DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 01/29/2026.
Status of the Claims
In applicant’s amendments, claims 8-9, 13-14 were cancelled, claims 1, 6, 10, 15 were amended. Claims 1-7, 10-12, and 15-20 are currently pending and considered below. An action on the merits now follows.
Response to Amendment
The objections to the abstract of the disclosure, and the drawing, specification, and claim objections have been obviated in view of applicant’s amendments and arguments. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been obviated in view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, and was/were withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 was amended with the language of “whereby the dimensions of the yoga block do not exceed 9 x 6 x 4 inches in the working condition”. The specifications recite “yoga block 10 may be made in different sizes, including the traditional sizes of 9” x 6” x 4” (the standard sized block), 9” x 6” x 3” and 9” x 6” x 2” (both thinner than the standard sized block). The particular size and width of the block will depend on the size of one’s hands and the individual’s level of flexibility.” The specifications do not support the language of “does not exceed” as the sizes presented in the specifications are examples due to “may be”; therefore, the language is not supported by the specifications and fails to comply with written description requirements at the time of filing.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11040237 B2 (Park).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Park discloses a yoga block (inflatable plyometric box 10; the box is capable of being used for yoga), comprising:
an inflatable body (box 10; the box is inflatable) defining an internal chamber (“an enclosed interior or chamber which is adapted to be airtight” Col. 5, lines 23-24); a valve (valves 34A, 34B) positioned on an exterior surface of the body (first sidewall 20A) for inflating the body into a working condition and deflating the body into a storage condition (valves are configured to inflate the device as shown in Figure 1 and deflate the device into a small storable condition); whereby the dimensions of the yoga block do not exceed 9 x 6 x 6 inches in the working condition (“inflatable plyometric box 10 may have a height from about 6 inches” Col. 12, lines 34-35; and “the length L and width W of inflatable plyometric box 10 may be substantially equal or equal to the height H of inflatable plyometric box 10” Col. 13, lines 14-15; said box is 6 x 6 x 6). Park discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Park does not disclose whereby the dimensions of the yoga block do not exceed 9 x 6 x 4 inches in the working condition.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Park to have a height equal or less than 4 inches such that the dimensions are 6 x 6 x 4 inches since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of the relative dimension of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distant from the prior art device.” In the instant case, the device of Park would not operate differently with the claimed height of 4 inches. Further, applicant places no criticality on the dimensions claimed, indicating only that the yoga block “may be” the claimed dimensions. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the height to be 4 inches such that the dimensions to not exceed 9 x 6 x 4 inches by being 6 x 6 x 4 inches, in order to reduce the size of the device for easier transportation.
Regarding Claim 2, Park as modified further discloses the yoga block according to claim 1, wherein the inflatable body is made of a polymeric material (“polyester, polyurethane, vinyl, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), neoprene, other synthetic or natural materials known in the art” Col. 8, lines 24-26).
Regarding Claim 3, Park as modified further discloses the yoga block according to claim 2, wherein the polymeric material is vinyl (“vinyl” Col. 8, lines 24-26).
Claims 4-7, 10-12, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11040237 B2 (Park) in view of US 10045647 B2 (Publicover et al; henceforth Publicover).
Regarding Claim 4, Park discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Park further discloses wherein the device is comprised of polyester, polyurethane, vinyl, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), neoprene, other synthetic or natural materials known in the art, or any combination thereof (Col. 8, lines 24-26). Park does not disclose the polymeric material as rubber.
Publicover teaches an analogous exercise device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
An inflatable body defining an internal chamber, wherein the inflatable body is made of a polymeric material comprising rubber (“A hybrid embodiment, FIGS. 31A-31E, includes at least one enclosed fixed or adjustable pressure air bladder surrounded by layers above and/or below of foam, rubber, or the like.” Col. 63, lines 40-45). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the device to have the inflatable body surrounded by a later of rubber, as taught by Publicover, in order to provide a reinforcing non-slip layer to the device to prevent rupturing of the bladder or slippage of the user off the surfaces.
PNG
media_image1.png
204
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 31E
Regarding Claim 5, Park discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Park further discloses wherein the device is comprised of polyester, polyurethane, vinyl, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), neoprene, other synthetic or natural materials known in the art, or any combination thereof (Col. 8, lines 24-26). Park does not disclose the polymeric material as clear.
Publicover teaches an analogous exercise device (device 4901, Figures 49A-49C) in the same field of endeavor comprising:
An inflatable body defining an internal chamber (“inflatable embodiments of device 4901” Col. 78, line 60), wherein the inflatable body is made of a clear polymeric material (“Pink Poly (a clear hot pink polyethylene that may be formed into a film on the surface of the disclosed devices or a thin foam applied to such a surface” Col. 79, lines 7-9). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the polymeric material to be a clear hot pink “Pink Poly” polyethylene, as taught by Publicover, in order to “avoid the buildup of a charge such as due to rubbing ones foot or shoe on the surface” (Col. 79, lines 11-12).
Regarding Independent Claim 6, Park discloses an inflatable yoga block (inflatable plyometric box 10; the box is capable of being used for yoga), comprising a body defining an internal chamber for receiving air (“an enclosed interior or chamber which is adapted to be airtight” Col. 5, lines 23-24);
whereby the body is configured to be inflated in a first position (shown in Figure 1) and deflated in a second position (the box is deflated and the deflated shape is the second position);
wherein the body includes a front face, a rear face, a side face, an opposite side face (Figure 1: Annotated), a top face (top 13/upper surface 16B) and a bottom face (bottom 11/lower surface 14A).
PNG
media_image2.png
262
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated
wherein the front face includes a valve (inflation valve 34B) to expose the internal chamber to an outside environment (“which air (or any gas) may be directed to inflate second inflatable member 12b” Col. 9, lines 66-67; said valve when opened exposes the internal chamber to an outside environment). Park discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Park does not disclose wherein the valve includes a removable cover to seal the valve in the first position.
Publicover teaches an analogous exercise device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
A valve (“Schrader core valve” Figure 64A), wherein the valve includes a removable cover (cap 6403) to seal the valve in an inflated position (“threads onto the external threads of the Schrader insert 6406 to cover the valve and provide a smooth top” Col. 123, lines 36-38; the cap seals over the valve preventing change from an inflated position until removal). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the valve to include a cap in order to prevent unintended interaction with the valve and provide a smooth surface to prevent catching.
Regarding Claim 7, Park as modified further discloses the inflatable yoga block according to claim 6, wherein the body is a cuboid shape in the first position (see Figure 1 for cube shape).
Regarding Claim 10, Park as modified further discloses the inflatable yoga block according to claim 6, wherein each of the side face, the opposite side face (seams 26A, 26B and 28A, 28B; the seams bisect in the middle of the side and opposite side walls as shown in Figure 3 creating a respective upper and lower portion), the top face, and the rear face include a bisecting line (seams 32A, 32B, 30A, 30B; edge seams 30A/B and 32A/B bisect between the side faces and the top, and the rear side and the bottom respectively creating curved edges therebetween).
Regarding Claim 11, Park as modified further discloses the inflatable yoga block according to claim 10, wherein the bisecting line defines a curved shape for a top half and a bottom half of the faces (see Figure 3 for the cross section of the device showing all the seams defining curved edges of the respective faces forming a respective curved shape for each face).
Regarding Claim 12, Park as modified further discloses the inflatable yoga block according to claim 6, wherein each of the front face (“threads 18a that are arranged across some or all of the surface areas of first lower and upper surfaces 14a, 16a” Col. 6, lines 38-40) and the rear face includes a cross pattern (“stitch threads 18a may be in a linear, zigzag, random or other pattern, including, but not limited to “X” and “V” patterns” Col. 6, lines 60-64; stitches 18A are along the front and rear surfaces of the inflatable bladder having an X shaped patterns wherein the X shape is a cross shape).
Regarding Claim 15, Park as modified further discloses the inflatable yoga block according to claim 6, wherein the valve is configured to connect to an electric air pump or a manual air pump (a user is capable of attaching an air pump to the valve to inflate the device).
Regarding Independent Claim 16, Park further discloses the yoga block, comprising: a body defining a hollow, interior chamber (“an enclosed interior or chamber which is adapted to be airtight” Col. 5, lines 23-24);
a hole (valve 34A, 34B) connecting the interior chamber to an outside environment such that a fluid may fill the interior chamber (valve 34A, 34B is adapted to allow air/gas into the inflatable members).
Park discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Park does not disclose a removable cover for sealing the hole.
Publicover teaches an analogous exercise device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
A valve (“Schrader core valve” Figure 64A), wherein the valve includes a removable cover (cap 6403) to seal the valve in an inflated position (“threads onto the external threads of the Schrader insert 6406 to cover the valve and provide a smooth top” Col. 123, lines 36-38; the cap seals over the valve preventing change from an inflated position until removal). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the valve to include a cap in order to prevent unintended interaction with the valve and provide a smooth surface to prevent catching.
Regarding Claim 17, Park as modified further discloses the yoga block according to claim 16, wherein the body has a non-stick exterior surface (“vinyl” Col. 8, line 24; in as much as applicant has shown that vinyl is a non-stick surface Park has disclosed vinyl which is a non-stick surface).
Regarding Claim 18, Park as modified further discloses the yoga block according to claim 16, wherein the body has a substantially cylindrical cross-section shape (“first lower and upper surfaces 14a, 16a may be circular” and “second lower and upper surfaces 14b, 16b may be circular” Col. 8, lines 64-66, surfaces 14A, 14B, 16A, 16B have circular cross sections, see Figure 3 wherein having the circular cross sections would create a cylindrical cross-section shape of the device).
Regarding Claim 19, Park as modified further discloses the yoga block according to claim 16, wherein the body extends into a first neck portion (upper strip 32B) connected to a first tapered end (top surface 13; see Figures 1-3 wherein the top surface 13 edges are tapered inward relative to the side surfaces) and the body extends into a second neck portion (lower strip 30A) connected to a second, opposite tapered end (bottom surface 11; see Figures 1-3 wherein the bottom surfaces 11 edges are tapered inward relative to the side surfaces).
Regarding Claim 20, Park as modified further discloses the yoga block according to claim 19, wherein each of the tapered ends has a substantially square cross-section shape (see Figures 1-3 wherein the top and bottom surfaces 13, 11 having rectangular cross section shapes).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicants arguments pertaining to Claim 1 amendments “whereby the dimensions of the block do not exceed 9 x 6 x 4 inches when in the working condition. Applicant’s specifications (Paragraph 24) does not support said amendment. Paragraph 24 provided below for reference. Said paragraph provides references to sizes that the yoga block “may be” but does not explicitly state that said block cannot exceed said “standard sized block” size. Negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure of which applicant’s amendment does not.
PNG
media_image3.png
145
567
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With reference to applicant’s arguments that the reference of record Park only discloses the height is between 6 and 48 inches, and length/width between 20 and 48 inches is incorrect. Park further states that the Length and width can be equal to the height which would include the height of six inches (“the length L and width W of inflatable plyometric box 10 may be substantially equal or equal to the height H of inflatable plyometric box 10” Col. 13, lines 14-16). Park therefore discloses that the yoga block in a certain embodiment is 6 x 6 x 6 inches; however, that still exceeds the prescribed limitations of 4 inches in one dimension. As described above applicant does not have support nor criticality regarding the dimensions of the block as the yoga block “may be” different sizes. In this particular case it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the height of 6 inches to be 4 inches thus said dimensions of Park as modified do not exceed said 9 x 6 x 4 inches by being 6 x 6 x 4 inches.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments pertaining to claim 6. Applicant’s amendments necessitated further amendments with Claim 6 now rejected by Park in view of Publicover.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments pertaining to Publicover obviousness rejection, applicant has argued that Publicover is non-analogous art and that the reason for combination are conclusory statements that lacks evidence to support the combination.
In response to applicant's argument that Publicover is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Publicover and Parker are explicitly exercise devices making them in the same field of endeavor, more specifically both Publicover and Parker are inflatable platforms that a user stands on for exercise.
Applicant recites section 103(A). The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In response to applicant’s argument regarding the teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes the general knowledge of placing a cap on a valve to prevent leaks. Applicant argues Park discloses the valve as a one-way value which is sufficiently sealed and would be more cumbersome to remove when deflating from the quick deflation aspect and that a cover would not create a smooth surface to prevent catching. Park does not preclude using a cap nor describes that the one-way valve is leak proof. Park further discloses that a one-way valve is one example and that the valve could be any valve structure known in the art; of which Publicover teaches a different valve known in the art. In reference to the smoothness the examiner was in reference to what the cap provides which is the cap is smooth and would cover the valve which is not smooth as shown in the figures. Applicant also fails to address the other reason for combination which is to prevent unintended interaction with the valve. As this is an exercise device that a user is jumping on covering the valve with a small cover would prevent the user from hitting the valve and potentially expelling air from the box if the user slips or otherwise lands on the side of the box.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on Page 9, applicant argues that the prior arts of record do not disclose supporting users of different weights, heights, shapes. None of the described language in this particular argument is present in the claims thus the prior art of record does not need to disclose it.
Applicant likewise argues that there is no reason why one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Park to include a layer of rubber. Park describes a layer of non-slip on the box but does not actually describe the material used for said layer. Publicover discloses the rubber layer which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize is a non-slip material. Applicant’s arguments pertaining to non-stick layer are moot as that limitation is not present in the claim.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-0063. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 7:00-5:00pm; Friday 7-12 EST.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZACHARY T MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3784