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 .
Response to Amendment
The drawing objections have not been fully obviated in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 12 March 2026. See below.
The claim objections have been obviated in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 12 March 2026.
The rejections of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have not been fully obviated in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 12 March 2026. See below.
Claims 1-9 are still pending. An action on the merits follows.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “rubber sheath surrounding the two ends of the bolt extending out from the ovoidal gripping portion” in claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3, “provides tension” should read --is configured to provide tension--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 and 9 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “both of the two ends of the bolt each comprise one eye connector” in lines 1-2. Claim 1, upon which claim 6 depends, previously recites “an eye or ring connector on at least one of the two ends of the bolt” in line 8. It is unclear if the “one eye connector” recited in claim 6 is part of the “eye or ring connector” of claim 1 or another, separate structure. If the eye connector in claim 6 is a separate structure, it is unclear how one end of the bolt comprises an eye or ring connector and another eye connector.
Claim 9 recites the limitations “an eye bolt” in line 1 and “an eye nut” in line 2. In view of the drawings, it is unclear if the “eye bolt” and “eye nut” recited in claim 9 are part of the “eye or ring connector” recited previously in claim 1, upon which claim 9 depends, or are other, separate structures. That is, Figure 3 of the instant application shows an “eye or ring connector” on each end of the bolt, but does not show an additional “eye bolt” and “eye nut” as required by claim 9 in view of its dependency on claim 1. The claim is written such that the eye bolt and the eye nut are new structures that are not connected to the handle and are only connected to the rope.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratchet (Youtube NPL, a copy of which is provided with this office action. It is noted that the Youtube channel name was changed from Millipede Werks to Ratchet VonTweedsmuir since the Non-Final Rejection was mailed 29 May 2025, but that the same reference was used previously.) in view of Peradix (Amazon NPL, a copy of which was provided with the Non-Final Rejection).
Regarding claim 1, Ratchet teaches a handle for exercise equipment, comprising:
a gripping portion (softball), the gripping portion comprising a material, wherein the material provides tension against a user grip (See Figure 1 below. Any material would provide tension against a user’s grip.);
a bolt (eye bolt) protruding through the gripping portion in a latitudinal direction along a horizontal length of the gripping portion comprising the material (See Figure 1 below.);
wherein the bolt comprises two ends extending out from the gripping portion and a center portion of the bolt is covered by the material (Figure 2 below shows the eye bolt being threaded through the gripping portion such that it protrudes from both ends.);
an eye or ring connector on at least one of the two ends of the bolt (Figure 1 below shows the bolt being an eye bolt with an eye connector at a first end.);
an exercise equipment connector (carabiner) removably attached to the eye or ring connector for connecting the handle to a resistance band or the exercise equipment (See Figures 1 and 3 below.).
PNG
media_image1.png
1200
1920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1200
1920
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1200
1920
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ratchet does not teach wherein the gripping portion is an ovoidal gripping portion comprising a compressible material, wherein the compressible material provides tension against a user grip.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Peradix teaches a hand grip strength trainer comprising an ovoidal gripping portion comprising a compressible material, wherein the compressible material provides tension against a user grip (See Figure below. Peradix teaches the material of the grip trainer as thermoplastic rubber. The grip trainer provides tension against a user’s grip for strength training.).
PNG
media_image4.png
485
594
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gripping portion of Ratchet by swapping the softball for the egg shape grip of Peradix with the predicted result of substituting one grip trainer for another to provide an ergonomic shape for a user to train their grip strength as they perform pull-up or climbing type exercises (see MPEP 2141(III)). Ratchet also teaches swapping the softball for a baseball for a different sized grip, so it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to swap the softball for another object, such as the egg shape grip of Peradix, to work different muscle groups.
Regarding claim 2, Ratchet in view of Peradix teaches the handle for exercise equipment of claim 1, further comprising a nut threaded to one of the two ends of the bolt for securing the bolt in place (Ratchet: Fig. 1 above with regards to claim 1 shows a nut threaded onto the second end of the bolt protruding from the bottom of the gripping portion.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ratchet and Peradix as discussed above with regards to claim 1 teaches the handle for exercise equipment of claim 1, wherein the compressible material is a thermoplastic elastomer (Peradix teaches the grip strength trainer being made of thermoplastic rubber which is an elastomer.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ratchet and Peradix as discussed above with regards to claim 1 teaches the handle for exercise equipment of claim 4, wherein the thermoplastic elastomer has a compressive force of 20 to 40 pounds (Peradix teaches the grip strength trainer having a 15KG (~33 lbs) level resistance to compressive force.).
PNG
media_image5.png
280
600
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Ratchet in view of Peradix teaches the handle for exercise equipment of claim 1, wherein the bolt is an eye bolt, and the eye or ring connector is uniformly formed with the bolt (Ratchet: Figure 1 above with regards to claim 1 shows the bolt being an eye bolt.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratchet (NPL) in view of Peradix (NPL) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blancher (US 2011/0251033).
Regarding claim 3, Ratchet in view of Peradix teaches the handle for exercise equipment of claim 1.
Ratchet does not teach further comprising a rubber sheath surrounding the two ends of the bolt extending out from the ovoidal gripping portion.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Blancher teaches an exercise device comprising a bolt (U-bolt 45) comprising a rubber sheath (protective rubber jacket 35) on both ends (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ratchet in view of Peradix by providing the protective rubber jackets of Blancher on both ends of the bolt of Ratchet with the predicted result of protecting the user’s hands from sharp corners of the bolt and nut and of protecting the ends of the bolt/nut from damage from impact with other surfaces (see MPEP 2141(III)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratchet (NPL) in view of Peradix (NPL) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of YCHLCHL (Amazon NPL, a copy of which was provided with the Non-Final Rejection mailed 29 May 2025).
Regarding claim 6, Ratchet in view of Peradix teaches the handle for exercise equipment of claim 1.
Ratchet does not teach wherein both of the two ends of the bolt each comprise one eye connector.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, YCHLCHL teaches a hanging hand grip for training climbing holds comprising a gripping portion and a bolt, wherein the two ends of the bolt each comprise an eye connector (See Figure below).
PNG
media_image6.png
458
711
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ratchet in view of Peradix by including a second eye connector with the predicted result of providing a secondary connection to modify the grip for various exercises (see MPEP 2141(III)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratchet (NPL) in view of Peradix (NPL) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of YCHLCHL (NPL).
Regarding claim 8, Ratchet in view of Peradix teaches the handle for exercise equipment of claim 2.
Ratchet does not teach wherein the bolt is an eye bolt, and the nut is an eye nut.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, YCHLCHL teaches a hanging hand grip for training climbing holds comprising a gripping portion and an eye bolt, wherein an eye nut is connected to a second end of the eye bolt protruding from the gripping portion (see annotated Figure above with regards to claim 6.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ratchet in view of Peradix by including a second eye connector with the predicted result of providing a secondary connection to modify the grip for various exercises (see MPEP 2141(III)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratchet (NPL) in view of Peradix (NPL) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of YCHLCHL (NPL) and Rabiner et al. (US 2021/0052938, hereinafter Rabiner).
Regarding claim 9, Ratchet in view of Peradix teaches the handle for exercise equipment of claim 1.
Ratchet does not teach wherein an eye bolt connects to a first end of a rope and an eye nut or the eye bolt connects to a second end of the rope to form a closed loop, such that the handle and the rope form a D-handle, and wherein the D-handle comprises a ring connector along a middle portion of the rope in between the first end of the rope and the second end of the rope for connecting to the resistance band or the exercise equipment.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, YCHLCHL teaches a hanging hand grip for training climbing holds comprising a gripping portion and an eye bolt, wherein a second end of the eye bolt comprises an eye nut (See Figure above with regards to claim 6), wherein the eye bolt connects to a first end of a rope and the eye nut connects to a second end of the rope to form a closed loop, such that the handle and the rope form a D-handle (See Figure below. Applicant’s “rope” is shown as a strap similar to what is taught by YCHLCHL. See Figure 3 of the instant application.).
PNG
media_image7.png
446
776
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ratchet in view of Peradix by including a second eye connector with the predicted result of providing a secondary connection to modify the grip for various exercises (see MPEP 2141(III)).
Ratchet in view of Peradix further in view of YCHLCHL does not teach wherein the D-handle comprises a ring connector along a middle portion of the rope in between the first end of the rope and the second end of the rope for connecting to the resistance band or exercise equipment.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Rabiner teaches a force distributing grip for exercise equipment comprising a gripping portion and a strap attached together to create a D-handle, wherein the D-handle comprises a ring connector along a middle portion of the rope in between the first end of the rope and the second end of the rope for connecting to the resistance band or exercise equipment (See Fig. 6K below. The ring connector is capable of being used to connect the handle to another structure, such as a resistance band or part of an exercise equipment.).
PNG
media_image8.png
307
450
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the strap of Ratchet in view of Peradix further in view of YCHLCHL by including the ring connector of Rabiner with the predicted result of providing a connector such that the handle can be attached to various pieces of exercise equipment for different exercises and uses (see MPEP 2141(III)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objections, Applicant argues that rubber sheath is sufficiently shown in the Figures and contends that “the rubber sheath surrounding the first end of the eye bolt sufficiently illustrates the rubber sheathing, and that a second rubber sheath on the other side would be substantially the same in shape and image as the first sheath.” The Office respectfully disagrees. Because the eye bolt shown in the Figures has an eye connector at one end, the rubber sheath on one end of the bolt would not be substantially the same in shape as a rubber sheath on the other end of the bolt. One of the sheaths would need to cover the eye connector for it to surround the two ends of the bolt. If the eye connector is not considered the “end” of the bolt, then this must be stated on the record.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues that there is “no sufficient evidence of record for the required motivation to modify the Millipede device by incorporating Peradix’s grip trainer, and that the art actually teaches away from such a combination.” The Office respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the Millipede reference has been renamed to the Ratchet reference, because the Youtube channel name appears to have been changed by the channel owner since the Non-Final Rejection was mailed. For clarity, the reference will be referred to as Millipede/Ratchet. Applicant argues that the Millipede/Ratchet reference seeks to “decrease user tension in order to allow the user to isolate one muscle group,” but this was never disclosed in the reference. The Youtube video does not state this and the description simply states that the grips “should add variety to a pull-up routine.” Applicant also argues that Millipede/Ratchet’s grip “is designed to actually minimize needed tension” and that “the stablished practice is to minimize required grip strength,” but Millipede/Ratchet does not disclose or insinuate these things. Millipede/Ratchet is absent any teaching specifically against the use of a different grip than the softball grip and rather describes wherein the grip can be swapped for a different grip, such as a baseball. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to swap the softball for another object, as taught by Millipede/Ratchet, including the egg shape grip of Peradix in order to work different muscle groups. Applicant further argues that Millipede/Ratchet “does not suggest that adding tension to the grip would be desired” and that the reference “does not suggest that further improvement is desired, nor that another feature should be added to further increase grip strength.” While Millipede/Ratchet does not explicitly suggest adding tension or further improving the device, it does not teach away from these improvements either. Applicant further argues that “an attempt to bring in the isolated teaching of Peradix’s compressible material into the Millipede device would amount to improperly picking and choosing features from different references without regard to the teachings of the references as a whole,” but the Office respectfully disagrees. The isolated teaching of Peradix’s compressible material is not being improperly brought to the Millipede/Ratchet device, but rather the softball grip of Millipede/Ratchet is being modified to be swapped with the egg shaped grip trainer of Peradix, because it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to swap the grips in order to work different muscle groups.
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 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 Catrina Letterman whose telephone number is (303)297-4297. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday, 8am - 5pm MT.
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 at (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 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.
/C.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights