DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits based on the 18/575,740 application filed on 12/29/2023 and which claims as originally filed have been considered in the ensuing 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The Applicant has priority to 06/30/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/29/2023 and 01/26/2024 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because for containing 35 USC 112(f) language and for the inclusion of “Figure 1”. 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).
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
A base (claim 1)
A supporting means for supporting to a base (claim 1); please also see the 35 USC 112(b) rejection below
At least one first guide track (claim 1); the drawings do not show two or more guide tracks merely a single guide track
The supporting means attached to the lower support, with an upper support attached to the lower support (claim 1) AND wherein the supporting means comprises a roller arranged at ends of the first guide track (claim 7); the Figures only show the rollers on the back fork support not on the front fork support, however, the front fork support is the only support having the upper and lower support shown in claim 1
Supporting legs to be placed against the base (claim 8); it appears that the supporting legs are placed against a ground surface, please also see the first and second drawing objection above
Fastening means (claim 9); please also see the 35 USC 112(b) rejection below
A substantially vertical plane or base (claim 9)
The supporting means attached to the lower support, with an upper support attached to the lower support (claim 1) AND wherein a bike trainer is installed on the upper support (claim 13)
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:
On line 9, “as well as” should be deleted
On line 11, “to which first guide track” should be corrected to ---the at least one first guide track---
On line 13, “as well as” should be deleted
On line 4, “the first guide track” should be corrected to ---the at least one first guide track---
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, “the first guide track” should be corrected to ---the at least one first guide track---
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, “the first guide track” should be corrected to ---the at least one first guide track---
On lines 2-3, “the first guide track” should be corrected to ---the at least one first guide track---
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 3, “which” should be corrected to ---the---
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 5, “the first guide track” should be corrected to ---the at least one first guide track---
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 3, “the front fork” should be corrected to ---a front fork---
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 5, “can be” should be corrected to ---is configured to be---
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 3, “the front fork” should be corrected to ---a front fork---
On line 4, “the rear fork” should be corrected to ---a rear fork---
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The limitation of “supporting means” in at least claim 1 has been disclosed as being rollers (see page 3 of the specification) or a supporting frame with support legs (see page 3 of the specification). Please also see the drawing objections above.
The limitation of “fastening means” in at least claim 1 has been disclosed as a free end of the front shaft (see page 8 of the specification).
The limitation of “fastening means” in claim 9 has not been disclosed.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
First spring elements in at least claim 1; the first spring elements are disclosed as elastic cylindrical cushions made of resilient material such as neoprene, rubber or silicone, see page 7
Second spring element in at least claim 1; the second spring element is disclosed as a helical spring in claim 3
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 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, the limitation “supporting means for supporting to a base” on line 2 lacks clarity. The Examiner notes that this limitation appears to be a translation error, however, it is unclear if this should be ---supporting means for supporting a base--- or ---supporting means configured to be supported on a base---. Please also see the drawing objections above.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation of “rollers are arranged at the ends of said first guide tracks” on line 3 lacks clarity and antecedent basis. “the ends” and “said first guide tracks” lack antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear if said “first guide tracks” is the same as the previously claimed “at least one guide track”; similarity it is unclear, as previously only a single first guide track has been claimed if “the ends” refer to both ends of a first guide track, or to a single end of multiple first guide track. The Examiner notes that it appears that the Applicant is mixing the components of the first and second trainer stand together, resulting in drawing objections and 35 USC 112(b) rejections. The Applicant is reminded to be clear and concise in the claim language to accurately claimed the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the claim limitation “fastening means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 currently depends on both claim 1 in the preamble and claim 13 in the body of the claim and should be changed to be consistent with United States patent practice.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation of “a front fork” on line 2 and “a rear fork” on line 3 lack clarity as a front and rear fork have already been claimed in claim 14 upon which claim 15 depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Papadopoulos (US 10,933,291).
Regarding claim 1:
Papadopoulos discloses a supporting means (Please see the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation above and the drawing objections above. The Applicant discloses that the supporting means is either the front or rear supporting means. Likewise Papadopoulos discloses front tracks 206 as a front supporting means and rear base 255 as a rear supporting means) for supporting to a base (please see the 35 USC 112(b) rejection above; the supporting means support the overall device on a floor, which has been considered the base in the light of the specification of the instant application); a lower support (side supports 222) connected to the supporting means (see Fig. 6); and an upper support (front fork support element 224) connected to the lower support (see Fig. 6), the upper support comprising fastening means (please see 35 USC 112(f) interpretation above; the front forks are connected to the U-shaped frame, see Fig. 6) for connecting to a bicycle, and the upper support being tiltable around an imaginary rotation axis with respect to the lower support (see Fig. 6-7), and the lower support being movable with respect to the supporting means in a direction perpendicular to said rotation axis (see Fig. 6), as well as first spring elements (springs in the form of rubber bands 230) for subjecting the upper support to a force opposing the tilting, wherein the bicycle trainer comprises at least one first guide track (slots shown in Fig. 6), to which first guide track the lower support is fastened to be movable in the longitudinal direction of the guide track, as well as at least one second spring element (rubber bands 272) opposing the movement of the lower support in the direction of the first guide track (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2:
Papadopoulos discloses said first guide track is fastened to the supporting means at a first fastening point and a second fastening point so that the lower support is arranged between the first fastening point and the second fastening point (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5:
Papadopoulos discloses the distance from the first spring elements to the rotation axis is adjustable (as the front support fork element 224 moves the spring elements move, causing them to move towards and away from the rotational axis).
Regarding claim 7:
Papadopoulos discloses said supporting means for supporting to the base comprise rollers (rollers 264), which rollers are arranged at the ends of said first guide tracks (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 10:
Papadopoulos discloses said fastening means for fastening to a bicycle comprise a front shaft for fastening to the front fork of the bicycle (see Fig 7).
Regarding claim 12:
Papadopoulos discloses the front shaft is fastened to the upper support to be rotatable around a vertical axis perpendicular to the front shaft (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13:
Papadopoulos discloses the bicycle trainer stand comprises a bike trainer installed in the upper support (see Fig. 7), wherein the bike trainer comprises a rear shaft to be fastened to the rear fork of the bicycle (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 14:
Papadopoulos discloses a first trainer stand according to claim 1 for fastening to the front fork of a bicycle (see Fig. 6), and a second trainer stand according to claim 13 for fastening to the rear fork of a bicycle (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 15:
Papadopoulos discloses the bicycle trainer device further comprises a bicycle frame, a front fork fastened to said first trainer stand, and a rear fork fastened to said second trainer stand (see Fig. 6).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papadopoulos (US 10,933,291) in view of Brewer et al (US 11,964,182). Papadopoulos discloses the device as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 3:
Papadopoulos discloses that said second spring element is a spring arranged around the first guide track and supported at its first end to the lower support and at its second end to said supporting means (see Fig. 7; the rubber band is attached to the first guide track through carriage 268 and to the lower support through the supporting means).
Papadopoulos fails to disclose that the spring is a helical spring. However, Papadopoulos discloses “The motion is gently resisted by a bungee or other form of spring (not shown).” In column 3 lines 44-45.
Brewer et al discloses an indoor bicycle stand with side movement where the elastic elements that resist movement are in the form of helical springs (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Papadopoulos such that the springs are helical springs, as taught by Brewer et al as bungee cords and helical springs are known equivalent structures.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papadopoulos (US 10,933,291) in view of Burns (US 2009/0312683). Papadopoulos discloses the device as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 4:
Papadopoulos fails to disclose that the force exerted by the first spring elements on the upper support and opposing tilting is adjustable.
Burns teaches an exercise apparatus that uses elastic bands for resistance. Burns further teaches that the bands are removable and replaceable with different bands to increase or decrease the resistance (see paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rubber band of Papadopoulos to be replaceable with different bands as taught by Burns, as replaceable bands are well known in the art.
Examiner’s Comment
Claims 6, 8-9 and 11 have not been rejected under art, however, multiple drawing objections and 35 USC 112(b) have been issued.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN M ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6531. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6 a.m. -4 p.m. (Arizona).
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.
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784