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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayes (US 2023/0389685).
PNG
media_image1.png
628
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hayes teaches regarding claim:
1. A finger exercise device (FIG 1 shows a grip capable of being used for finger dexterity exercises), including a frame (main body 120) and a plurality of finger holds (140s), the frame including a bottom arc portion having an upper surface (arc A with top surface having finger holds 140), the finger hold positioned on the upper surface (as seen in FIG 1), the plurality of finger holds including a central finger hold (middle 140), each of the finger holds having a minimum position (C), the finger holds on either side of the central finger holds having a respective minimum position (C), each minimum position being lower as the finger holds are further from the central finger hold (see FIG 1 showing outer minimums C being lower than the central minimum C).
2. The device of claim 1 wherein the frame includes a top flange for suspending the device (the device can include a backing/flange 690 for attaching the grip to another object and would thus be usable for suspending the grip from another surface).
3. The device of claim 1 wherein the frame includes a top arc (B), the bottom arc being wider than the top arc (Arc A is wider/thicker than B since it does not have the tapered ends for finger insertion of arc B).
5. The device of claim 3 wherein the device includes a back wall, the back wall (110) extending between the top arc and the bottom arc (110 extending between A and B as seen in FIG 1).
6. The device of claim 5 wherein at least one of the finger holds are spaced apart from the back wall (the outer surface of C of each the finger hold is spaced apart from wall 110 as seen in FIG 1).
7. The device of claim 1 further including corner arcs (rounded corners D), the corner arcs joining the bottom arc and a top arc (as seen in FIG 1).
8. The device of claim 1 further including a tangent portion located between the finger holds and a corner arc joining the bottom arc (tangent portion/linear edges E as seen above).
9. The device of claim 1 wherein the finger holds include a horizontal portion (portion between edge C and wall 110 is horizontal).
10. The device of claim 1 wherein the finger holds include a horizontal portion and an inclined portion (inclined portion F, horizontal portion discussed in rejection of claim 9 ).
11. The device of claim 10 wherein the inclined portion is behind the horizontal portion (directionality is arbitrary, F is considered to be behind the horizontal portion relative to the reference frame of FIG 1).
12. The device of claim 1 wherein at least one finger hold includes an inclined surface inclining downward from the front of the device to the back of the device (see inclined portion F inclining downwards from the front surface to the back surface as seen above).
13. The device of claim 1 wherein the finger holds include a vertex where one arc of a finger hold meets the arc of an adjacent finger hold (vertexes 130).
14. The device of claim 13 wherein the finger holds adjacent to the central finger hold each have an outer vertex having a maximum height that is equal to or lower than the minimum position of the arc of the central finger hold (130s lower than minimum position at C relative to the reference frame of FIG 1).
15. The device of claim 13 wherein the vertex of at least one finger hold is rounded (130s are rounded edges as seen in FIG 1).
17. The device of claim 1 wherein the minimum position of the arcs of the finger holds adjacent to the central finger hold are lower than the minimum position of the arc of the central finger hold (outer Cs are lower than the middle C when arc A is considered lower than arc B; directionality is arbitrary as discussed above).
18. The device of claim 10 wherein the inclined portion of at least one finger hold is inclining downward from front to back (inclined portion F inclines downward from the front of the device to the back of the device as seen in FIG 1).
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) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Hayes teaches the device of claim 1, but does not teach the above wherein the frame has an aperture positioned above the central finger hold, and an eye positioned in the aperture. The Office takes Official Notice that including an aperture with an eye with a finger exercise device is old and well known in the art. In the instant case, including such an aperture and eye between positions C would provide a thumb hold, advantageously improving the ability of a user to grip the device. Such a modification would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued:
Hayes does not teach a finger exercise device as properly construed. The Office disagrees. While the claims are read in light of the specification, limitations from the specification cannot be read into the claims – claim language must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Further, claim terminology is not limited to applicant’s specific definition unless the specification uses a special definition for the term. No such special definitions are currently at issue. The category of exercise devices is extremely broad, and encompasses a wide variety of apparatuses for a wide variety of individuals. It is improper to limit exercise devices to those contemplated by applicant’s specification. Contrary to applicant’s assertion, a finger exercise device for an individual with a disability may require merely arranging the fingers and optionally applying light force – a task the Hayes invention would be well suited for. Hayes intending the device to be used in a different matter is immaterial since it is capable of being used as such an exercise device. If applicant intends a narrower construction, additional limitations should be added to that effect. In essence, applicant has argued more narrowly than claims – this theme is present throughout the arguments.
Hayes does not teach a frame because there is no skeleton-like structure. This argument is moot because this structure has not been claimed as part of the frame. “Frame” is a generic element and not limited by applicant’s specification. It requires only those elements claimed, such as the arc, which is present in Hayes as discussed in the rejections above.
Hayes is not capable of being used for finger dexterity exercise. The Office disagrees; applicant has argued more narrowly than claimed. See response to arguments above regarding the breadth of possible exercises.
Hayes cannot be used in a 103 rejection because it is non-analogous art to applicant’s invention. The Office disagrees. Prior art need only be analogous with other prior art that has been applied, not applicant’s intended invention. Here, prior art analogous to Hayes’ finger grip can be used to properly modify Hayes – art against an apparatus claim need not be from applicant’s field of endeavor.
Applicant has identified several differences between Hayes and the instant invention, but those differences have not been claimed. Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims to include specific differentiating features.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 GARRETT K ATKINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8117. The examiner can normally be reached 0800-1800 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, 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.
/GARRETT K ATKINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784