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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10 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.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments are directed towards their attempt to distinguish the claimed invention from Svenberg. Specifically applicant argues that Svenberg discloses a singular component, 205, that contains a recess that is not both removable from the weight disk and separate from the protrusion. The Office agrees that Svenberg’s component 205 does not expressly describe that the recess and protrusion portions of the component are physically separable from one another. It does seem clear from Svenberg’s disclosure that the 205 component is removable attachable to the weight disk as it contemplated to affix the component to the disk via pins and/or bolts. As to the recess and protrusion being separate from one another in Svenberg, the specific manner of their separation is not entirely clearly defined in the claim language. Is simply the placement of the recess on an opposite side of component 205 than the protrusion, sufficient to disclose that they are separate? Potentially. However, even when a more narrow construction of the term “separate” is taken, such as to require physical separability between recess and protrusion, such separability is addressed in legal precedent (MPEP 2144). The specifics of separability discussed in the MPEP citation lead the Office to the conclusion that the presented claim limitation would have been obvious in view of Svenberg. The details of this analysis and its application to the newly presented claim language are detailed further below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Svenberg (US 20230001258).
With respect to claim 1, Svenberg discloses, an adjustable weight lifting apparatus (fig. 1), comprising:
a weight lifting device (fig. 5J) comprising first and second axially outer surfaces (e.g. axially outermost surfaces of each 131 in 5J);
a plurality of weight disks (25 in fig. 1) removably attachable to the first and second axially outer surfaces of the weight lifting device and to each other (clear from fig. 1; also see para. 36); and
each weight disk comprising a main body portion (central portion labeled 25 in fig. 2C) having first and second axially outer weight disk surfaces (right and left sides of the weight disks 25 in fig. 2C), a protrusion (male dovetail joint member; 153 in fig. 2C) removably attachable (para. 52 details removable attachment fasteners such as bolts and screws) to the first axially outer weight disk surface of the main body portion (right side of the weight disk in fig. 2C) and at a top of the weight disk (protrusions and recesses are attached at both the top and bottom of the weight disk in fig. 2C), and a recess (female dovetail joint member; 147 in fig. 2C) at the top of the weight disk on the second axially outer weight disk surface (just as with the protrusion discussed above, the recess is provided at both the top and bottom of the disk and on the left side of the weight disk in fig. 2C), the protrusion of a first one of the plurality of weight disks being adapted to be removably received in the recess of a second one of the plurality of weight disks (para. 36, e.g. fig. 1), the first and second ones of the plurality of weight disks being radially movable but not axially movable relative to each other when the protrusion of the first one of the plurality of weight disks is received in the recess of the second one of the plurality of weight disks (next to last sentence of para. 36, “connection of the dovetail joint members prevents axial movement of the weight disks.”), wherein the recess is defined by a component that is removably attachable to the main body portion (para. 52 details that the recess component (205) is removably attached to the main body of the weight disk with “suitable fasteners such as pins, bolts, screws, or the like” pins and bolts are seen as removable attachment fasteners).
Svenberg does not expressly disclose that the recess component is separate from the protrusion.
Svenberg discloses, as discussed above, that a component comprising both a protrusion and a recess is removably attached to a weight disk. The protrusion and recess are part of the same component as disclosed by Svenberg.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Svenberg by making the recess separate from the protrusion because the sheer act of making parts separable is considered obvious. Per MPEP 2144.04(V)(C), if it were considered desirable for any reason to make parts separable, then it would be obvious to make the part removable and separate for that purpose. Herein there are several potential desirable reasons for making the recess and protrusion separable. Potential reasons include, 1) to allow for replacement should either be damaged, 2) enable more manufacturing flexibility, or 3) permit customization of the joint system with different components. As such claim 1 is seen as obvious in view of the Svenberg reference.
With respect to claim 2, Svenberg discloses, the adjustable weight lifting apparatus as set forth in claim 1 (see above), wherein the protrusion of the second one of the plurality of weight disks is adapted to be removably received in the recess of the first one of the plurality of weight disks when the protrusion of the first one of the plurality of weight disks is removably received in the recess of the second one of the plurality of weight disks (clear from fig 1, and para 36 that the disks and their corresponding male/female dovetails removably interface with each other).
With respect to claim 3, Svenberg discloses, the adjustable weight lifting apparatus as set forth in claim 1 (see above), wherein the first and second axially outer surfaces of the weight lifting device each include an axially outer surface protrusion and an axially outer surface recess (139 and 141 in fig. 5J), the axially outer surface protrusions of the first and second axially outer surfaces being adapted to be removably received in the recess of corresponding weight disks of the plurality of weight disks, the weight lifting device and the corresponding weight disks being radially movable but not axially movable relative to one another when the axially outer surface protrusions of the first and second axially outer surfaces are received in the recesses of the corresponding weight disks (clear from fig 1, and para 36 that the disks and their corresponding male/female dovetails removably interface with each other).
With respect to claim 4, Svenberg discloses, the adjustable weight lifting apparatus as set forth in claim 3 (see above), wherein the axially outer surface protrusions of the first and second axially outer surfaces are removably attachable to the first and second axially outer surfaces of the weight lifting device (para. 52 expressly discloses connection of the male/female dovetail joint connections being affixed to the inner most weight disk via removable fasteners such as bolts and screws).
With respect to claim 8, Svenberg discloses, the adjustable weight lifting apparatus as set forth in claim 1 (see above), wherein the recess on each weight disk is provided in a component removably attachable to the main body portion (para. 52).
With respect to claim 9, Svenberg discloses, the adjustable weight lifting apparatus as set forth in claim 8 (see above), wherein the recess includes a narrowest end closest to an outer surface of the main body portion and a widest end axially inward of the outer surface of the main body (clear from fig. 1, e.g. that the wider end is inward and the narrower outward, this would also seem to be necessary for such a dovetail joint to function properly).
With respect to claim 10, Svenberg discloses, a weight disk (25 in fig. 2C) for an adjustable weight lifting apparatus (fig. 1), the adjustable weight lifting apparatus comprising a plurality of weight disks (25 in fig. 1) removably attachable to each other (para. 36), the weight disk comprising a main body portion (central portion labeled 25 in fig. 2C) having first and second axially outer weight disk surfaces (right and left sides of the weight disks 25 in fig. 2C), a protrusion (male dovetail joint member; 153 in fig. 2C) removably attachable (para. 52 details removable attachment fasteners such as bolts and screws) to the first axially outer weight disk surface of the main body portion (right side of the weight disk in fig. 2C) and at a top of the weight disk (protrusions and recesses are attached at both the top and bottom of the weight disk in fig. 2C), and a recess (female dovetail joint member; 147 in fig. 2C) at the top of the weight disk on the second axially outer weight disk surface (just as with the protrusion discussed above, the recess is provided at both the top and bottom of the disk and on the left side of the weight disk in fig. 2C), the protrusion of the weight disk being adapted to be removably received in the recess of a another one of the plurality of weight disks (para. 36, e.g. fig. 1), the weight disk and the other one of the plurality of weight disks being radially movable but not axially movable relative to each other when the protrusion of the weight disk is received in the recess of the other one of the plurality of weight disks (next to last sentence of para. 36, “connection of the dovetail joint members prevents axial movement of the weight disks.”), wherein the recess is defined by a component that is removably attachable to the main body portion (para. 52 details that the recess component (205) is removably attached to the main body of the weight disk with “suitable fasteners such as pins, bolts, screws, or the like” pins and bolts are seen as removable attachment fasteners).
Svenberg does not expressly disclose that the recess component is separate from the protrusion.
Svenberg discloses, as discussed above, that a component comprising both a protrusion and a recess is removably attached to a weight disk. The protrusion and recess are part of the same component as disclosed by Svenberg.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Svenberg by making the recess separate from the protrusion because the sheer act of making parts separable is considered obvious. Per MPEP 2144.04(V)(C), if it were considered desirable for any reason to make parts separable, then it would be obvious to make the part removable and separate for that purpose. Herein there are several potential desirable reasons for making the recess and protrusion separable. Potential reasons include, 1) to allow for replacement should either be damaged, 2) enable more manufacturing flexibility, or 3) permit customization of the joint system with different components. As such claim 1 is seen as obvious in view of the Svenberg reference.
With respect to claim 11, Svenberg discloses, the weight disk as set forth in claim 10 (see above), wherein the protrusion of the other one of the plurality of weight disks is adapted to be removably received in the recess of the weight disks when the protrusion of the weight disk is removably received in the recess of the other one of the plurality of weight disks (clear from fig 1, and para 36 that the disks and their corresponding male/female dovetails removably interface with each other).
With respect to claim 15, Svenberg discloses, the weight disk as set forth in claim 10 (see above), wherein the recess on each weight disk is provided in a component removably attachable to the main body portion (para. 52).
With respect to claim 16, Svenberg discloses, the weight disk as set forth in claim 15, wherein the recess includes a narrowest end closest to an outer surface of the main body portion and a widest end axially inward of the outer surface of the main body (clear from fig. 1, e.g. that the wider end is inward and the narrower outward, this would also seem to be necessary for such a dovetail joint to function properly).
Claim(s) 5-7, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svenberg (US 20230001258) in view of Chen (US 11951347).
With respect to claim 5, Svenberg discloses, the adjustable weight lifting apparatus as set forth in claim 1 (see above).
Svenberg does not expressly disclose, wherein the protrusion on each weight disk comprises a knob having a narrowest end closest to the main body portion and a wider end furthest from the main body portion.
Chen discloses, a protrusion (121 in fig. 1) on each weight disk (100 in fig. 1) comprises a knob (121 in fig. 1) having a narrowest end closest to the main body portion (bottom of the T-shaped 121 in fig. 1) and a wider end furthest from the main body portion (top of the T-shaped 121 in fig. 1).
Chen and Svenberg are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have simply replaced the male/female dovetail joints of Svenberg with the knob/groove joints taught by Chen. The result of such a combination would have been predictable and resulted in a weight disks as taught by Svenberg that are connected together with a knob/groove joint instead of the previously discussed dovetail.
With respect to claim 6, Svenberg in view of Chen discloses, the adjustable weight lifting apparatus as set forth in claim 5 (see above).
Chen further discloses, wherein the recess includes a narrowest end closest to an outer surface of the main body portion and a widest end axially inward of the outer surface of the main body (the T-shaped groove in fig. 1 of Chen discloses a wider inward of the disk and an narrower end outwardly).
With respect to claim 7, Svenberg in view of Chen discloses, the adjustable weight ifting apparatus as set forth in claim 5 (see above).
Svenberg further discloses, wherein the protrusion on each weight disk is removably attachable to the main body portion by a bolt (para. 52).
With respect to claim 12, Svenberg discloses, the weight disk as set forth in claim 10 (see above).
Svenberg does not expressly disclose, wherein the protrusion on each weight disk comprises a knob having a narrowest end closest to the main body portion and a wider end furthest from the main body portion.
Chen discloses, a protrusion (121 in fig. 1) on each weight disk (100 in fig. 1) comprises a knob (121 in fig. 1) having a narrowest end closest to the main body portion (bottom of the T-shaped 121 in fig. 1) and a wider end furthest from the main body portion (top of the T-shaped 121 in fig. 1).
Chen and Svenberg are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have simply replaced the male/female dovetail joints of Svenberg with the knob/groove joints taught by Chen. The result of such a combination would have been predictable and resulted in a weight disks as taught by Svenberg that are connected together with a knob/groove joint instead of the previously discussed dovetail.
With respect to claim 13, Svenberg in view of Chen discloses, the weight disk as set forth in claim 12 (see above).
Chen further discloses, wherein the recess includes a narrowest end closest to an outer surface of the main body portion and a widest end axially inward of the outer surface of the main body (the T-shaped groove in fig. 1 of Chen discloses a wider inward of the disk and an narrower end outwardly).
With respect to claim 14, Svenberg in view of Chen discloses, the weight disk as set forth in claim 12 (see above).
Svenberg further discloses, wherein the protrusion on each weight disk is removably attachable to the main body portion by a bolt (para. 52).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Krull – US6033350 – interlocking weights with mounted dovetail joints (fig. 70-72)
Pohl – US20240252873 – interlocking weight dumbbell
Barrow – US20230113490 – removable knob and groove joint
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 William L Boddie whose telephone number is (571)272-0666. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4:15 M-F.
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.
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.
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625