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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because 37 CFR 1.84(k) requires the scale be large enough to show mechanism without crowding when drawing is reduced in size to two-thirds in reproduction. Figures 5 and 9. Additionally, the drawings are objected to because 37 CFR 1.84(i) requires the lines, numbers & letters to be uniformly thick and well defined, clean, durable and black (poor line quality). Figures 6, 10. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Sports Training Device For Improving A User’s Wrist Snap Motion.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The use of the term VELCOR (page 3, lines 5, 6 and 38) which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: The grammatical errors are too numerous to point out. Applicant’s cooperation is needed to correct discrepancies in the specification dated 16 February 2025
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5, 7 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only, and/or, cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 3-5 and 7 have not been further treated on the merits. Note MPEP 608.01(n) for acceptable multiple dependent claim wording.
Claims 3 and 7 must be amended as follows:
Claim 3, The sport training device according to any one of claims 1 and 2.
Claim 7, The sport training device according to any one of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the use of parentheses in the body of a claim is primarily used to enclose reference numerals that correspond to elements identified in the detailed description and drawings or mathematical or chemical formulas. Therefore, the parentheses in line 3 of claim 3 must be deleted. Appropriate correction is required for the above objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 3 the phrase "ring like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1, lines 2 and 3 the phrase “immediately above” and “immediately around” respectively render the claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear what element(s) are actually disclosed by “immediately”, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable.
Regarding claim 1, line 4 the phrase "many holes" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "many"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable.
Regarding claim 3, line 2 the phrase "many holes" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "many"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable.
Regarding claim 3, line 3 the phrase "resistance like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 1-7 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Bellow please find marked-up claims 1-7 showing objections and 112 2nd or (b) rejection in the pending claims.
1. A sport training device for creating proper wrist snapping techniques, comprising [[of]]:
an adjustable wrist strap that secures immediately above a wrist;
a knuckle strap comprising two ends, wherein one end is a loop and slips over a user's knuckle , and wherein the opposing end is notched with a plurality of holes;
a clicking device attached to a top of said adjustable wrist strap, wherein said device comprises a housing having a top and a bottom where a speaker, a spring, a hammer, an electronic sensor that feeds data to an external application and a slide mechanism for creating an audible sound are positioned inside said housing, as well as a hook extending from the top of the clicking device housing for attachment to one of said plurality of holes in [[a]] the knuckle strap;
wherein said clicking device produces an audible sound when said knuckle strap is pulled by a user bending his wrist a predetermined distance set by the user depending on the sport and age of said user.
2. The sport training device according to claim 1, wherein said clicking device has two strap holes connected to said bottom of said housing of said clicking device;
said strap holes are for securing said clicking device housing to said wrist strap.
3. The sport training device according to any one of claims 1 and 2, wherein said knuckle strap is comprised of a resistance material that is interchangeable with straps having different resistance than said knuckle strap [[;]]
.
4. The sport training device according to any one of claims 1, 2 and 3, wherein the sporting device has a resettable counter for keeping track of the number of times the slide moves a set distance, through the electronic sensor via a mobile device.
5. The sport training device according to any one of claims 1, 2, 3 and 4, wherein [[a]] the hammer creates [[a]] an electronic vibration and an audible sound in said clicking device.
6. The sport training device according to claim 1 wherein the electronic sensor sends data to an external application via a mobile device.
7. The sport training device according to any one of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, wherein a battery connection is positioned inside the housing [[unit]].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is interpreted to read on a human organism i.e. the claimed invention is claiming human body parts.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 1 in the preamble and the body of the claim is claiming “a wrist”. In order to overcome the 101 rejection, the claim may be amended in the preamble to recite: “configured to” and amended in the body of the claim to recite: “capable of securing to a user’s wrist”. Therefore, the claim(s) is interpreted to read on a human organism i.e. the claimed invention is claiming human body parts. Similar amendments must be made in the dependent claims.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (9,737,778).
Claim 1, Keller discloses a sport training device for creating proper wrist snapping techniques, comprising of:
an adjustable wrist strap that secures immediately above a wrist;
a knuckle strap comprising two ends, wherein one end is a loop and slips over a user's knuckle , and wherein the opposing end is notched with a plurality of holes;
a clicking device attached to a top of said adjustable wrist strap, wherein said device comprises a housing having a top and a bottom where a speaker, a spring, a hammer, and a slide mechanism for creating an audible sound are positioned inside said housing, as well as a hook extending from the top of the clicking device housing for attachment to one of said plurality of holes in [[a]] the knuckle strap;
wherein said clicking device produces an audible sound when said knuckle strap is pulled by a user bending his wrist a predetermined distance set by the user depending on the sport and age of said user.
Keller discloses the claimed device with the exception of an electronic sensor that feeds data to an external application. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have included modern electronics to Keller’s older mechanical device since such has been common place in recent years, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 192 (1958). MPEP § 2144.04. The device of Keller has accomplished the same results by manually communicating the audible and visual end results to the user. Utilizing an electronic sensor in communication with an external device is merely replacing a manual function to accomplish the same end result and it would have been obvious to do so for Keller’s older mechanical device.
Note: dependent claims 2-7 are examined as being directly dependent on claims 1.
Claim 2, Keller shows said clicking device has two strap holes connected to said bottom of said housing of said clicking device;
said strap holes are for securing said clicking device housing to said wrist strap (see claim 2).
Claim 3, Keller shows said knuckle strap is comprised of a resistance material that is interchangeable with straps having different resistance than said knuckle strap [[;]]
(see claim 3).
Claim 4, Keller shows the sporting device has a resettable counter for keeping track of the number of times the slide moves a set distance, through the electronic sensor via a mobile device (see claim 4).
Claim 5, Keller shows wherein [[a]] the hammer creates [[a]] an electronic vibration and an audible sound in said clicking device (see claim 5).
Claim 6, Keller as modified above further shows the electronic sensor is capable of sending data to an external application via a mobile device.
Claim 7, Keller shows wherein a battery connection is positioned inside the housing [[unit]]. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known to include a battery connection within an electronic housing, given that the inclusion of a battery connection allows a user to include a battery within the housing in order to allow the various electronic elements to be readily charged, and it would have been obvious to include the same for the modified Keller device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rodgers et al. (7,445,570); Phelan (US2008/016387 A1); Harvey (US2013/0225336 A1); Gankas et al. (1,826,626).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MITRA ARYANPOUR whose telephone number is (571) 272-4405. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon, Thur, Fri 8:00am to 4:00pm, Wed 8:00-2:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached on 571-272-4463. 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.
/MITRA ARYANPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/ma/
21 August 2025