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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 30th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
On page 7 of the response the Applicant argues that Reeves discloses “a blanket for lounging, with nothing holding the foam pillow in place during exercise”, and therefore does not suggest restraining a horizontal cylindrical segment during exercise.
The Office agrees that Reeves alone does not directly contemplate use of the disclosed mat and pillow during exercise. It should be noted however, that the methods of securing the foam pillow of Reeves to the mat, namely snaps or hook and loop material (last few lines of page 2 of Reeves), are identical to applicant’s fasteners methods in claim 18. Thus while Reeves has not contemplated use of the device during exercise the use of identical fastening means would indicate that the foam pillow would remain in place should the intended use of the mat and pillow be exercise. Furthermore, per the below updated rejections, the Reeves art alone is not relied upon to disclose all the elements of the newly amended claims. Waters, Lu, and Fano are also part of the rejection of these claims. Fano specifically contemplates ensuring that the foam block is secured to the base mat during exercise (para. 72; “the block 184 may optionally be removably securable to the mat 120”).
Applicant also argues on page 7 of the response that there would be both no motivation to modify Reeves to meet the amended claim 1, and doing so would fundamentally alter Reeves’ intended function.
The Office respectfully disagrees. It should first be noted that it is not contemplated to modify the Reeves reference. Rather it is the teaching of a stabilizer receiving portion, taught by Reeves, that is added to the combination of Waters/Lu/Fano. As discussed above Fano expressly contemplates securing a foam support to a mat similar to that of Reeves, but is silent as to the means by which to accomplish the securing. Reeves provides several specific manners of securing a foam block to a mat.
Additionally as previously provided and reproduced in the updated rejections below the offered motivation for using the fasteners and securing means of Reeves is to even disclosed by Reeves to allow for ease of washing and replacement of the foam should it degrade over time (Reeves; para. 29).
Applicant’s additional arguments on page 8-9 of the response amount to general allegations of patentability and are seen to be fully addressed in the updated rejections provided below.
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, 4, 6-7, 9-11, 14, and 16-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waters (US 7004893) in view of Lu (US 2013/0029815), Fano (US 2018/0178058), and Reeves (US 2007/0157382).
With respect to claim 1, Waters discloses, a stabilizer system, comprising: a stabilizer (60 in fig. 1a), comprising a horizontal segment (62 in fig. 7) having a height configured to support the arch of a user’s foot (clear from figs. 1a-b that the height of the cylindrical segment is sized for use by a user’s foot), the horizontal segment being symmetrical about a longitudinal axis of the horizonal segment clear from fig. 3 that the stabilizer disclosed is longitudinally symmetrical).
Waters does not expressly disclose that the horizontal segment is cylindrical in shape.
Lu discloses a horizontal cylindrical segment configured to support the arch of a user’s foot (fig. 2c discloses a user’s arch supported by the block) and that is symmetrical about a longitudinal axis of the horizontal cylindrical segment (clear from figs. 1a-b that the block in Lu is symmetrical along the longitudinal axis).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have simply substituted the curved shape of Lu for the tapered angular shaped stabilizer of Waters. The motivation would have been provide a more natural curved surface for the user’s feet and as disclosed by Lu to prevent injuries (para. 6).
Additionally, it has been held mere changes in shapes which are a matter of choice would have been obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. Here the specific use of a cylindrical shape instead of the tapered angular stabilizer of Waters does not appear to be significant. Applicant has not presented any arguments refuting such a determination in the remarks received 8/8/2025.
Neither Waters nor Lu expressly disclose a stabilizer mat.
Fano discloses a stabilizer mat (120 in fig. 19-20) configured to be coupled to a horizontal segment of a stabilizer (184 in fig. 19-20) wherein the stabilizer mat comprises a stabilizer receiving portion in which the stabilizer is retained in a fixed position during exercise (para. 72 details removably securing the block 184 to the mate 120) in which the horizontal segment of the stabilizer is retained in a fixed position during exercise (para. 72’s discussion of a “securable” connection between the block and mat is seen as equivalent to the limitation ‘retained in a fixed position during exercise’), wherein the stabilizer receiving portion is configured to mechanically restrain the horizontal cylindrical segment against movement relative to the stabilizer mat during the exercise (para. 72; “the block 184 may optionally be removably securable to the mat 120”).
While Fano discloses that the stabilizer mat and horizontal segment may be removably securable to each other (para. 72), there is no discussion of a stabilizer receiving portion or other manners of securing.
Waters, Lu and Fano are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of the filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a stabilizer mat that is configured to be coupled to the horizontal cylindrical segment as taught by Fano in the combined device of Waters/Lu. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide padding and cushioning to the user.
Neither Waters, Lu, nor Fano expressly disclose a stabilizer receiving portion.
Reeves discloses, a horizontal cylindrical segment (66 in fig. 9; half-moon shape in fig. 7) and a stabilizer mat (20 in fig. 7); wherein the stabilizer mat is configured to be coupled to the horizontal cylindrical segment of the stabilizer (clear from figs. 7 and 9), wherein the stabilizer mat comprises a stabilizer receiving portion (sleeve 62 in fig. 8-9; also see para. 33) in which the horizontal cylindrical segment of the stabilizer fits (clear that foam core 66 in fig. 8 fits into sleeve 62) and is longitudinally received in a cross-section manner (see figs. 7-10).
Waters, Lu, Fano and Reeves are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of the filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the apply Reeves sleeved receiving portion to the mat and cylinder segment of Waters/Lu/Fano. The motivation for doing so would have been to reliably secure the cylinder segment to the mat, but also to allow for ease of washing and replacement of the foam should it degrade over time (Reeves; para. 29).
With respect to claim 4, Waters in view of Lu/Fano/Reeves disclose, the stabilizer system of claim 1 (see above).
Waters contemplates constructing the stabilizer of “any suitable material” (col. 4, lines 5-8)
Fano discloses wherein a stabilizer (184 in fig. 19) is formed of padded foam (para. 72).
Waters and Fano 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 simply substitute the construction material of Waters with the padded foam construction as taught by Fano in the combined device of Waters/Lu/Fano/Reeves. Such an implementation would have yielded a predictable result of a padded foam stabilizer.
With respect to claim 6, Waters in view of Lu/Fano/Reeves discloses the stabilizer system of claim 1 (see above).
Waters contemplates the stabilizer is suitable for use with two of a user’s feet at approximately hips width placed on it (abstract).
Neither Waters nor Lu/Fano/Reeves expressly disclose, wherein the horizontal cylindrical segment of the stabilizer is 30 inches in length.
However, it has been held that optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation will not support patentability. Per In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 4 USPC 237 (CCPA1929) “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions or degree or substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” The specific length of 30 inches as claimed herein is seen as achievable through routine experimentation. The width of the stabilizer would clearly impact its usability. For example, a Waters stabilizer of only 5 inches in width would not allow two feet to be placed on it comfortably in a sit-up position. Similarly, a width of 60 inches would impact the portability of the device. As such it would have been obvious to determine an ideal width that allows most people to use the device as intended, while also maintaining portability.
With respect to claim 7, Waters in view of Lu/Fano/Reeves, disclose the stabilizer system of claim 1 (see above).
Waters, in combination with Lu/Fano/Reeves, further discloses, wherein the horizontal cylindrical segment of the stabilizer further comprises a hole (Waters; 70 in fig. 12) extending the radial height of the horizontal cylindrical segment (Waters; the hole extends through the entire stabilizer).
With respect to claim 9, Waters in view of Lu/Fano/Reeves, disclose the stabilizer system of claim 1 (see above).
Waters further discloses, wherein the stabilizer further comprises a handle (e.g. 68 in fig. 1a).
With respect to claim 10, Waters in view of Lu/Fano/Reeves, disclose the stabilizer system of claim 1 (see above).
Waters further discloses, wherein the stabilizer is portable (title, “Portable Exercise Apparatus”).
With respect to claim 11, Waters discloses, an interactive resistance exercise system (Fig. 1a), comprising: a stabilizer system, comprising a stabilizer (60 in fig. 8a) comprising a horizontal segment (62 in fig. 7) having a radial height configured to support the arch of a user’s foot (clear from figs. 8a-b that the height of the horizontal segment is sized for use by a user’s foot); a harness (80 in fig. 8a-b); and a handle assembly (100 in fig. 8a-b).
Waters does not expressly disclose that the horizontal segment is cylindrical in shape.
Waters does not expressly disclose that the horizontal segment is cylindrical in shape.
Lu discloses a horizontal cylindrical segment configured to support the arch of a user’s foot (fig. 2c discloses a user’s arch supported by the block) and that is symmetrical about a longitudinal axis of the horizontal cylindrical segment (clear from figs. 1a-b that the block in Lu is symmetrical along the longitudinal axis).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have simply substituted the curved shape of Lu for the tapered angular shaped stabilizer of Waters. The motivation would have been provide a more natural curved surface for the user’s feet and as disclosed by Lu to prevent injuries (para. 6).
Additionally, it has been held mere changes in shapes which are a matter of choice would have been obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. Here the specific use of a cylindrical shape instead of the tapered angular stabilizer of Waters does not appear to be significant. Applicant has not presented any arguments refuting such a determination in the remarks received 8/8/2025.
Neither Waters nor Lu expressly disclose a stabilizer mat.
Fano discloses a stabilizer mat (120 in fig. 19-20) configured to be coupled to a horizontal segment of a stabilizer (184 in fig. 19-20) wherein the stabilizer mat comprises a stabilizer receiving portion in which the stabilizer is retained in a fixed position during exercise (para. 72 details removably securing the block 184 to the mate 120) in which the horizontal segment of the stabilizer is retained in a fixed position during exercise (para. 72’s discussion of a “securable” connection between the block and mat is seen as equivalent to the limitation ‘retained in a fixed position during exercise’), wherein the stabilizer receiving portion is configured to mechanically restrain the horizontal cylindrical segment against movement relative to the stabilizer mat during the exercise (para. 72; “the block 184 may optionally be removably securable to the mat 120”).
While Fano discloses that the stabilizer mat and horizontal segment may be removably securable to each other (para. 72), there is no discussion of the a stabilizer receiving portion or other manners of securing.
Waters, Lu and Fano are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of the filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a stabilizer mat that is configured to be coupled to the horizontal cylindrical segment as taught by Fano in the combined device of Waters/Lu. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide padding and cushioning to the user.
Neither Waters, Lu, nor Fano expressly disclose a stabilizer receiving portion.
Reeves discloses, a horizontal cylindrical segment (66 in fig. 9; half-moon shape in fig. 7) and a stabilizer mat (20 in fig. 7); wherein the stabilizer mat is configured to be coupled to the horizontal cylindrical segment of the stabilizer (clear from figs. 7 and 9), wherein the stabilizer mat comprises a stabilizer receiving portion (sleeve 62 in fig. 8-9; also see para. 33) in which the horizontal cylindrical segment of the stabilizer fits (clear that foam core 66 in fig. 8 fits into sleeve 62) and is longitudinally received in a cross-section manner (see figs. 7-10).
Waters, Lu, Fano and Reeves are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of the filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the apply Reeves sleeved receiving portion to the mat and cylinder segment of Waters/Lu/Fano. The motivation for doing so would have been to reliably secure the cylinder segment to the mat, but also to allow for ease of washing and replacement of the foam should it degrade over time (Reeves; para. 29).
With respect to claim 14, Waters in view of Lu/Fano/Reeves disclose, the interactive resistance exercise system of claim 11 (see above).
Waters further discloses, wherein the harness is configured to be operatively connected to the handle assembly to enable a resistance-based interactive exercise that requires applied force from the user supported by the stabilizer (see attachment between 100 and 80 in figs. 8a-b and associated discussion in col. 4, lines 54-68).
With respect to claim 16, Waters in view of Lu/Fano/Reeves disclose, the interactive resistance exercise system of claim 11 (see above).
Waters further discloses, wherein the harness comprises connection loops (90 in fig. 10-11) for coupling the harness to accessories or another harness (the purpose of the loops is given little patentable weight as it is seen as simply an additional intended use of the connection loops with no structural difference necessary).
With respect to claim 17, Waters in view of Lu/Fano/Reeves disclose the stabilizer system of claim 1 (see above).
Reeves further discloses, wherein the stabilizer receiving portion comprises one or more fasteners configured to secure the stabilizer to the stabilizer mat (para. 29; end of page 2, “The aperture 64 is selectively closed through a zipper 68, or snaps, hooks, hook and loop type material, or other such devices.”).
With respect to claim 18, Waters in view of Lu/Fano/Reeves disclose the stabilizer system of claim 17 (see above).
Reeves further discloses, wherein the one or more fasteners comprises at least one (the phrase “at least one” is being interpretated disjunctively despite the use of the term “and” later in the claim. It seems clear applicant’s intent is not to include at least one hood-and-loop, AND at least one snap, AND at least one button, AND at least one strap) of hook-and-loop fasteners, snaps, buttons, and straps (para. 29; end of page 2, “The aperture 64 is selectively closed through a zipper 68, or snaps, hooks, hook and loop type material, or other such devices.”).
With respect to claim 19, Waters in view of Lu/Fano/Reeves disclose the stabilizer system of claim 17 (see above).
Reeves and Fano further disclose, wherein the receiving portion is configured to mechanically restrain the horizontal cylindrical segment against rolling movement relative to the stabilizer mat (Reeves; para. 29; end of page 2, “The aperture 64 is selectively closed through a zipper 68, or snaps, hooks, hook and loop type material, or other such devices.” These closure methods would necessarily mechanically restrain the horizontal cylindrical segment against rolling) during exercise (Fano; para. 72; “the block 184 may optionally be removably securable to the mat 120”).
With respect to claim 20, Waters in view of Lu/Fano/Reeves disclose the stabilizer system of claim 17 (see above).
Reeves and Fano further disclose, wherein the receiving portion is configured to mechanically restrain the horizontal cylindrical segment against sliding movement relative to the stabilizer mat (Reeves; para. 29; end of page 2, “The aperture 64 is selectively closed through a zipper 68, or snaps, hooks, hook and loop type material, or other such devices.” These closure methods would necessarily mechanically restrain the horizontal cylindrical segment against sliding) during exercise (Fano; para. 72; “the block 184 may optionally be removably securable to the mat 120”).
With respect to claim 21, Waters in view of Lu/Fano/Reeves the stabilizer system of claim 17 (see above).
Reeves and Fano further disclose, wherein the receiving portion is configured to mechanically restrain the horizontal cylindrical segment against rotational movement relative to the stabilizer mat (Reeves; para. 29; end of page 2, “The aperture 64 is selectively closed through a zipper 68, or snaps, hooks, hook and loop type material, or other such devices.” These closure methods would necessarily mechanically restrain the horizontal cylindrical segment against rotating) during exercise (Fano; para. 72; “the block 184 may optionally be removably securable to the mat 120”).
With respect to claim 22, Waters in view of Lu/Fano/Reeves the stabilizer system of claim 1 (see above).
Waters and Lu further disclose, wherein the horizontal cylindrical (Lu; fig. 2a-b discloses the cylindrical shape) segment is hollow and comprises reinforcing ribs (Waters; fig. 7 discloses that the horizontal segment is hollow and comprises reinforcing ribs).
With respect to claim 23, Waters in view of Lu/Fano/Reeves the stabilizer system of claim 1 (see above).
Lu further discloses, wherein the horizontal cylindrical segment comprises a radial height and curvature to engage and support a medial arch of the user’s foot during a fitness routine (fig. 2a, discloses the sizing of the cylindrical segment supports a user’s foot as claimed).
With respect to claim 24, Waters in view of Lu/Fano/Reeves the interactive resistance exercise system of claim 11 (see above).
Reeves further discloses, wherein the stabilizer receiving portion comprises one or more fasteners configured to secure the stabilizer to the stabilizer mat (para. 29; end of page 2, “The aperture 64 is selectively closed through a zipper 68, or snaps, hooks, hook and loop type material, or other such devices.”).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waters (US 7004893) in view of Lu (US 2013/0029815), Fano (US 2018/0178058), and Reeves (US 2007/0157382) and further in view of Orono (US 20060223683).
With respect to claim 5, Waters in view of Lu/Fano/Reeves disclose, the stabilizer system of claim 1 (see above).
Neither Waters nor Lu/Fano/Reeves expressly disclose, wherein the stabilizer is formed of wood.
Waters contemplates constructing the stabilizer of “any suitable material” (col. 4, lines 5-8)
Orona discloses wherein a stabilizer (1-7 in fig. 1) is formed of wood (claim 5).
Waters/Lu/Fano/Reeves and Orona 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 simply substitute the construction material of Waters with the wood construction as taught by Orona in the combined device of Waters/Lu/Fano/Reeves. Such an implementation would have yielded a predictable result of a wood constructed stabilizer.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waters (US 7004893) in view of Lu (US 2013/0029815), Fano (US 2018/0178058), and Reeves (US 2007/0157382) and further in view of Kahn (US 11452916).
With respect to claim 8, Waters in view of Lu/Fano/Reeves discloses, the stabilizer system of claim 1 (see above).
Neither Waters nor Lu/Fano/Reeves expressly disclose, further comprising sensors for monitoring the user, including vitals of the user.
Kahn discloses, an exercise mat which includes sensors for monitoring the user, including vitals of the user (abstract).
Kahn, Lu/Fano/Reeves and Waters 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 apply the known device of an exercise mat with sensors, taught by Kahn in the stabilizer system of Waters/Lu/Fano/Reeves. Such an implementation would have yielded a predictable result of a stabilizer system that provides additional feedback and tracking data to the user.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waters (US 7004893) in view of Lu (US 2013/0029815), Fano (US 2018/0178058), and Reeves (US 2007/0157382) and further in view of Phillips (US 4762318).
With respect to claim 15, Waters in view of Lu/Fano/Reeves disclose, the interactive resistance exercise system of claim 11 (see above).
Waters further discloses, wherein the handle assembly comprises a belt with adjustable buckle (fig. 5a-b); and contemplates additional connection means between a handle and the belt (col. 3, lines 43-47).
Waters does not expressly disclose at least one hook ring having a first aperture through which the belt can pass and a second aperture for connection to a handle.
Phillips discloses at least one hook ring (17 in fig. 1) having a first aperture (48 in fig. 4) through which the belt (14 in fig. 1) can pass and a second aperture (26 in fig. 1) for connection to a handle (18 in fig. 1).
Waters/Lu/Fano/Reeves and Phillips 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 simple substitute the hook ring connection means taught by Phillips for the connection means taught by Waters/Lu/Fano/Reeves. Such an implementation would have yielded a predictable result of a handle assembly with connections effectuated by a hook ring.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 7004893 in view of of Lu (US 2013/0029815), Fano (US 2018/0178058), and Reeves (US 2007/0157382).
US 7004893 – Claim 1
Current Application – Claim 1
A portable exercise apparatus, comprising:
A stabilizer system, comprising:
A footrest, having
a stabilizer, comprising
A pair of longitudinally disposed sidewalls
a horizontal cylindrical segment
For supporting feet of exercisers
having a radial height sized for a user’s foot.
US 7004893 does not expressly disclose that the horizontal segment is cylindrical in shape.
Lu discloses a horizontal cylindrical segment configured to support the arch of a user’s foot (fig. 2c discloses a user’s arch supported by the block) and that is symmetrical about a longitudinal axis of the horizontal cylindrical segment (clear from figs. 1a-b that the block in Lu is symmetrical along the longitudinal axis).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have simply substituted the curved shape of Lu for the tapered angular shaped stabilizer of Waters. The motivation would have been provide a more natural curved surface for the user’s feet and as disclosed by Lu to prevent injuries (para. 6).
Additionally, it has been held mere changes in shapes which are a matter of choice would have been obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. Here the specific use of a cylindrical shape instead of the tapered angular stabilizer of Waters does not appear to be significant. Applicant has not presented any arguments refuting such a determination in the remarks received 8/8/2025.
Neither Waters nor Lu expressly disclose a stabilizer mat.
Fano discloses a stabilizer mat (120 in fig. 19-20) configured to be coupled to a horizontal segment of a stabilizer (184 in fig. 19-20) wherein the stabilizer mat comprises a stabilizer receiving portion in which the stabilizer is retained in a fixed position during exercise (para. 72 details removably securing the block 184 to the mate 120) in which the horizontal segment of the stabilizer is retained in a fixed position during exercise (para. 72’s discussion of a “securable” connection between the block and mat is seen as equivalent to the limitation ‘retained in a fixed position during exercise’), wherein the stabilizer receiving portion is configured to mechanically restrain the horizontal cylindrical segment against movement relative to the stabilizer mat during the exercise (para. 72; “the block 184 may optionally be removably securable to the mat 120”).
While Fano discloses that the stabilizer mat and horizontal segment may be removably securable to each other (para. 72), there is no discussion of a stabilizer receiving portion or other manners of securing.
Waters, Lu and Fano are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of the filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a stabilizer mat that is configured to be coupled to the horizontal cylindrical segment as taught by Fano in the combined device of Waters/Lu. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide padding and cushioning to the user.
Neither Waters, Lu, nor Fano expressly disclose a stabilizer receiving portion.
Reeves discloses, a horizontal cylindrical segment (66 in fig. 9; half-moon shape in fig. 7) and a stabilizer mat (20 in fig. 7); wherein the stabilizer mat is configured to be coupled to the horizontal cylindrical segment of the stabilizer (clear from figs. 7 and 9), wherein the stabilizer mat comprises a stabilizer receiving portion (sleeve 62 in fig. 8-9; also see para. 33) in which the horizontal cylindrical segment of the stabilizer fits (clear that foam core 66 in fig. 8 fits into sleeve 62) and is longitudinally received in a cross-section manner (see figs. 7-10).
Waters, Lu, Fano and Reeves are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of the filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the apply Reeves sleeved receiving portion to the mat and cylinder segment of Waters/Lu/Fano. The motivation for doing so would have been to reliably secure the cylinder segment to the mat, but also to allow for ease of washing and replacement of the foam should it degrade over time (Reeves; para. 29).
US 7004893
Current Application
1+Lu+Fano+Reeves
4
1+Lu+Fano+Reeves+Orono
5
1+Lu+Fano+Reeves
6
1+Lu+Fano+Reeves
7
1+Lu+Fano+Kahn
8
2
9
1
10
5
11
5+1+Lu+Fano+Reeves
14
5+1+Lu+Fano+Reeves+Phillips
15
5+1+Lu+Fano+Reeves
16
1+Lu+Fano+Reeves
17
1+Lu+Fano+Reeves
18
1+Lu+Fano+Reeves
19
1+Lu+Fano+Reeves
20
1+Lu+Fano+Reeves
21
8
22
1+Lu+Fano+Reeves
23
1+Lu+Fano+Reeves
24
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chupp, Jr. US4182509: discloses a tandem sit-up stabilizer device
Clark- US20180071567: details a barrel shaped exercise mat
Dean – US20210275855: discloses a tandem sit-up stabilizer device
Endelman – US20070117695 details a barrel shaped exercise apparatus with internal ribs
Seymour US2937023 – Tandem sit-up with harness and handles
Mayer US3287016 – tandem sit-up stabilizer
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alex Beck can be reached at 571-272-3750. 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