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 1 has been amended by applicant. Claims 7-8 and 24 have been cancelled by applicant. Claims 26-32 has been newly added by applicant.
In light of the claim amendments made by applicant, the examiner withdraws the 112d rejection.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-17, 21-23, 25, and 27-32 remain rejected. Claims 4, 6, and 26 are considered allowable subject matter.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/20/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 08/21/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 26 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. For claim 26, there is nowhere in the description or figures that disclose a lower end portion with a planar surface and a side wall for the first notch, as well as, a radius of the side wall having a curvature greater than zero.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 13, 15, 21, 25, and 27-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis (U.S. Patent No. US10843026).
Regarding claim 1, Davis shows an exercise bar (Davis, exercise system 1000, col. 5, line 4) comprising: a handle tube (Davis, cylindrical body 100, col. 5, lines 4-5; Lacking any other structural or functional limitations, cylindrical body 100 has been considered a handle tube of the claimed invention, as it is a tube and can be picked up by a user) comprising a longitudinal interior bore (Davis, bore 120, col. 8, line 27); a solid metal center shaft (Davis, elongated bar 200, col. 5, line 5), wherein the solid metal center shaft is fitted through the longitudinal interior bore (Davis, FIG. 4); a first band arm (Davis, hook 301, col. 15, line 1, see annotated FIG. 5 below) comprising a first end received by a first notch at a first end portion of a first side of the solid metal center shaft and a hook region that removably receives a first portion of an elastic band (Davis, see annotated FIG. 1 below); and a second band arm (Davis, hook 301, see annotated FIG. 5 below) comprising a first end received by a second notch at a second end portion of the first side of the solid metal center shaft and a hook region that removably receives a second portion of the elastic band (Davis, see annotated FIG. 1 below), wherein the solid metal center shaft, the first band arm, and the second band arm collectively rotate independent of the handle tube (Davis, “ This central region of the bar 200A may be left smooth so that when the bar 200A is inserted into the bore 120 of the cylindrical body 100, the smooth portion of the bar 200A engages the inner surface 103 of the cylindrical body 100 that defines the bore 120”, col. 13, lines 18-22, see FIG. 4 below; The hooks of Davis are attached to the ends of the elongated bar and move with the elongated bar).
PNG
media_image1.png
518
313
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Davis
PNG
media_image2.png
552
553
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
607
432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Davis
Regarding claim 9, Davis shows the exercise bar of claim 1, wherein the handle tube includes a first circumferential grip region and a second circumferential grip region on an exterior circumferential surface of the handle tube (Davis, “Specifically, during use the cylindrical body 100C is in rolling contact with a floor, which can be a carpet, a hardwood floor, tiles, vinyl or the like. When in rolling contact with a floor, the outer surface 104C of the cylindrical body 100C is in direct surface contact with the floor. Thus, forming the outer surface 104C of the cylindrical body 100C out of a rubber material will reduce the likelihood of causing damage to the floor surface upon which the cylindrical body 100C is positioned during use”, col. 10, line 63 – col. 11, line 4, see annotated FIG. 1 below; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the portions of the cylindrical body Davis show the first circumferential grip region and the second circumferential grip region of the claimed invention. The outer surface 104C of Davis shows the exterior circumferential surface of the claimed invention).
PNG
media_image4.png
634
571
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Davis
Regarding claim 13, Davis shows the exercise bar of claim 1, wherein the solid metal center shaft is made of a metal or metal alloy (Davis, “The elongated bar 200 may be formed of a metal material, such as steel, chrome, black oxide, aluminum, or any other metal commonly used in weight training or for exercise purposes”, col. 12, lines 46-49).
Regarding claim 15, Davis shows the exercise bar of claim 14, wherein the solid metal center shaft is made of a different metal material than that of the handle tube (Davis, “the cylindrical body 100A is formed entirely of a metal material, such as carbon steel or the like”, col. 9, lines 31-32, “The elongated bar 200 may be formed of a metal material, such as steel, chrome, black oxide, aluminum, or any other metal commonly used in weight training or for exercise purposes”, col. 12, lines 46-49).
Regarding claim 21, Davis shows the exercise bar of claim 1, wherein a first end portion of the solid metal center shaft is exposed at a first end of the handle tube (Davis, see annotated FIG. 4 below) and a second end portion of the solid metal center shaft is exposed at a second end of the handle tube (Davis, see annotated FIG. 4 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
535
640
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Davis
Regarding claim 25, Davis shows the exercise bar of claim 1, wherein a length of the hook region of the first band arm is greater than or equal to a width of the elastic band (Davis, see annotated FIG. 1 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
534
450
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Davis
Regarding claim 27, Davis shows the exercise bar of claim 1, wherein a lateral surface of the solid metal center shaft comprises the first side of the solid metal center shaft (Davis, see annotated FIG. 3 below).
PNG
media_image7.png
576
417
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Davis
Regarding claim 28, Davis shows the exercise bar of claim 1, wherein the first end of the first band arm comprises a circular or substantially circular cross-sectional area (Davis, see annotated FIG. 1 below).
PNG
media_image8.png
541
457
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Davis
Regarding claim 29, Davis shows the exercise bar of claim 1, wherein the first notch and the second notch are disposed symmetrically about a centerline of the solid metal center shaft (Davis, see annotated FIG. 3 below).
PNG
media_image9.png
572
351
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Davis
Regarding claim 30, Davis shows the exercise bar of claim 1, wherein the first band arm is a three-dimensional monolithic structure (Davis, see annotated FIG. 1 below; The hook of Davis has a single, continuous piece, thereby showing the three-dimensional monolithic structure of the claimed invention).
PNG
media_image10.png
541
457
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Davis
Regarding claim 31, Davis shows the exercise bar of claim 1, wherein the hook region of the first band arm comprises a monotonic curvature (Davis, see annotated FIG. 1 below; The hook region of Davis, specifically the hook region circled below, has a continuous and smooth curvature, thereby showing the monotonic curvature of the claimed invention).
PNG
media_image11.png
541
457
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Davis
Regarding claim 32, Davis shows the exercise bar of claim 1, wherein the hook region of the first band arm comprises a single curvature (Davis, see annotated FIG. 1 above; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim, the hook region circled above in FIG. 1 shows a single curvature).
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, 5, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S. Patent No. US10843026).
Regarding claim 2, the preferred embodiment of Davis shows the exercise bar of claim 1, including the solid metal center shaft.
However, an alternate embodiment of Davis teaches a first cylindrical handle end cap (Davis, grip component 627, col. 19, line 46) having a first end face, a second end face, and a cylindrical exterior face (Davis, see annotated FIG. 16 below), with a first bore hole along a central axis of the first cylindrical handle end cap between the first and second end faces of the first cylindrical handle end cap (Davis, “The grip components 627, 637 may be injection molded onto the core components 626, 636 or the grip components 627, 637 may be formed separately from the core components 626, 636 and slid onto the core components 626, 636”, col. 19, lines 54-58; The grip component being slid onto the corresponding core component teaches the first bore hole, see FIG. 18 below. See the annotated FIG. 16 below for the central axis of the claimed invention), and a second cylindrical handle end cap (Davis, grip component 637, col. 19, line 48) having a first end face, a second end face, and a cylindrical exterior face, with a first bore hole along a central axis of the second cylindrical handle end cap between the first and second end faces of the second cylindrical handle end cap (Davis, see annotated FIG. 18 below).
PNG
media_image12.png
520
896
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
415
924
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Davis
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the grip components onto the elongated bar 200 of the preferred embodiment of Davis as the “grip components 627, 637 may be formed from a resilient material such as thermoplastic elastomer” (Davis, col. 19, lines 53-54), and the first member and the second member of the elongated member 200 each only have textured regions 215, 225 that each have “a series of protrusions that enhance the gripability of the elongated bar 200 during use” (Davis, col. 11, lines 66-67). As the textured regions of the elongated bar are “common with weight lifting bars to use a knurling process to cut or roll diamond-shaped criss-cross patterns into the metal to enable a user's hands or fingers to get a better grip on the weight lifting bar than would be provided with a smooth surface” (Davis, col. 12, lines 1-5), it would be obvious to slide the grip components 627, 637 onto the corresponding ends of the elongated bar 200 to provide further comfort and gripability for a user as the elongated bar 200 is comparable to the elongated bar 610, which includes center component 610, core component 626, and core component 636, each of which may be formed of aluminum (Davis, col. 19, lines 41-51), comparable to that of the elongated bar 200 which may also may be formed of aluminum (Davis, col. 12, lines 50-51). This modified elongated bar of Davis thereby teaches the first end portion of the solid metal center shaft is fitted through the first bore hole of the first cylindrical handle end cap, the second end portion of the solid metal center shaft is fitted through the first bore hole of the second cylindrical handle end cap. Furthermore, the modified elongated bar of Davis also teaches the first band arm is fitted onto the first end portion of the solid metal center shaft through attachment to the first cylindrical handle end cap, and the second band arm is fitted onto the second end portion of the solid metal center shaft through attachment to the second cylindrical handle end cap. Davis discloses in col. 19, lines 23-26, “The holes 625, 635 provide a location at which a resistance band may be coupled to the elongated bar 600 as has been described above with reference to FIGS. 5 and 12”. The slot of the grip component 627 seen in FIG. 16 below to provide access to the holes 625 teaches the first band arm being fitted onto the first end portion of the solid metal center shaft through attachment to the first cylindrical handle end cap. Similarly, the slot of the grip component 637 seen in FIG. 17A below provide access to holes 635 teaches the second band arm being fitted onto the second end portion od the solid metal center shaft through attachment to the second cylinder handle end cap.
PNG
media_image14.png
534
896
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
509
658
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Davis
Regarding claim 5, Davis teaches the Davis teaches the exercise bar of claim 2, wherein the first cylindrical handle end cap has a second bore hole (Davis; The slot identified above in claim 2 for grip component 627 teaches the second bore hole of the claimed invention for the first cylindrical handle end cap), orthogonal to the first bore hole of the first cylindrical handle end cap (Davis, see annotated FIG. 16 below), the second bore hole of the first cylindrical handle end cap runs between the cylindrical exterior face and the central axis of the first cylindrical handle end cap (Davis, see annotated FIG. 16 below), the second cylindrical handle end cap has a second bore hole (Davis; The slot identified above in claim 2 for grip component 637 teaches the second bore hole of the claimed invention for the second cylindrical handle end cap), orthogonal to the first bore hole of the second cylindrical handle end cap, the second bore hole of the second cylindrical handle end cap runs between the cylindrical exterior face and the central axis of the second cylindrical handle end cap (Davis, see annotated FIG. 16 below), the first band arm is attached to the first cylindrical handle end cap by slotting the first end of the first band arm through the second bore hole of the first cylindrical handle end cap, and the second band arm is attached to the second cylindrical handle end cap by slotting the first end of the second band arm through the second bore hole of the second cylindrical handle end cap (Davis, “The holes 625, 635 provide a location at which a resistance band may be coupled to the elongated bar 600 as has been described above with reference to FIGS. 5 and 12. The coupling of resistance bands to the elongated bar 600 will not be described here in detail in the interest of brevity, it being understood that the description provided above with regard to the exercise system 1000 is applicable to the exercise kit 2000”, col. 19, lines 33-40, and “Specifically, to attach the resistance bands 300 to the elongated bar 200, the hooks 301 of the resistance bands 300 are slid into the openings 230a, 230b, 231a, 231b of the elongated bar 200”, col. 16, lines 40-43; With the modified elongated bar of Davis, having the grip components slid onto the respective ends of the elongated bar 200, the hooks 301 are attached to the grip components by attaching to the holes of the modified elongated bar. The hooks have to pass through the second bore holes of the first cylindrical end cap and the second cylindrical end cap respectively).
PNG
media_image16.png
509
664
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Davis
Regarding claim 10, the preferred embodiment of Davis shows the exercise bar of claim 9.
The preferred embodiment of Davis fails to explicitly show the first circumferential grip region is a level surface, and the second circumferential grip region is characterized by a pattern of straight, angled, crossed lines, or a combination thereof.
However, an alternate embodiment of Davis teaches the first circumferential grip region is a level surface, and the second circumferential grip region is characterized by a pattern of straight, angled, crossed lines, or a combination thereof (Davis, “The hub 500 extends from a first end 501 to a second end 502 along a longitudinal axis A.sub.H-A.sub.H. The hub 500 generally comprises a monolithic body portion 510, a first sleeve portion 560, and a second sleeve portion 580”, see FIG. 14 and 19 below)
PNG
media_image17.png
559
787
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
626
733
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Davis
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the cylindrical body of the preferred embodiment with the hub of Davis as “the sleeve portions 560, 580 are formed from a resilient material so they will enable the part of the hub 500 that contacts the ground or other horizontal surface to flex in response to any bumps, protrusions, or unevenness on the horizontal surface to allow for a smooth rolling movement of the hub 500 along the horizontal surface” (Davis, col. 24, lines 6-12).
Regarding claim 11, Davis teaches the exercise bar of claim 10, wherein the second circumferential grip region is disposed at both a first end and a second end of the handle tube, and the first circumferential grip region is disposed between the first and second end of the handle tube (Davis, see annotated FIG. 19 above).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S. Patent No. US10843026), and further in view of Bruni (PG Patent Publication No. US20170266480A1).
Regarding claim 3, Davis shows the exercise bar of claim 2, including the solid metal center shaft.
Davis fails to teach a first handle bearing comprising a first hollowed cylindrical piece having an inner circumferential surface and an outer circumferential surface; and a second handle bearing comprising a second hollowed cylindrical piece having an inner circumferential surface and an outer circumferential surface, wherein the first end portion of the solid metal center shaft is fitted through the first handle bearing with the solid metal center shaft contacting the inner circumferential surface of the first handle bearing, the second end portion of the solid metal center shaft is fitted through the second handle bearing with the solid metal center shaft contacting the inner circumferential surface of the second handle bearing, and the longitudinal interior bore of the handle tube encapsulates and makes frictional contact with the outer circumferential surface of both the first and second handle bearings
However, Bruni, from the same field of endeavor, discloses in paragraph 0035, “the grip elements can have a plurality of ball bearings or slide element positioned between an inner wall portion of the grip elements and an outer wall of the barbell, the bearings or slide element configured to provide smooth rolling or translation along the length of the barbell. The grip elements can generally be made from metal, plastic, rubber, or any combination thereof. For example, the grip elements can be made from metal sleeves (which can be aluminum, steel, or otherwise) that have bearings therein to permit the grip elements to slide or translate along the length of the outer surface of the barbell”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated bearings between the modified elongated bar of Davis and the cylindrical body of Davis to enhance the smooth rolling between the modified elongated bar and the cylindrical body like that disclosed by Bruni. This modification is obvious as Davis discloses in col. 13, lines 18-22, “This central region of the bar 200A may be left smooth so that when the bar 200A is inserted into the bore 120 of the cylindrical body 100, the smooth portion of the bar 200A engages the inner surface 103 of the cylindrical body 100 that defines the bore 120”, and in col. 9, lines 32-34, “Thus, the bore 120A and the annular groove 110A are formed directly into the solid metal material of the cylindrical body 100A”. Davis therefore discloses the same overall function of providing a smooth surface to facilitate rotation of the elongated bar within the cylindrical body, both of which are made of metal. Bruni simply provides a solution to prevent any damages between the engagement between the modified elongated bar and the cylindrical body of Davis.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S. Patent No. US10843026), in view of Arline (US Patent No. US6120424).
Regarding claim 12, Davis shows the exercise bar of claim 1, including the first band arm and the second band arm.
Davis fails to explicitly show the first band arm is made of metal, and the second band arm is made of metal.
However, Arline, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the first band arm is made of metal, and the second band arm is made of metal (Arline, “a bungee cord having a metal hook attached to both ends”, col. 5, lines 15-16).
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 hooks of Davis to specifically be metal as disclosed by Arline as both Davis and Arline disclose the same overall fitness bar with resistance bands attached at both ends of the fitness bar. Moreover, Davis already discloses in col. 12, lines 46-49, that the elongated bar is formed of metal material making this modification obvious.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S. Patent No. US10843026), in view of Fritzke (PG Patent Publication No. US20060019779A1).
Regarding claim 14, Davis shows the exercise bar of claim 1, including the solid metal center shaft.
Although Davis discloses in col. 12, lines 46-49, “elongated bar 200 may be formed of a metal material, such as steel, chrome, black oxide, aluminum, or any other metal commonly used in weight training or for exercise purposes”, Davis fails to specify the solid metal center shaft or the handle tube is made of austenite steel, martensitic steel, ferritic steel, a nickel alloy, or a high-strength low- alloy steel.
However, Fritzke, a teaching reference showing a similar problem of utilizing specific metals to provide the structural integrity required to withstand forces against a rod or the like, discloses in the Abstract “a ball bat formed of conventional carbon steel, alloy steel or high strength low alloy steel wherein at least portion of such steel used to form the bat is strengthened through carburization, nitriding, or boriding”. Fritzke continues to disclose in paragraph 0029, “at least a portion of the hitting portion 18 of the bat 10 is formed of a conventional carbon steel, an alloy steel or a high strength low alloy steel, which is carburized and tempered to produce a hitting portion 18 that provides exceptional performance at a very reasonable price. Conventional carbon steels, alloy steels and high strength low allow steels (hereinafter referred to as "Conventional Steels") are generally significantly less expensive (often less than $1 per lb.) than other materials such as aluminum (often approximately $10 per lb.), titanium, premium steels and composites. Conventional Steels also provide exceptional workability, ductility and toughness”.
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 elongated bar of Davis to specifically be high strength low alloy steel, as disclosed by Fritzke, because high strength low alloy steel provide exceptional workability, ductility and toughness while also being cost effective. Davis also discloses the elongated bar may be formed of any other metal commonly used in weight training or for exercise purposes.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S. Patent No. US10843026), in view of Nilsson (Youtube: X3 Bar Review – Portable, Heavy-Resistance Band Training on the road or at home; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikYqDtFxPfc).
Regarding claim 16, Davis shows the exercise bar of claim 12, including the elastic band and the exercise bar.
Although Davis discloses in col. 15, lines 22-31, “A single marker 302 may provide a position that a user should anchor the resistance band 300 with a single foot when such single anchoring is desired for certain exercises. In FIG. 1, the second to the bottom one of the resistance bands 300 has two markers that are equidistantly spaced from the center of the resistance band 300. Two markers 302 may be provided on a single resistance band 300 to provide positions that a user should anchor the resistance band 300 with both feet such dual anchoring is desired for certain exercises”, Davis fails to explicitly show a third portion of the elastic band being specifically received by a portion of a base, thereby coupling the exercise bar to the base through the elastic band.
However, Nilsson teaches wherein a third portion of the elastic band (Nilsson, see annotated screenshot below) is received by a portion of a base (Nilsson, see annotated screenshot below; The platform/plate is explained in the video of Nilsson from 1:27 and shown using the X3 bar with bands while also providing instructions, “This platform, I’ll give you a close-up of this too, has voila this has a groove cut into the bottom so that you will actually be using this to stand on while you have the band underneath the plate, so instead of standing on top of the band, you’re standing on top of the plate… Take your light band, or whatever band, you’re going to use. Set your plate your foot plate directly on top of it. Then you’re just going to hook the band right into those hooks”), thereby coupling the exercise bar to the base through the elastic band (Nilsson, see annotated screenshot below; The video discloses starting from 1:27, “This platform, I’ll give you a close-up of this too, has voila this has a groove cut into the bottom so that you will actually be using this to stand on while you have the band underneath the plate, so instead of standing on top of the band, you’re standing on top of the plate”).
PNG
media_image19.png
915
1350
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Nilsson
PNG
media_image20.png
903
1357
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Nilsson
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the base of Nilsson with the exercise system of Davis, as Nilsson discloses in the video starting from 1:42, “So instead of standing on top of the band, you’re standing on top of the plate which give you a bit more leeway. It’s a little more nature kind of movement while you’re still getting the benefits of locking the band down onto the ground”. Davis already discloses markers for anchoring the resistance bands with the feet of the user, making this modification with Nilsson obvious.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S. Patent No. US10843026), in view of Huang (US Patent No. US7175573B1).
Regarding claim 17, Davis teaches the exercise bar of claim 1, including the handle tube. Davis discloses Davis discloses in col. 7, lines 52, “The cylindrical body 100 has a fourth length L.sub.4 that is equivalent to the first length L.sub.1 plus the second length L.sub.2 plus the third length L.sub.3…. he fourth length L.sub.4 is between 5.0 and 7.0 inches, more specifically between 5.55 and 6.35 inches, and still more specifically approximately 6.0 inches”. Moreover, the elongated bar of Davis is disclosed in col. 12, lines 63-64, to specifically be “a fifth length L.sub.5 that is between 25 and 45 inches”. Similarly, Davis discloses in col. 8, lines 59-66, “The cylindrical body 100 has an outer diameter defined herein as a third diameter D.sub.3, which is measured at the outermost portion 105 of the outer surface 104 of the cylindrical body 100. In the exemplified embodiment, the third diameter D.sub.3 is between 4.5 and 5.5 inches, more specifically between 4.75 and 5.25 inches, still more specifically between approximately 4.98 and 5.02 inches, and even more specifically approximately 5.0 inches”.
Although Davis discloses various lengths for the cylindrical body, Davis fails to specifically teach the handle tube is between 40 centimeters and 80 centimeters in length, and the handle tube has a diameter of between 3 centimeters and 5 centimeters.
However, Huang, from the same field of endeavor, discloses in col. 3, lines 26-35, “Referring to FIG. 5 with reference to FIGS. 1 and 2, each of the two pull cords 60 is attached to a respective one of the two fixing members 50, and the rotation disk 10 is placed on the ground. Thus, when a user is seated on a chair, his two legs steps on the grip portion 42 of each of the two handles 40 to drive the rotation disk 10 to rotate on the ground and his two hands hold and apply a force to the holding portion 63 of each of the two pull cords 60 to extend the two pull cords 60, thereby exercising the user's two arms and two feet”.
PNG
media_image21.png
680
505
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Huang
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dimensions of the cylindrical body of Davis as needed to accommodate users of varying sizes as Huang discloses an exercise with a rotation disk that is comparable to the cylindrical body of Davis with different size and shape. See MPEP 2144.04.IV (Changes in Size/Proportion).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S. Patent No. US10843026), in view of Christie (PG Patent Publication No. US20160038781A1).
Regarding claim 22, Davis shows the exercise bar of claim 21, including the solid metal center shaft.
Davis fails to show further a first cylindrical handle end cap connected to the first end portion of the solid metal center shaft; and a second cylindrical handle end cap connected to the second end portion of the solid metal center shaft.
However, Christie, from the same field of endeavor, discloses in paragraph 0031, “the first closed end 24 may be covered with a first end cap 21 and the second closed end 44 may be covered with a second end cap 41 to provide safety and additional support for perpendicular ground exercises. In one embodiment, the first end cap 21 and the second end cap 41 may comprise rubber”.
PNG
media_image22.png
320
459
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Davis
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have attached the first end cap of Christie onto the first end portion of the elongated bar of Davis, and the second end cap of Christie onto the second end portion of the elongated bar of Davis in order to protect the elongated bar of Davis.
Regarding claim 23, Davis, in view of Christie, teaches the exercise bar of claim 22, wherein the first band arm is locked with the first cylindrical handle end cap, and the second band arm is locked with the second cylindrical handle end cap (In light of the modification of Davis by Christie in claim 22 above, the attachment of the first end cap and the second end cap of Christie one the respective end portions of the elongated bar of Davis, and in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the first end cap and the second end cap of Christie is locked with the hooks of Davis).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 6, and 26 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art teach or make obvious the combinations of all the limitations required by dependent claim 4, more specifically, the exercise bar of claim 3, further comprising: a first outer washer fitted onto the first end portion of the solid metal center shaft; and a second outer washer fitted onto the second end portion of the solid metal center shaft, wherein a first face of the first outer washer is juxtaposed against an end face of the first hollowed cylindrical piece of the first handle bearing, a second face of the first outer washer, which opposes the first face of the first outer washer, is juxtaposed against the first end face of the first cylindrical handle end cap, a first face of the second outer washer is juxtaposed against the first end face of the second hollowed cylindrical piece of the second handle bearing, and a second face of the second outer washer, which opposes the first face of the second outer washer, is juxtaposed against the first end face of the second cylindrical handle end cap.
The closest prior art of record, Davis (US10843026) and Bruni (US20170266480A1), discloses the exercise bar of claim 1, including the solid metal center shaft, the first handle bearing, and the second handle bearing, but fails to disclose, a first outer washer fitted onto the first end portion of the solid metal center shaft; and a second outer washer fitted onto the second end portion of the solid metal center shaft, wherein a first face of the first outer washer is juxtaposed against an end face of the first hollowed cylindrical piece of the first handle bearing, a second face of the first outer washer, which opposes the first face of the first outer washer, is juxtaposed against the first end face of the first cylindrical handle end cap, a first face of the second outer washer is juxtaposed against the first end face of the second hollowed cylindrical piece of the second handle bearing, and a second face of the second outer washer, which opposes the first face of the second outer washer, is juxtaposed against the first end face of the second cylindrical handle end cap.
There is no evidence from the prior art why someone skilled in the art would have anticipated the modifying the elongated bar of Davis by attaching a first outer washer and a second outer washer without hindsight of the claimed invention as there is nothing connected to the first end portion and the second end portion of the elongated bar of Davis that would require washers. Furthermore, incorporating washers between the grip components of Davis and the cylindrical body of Davis would require hindsight of the claimed invention.
None of the prior art teach or make obvious the combinations of all the limitations required by dependent claim 6, more specifically, the exercise bar of claim 5, further comprising a first locking pin and a second locking pin, wherein the first cylindrical handle end cap further comprises a third bore hole running between the first and second end faces of the first cylindrical handle end cap, parallel to the first bore hole of the first cylindrical handle end cap, and passing through the second bore hole of the first cylindrical handle end cap, the second cylindrical handle end cap further comprises a third bore hole running between the first and second end faces of the second cylindrical handle end cap, parallel to the first bore hole of the second cylindrical handle end cap, and passing through the second bore hole of the second cylindrical handle end cap, the first end of the first band arm includes a bore hole, the first end of the second band arm includes a bore hole, the first locking pin locks the first end of the first band arm to the first cylindrical handle end cap by insertion through both the third bore hole of the first cylindrical handle end cap and the bore hole of the first end of the first band arm, and the second locking pin locks the first end of the second band arm to the second cylindrical handle end cap by insertion through both the third bore hole of the second cylindrical handle end cap and the bore hole of the first end of the second band arm.
The closest prior art of record, Davis (US10843026) discloses the exercise bar of claim 5, including the first cylindrical handle end cap with the first bore hole and the second bore hole, the second cylindrical handle end cap with the first bore hole and the second bore hole, the first band arm, and the second band arm, but fails to disclose, a first locking pin and a second locking pin, wherein the first cylindrical handle end cap further comprises a third bore hole running between the first and second end faces of the first cylindrical handle end cap, parallel to the first bore hole of the first cylindrical handle end cap, and passing through the second bore hole of the first cylindrical handle end cap, the second cylindrical handle end cap further comprises a third bore hole running between the first and second end faces of the second cylindrical handle end cap, parallel to the first bore hole of the second cylindrical handle end cap, and passing through the second bore hole of the second cylindrical handle end cap, the first end of the first band arm includes a bore hole, the first end of the second band arm includes a bore hole, the first locking pin locks the first end of the first band arm to the first cylindrical handle end cap by insertion through both the third bore hole of the first cylindrical handle end cap and the bore hole of the first end of the first band arm, and the second locking pin locks the first end of the second band arm to the second cylindrical handle end cap by insertion through both the third bore hole of the second cylindrical handle end cap and the bore hole of the first end of the second band arm.
There is no evidence from the prior art why someone skilled in the art would have anticipated the modifying the grip components of Davis to each have a third bore hole for lock pins to secure the hooks of Davis without hindsight of the claimed invention.
None of the prior art teach or make obvious the combinations of all the limitations required by dependent claim 26, more specifically, the exercise bar of claim 1, wherein the first notch comprises: a lower end portion comprising a planar surface, and a side wall extending from the planar surface to the first side of the solid metal center shaft, wherein the side wall comprises a radius of curvature greater than zero.
The closest prior art of record, Davis (US10843026), discloses the solid metal center shaft and the first notch, but fails to disclose, the first notch comprises: a lower end portion comprising a planar surface, and a side wall extending from the planar surface to the first side of the solid metal center shaft, wherein the side wall comprises a radius of curvature greater than zero.
There is no evidence from the prior art why someone skilled in the art would have anticipated the modifying the holes of Davis without hindsight of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 01/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim 1, and consequently dependent claims 3-5, 14-16, and 24 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 in view of Davis (US10843026).
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 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 on 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