DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 06/09/2025.
Status of the Claims
In applicant’s amendments, claims 1-5 cancelled, and new claim 6-10 added. Claim 6-10 are currently pending and considered below. An action on the merits now follows.
Response to Amendment
The objections to the abstract of the disclosure, and the drawing, specification, and claim objections have been obviated in view of applicant’s amendments and arguments. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been obviated in view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, and was/were withdrawn.
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 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.
a push frame (handle 141), erected at the first end of the main frame (handle 141 extends upwardly from the first end 101 of the chassis 110);
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11957958 B2 (Rosenow) in view of US 11179591 B1 (Bazargan et al; henceforth Bazargan).
Regarding Independent Claim 6, Rosenow discloses a weight training sled (wheeled weight training sled 100), comprising:
a main frame (chassis 110) having a first end (first end 101) and a second end (second end 102) in spaced relation to each other (the front and rear ends 101, 102 are located on polar ends of chassis 110);
an operating handle (handles 142) affixed to and extending from the second end of said main frame (handles 142 extend upwardly from the rear second end 102 of chassis 110);
a rotatable resistance wheel (front wheel 131) positioned at the first end of said main frame (see Figure 1 wherein the front wheel 131 is located at the first end 101), said rotatable resistance wheel having a damping structure that resists a rolling of said rotatable resistance wheel (braking mechanism 180 configured to provide resistance to wheel 131 therein);
a pair of wheels (wheels 132) rotatably mounted at respective opposite sides of the second end of said main frame (wheels 132 are attached at the second end on opposite right and left sides of chassis 110), said pair of wheel adapted to allow said main frame to be displaced by a rolling of said pair of wheel and the rolling of said rotatable resistance wheel (the sled 100 is disposed upon the ground by wheels 131, 132 such that the device rolls around the ground on the wheels);
wherein a height at the first end of said main frame is less than a height of the second end of said main frame (Figure 7: Annotated; front wheel 131 has an axle located in the resistance mechanism 180 which is situated above chassis 110 wherein rear wheels 132 are located on axles 122 which are in-line with chassis 110 such that the axels are at different heights giving the ends different heights).
PNG
media_image1.png
673
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 7: Annotated
Rosenow discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Rosenow further discloses that the front end is lower than the rear end when the wheels are in contact with the ground. Rosenow does not disclose that the second end is upwardly inclined at between 6 and 15 degrees relative to the first end, wherein said pair of wheels are omni-directional and freely rotatable.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Rosenow to have an angle between 6 and 15 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of the relative dimension of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distant from the prior art device.” In the instant case, the device of Rosenow would not operate differently with the claimed angle between 6 and 15 degrees. Further, applicant places no criticality on the angle claimed, indicating only that the angle is “between” the claimed parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the upward inclination angle to 6.1 degrees in order to allow downward pressure to be applied via the handles onto the resistance front wheel.
Rosenow as modified discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Rosenow as modified does not disclose wherein said pair of wheels are omni-directional and freely rotatable.
Bazargan teaches an analogous weight sled solving the same issue of providing wheels for a weight sled comprising: a main frame (chassis 101) with two wheels (omni-directional wheels 2301) in a rotatable state disposed at either side of a rear end (see Figure 23), wherein the two wheels are of an omnidirectional wheel type capable of free rotation (omni-directional wheels 2301 are omnidirectional capable of free rotation in multiple directions).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the two wheels to be omni-directional wheels, as taught by Bazargan, in order to allow the user to train dynamically in both sagittal and frontal planes simultaneously (Col. 4, lines 56-58).
PNG
media_image2.png
325
409
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 23: Bazargan
Regarding Claim 7, Rosenow as modified further discloses the weight training sled according to claim 6, wherein said main frame has a weight load holder adapted to allow a user to selectively load a weight thereto (weight horn 150; weight horn is configured to support a selective amount of weights thereon).
Regarding Claim 8, Rosenow further discloses the weight training sled according to claim 6, wherein the second end of said main frame has a pulling connection point adapted to allow assembly of a pulling member (tow hook 160; flexible pull 300; see Figure 8A wherein flexible pull 300 are a pair of straps connected to tow hook 160 which is fixed to handle 141).
Regarding Claim 9, Rosenow further discloses the weight training sled according to claim 6, wherein the operating handle comprises two Y-shaped handlebars in a spaced apart configuration (see Figure 8 wherein the handles 142 are a pair of handles with a pronged handle forming a Y shape).
Regarding Claim 10, Rosenow further discloses the weight training sled according to claim 6, further comprising: a push frame erected at the first end of said main frame (handles 141 located at the first end allowing for the user to push from the first end).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments pertaining to the claim limitation “such that the second end is upwardly inclined at between 6 and 15 [degrees] relative to the first end”.
Applicant’s arguments are toward the prior art of record not disclosing the height difference or that the prior art of record does not discuss the wheels in detail. Applicant further states that the language presented on page 4 discussing the wheels was not present within the specifications of the prior art of record. Applicant is correct in such statements as the language described on page 4 is not quoted; however, applicant fails to address the contents of the language as it can be seen in Figure 7 that the forward wheel is mounted to the frame via the resistance mechanism located above the frame while the rear wheels are mounted on axles aligned with the frame thus the front wheel are slightly higher than the rear wheel. As addressed within the rejection it is clarified that this angle or height difference is unknown and not discussed by the prior art of record hence the rejection is by way of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Rosenow to have an angle between 6 and 15 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of the relative dimension of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distant from the prior art device.” In the instant case, the device of Rosenow would not operate differently with the claimed angle between 6 and 15 degrees. Further, applicant places no criticality on the angle claimed, indicating only that the angle is “between” the claimed parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the upward inclination angle to 6.1 degrees in order to allow downward pressure to be applied via the handles onto the resistance front wheel.
Regarding applicant’s arguments pertaining to the claim limitation “wherein said pair of wheels are omni-directional”. Applicant arguments are that the prior art of record requires fixed directional wheels citing Col. 4, lines 6-12 and that the wheel are mounted such that they are not omni-directional wheels citing Col. 4, lines 36-42. The quotes state “Preferably includes” and “can be”, respectfully, with neither stating that fixed linear wheels are required or critical; likewise, the prior art of record does not disclose that other types of wheels would break the invention. Applicant is correct that the prior art of record does not disclose omni-directional wheels and only discloses the fixed directional wheels; however, the primary prior art of record was not utilized to teach said wheels with the teaching reference of Bazargan teaching analogous wheels. Using the omni-directional wheels would not break the device as they would perform the same as the fixed directional wheels with the added benefit of different directions of movement.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-0063. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 7:00-5:00pm; Friday 7-12 EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZACHARY T MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3784