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 Arguments
Regarding the amendment received on 10/14/2025, the Examiner finds some of the subject matter allowable. Independent claim 1 has been amended to include limitations regarding complimentary magnetic elements within the base that enable closure of the device for transport. The Examiner believes that the prior art fails to disclose such a closure mechanism and it would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fenner to include this feature. Claim 1 and its dependents are therefore allowed.
Claim 8 has been amended to include limitations from claim 11 which was previously objected to as allowable. Claim 8 and its dependents are therefore allowed.
New claim 17 is rejected as it contains similar limitations to those that were rejected in the previous office action. However, some of its dependents contain allowable subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 17, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenner (US Pub. 4,696,470) in view of Goldstein (US Pub. 3,294,400).
Regarding claim 17, Fenner discloses an agility system, comprising:
a first stanchion rotatably secured entirely within a storage area formed in a first base by a shaft and rotatable at least ninety degrees from the storage area into an upright position with respect to the first base (Fig. 1, frame member 26 having lower portion 28);
a second stanchion rotatably secured entirely within a storage area formed in a second base by a shaft and rotatable at least ninety degrees from the storage area into an upright position with respect to the second base (Fig. 1, frame member 24 having lower portion 28);
retaining means (Fig. 1, wingnuts 32);
and a bar suspendable horizontally by the retaining means formed within the first and second stanchions (Fig. 1, rail 34).
However, Fenner fails to disclose as taught by Goldstein, similarly drawn to a pair of stanchions with a bar suspended between said stanchions, retaining means formed within the first and second stanchions and further comprised of slots formed entirely through a surface of sides of the first and second stanchions and include an arc-shaped holding area centered in the slots for loosely retaining a bar within the slots (Fig. 1, notches 34A-34E);
and a bar suspendable horizontally by the retaining means formed within the first and second stanchions (Fig. 1, cross bar 36).
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 retaining means and bar of Fenner to be of the notched design of Goldstein to allow for easier and faster removal of the bar.
Regarding claim 19, Fenner as modified by Goldstein discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Fenner, bar storage means for securing the bar to a side of at least one base (Fig. 6, eye 76).
Regarding claim 20, Fenner as modified by Goldstein discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Fenner, wherein bar storage means is provided in the form of rings mounted to a side of at least one base (Fig. 6, eye 76).
Regarding claim 21, Fenner as modified by Goldstein discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Fenner, wherein the at least one stanchion retaining pin is installable at an end of at least one base to store the at least one stanchion pin when it is not in use (The screw and nut are capable of being removed from the stanchion and attached to the base with any number of means such as tape).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 12-16 are allowed.
Claim(s) 18, 22 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642