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 amendment filed 08/07/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome most objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 05/13/2025.
Claims 5-6 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are currently pending and considered below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
It is unclear what constitutes “a tractor plate (103),” as this is not a known structure in the art and the figures do not provide sufficient detail illustrating the claimed structure (claim 3).
It is unclear what structure constitutes the auxiliary groove (claim 4).
It is unclear what structure constitutes the auxiliary connecting segment (claim 9).
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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is greater than 150 words in length. The abstract should be a single paragraph between 50-150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Par. [0031] of specification filed 08/07/2025 recites “a connecting hole is used for mounting a bottom support assembly, and the same bottom support assemblies are mounted in the same set of mounting holes” in lines 13-14. This statement is confusing, and it is unclear if the recited connecting hole is equivalent to one of the mounting holes.
Par. [0047] of specification filed 08/07/2025, line 2, “through-hole groove (103)” should read ---through-hole groove (101)---.
Par. [0047] of specification filed 08/07/2025, line 4, “through-hole groove (103)” should read ---through-hole groove (101)---.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4, “a upper part” should read ---an upper part---
Claim 1, line 7, “a upper part” should read ---an upper part---
Claim 3, line 5, “through-hole groove” should read ---through-hole grooves---
Claim 3, lines 10-12, “the bottom surface of the pedal bottom plate (1) is provided with each mounting nests (201) are arranged on an inner side of the inner frame (3)” should be rephrased similar to ---the bottom surface of the pedal bottom plate (1) is provided with each mounting nest (201) arranged on an inner side of the inner frame (3)---. [Note – see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below.]
Claim 3, line 14, “the mounting nest (201)” should read ---the mounting nests (201)---
Claim 4, line 2, “the ground, a center point” should read ---the ground, and a center point---
Claim 8, line 16, “the clamping groove (421)” should read ---the clamping grooves (421)---
Appropriate correction is required.
EXAMINER’S NOTE – The claims appear to contain various instances of functional language that should be indicated by using the phrase “configured to” or similar phrasing as needed. For example, in claim 3 lines 6, “and the tractor plate (103) is inserted” appears to be functional language that should read similar to ---and the tractor plate is configured to be inserted---. The Office suggests carefully reviewing the claims to ensure functional language is properly reflected throughout the limitations.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 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 1 recites “each wedge dowel is . . . narrow on the lower part” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the lower part” in the claims.
Claim 1 recites “the mounting hole” in lines 8-9. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a specific one of the mounting holes or each mounting hole.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the waist-type hole” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the inner frame (3)” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the auxiliary groove” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the second elastic body (7) having a height less than a height of the first elastic body (8) and a height of the omni-directional wheel (6)” in lines 7-9. However, as the claim only requires “any one or more of a movable support assembly and a non-movable support assembly,” the claim only requires either the movable support assembly comprising an omni-directional wheel OR the non-movable support assembly comprising the first and second elastic bodies. Therefore, it is unclear if this limitation is positively claiming the omni-directional wheel in addition to the first and second elastic bodies.
Claim 8 recites “the omni-directional wheel (6), the first elastic body (8) and the second elastic body (7) in lines 1-2. However, claim 7 previously recites “any one or more of a movable support assembly and a non-movable support assembly,” such that the claim only requires either the movable support assembly comprising an omni-directional wheel OR the non-movable support assembly comprising the first and second elastic bodies. Therefore, it is unclear if this limitation is positively claiming the omni-directional wheel in addition to the first and second elastic bodies.
Claim 8 recites “the connection seat (4)” in line 7. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a specific one of the connection seats or to each connection seat.
Claim 8 recites “the mounting hole (204)” in line 5. It is unclear which of the mounting holes this limitation is referring to.
Claim 8 recites “the connection seat (4) is connected with the mounting nest (201)” in line 15. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a specific one of the mounting nests or is intended to convey that each of the connection seats is configured to connect with each of the mounting nests.
Claim 2 is similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1. Claims 9 is similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 8. Claim 10 is similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 7.
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.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei (For. Pat. Doc. CN 210612785 U) and further in view of Orenstein et al. (US 8,899,604).
Regarding independent claim 1, Mei teaches a multifunctional training device (Fig. 1), comprising a pedal bottom plate (pedal 1), wherein a bottom surface of the pedal bottom plate is provided with a plurality of mounting nests (mounting holes 9 with protection seat 5), each of the mounting nests is provided with a mounting hole opened downward (see Fig. 4, hole 8 of protection seat 5 and hole 9), the mounting hole is narrow on an upper part and wide on a lower part (in this interpretation, “upper part” has been interpreted as towards protection seat, where opening is narrow, and “lower part” has been interpreted as towards pedal 1, where opening in hole 9 is wide), and a plurality of wedge dowels (annotated protection seat 5 from Fig. 1) are evenly distributed on an inner wall of each mounting hole with the mounting hole as the center (the Office notes the limitation “wedge dowel” is broad and the wedge shaped structures of Mei constitute wedge dowels in the broadest reasonable interpretation), each wedge dowel is wide on an upper part and narrow on a lower part (wedge shape is wider towards exterior of protection seat 5 and narrower towards interior of protection seat 5 within hole 9, see Fig. 4), and an outer side surface of each wedge dowel is smooth and flat (see Figs. 1 and 4), and the mounting hole is used for mounting a bottom support assembly (elastic balls 2 mounted through hole 8 in protection seat 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
258
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Exploded Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
635
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mei teaches reinforcing ribs (4) arranged on the bottom surface of the pedal bottom plate (1) and inside each mounting nest (see Fig. 5, within mounting hole 9), the reinforcing ribs (4) inside each mounting nest including a reinforcing rib based on the center of the mounting hole (see Fig. 5, straight reinforcing ribs extending from center point of each mounting hole 9), but does not teach first reinforcing ribs are arranged inside each of the mounting nests, the first reinforcing ribs comprise a reinforcing rib based on the center of the mounting hole, and two circular-shaped reinforcing ribs having different radii and taking the center of the mounting hole as a circle center, the reinforcing rib communicates with the circular-shaped reinforcing ribs, an outer end of the reinforcing rib is connected with the wedge dowels and the inner wall of the mounting hole.
Orenstein et al., in the same field of endeavor with respect to reinforcing ribs for an exercise device, teaches reinforcing ribs (ribbings/webbings 70) in the form of a reinforcing rib based on a center of a hole (i.e., straight ribbings 70 extending from center opening 62) and a circular-shaped reinforcing rib (see circle ribbing 70 in Fig. 7), and further teaches the shape and numbers of the ribbings can be varied (col. 3 lines 37-39, “As it can be appreciated, ribbings 70 can take a variety of shapes and numbers, as desired”), indicating multiple circular-shaped reinforcing ribs of various radii are suggested, where the reinforcing rib communicates with the circular-shaped reinforcing ribs (any additional circular-shaped reinforcing ribs 70 will similarly be connected to the straight ribbings 70 extending from center opening 62).
PNG
media_image3.png
486
398
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reinforcing ribs inside each of the mounting nests of Mei to include a reinforcing rib based on the center of the mounting hole and two circular-shaped reinforcing ribs having different radii and taking the center of the mounting hole as a circle center, the reinforcing rib communicating with the circular-shaped reinforcing ribs, as is similarly taught by Orenstein et al., for the purpose of providing adequate reinforcing ribs to improve the strength of the pedal bottom plate and the mounting nests without significantly increasing weight of the training device (Orenstein et al. col. 3 lines 35-37, “Referring now to FIGS. 7 and 10, main body 12 includes a plurality of ribbings or webbings 70 to improve strength without significantly increasing the unit's weight”). As modified, an outer end of the reinforcing rib will be connected with the wedge dowels via connection of the protection seat (5) with the mounting hole (9) of the mounting nests and the inner wall of the mounting hole by being formed along the pedal bottom plate (1) inside the mounting hole (9).
Regarding claim 2, Mei further teaches wherein a cushioned tread surface (foot pad 3) is arranged on the pedal bottom plate (1), the cushioned tread surface is set with reference to a center of an upper surface of the pedal bottom plate (see Fig. 1), and an operation assembly (mounting seat 11, bandage 12 [the Office notes this is language pulled from a machine translation, see Fig. 1 for illustration of structure considered to be “bandage 12”]) is arranged on the pedal bottom plate (1) on each of two sides of the cushioned tread surface (see Fig. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 3, Mei further teaches wherein, the operation assembly comprises a tractor plate assembly of a pull cord trainer which is able to be disassembled and inserted (see Fig. 1 with mounting seat 11 and bandage 12 disassembled on the left side and inserted on the right side), the tractor plate assembly comprises a tractor plate (mounting seat 11; insomuch as applicant has shown and disclosed a “tractor plate,” the Office holds the mounting seat 11 of Mei is equivalent), a strap (bandage 12), and a tension tube (tubular portion that connects bandage 12 to D-ring, see Figs. 1-2 and 4, equivalent to tension tube as defined and illustrated by applicant), the two sides of the pedal bottom plate are provided with through-hole grooves (mounting groove 10) penetrating up and down for disassembling and inserting the tractor plate assembly of the pull cord trainer, and the tractor plate is inserted in the through-hole groove from bottom to top, the tractor plate is provided with the strap for connecting the tension tube (see Fig. 1-2 and 4), and the tension tube is connected on the strap (see Figs. 1-2 and 4); and
the bottom surface of the pedal bottom plate (1) is provided with each mounting nests (5, 9) are arranged on an inner side of the inner frame (annotated Fig. 5), and a plurality of crosswise reinforcing ribs are arranged between the inner frame and an outer side wall of the mounting nest (see ribs 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
397
328
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Mei as modified further teaches wherein an upper surface of the pedal bottom plate (1) is parallel to the ground, a center point of the bottom surface of the pedal bottom plate, a center point of the auxiliary groove and a center point of the inner frame (where auxiliary groove has been interpreted as the recessed portion of pedal 1 in which reinforcing ribs 4 and mounting holes 9 are positioned, see Fig. 5) are on a same axis, and the axis is perpendicular to the ground (insomuch as applicant has shown or disclosed this relationship between the bottom surface, the auxiliary groove, and the inner frame, the Office holds Mei discloses and illustrates the same).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei (For. Pat. Doc. CN 210612785 U) in view of Orenstein et al. (US 8,899,604), and further in view of Sharp (US 5,603,334).
Regarding claim 7, Mei further teaches wherein, the bottom support assembly comprises any one or more of a movable support assembly and a non-movable support assembly (elastic balls 2 constitute non-movable support assembly as defined by applicant), and
the movable support assembly comprises an omni-directional wheel, the non-movable support assembly comprises a first elastic body (elastic balls 2 constitute first elastic body), the movable support assembly and the non-movable support assembly each forming a detachable connection with each of the mounting nest (elastic balls 2 have detachable connection with protection seat 5 of mounting nests via projection 6 and constriction 7).
[The Office notes this claim as written requires only one of the movable support assembly or non-movable support assembly, and therefore Mei teaching a non-movable support assembly satisfies the claim.]
Mei does not teach the non-movable support assembly comprises a second elastic body, the second elastic body having a height less than a height of the first elastic body and a height of the omni-directional wheel. [The Office notes this claim as written requires only one of the movable support assembly or non-movable support assembly, and therefore the omni-directional wheel is not required to satisfy the claim.]
Sharp teaches a non-movable support assembly for a multifunctional training device comprising a first body (rocker assembly 13) and a second body (rocker assembly 15), wherein the second body has a height that is less than a height of the first body (see Fig. 2). Sharp further teaches the first and second bodies are interchangeable (col. 4 lines 16-23, “The user can adjust the degree of difficulty by interchanging the rocker assemblies 13 and 15. The rocker assemblies 13 and 15 differ in radius of curvature of the floor-contacting surface 32 and/or material, to provide different levels of difficulty. In general, the smaller the radius of curvature of the semispherical portion 33 (FIG. 3) of the rocker assembly 13, the greater the level of difficulty maintaining balance.”).
PNG
media_image5.png
158
304
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-movable support assembly of Mei to comprise a second elastic body having a height that is less than a height of the first elastic body, as is similarly taught by Sharp, for the purpose of providing interchangeable bodies of the non-movable support to selectively provide different levels of difficulty of performing exercises with the multifunctional training device (Sharp col. 4 lines 16-23). As modified, the second elastic body will maintain the same relative shape and connection of the first elastic body and will merely be an alternative, smaller version of the first elastic body, as is similarly taught for the first and second bodies of Sharp.
Regarding claim 10, Mei as modified by Sharp further teaches wherein, the first elastic body (elastic ball 2) and the second elastic body (alternative, smaller version of elastic ball 2 as modified by Sharp) directly form a detachable connection with the mounting nests (via projection 6 and constriction 7, see Figs. 1-2), upper ends of the first elastic body and the second elastic body are disposed corresponding to each mounting hole (upper end of each first elastic body and second elastic body form detachable connection with each mounting hole via projection 6 and constriction 7), both a length and width of the horizontal cross section of the upper end of each of the first elastic body and the second elastic body are larger than a length and width of the horizontal cross section of each mounting hole (projection 6 has a length/width greater than a length/width of hole 8 of protection seat 5, see Fig. 4), the upper ends of the first elastic body and the second elastic body are embedded in each mounting hole (projection 6 embeds in the respective mounting hole when engaged with hole 8 of protection seat 5, see Fig. 4), and the upper ends of the first elastic body and the second elastic body are clamped into each mounting hole with elastic external bracing to form a detachable connection with the mounting nests (projection 7 forms elastic external bracing once pressed within hole 8 of protection seat 5 of the respective mounting nest, see Fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a multifunctional training device in combination with all of the structural and functional limitations, and further comprising an omni-directional wheel, a first elastic body, or a second elastic body forming a detachable connection with the mounting nests through connection seats, the connection seats comprising a main plate, a clamping segment arranged on an upper surface of the main plate, an auxiliary connecting hole arranged on the main plate to connect with the bottom support assembly, and a clamping groove arranged on the clamping segment corresponding to each of the plurality of wedge dowels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states claim 1 has been amended to include limitations recited in claim 6 and is allowable because the previously cited references fail to disclose limitations recited in claim 6. However, in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 05/13/2025, the Office notes no rejection to claim 6 was previously made in view of prior art due to the presence of an apparent Chinese language character which made the scope of the claim unascertainable, and an Examiner’s Comment was provided stating the prior art to Mei generally teaches an arrangement of reinforcing ribs. Although Mei does not teach the specifically claimed arrangement, new prior art to Orenstein et al. has been relied upon to teach the claimed arrangement of reinforcing ribs, see above. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 KATHLEEN FISK whose telephone number is (571)272-1042. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM M-F (Central).
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.
/KATHLEEN M FISK/Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/LOAN B JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights