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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for priority as a continuation-in-part of application no. 17/162,092 (now U.S. Patent No. 12,268,916) filed 29 January 2021 and for priority to provisional application no. 62/968,012 filed 30 January 2020 and provisional application no. 63/453,895 filed 22 March 2023. Dependent claims 2-5 in the current application include subject matter that was not described previously in application no. 17/162,092 or provisional application no. 62/968,012, but was described in provisional application no. 63/453,895. Therefore, the effective filing date of claims 2-5 is the filing date of provisional application no. 63/453,895, which is 22 March 2023.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species D (Figures 9-17) in the reply filed on 30 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 8-24 were withdrawn by Applicant from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 6-7 are further withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected species. Claim 6 recites limitations regarding an attachment mechanism on the end faces of the dumbbell, which is directed to nonelected Species E. Claim 7 recites limitations regarding an attachment mechanism on the curved weight segments of the dumbbell, which is directed to nonelected Species F.
Drawings
Figures 15-21 are objected to as being color photographs or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings. The figures include dark coloring/shading that render the figures difficult to reproduce and the reference characters/lead lines difficult to distinguish. The drawings should be black and white line drawings.
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
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 1-5 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation of “substantially straight” is rendered indefinite by use of the term “substantially.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the handle segment is rotatably attached thereto” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what the handle segment is rotatably attached to.
Claim 4 is dependent on itself (“The dumbbell as set forth in claim 4” in line 1). It is unclear how a claim can depend on itself. Applicant should amend the claim to depend from a previously recited claim. Because of this dependency, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the dumbbell” in line 1 and “the opening” in line 2. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to be dependent on previously set forth claim 3.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “The dumbbell as set forth in claim 1, further comprising a barbell having first and second ends, … the second end disposed in the opening of another of the dumbbell.” It is unclear how the dumbbell, as set forth in claim 1, comprises a barbell and another of the dumbbell which has already been claimed. Applicant is suggested to amend the preamble of claims 1-5 to read a/the “dumbbell assembly” and to amend claim 1 to include the structures of limitations (a) and (b) as part of a “dumbbell” of the “dumbbell assembly.” With this amendment, the dumbbell assembly could comprise the dumbbell, a second dumbbell, and a barbell.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the opening” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamady (US 2021/0353993).
Regarding claim 1, Hamady teaches a dumbbell (Fig. 3A shows a dumbbell in as much as Applicant has shown a dumbbell.), comprising:
a) a substantially straight handle segment (handle 120) disposed along a longitudinal axis between a pair of end faces (Figs. 3A-3B); and
b) a plurality of curved weight segments disposed along an arc path between the pair of end faces thereby enclosing the handle segment (See annotated Fig. 3A below. The body is comprised of a plurality of curved weight segments.).
PNG
media_image1.png
465
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hamady teaches the dumbbell as set forth in claim 1, wherein the handle segment is rotatably attached thereto (Para. [0049]: “In such embodiments, the handle 120 and the body 110 of the exercise apparatus 100 may be coaxially arranged along a same plane and function to rotate relative to each other when in use. That is, in one or more embodiments, when in use, the handle 120 may function to rotate along a radial center of the body 110.” The handle 120 is rotatably attached to the curved weight segments.).
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wright (US 4,029,312).
Regarding claim 1, Wright teaches a dumbbell (weight 21) (Fig. 1: Weight 21 is a dumbbell in as much as Applicant has shown a dumbbell.), comprising:
a) a substantially straight handle segment (tubular member 33) disposed along a longitudinal axis between a pair of end faces (Figs. 1, 7-9 shows the tubular member 33 being a handle segment having a pair of end faces.); and
b) a plurality of curved weight segments disposed along an arc path between the pair of end faces thereby enclosing the handle segment (See annotated Fig. 7 below.).
PNG
media_image2.png
430
737
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Wright teaches the dumbbell as set forth in claim 1, wherein the handle segment comprises an opening (channel 35) extending therethrough between the pair of end faces (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Wright teaches the dumbbell as set forth in claim 1, further comprising a barbell (bar 25) having first and second ends, the first end disposed in the opening of the dumbbell, the second end disposed in the opening of another of the dumbbell (See Fig. 11 below.).
PNG
media_image3.png
669
657
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US 4,029,312) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Giordano (US 2014/0274430).
Regarding claim 4, Wright teaches the dumbbell as set forth in claim [3].
Wright does not teach further comprising a strap disposed through the opening, the strap further comprising a ring for attachment to weight resistance exercise equipment.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Giordano teaches a straight handle segment (hand grip 512) disposed along a longitudinal axis between a pair of end faces, wherein the handle segment comprises an opening extending therethrough between the pair of end faces (Fig. 5 shows the hand grip 512 having an opening therethrough.), further comprising a strap (webbing 506) disposed through the opening, the strap further comprising a ring (loop 502) for attachment to weight resistance exercise equipment (hanger strap 100.) (Figs. 7A, 7B show the strap and hand grip 512 attached to hanger strap 100 which is a piece of exercise equipment that utilizes body weight resistance.).
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 dumbbell of Wright by including the strap assembly of Giordano with the predicted result of providing increased exercise options for a user utilizing both body weight and dumbbell weight for resistance exercises (see MPEP 2141(III)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Catrina A Letterman whose telephone number is (303)297-4297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8am - 4pm 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
/LOAN B JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3784