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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3 and 6 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 have been examined.
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 grip having a textured interior surface in addition to rollers (Claim 4) or ball bearings (Claim 5) 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 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.
At the outset, it should be noted that claim 1 sets forth a “grip” that has an expressed intended use of “for a barbell”. Thus, claim 1 is drawn solely to the subcombination of the grip and the barbell is not an element of the claim. However, the claim then seeks to define the grip based on comparison to the barbell (e.g. “dimensioned to have an interior circumference exceeding an exterior circumference of a barbell”: Claim 1, Lines 3 and 5-8; Claim 8, Lines 2-3 and 5-12), as well as recite positive interaction with the barbell (e.g. “forming a friction fit”: Claim 8). Accordingly, it remains unclear as to whether the claims are drawn to the combination or just the subcombination. For this Office action only, Examiner will presume that the subcombination is being claimed. However, Applicants should take note that the positive inclusion of what had been previously only inferentially referred to clearly creates the ambiguity as indicated above with regard to what actually is being required by the claims. Moreover, if the barbell is not an element of the grip, how can details of such barbell constitute a limitation of the grip?
With regards to the added limitation of the grip being carbon fiber, it is unclear as to how the grip is both carbon fiber (Claim 1) as well as comprises polymeric materials (Claim 2). The disclosure merely sets for that these materials may be used in the alternative, not in combination. Clarification is required.
It is unclear as to the definition/interpretation of the claim limitation ‘rigid’. By definition, the term rigid means “unable to bend or be forced out of shape; not flexible”. However, in order to ‘snap-over a barbell’, the grip must have a degree of flexibility to allow for this functionality. For this Office action only, Examiner interprets this term as a material that has at least enough flexibility to allow for the slit/interruption to be expanded enough to be able to mount the grip on a barbell.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationship that between the pry bar and the detachable grip. In other words, it is unclear as to how the pry bar is an element of the detachable grip when they are not structurally connected and the pry bar is merely used to open the grip at the slit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fishman et al (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0275447) in view of Monarrez, Jr. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0351281).
1. Fishman et al disclose a free-rotating, detachable grip (Fig 5) operable to snap over a barbell, the grip comprising:
an interrupted, rigid sleeve (400) dimensioned to have an interior circumference exceeding an exterior circumference of a barbell (Abstract);
wherein the sleeve comprises an exterior surface, a forward surface, and an interior surface, the sleeve defining a hollow interior recess adapted to receive a barbell (Fig 5);
wherein the grip is operable to slide axially on a barbell (Par. 0005);
wherein an interior surface is engraved with texturing (422) to increase friction between the grip and the barbell;
wherein the sleeve defines a slit (Fig 5) operable to allow the grip to detachably affix over a barbell (Abstract).
However, Fishman et al do not disclose the grip being made from a carbon-fiber material.
Monarrez, Jr. teaches a similar detachable grip having a rigid sleeve defining a longitudinal slit therein to allow for the grip to be pried or urged to separate such that the grip will return to substantially its same shape and position and can be made from a polymeric or carbon fiber material (Par. 0041). Applicant is also reminded that it is well established that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. Therefore, the selection of any of the conventionally known and available materials which provide a rigid body that is capable of flexing would have been an obvious matter of engineering design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art in consideration of feel, reduced weight, added durability, reduced cost, etc. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the grip of Fishman et al to be made from a carbon fiber material as taught by Monarrez et al to allow the grip to be expanded at the slit to facilitate insertion of a barbell therein.
Further, Fishman et al do not explicitly disclose wherein the width of the slit is 20 mm to 50 mm.
However, although silent on this dimension, Fishman et al do not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the width of the slit, but the slit inherently has a width relative to the size of the barbell which allows the grip to open and be secured onto an exercise bar. A change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Through routine experimentation and optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the grip of Fishman et al to have the width of the slit be between 20-50 mm as the reference does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the width of the slit as this is merely a change in size/dimension producing expected and predictable results.
2. Fishman et al discloses the grip of claim 1, wherein the grip comprises polymeric materials (Par. 0023).
7. Fishman et al discloses the grip of claim 1, wherein the grip is operable to slide axially on a barbell when grip pressure is released (Par. 0005).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fishman et al in view of Monarrez, Jr. as applied to Claims 1, 2, and 7 above, and further in view of Niebel-Eibenstein (DE 102021206892).
Fishman et al and Monarrez, Jr. disclose a grip significantly as claimed, but does not disclose wherein the interior surface comprises a plurality of ball bearings or a plurality of rollers operable to permit axial rotation of the grip about the barbell while increasing resistance to lateral movement of the grip on the barbell.
Niebel-Eibenstein teaches a similar removable grip for a barbell having a removable bearing member having a plurality of ball bearings which expands the training variations by allowing the grip to smoothly slide and rotate on the barbell such that “the ROM (“Range Of Motion”) increases significantly for the trainee. In this way, the training can be more effective and the muscles can be loaded more evenly, since the (entire) range of movement of the muscles can be utilized to the greatest possible extent” (Page 6 of the Translation). Niebel-Eibenstein also teach that the use of roller bearings in a similar removable grip are known to provide radial circulation of the handle relative to the barbell (Page 3 of the translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the grip of Fishman et al to include the removable bearings as taught by Niebel-Eibenstein to increase the variations and effectiveness of the exercises performed by a user.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fishman et al (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0275447) in view of Monarrez, Jr. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0351281).
8. Fishman et al discloses a free-rotating, detachable grip operable to snap over a barbell, the grip comprising:
an interrupted, rigid sleeve (400) dimensioned to have an interior circumference exceeding an exterior circumference of a barbell (Abstract);
wherein the sleeve comprises an exterior surface, a forward surface, and an interior surface, the sleeve defining a hollow interior recess adapted to receive a barbell (Fig 5);
wherein the sleeve excludes any flexible padding (Fig 5);
wherein a thickness of the sleeve varies from 0.1 mm to 10 mm thick (Par. 0025);
wherein the sleeve defines a slit (Fig 5) operable to allow the grip to detachably affix over a barbell (Abstract);
wherein the grip is operable to slide laterally and axially on a barbell when grip pressure is released (Par. 0005);
wherein the grip is operable to lock in place forming a friction fit with the barbell when grip pressure is increased (Par. 0005).
However, Fishman et al do not disclose the grip being made from PVC.
Kincaid teaches a similar detachable grip (Fig 1) having a rigid sleeve (104) defining a longitudinal slit (106) therein to allow for a handle to be inserted therein and can be made from PVC which is a material that is not substantially deformed when a force is applied thereto (Par. 0022). Applicant is also reminded that it is well established that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. Therefore, the selection of any of the conventionally known and available materials which provide a rigid body that is capable of flexing would have been an obvious matter of engineering design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art in consideration of reduced weight, added durability, reduced cost, etc. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the grip of Fishman et al to be made from PVC as taught by Kincaid to allow the grip to have material properties which allow expansion of the grip which preventing deformation thereof.
Further, Fishman et al do not disclose a pry bar comprising an elongated oblong implement operable to pry up a corner of the grip and release said grip from the barbell. The examiner takes official notice that using a tool such as a pry bar or screwdriver (or any other form of a wedge or lever) to apply leverage to separate two objects (e.g. opening a cylindrical member having a longitudinal slit) is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity engaged in by those in the relevant art, in that such a tool is widely prevalent or in common use in the art to provide illumination to pry an object apart. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the detachable grip to include a tool, such as a pry bar, to separate the grip at the slit if a hand strength of the user does not provide enough force to do so. Such a modification is merely a design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art and would produce expected and predictable results.
Note: Applicant may challenge the examiner's position of Official notice, specifically stating that such elements are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity by amending the claim, e.g., to add additional elements or modify existing elements, present persuasive arguments based on a good faith belief as to why the rejection is in error and/or submit evidence traversing the rejection. If Applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the examiner’s common knowledge or well-known in the art statement will be taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JOSHUA T KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)272-8297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7a-4:30p MST.
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.
/JOSHUA T KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784 9/16/2025