DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott (US 11,752,385 B2) in view of Pietro (US 4,911,573 A).
Regarding claim 1, Abbott discloses a connector of fitness equipment (302 and 304, see Fig. 3A), comprising a first connection member (104b) and a second connection member (104a) that are hinged with each other (see Fig. 1C), a clamp cavity configured to connect the fitness equipment is formed by enclosing the first connection member and the second connection member (see Fig. 1C-3C);
wherein a buckling structure (112) configured to lock or unlock the first connection member and the second connection member is provided between the first connection member and the second connection member (see Column 4 lines 56-64); and
the buckling structure is rotationally provided on the second connection member (see Fig. 1B and Column 4 lines 56-64).
Abbott fails to disclose as claimed that a bayonet is provided on the second connection member; the buckle is rotated around the first connection member;
wherein an outer end of the buckle is fixedly provided with a buckle plate; the buckle is rotated around the first connection member, and the buckle is pressed so as to render the buckle plate to be elastically deformed and inserted into the bayonet to form a lock.
Abbott does disclose that the buckling structure (112) can be attached to the first and second connection members through any desired attachment method (see Column 4 lines 56-64).
Pietro teaches a bayonet connection comprising an inner (3) and outer (1) rod having a buckle plate (5) on the outer rod and a bayonet (6) on the inner rod, in order to provide a rigid axial retainer for the two connected components without requiring the amount of rotation required by a threaded connection (see Abstract of Pietro).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector of Abbott, with Pietro, such that it comprises the bayonet connection protrusion and recess of Pietro, on the connector of Abbott, in order to provide a rigid axial retainer for the connected components without requiring the amount of rotation required by a threaded connection (see Abstract of Pietro).
Accordingly, the combination of Abbot and Pietro teaches a bayonet (6 of Pietro) is provided on the second connection member (104a of Abbott); the buckle (112 of Abbott) is rotated around the first connection member (see Fig. 1B of Abbott); wherein an outer end of the buckle (112 of Abbott) is fixedly provided with a buckle plate (5 of Pietro on 112 of Abbott); the buckle is rotated around (see Fig. 1B of Abbott and Figs. 1-2 of Pietro) the first connection member (104b), and the buckle is pressed so as to render the buckle plate to be elastically deformed and inserted (5 of Pietro on 112 of Abbott) into the bayonet (6 of Pietro on 104a of Abbott) to form a lock.
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of pressed so as to render the buckle plate to be elastically deformed and inserted are given limited patentable weight, all that is required of claim 1 is that the buckle is capable of being pressed so as to render the buckle plate to be elastically deformed and inserted.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Abbott and Pietro teaches wherein the second connection member (104a of Abbott) is fixedly provided with a rotation portion (110 of Abbott) that is integrally molded with the second connection member (see Fig. 1A of Abbott), the buckle (112 of Abbott) is rotationally provided on the rotation portion (see Fig. 1B of Abbott).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Abbott and Pietro teaches wherein the outer end of the buckle (112 of Abbott) is cocked outwardly (C in annotated Figure 5 below and see NOTE below) to form a pressing portion, the buckle plate (5 of Pietro) is fixedly provided on an inner surface of the pressing portion (see Fig. 1B of Abbott and Fig. 5 of Pietro for example).
NOTE: The buckle plate is formed by a inwardly pressed portion taught by 5 of Pietro. Therefore, the buckle of Abbott is outwardly protruding at the location of the buckle plate of Pietro taught onto the buckle of Abbott.
PNG
media_image1.png
440
258
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 5.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Abbott and Pietro teaches wherein the first connection member (104b of Abbott) is fixedly provided with a contact piece (D in annotated Figure 1E below) configured to cover a gap between the first connection member and the second connection member (104a of Abbott) when the first connection member is rotated to be snapped and locked with the second connection member (see Fig. 1E of Abbott).
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of “…when the first connection member is rotated to be snapped and locked with the second connection member…” are given limited patentable weight. All that is required of claim 7 is that the first connection member is capable of being rotated to be snapped and locked with the second connection member.
PNG
media_image2.png
504
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 1E.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 8-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Abbott and Pietro teaches the first and second connection members (104a-b of Abbott), a clamp cavity (see Fig. 1C of Abbott), and the fitness equipment inserted therein (302, 304 of Abbott), but fails to expressly teach as claimed that the outer wall of the first connection member is provided with a buckle ring, the first connection member is provided with a locking through-hole which is interconnected with the clamp cavity, the fitness equipment mounted in the clamp cavity is provided with a locking threaded hole corresponding to the locking through-hole, and the threaded rod end of the buckle ring passes through the locking through-hole and is screwed into the locking threaded hole on the fitness equipment.
Prior art ‘023 (KR 200418023 Y1) teaches elastic bands that attach to the ends of fitness equipment (see Figs. 1-3) by means of buckle rings (40), but fails to teach as claimed that the buckle rings have threaded rod ends threaded into the fitness equipment and that are inserted through a first connection member as defined in claims 1 and 3. Accordingly, prior art ‘023 would not be obvious to combine with Abbott and Pietro as the combination would still lack the structure of claim 3.
Further, prior art ‘442 (KR 200437442 Y1) teaches a buckle ring (31, 35) being threaded into fitness equipment (see Fig. 7) such that a cable (33) can be attached thereto, but fails to teach as claimed that the threaded rod passes through the locking through-hole of the first connection member, as defined in claim 1, and is screwed into the locking threaded hole on the fitness equipment. Therefore, there would have been no obvious reason to modify the combination of Abbott and Pietro, with ‘442, as ‘442 teaches the buckle ring being threaded directly into the fitness equipment without a first connection member. Such a combination of prior art would not reach the claimed structure as set forth. Further, any such modifications to reach the claimed subject matter would require the use of hindsight and therefore be non-obvious.
There is no prior art either alone or in combination that teaches or discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 3. For at least the reasons listed above, claim 3 would be allowed if rewritten in independent form.
Claims 4 and 8-10 depend from claim 3 above and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form for at least the reasons listed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 02 April 2026, page 5, recites: “…On the contrary, in the present application, the buckle plate 8 is elastically deformed and inserted into the bayonet 7 to form a lock when the buckle is pressed. The structure and configuration of collar 112 in Abbott is completely different from the buckle plate 8 or bayonet 7 as recited in amended claim 1 of the present application…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites the following process limitations: “…the buckle is rotated around the first connection member, and the buckle is pressed so as to render the buckle plate to be elastically deformed and inserted into the bayonet to form a lock…”. As mentioned above claim 1 is a product claim comprising process limitations and is therefore treated as a product-by-process claim. Further, determination of patentability is based on the product itself with regard to product-by-process claims. Therefore, the prior art only needs to be capable of the process limitations set forth in the claims. Accordingly, the combination of Abbott and Pietro teaches a buckle (112 of Abbott) rotated around the first connection member, and further is capable of being pressed so as to render the buckle plate (5 of Pietro) to be elastically deformed and inserted into the bayonet (6 of Pietro) to form a lock.
Applicant's arguments filed 02 April 2026, page 8, recites: “…On the contrary, from the above excerpt and figure 1 and figure 2 of Pietro, it can be clearly seen that when the transverse protrusion 5 is positioned in the contiguous second part 8, the first tube 1 and the second tube 2 are connected in an axial direction. That is, two tubes (first tube 1 and second tube) are connected. That is, the structure and connection relationship between the transverse protrusion 5 and the contiguous second part 8 in Pietro is different from those of the buckle plate 8 being elastically deformed and inserted into the bayonet 7 to form a lock when the buckle is pressed as recited in amended claim 1 of the present application. The above insufficiency of Abbott cannot be cured by the other cited references…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s remarks regarding “two tubes are connected” are not persuasive. The combination of Abbott and Pietro teaches the connector (100 of Abbott) comprising a protrusion (5 of Pietro) and groove (6 of Pietro) being taught in replace of the threads of Abbott. Therefore, the connector is in fact connecting two objects (see Fig. 3A) similar to that of Applicant’s invention. However, the combination is not teaching two tubes being axially connected as alleged by Applicant. Further, Pietro alone does not disclose the invention as Applicant is relying upon in these arguments. Rather, the combination of Abbott and Pietro teaches the claimed invention as set forth in amended 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 ZACHARY A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/ZAH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights