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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/20/2025 has been entered.
Claims 15-20 have been withdrawn.
Claims 3, 5, and 8-10 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 11-14 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner relies on Guinn to teach a similar exercise device having a handle (3a/3b) connected to a spring body (2) wherein the handle comprises a recessed textured grip made from cork (Par. 0040) which increases the sliding resistance of a user's hand while gripping the handle during exercise. The Examiner then asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the handle of Haygood et al to include a cork grip thereon to improve the quality and effectiveness of a user's grip on the handle.
Guinn teaches a grip made of metal or PVC that has foam rubber or a cork padding placed over the handle. Claim 1 in contrast requires a recessed textured grip. A foam or rubber padding placed over the handle would provide a raised textured grip if it created any texture. However, Guinn is silent as to even a raised texture of any kind on the grip. As such, Guinn does not appear to teach or suggest a recessed textured grip, as required.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and initially notes that Guinn discloses the foam rubber and cork padding as alternatives to place over the metal/ PVC handle. Haygood et al also teaches that the handle is made from a strong plastic or metal. Examiner then relies on the disclosure of Guinn to teach that cork is a well-known material to place over such a grip to enhance the coefficient of friction of the grip. Furthermore, cork inherently has a recessed texture, not a raised texture as purported by Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant further argues:
Regarding original Claim 10, the Examiner states that Haygood teaches that a second spring connector attaches to the ball via a plug stiffener (22). Haywood teaches that reference number 22 is a line made out of a strong material that attaches to the ball. Claim 4 now requires a plug stiffener that extends through an opening in the ball and secures the spring connector to the ball. Haygood teaches a cable that has a flared end to hold the cable in place. However, nothing in Haygood appears to teach or suggest an independent plug stiffener to connect a separate component, the second spring connector, to the ball, as now required.
Examiner respectfully notes that, as set forth in the rejection below, Baetcke teaches a similar exercise device (Abstract) having a handle (2) which is connected to an elastic member (3) which is connected (at 44) through a plug stiffener (4) to an inflatable ball (11). The plug stiffener of Baetcke located at the end of body (3) comprises a similar ball shaped end (31) to the ball shaped end of the plug stiffener (22) of Haygood. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in the case of modifying the ball to be an inflatable ball, using a valve (41/44 as shown in Fig 3) as taught by Baetcke in combination with the ball shaped end would be an obvious modification.
Applicant further argues:
Independent Claim 4 has been further amended to now also require a spring wrap encapsulating the spring, as taught in original Claim 8 and in paragraph [0033] of the present Specification. No new matter has been added…Schaubach teaches a bungee cord tether 16 encapsulated in a sleeve 20. Claim 4 now requires a spring wrap that encapsulates a spring. Schaubach teaches a protected bungee cord, but does not teach or even suggest that a spring could be used in place of the bungee tether. As such, even Schaubach does not teach or suggest a spring wrap encapsulating a spring, as now required.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Schaubach teaches a spring (16; Examiner considers the linearly resilient tether portion (disclosed as a bungee cord) to comprise a spring) and a spring wrap (20). Schaubach also discloses that linearly resilient tethers of alternative constructions and compositions may be used in concert with the spring wrap. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the spring wrap could be placed around the linearly resilient spring of Haygood et al with a reasonable expectation of success to increase the durability of the spring during use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haygood et al (US Patent 5,597,159) in view of Guinn (US Patent Application Publication 2004/0180766) and Schaubach (US Patent 6,142,889).
1. Haygood et al disclose a total home physical therapy device comprising:
a handle (4);
a body (28) attached to the handle;
a ball (24);
a spring (32) attached to each of the body and the ball; and
wherein the handle is removably attachable to the body (via externally threaded portion depending from universal ball joint 8).
However, Haygood et al do not disclose the handle comprising a recessed textured grip.
Guinn teaches a similar exercise device having a handle (3a/3b) connected to a spring body (2) wherein the handle comprises a recessed textured grip made from cork (Par. 0040) which increases the sliding resistance of a user’s hand while gripping the handle during exercise. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the handle of Haygood et al to include a cork grip thereon to improve the quality and effectiveness of a user’s grip on the handle.
Further, Haygood et al do not disclose a spring wrap that encloses the spring.
Schaubach teaches a similar exercise device having a handle (22), a body (28) attached to the handle, a ball (18), a spring (16; Examiner considers the linearly resilient tether portion (disclosed as a bungee cord or linearly resilient tethers of alternative constructions and compositions) to comprise a spring) and a spring wrap (20) which is “sufficiently durable so as not to be damaged by a bat's impact, and it must further be sufficiently flexible to yield when so hit. And, at the same time, sleeve 20 needs to be shape-retaining to resist wrapping around a bat, and to return immediately to a substantially linear configuration after a bat's impact” (Col 4, Lines 51-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Haygood et al to include a spring wrap to enclose the spring as taught by Schauback to protect the spring and resist the spring from wrapping around a bat.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haygood et al and Guinn as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Baetcke (German Patent Document DE 20 2016 105 493 U1).
2. Haygood et al and Guinn teach a physical therapy device significantly as claimed, including having a hollowed out ball (24) but do not disclose wherein the ball is an inflatable ball.
Baetcke teaches a similar exercise device (Abstract) having a handle (2) which is connected to an elastic member (3) having a bulbous end (31) which is connected via a valve (41/44) to an inflatable ball (1) which is configured as a soccer ball to allow for a user to train. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the exercise device of Haygood et al to have an inflatable ball connected to the bulbous end of an elastic member as taught by Baetcke to increase the utility thereof my allowing a user to train with a soccer ball instead of a baseball/softball.
Claims 4-7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haygood et al in view of Guinn, McCaleb (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0262686), Baetcke, and Schaubach.
4 and 11. Haygood et al disclose a total home physical therapy device comprising:
a handle (4) comprised of a grip and a first threaded end (at 8);
a body (28) attached to the handle;
a ball (24) comprised of an opening (Fig 4);
a plug stiffener (22); and
a spring (32),
wherein the spring attaches to each of a first spring connector (between 12 and 32) and a second spring connector (18; Fig 4)
wherein the first spring connector attaches to the body (between 12 and 32); and
wherein the plug stiffener penetrates the opening in the ball to secure the second spring connector to the ball (Fig 4).
However, Haygood et al do not disclose the handle comprising a recessed textured cork grip.
Guinn teaches a similar exercise device having a handle (3a/3b) connected to a spring body (2) wherein the handle comprises a recessed textured grip made from cork (Par. 0040) which increases the sliding resistance of a user’s hand while gripping the handle during exercise. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the handle of Haygood et al to include a cork grip thereon to improve the quality and effectiveness of a user’s grip on the handle.
Further, Haygood et al do not disclose wherein the body is comprised of a first member, a second member and a locking fastener; wherein the second member is telescopically positioned within the first member.
McCaleb teaches a similar ball training device having a first member (12) which is connected to a tether (88) comprising first member (92), a second member (90) and a locking fastener (96/98), and wherein the body which is connected to a ball (28) which allows the user to “adjust the space lengths between the handle and weight portions on demand” (Par. 0029). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the body of Haygood et al to comprise multiple segments as taught by McCaleb to provide flexibility in the desired length of the tether which alters the resistance and effect of the device.
Furthermore, Haygood et al do not disclose wherein the ball is a ball having a valve.
Baetcke teaches a similar exercise device (Abstract) having a handle (2) which is connected to an elastic member (3) which is connected (at 44) through a plug stiffener (4) to an inflatable ball (11) which is configured as a soccer ball to allow for a user to train. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the exercise device of Haygood et al to have an inflatable ball connected to the elastic member via the valve/plug stiffener as taught by Baetcke to increase the utility thereof my allowing a user to train with a soccer ball instead of a baseball/softball.
Finally, Haygood et al do not disclose a spring wrap that encloses the spring.
Schaubach teaches a similar exercise device having a handle (22), a body (28) attached to the handle, a ball (18), a spring (16; Examiner considers the linearly resilient tether portion (disclosed as a bungee cord or linearly resilient tethers of alternative constructions and compositions) to comprise a spring) and a spring wrap (20) which is “sufficiently durable so as not to be damaged by a bat's impact, and it must further be sufficiently flexible to yield when so hit. And, at the same time, sleeve 20 needs to be shape-retaining to resist wrapping around a bat, and to return immediately to a substantially linear configuration after a bat's impact” (Col 4, Lines 51-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Haygood et al to include a spring wrap to enclose the spring as taught by Schaubach to protect the spring and resist the spring from wrapping around a bat.
6. Haygood et al disclose the total home physical therapy device of claim 4, wherein a spherical connector attaches to each of the handle and the first member (Fig 2).
7. Haygood et al disclose the total home physical therapy device of claim 6, wherein the spherical connector is secured by a threaded ring (10) that engages the first threaded end (Fig 2).
12-13. Haygood et al disclose the total home physical therapy device significantly as claimed, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the first spring connector attaches to a threaded connector which is secured by a second threaded ring. While Haygood et al do not disclose specifically how the body (12) is attached to the spring member as seen in Fig 4, the connection of the body at the opposing end to the handle teaches a connection using a threaded connector secured by a threaded ring (Fig 2). Applicant is reminded that it has been consistently held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 and that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced and is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the opposing end of the body to have the same connection features to secure the body to the spring as this is merely a duplication of essential working parts producing expected and predictable results.
14. The total home physical therapy device of claim 4, wherein the spring allows for a movement of the ball (Fig 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)272-8297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7a-4:30p MST.
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.
/JOSHUA T KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784 12/4/2025