the phrase “fasteners means for” in line 3, needs to be changed to “fasteners for”,
the phrase “which can contain” in line 6, needs to be changed to “configured to contain”,
the phrase “said target elements being covered” in line 14, needs to be changed to either “said plurality of target elements, each being covered” OR “each target element being covered”,
the phrase “said at least one pressure sensor being” in line 15, needs to be changed to “said at least one pressure sensor of each target element”,
the phrase “comprising comprising” in line 18, needs to be changed to “comprising”, and
the phrase “each of the sensors” in line 19, needs to be changed to “said at least one pressure sensor of each target element”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “said at least one pressure sensor” in line 2, needs to be changed to “said at least one pressure sensor of each target element”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the target elements” in line 2 (for claim language consistency purposes), needs to be changed to “the plurality of target elements”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “wherein the target elements further comprise each at least one light emitter” in lines 1-2, needs to be changed to “wherein each target element further comprises at least one light emitter”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “each of the target elements” in line 4, needs to be changed to “each target element”, and the phrase “said a least one pressure sensors” in lines 5-6, needs to be changed to “said at least one pressure sensor of each target element”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “control unit (3)” in line 5, needs to be changed to “control unit” (for claim language consistency). 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.
In the current application:
A central unit of a laptop, a microprocessor of a mobile phone, or a web platform, and equivalents thereof, has been considered as the “means for analyzing data received from the electronic control unit” of an external system in claim 1 (see ¶ [0047] of the original specification),
A rechargeable battery, and equivalent thereof, has been considered as the “means for electrically powering said electronic control unit” in Claim 13, (see ¶ [0044] and [0069] of the original specification).
Bluetooth or Wi-Fi technology, and equivalents thereof, has been considered as the “means for wirelessly communicating with the electronic control unit” of a web platform, in Claim 14 (see ¶ 0047] of the original specification).
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.
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.
Claims 13 and 15 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 13 recites the limitation "the light emitters" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the light emitters" in each of lines 8 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10 and 13-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections and 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of record, fails to disclose, teach or render obvious a device intended to be fitted in a punching bag for training in striking combat sports comprising a cylindrical body covered with an envelope and fasteners means for attaching in a vertical position, with all the structural components and functional limitations comprising: a cover which has a tubular body, and dimensions defining an inner volume which can contain said punching bag envelope, the cover being formed of two sheaths, one inner and one outer placed on top of one another, said cover comprising an end closed by a circular bottom attached to said tubular body and another end provided with an adjustable and releasable link to securely fix said cover to said punching bag, a plurality of target elements attached between the two sheaths, each comprising at least one pressure sensor electrically connected to an electronic control unit, said target elements being covered by a protective pocket, said at least one pressure sensor being connected to said electronic control unit by electrical wires which are slid in a tube held applied against said inner sheath of said cover, an electronic control unit comprising a processor for receiving data coming from each of the sensors and for processing said data, and an external system comprising means for analyzing the data received from the electronic control unit.
The closest prior art of record, Morin et al. (US 2019/0388760 A1), teaches the limitations of claim 1, as substantially claimed (see the Non-Final rejection dated 01/15/2025 for details). Although the device of Morin, can form a tubular body when releasably (via a fastener) wrapped around the punching bag, Morin is silent about the cover which has a tubular body and dimensions defining an inner volume which can contain the punching bag envelope, said cover comprising an end closed by a circular bottom attached to the tubular body of the cover and another end is provided with an adjustable and releasable link to securely fix said cover to the punching bag. Furthermore, Morin is also silent about the electrical wires connecting the at least one pressure sensor to the control unit, being slid in a tube held applied against the inner sheath of the cover. Modifying Morin’s invention with such cover and tube for holding wires, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art without introducing hindsight and potentially destroying the purpose and functionality of Morin’s device.
Another close prior art, Tsai (US 2014/0366645 A1), teaches many of the limitations of claim 1, however, Tsai is silent about The cover comprising an end closed by a circular bottom attached to the tubular body of the cover and another end is provided with an adjustable and releasable link to securely fix said cover to the punching bag and the target elements being covered by a protective pocket. Although the electrical wires from all the sensors are connected to wire connector 302, Tsai does not specifically teach that the wire connector is a tube or that the electrical wires from each of the sensors are connected to a respective wire connector. Although, modifying Tsai’s cover to have a closed end and an adjustable and releasable link to securely fix the cover to the punching bag, would have been obvious in view of Jullian (US 10,974,119 B1), in order to enable use of the device with punching bags hanging from a ceiling, modification of Tsai’s device to include a protective pocket covering the target elements and the electrical wires being slid in a tube held applied against the inner sheath of the cover, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art without introducing hindsight.
With respect to claim 16, the prior art of record, fails to disclose, teach or render obvious a punching bag for training in striking combat sports comprising a cylindrical body covered with an envelope and fasteners for attaching in a vertical position, wherein the punching bag is fitted with a device according to claim 1.
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 SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 pm.
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.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784