DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits based on the 18/671,911 application filed on 05/22/2024 and which claims as originally filed have been considered in the ensuing 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. The Examiner further notes that it appears that some of the reference numbers included in the specification appear to be incorrect.
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
A structure to permit elongation or retraction and fixing the position in the retracted or elongated position in claim 3
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, “the axis” should be corrected to ---the central axis---
On line 4, “each pedal” should be corrected to ---each pedal of the two pedals---
On line 4, “the platform axis plane to” should be corrected ---the plane of the elongated platform---
On line 5, “the coil springs” should be corrected to ---each of the coil springs---
On line 5, “the well” should be corrected to ---a respective well of the two wells—
On line 6, “the pedal can pivot” should be corrected to ---the respective pedal is configured to pivot---
On line 6, “the pedals” should be corrected to ---the two pedals---
On line 7, “the well” should be corrected to ---the wells---
On line 7, “the pedals” should be corrected to ---the two pedals---
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, “the platform” should be corrected to ---the elongated platform---
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, “the coil spring has” should be corrected to ---the coil springs have---
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, “the seated traveler” should be corrected to ---a seated traveler---
On line 2, “the pedals” should be corrected to ---the two pedals---
On line 3, “platform” should be deleted
On lines 3-4, “the traveler’s feet” should be corrected to ---feet of the seated traveler---
On line 5, “the petals” should be corrected to ---the two pedals---
On line 7, “the pedals” should be corrected to ---the two pedals---
On line 7, “the pedal” should be corrected to ---the two pedals---
On line 10, “the pedal” should be corrected to ---the two pedals---
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the lower pedal surface” on lines 5-6 lacks antecedent basis and clarity. It is unclear if the limitation is the same as the previously claimed “bottom surface” of the pedals of claim 1. Further, if the limitations are the same, the Examiner suggests amending the claim language to clearly state that both pedals are being discussed.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the lower coil” on line 7 lacks antecedent basis and clarity. It is unclear if the limitation is the same as the previously claimed “lower end” of the coil springs.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the platform end” on line 1 lacks antecedent basis and clarity. It is unclear if the limitation is the same as the previously claimed “two ends” of the elongated platform of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the pedal upper surface” on line 1 lacks antecedent basis and clarity. It is unclear if the limitation is the same as the previously claimed “top surface” of the pedals of claim 1. Further, if the limitations are the same, the Examiner suggests amending the claim language to clearly state that both pedals are being discussed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, upon which claims 2-6 depend, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to teach or disclose a device having all the structural and functional limitations of claim 1 and particularly comprising an elongated platform with a central axis present in a plane, two wells located in close proximity to each other along the axis, coil springs having an upper and lower end and two pedals having a top and bottom surface, where each pedal is positioned in a plane parallel to the platform axis plane to, where the lower end of the coil spring is positioned within the well and the upper end is affixed to the lower pedal surface so that the pedal can pivot above and below the parallel plane containing the pedals and where the lower coil within the well is movable permitting the pedals to align with the platform central axis or be perpendicular to the platform central axis.
The closest prior art of record includes Gutierrez (US 12,251,601), Shoshani (US 11,179,598), and Kim (US 2018/0318639).
Gutierrez discloses a portable calf building machine having an elongated platform (the platform has a longitudinal axis that is longer than the latitudinal axis), a well (where the springs are shown in Fig. 3), the coil springs (D) placed within the well such that the top of the springs contacts the bottom of pedals (I). Gutierrez fails to disclose two wells positioned proximate to each other, that the pedals are in a plane parallel to the platform axis, and where the lower coil within the well is movable permitting the pedals to align with the platform central axis or be perpendicular to the platform central axis. The Examiner further notes that it would not be reasonable to modify Gutierrez such that the pedals are movable to either align with the central axis or be perpendicular to the central axis, as the design of the device pedals are locked in place, as shown in Fig. 2, and would not cooperate with the springs to allow for the movement claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
430
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shoshani teaches an elongated platform (24) with a central axis present in a plane, two wells (linear actuators 20 have an interior portion that could be considered a well, in the broadest reasonable interpretation) located in close proximity to each other along the axis, coil springs (38) having an upper and lower end and two pedals (40) having a top and bottom surface, where each pedal is positioned in a plane parallel to the platform axis plane to (see Fig. 1), where the upper end is affixed to the lower pedal surface so that the pedal can pivot above and below the parallel plane containing the pedals (see Fig. 1). Shoshani fails to teach that the lower end of the coil spring is positioned within the well and where the lower coil within the well is movable permitting the pedals to align with the platform central axis or be perpendicular to the platform central axis.
PNG
media_image2.png
726
297
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches an elongated platform (the base of the device has been considered the platform) with a central axis present in a plane, two wells (guiding mechanisms 12 have been considered well as the guiding mechanism is an opening through which the pedals are placed), two pedals (21) having a top and bottom surface, where each pedal is positioned in a plane parallel to the platform axis plane to (see Fig. 1); pedals and where the lower coil within the well is movable permitting the pedals to align with the platform central axis and that the pedals are configured to pivot (see Fig. 5a). However, Kim fails to disclose that the pedals are pivotable a full 90 degrees such that the pedals are movable to be both parallel and perpendicular to the axis. In the embodiment shown in Fig. 1, Kim fails to disclose a coil spring, however, a pedal having a coil spring is disclosed in Fig. 11a-11b. The embodiment of the pedal shown in Fig. 11a-11b fail to disclose that the and lower end of the coil spring is positioned within the well and the upper end is affixed to the lower pedal surface so that the pedal can pivot above and below the parallel plane containing the pedals.
PNG
media_image3.png
361
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN M ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6531. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6 a.m. -4 p.m. (Arizona).
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.
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784