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 to PCT/US22/81718 filed 15 December 2022. Acknowledgement is further made of Applicant’s claim for priority to provisional application no. 63/376,271 filed 19 September 2022 and provisional application no. 63/290,612 filed 16 December 2021.
Independent claim 1 in the instant application includes subject matter that was not described previously in provisional application no. 63/290,312; therefore, the effective filing date of claims 1 and 5 is the filing date of provisional application no. 63/376,271, which is 19 September 2022.
Dependent claim 8 (directly dependent on claim 1) in the instant application includes subject matter that was not described previously in provisional application no. 63/290,312 or provisional application no. 63/376,271; therefore, the effective filing date of claims 8-10 is the filing date of PCT/US22/81718, which is 15 December 2022.
Dependent claim 27 (indirectly dependent on claim 17) in the instant application includes subject matter that was not described previously in provisional application no. 63/290,312; therefore, the effective filing date of claims 27-28 is the filing date of provisional application no. 63/376,271, which is 19 September 2022.
Dependent claim 32 (directly dependent on claim 17) in the instant application includes subject matter that was not described previously in provisional application no. 63/290,312 or provisional application no. 63/376,271; therefore, the effective filing date of claims 32-34 is the filing date of PCT/US22/81718, which is 15 December 2022.
All other claims (claims 17-19, 21-24, 26, and 29-30) have an effective filing date of 16 December 2021.
Response to Amendment
The claim objections have been obviated by Applicant’s amendments filed 05 August 2026.
Claims 8-10, 17-19, 21-24, 26-30, and 32-34 were previously indicated as allowable in the Final Rejection mailed 14 October 2025.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 11-16, 20, 25, and 31 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 5, 8-10, 17-19, 21-24, 26-30, and 32-34 are still pending. An action on the merits follows.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov (US 2022/0387840) in view of Lawton (US 2020/0101342).
Regarding claim 1, Ivanov teaches a physical therapy device (training system 100) configured for easy transporting (Fig. 1A: The training system is an exercise frame that can be used for various physical therapies, such as strength training after injury. Fig. 1B: The training system folds to a smaller form for easier transporting.), the physical therapy device comprising:
a first support bracket (gusset 104A, 104B) having a top portion and a bottom portion (Fig. 1A);
a first cross-member (parallel member 110A) coupled directly to the bottom portion of the first support bracket (Figs. 1A, 1B show the parallel member 110A directly coupled to a bottom portion of the gussets 104A, 104B.); and
a first stanchion (support member 114A) rotatably coupled to the first support bracket (Fig. 1B),
wherein the physical therapy device is configured to be transitioned between a folded configuration and an unfolded configuration (Fig. 1B shows wherein the support member 114A is configured to rotate about a pivot in the gussets 104A, 104B between a folded and an unfolded configuration.),
wherein, in the unfolded configuration, the first stanchion is configured to rotate such that the first stanchion contacts the top portion of the first support bracket, such that the first stanchion is approximately perpendicular to the first cross-member (Fig. 1B: In the unfolded configuration, the support member 114A contacts a top portion of the gusset 104A, 104B and is perpendicular to the parallel member 110A.), and
wherein, in the folded configuration, the first stanchion is configured to rotate such that the first stanchion is approximately parallel to the first cross- member (Fig. 1B shows the support member 114A in the folded configuration being parallel to the parallel member 110A.).
PNG
media_image1.png
727
1119
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ivanov does not teach one or more stability supports configured to be at least partially contained within the first cross-member.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Lawton teaches a physical therapy device comprising: a first support bracket (clevis bracket g), a first cross-member (support 20c), a first stanchion (pivoting post 14b) rotatably coupled to the first support bracket, and one or more stability supports (stabilizer 19c) configured to be at least partially contained within the first cross-member (Figs. 1, 5a,b, 10 show the stabilizers 19a-19d as extendable from the corresponding supports 20a-20d. Para. [0029]: “both wheeled 19a, 19b and un-wheeled 19c, 19d stabilizers housed in supports 20a-20d.” Lawton teaches the stabilizers being housed in, and therefore partially contained within, the supports.).
PNG
media_image2.png
741
529
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 parallel member of Ivanov by including the stabilizers of Lawton with the predicted result of widening the base and thereby improving the stability of the training system (see MPEP 2141(III)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ivanov and Lawton as discussed above with regards to claim 1 teaches the physical therapy device of claim 1, wherein the one or more stability supports are extendable from the first cross-member (Lawton: Para. [0058]: “FIG. 2 depicts an enhanced view of the base 18, a support 20, an extending stabilizer 19.” Lawton teaches wherein the stabilizers 19a-d are extending stabilizers. Figs. 1 and 5a also show the stabilizers 19a-d extended from the supports 20a-d in Fig. 1 and pushed into the supports in Fig. 5a.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19, 21-24, 26-30, and 32-34 are allowed.
Claims 8-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach all of the structural and functional limitations of the claimed invention, further in view of the spring-loaded plate and wheels as required by claim 8 and the vertical configuration of the stanchions above the platform as required by claim 17.
The closest prior art of record includes Ivanov (US 2022/0387840), Lawton (US 2020/0101342), and Botts et al. (US 5,660,121, hereinafter Botts).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Ivanov in view of Lawton teaches the physical therapy device of claim 1. Ivanov fails to teach one or more first wheels coupled to the first support bracket; and a spring- loaded plate coupled to the first support bracket and comprising one or more second wheels, wherein the spring-loaded plate translates perpendicular to a surface the physical therapy device rests on in the unfolded configuration, and wherein the spring-loaded plate is bias to a direction opposite the one or more first wheels.
Claims 9-10 depend directly from claim 8.
Regarding independent claim 17, Botts teaches a physical therapy device (ramp section 12) configured for easy transporting and to transition from a folded configuration to an unfolded configuration (Figs. 1-2. The ramp sections 12 are capable of being used for physical therapy, such as for inclined walking to increase strength in a user’s legs. Fig. 5 shows the ramp section 12 in a storage position and on wheels for easy transporting.), the physical therapy device comprising: a platform (deck) comprising a first lengthwise side and a second lengthwise side opposite the first lengthwise side (Fig. 2); a first set of support brackets (mounting members 40) positioned on the first lengthwise side of the platform (Figs. 6, 7 show the mounting members 40 on the underside of the deck 14. Each mounting member 40 supports a respective leg 20. Figs. 2-3 show two legs 20 and thus two mounting members 40 at the first lengthwise side of the deck 14.); a second set of support brackets (mounting members 40) positioned on the second lengthwise side of the platform (Figs. 2-3 show two legs 20 and thus two mounting members 40 at the second lengthwise side of the deck 14.); a first cross-member perpendicular to the first lengthwise side and the second lengthwise side of the platform (Stationary framework 16 comprises four cross-members to create the rectangular frame for deck 14. Annotated Figs. 5-7 below show the cross-members perpendicular to the lengthwise sides.); a second cross-member perpendicular to the first lengthwise side and the second lengthwise side of the platform (Figs. 5, 6); wherein the first cross-member couples a first support bracket from the first set of support brackets to a second support bracket from the second set of support brackets, wherein the second cross-member couples a third support bracket from the first set of support brackets to a fourth support bracket from the second set of support brackets (Annotated Figs. 5, 7 below shows the mounting member 40 coupled to the cross-member. These cross-members couple the mounting members 40 to each other on the underside of the deck 14.), a first stanchion (folding leg 20) rotatably coupled to the first support bracket; a third stanchion (folding leg 20) rotatably coupled to the third support bracket; a second stanchion (folding leg 20) coupled to the second support bracket; and a fourth stanchion (folding leg 20) coupled to the fourth support bracket (Figs. 3-5 show four folding legs 20 coupled to corresponding mounting members 40. Figs. 4-5 show the folding legs 20 rotatably coupled to the mounting members 40 such that the legs can be folded and unfolded from under the deck 14.); wherein at least the first support bracket and the third support bracket each comprise a locking pin aperture configured to receive a locking pin (pin 44) (Fig. 6 shows a pin 44 extending through apertures in receiving portions 42 of the mounting member 40 and through the leg 20. Col. 3, lines 47-48: “A pivot pin 44 extends through the leg 20 and receiving portions 42 on the mounting member 40.” The pin 44 locks the leg 20 to the mounting member 40.).
PNG
media_image3.png
324
559
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
612
637
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
412
439
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
394
585
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Botts fails to teach wherein, with respect to a ground plane when the physical therapy device is in the unfolded configuration, the first stanchion, the second stanchion, the third stanchion and the fourth stanchion extend vertically above the platform.
Claims 18-19, 21-24, 26-30, and 32-34 depend directly or indirectly from claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Ivanov and Lawton fails to disclose the claimed containment limitation, because Lawton shows stabilizers contained within Lawton’s supports, not within a horizontal cross-member of the type claimed. The Office agrees that Lawton does not teach the horizontal cross-member as claimed, because it is not directly coupled to the bottom of the support bracket; however, Lawton is not relied upon to teach this limitation. Ivanov teaches a first cross-member coupled directly to the bottom portion of the first support bracket and is modified in view of Lawton teach the stability supports within the first cross-member. Lawton is only relied upon to teach the stability support within a cross-member.
Applicant further argues that the Examiner’s assertion that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art…to modify the parallel member of Ivanov by including the stabilizers of Lawton with the predicted result of widening the base and thereby improving the stability of the training system” does not explain why a POSITA would have chosen this approach rather than a different approach. Just because another approach or solution may exist does not mean that the modification cannot be made or is nonobvious. While there may be other methods for increasing the stability of the base of Ivanov, this does not mean that the stabilizers of Lawton are not obvious.
Applicant further argues that converting Lawton’s housing into a hollow cross-member or redesigning Ivanov’s cross-member to receive Lawton’s stabilizers would require non-trivial structural changes. The Office respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Lawton’s housings are not being modified. Ivanov is being modified in view of Lawton to teach a stabilizer within the parallel member 110A. The parallel members of Ivanov are rectangular members similar to the rectangular supports 20a-d of Lawton. Modifying the rectangular parallel member of Ivanov by including the telescoping stabilizer of Lawton would have been obvious in order to increase the stability of the base as telescoping members are well understood in the art.
Applicant further argues that the Examiner must articulate why the particular combination and modification would have been made by a person of skill in the art, and why it would have been expected to work. The Examiner did make this analysis. In the instant case, it would have been obvious to modify the parallel members of Ivanov by including the telescoping stabilizers of Lawton in order to widen the base and increase the overall stability of the device. Lawton shows where the stabilizers are housed within rectangular members similar to the rectangular members of Ivanov. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the stabilizers of Lawton telescopically within the rectangular members of Ivanov.
Applicant further argues that the structural incompatibilities and unpredictability weigh against the Examiner’s conclusions. The Office respectfully disagrees. Ivanov’s parallel members are not being modified to be shortened like the supports of Lawton. Ivanov’s parallel members are being modified to include the stabilizers of Lawton. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “housing extendable stabilizers inside a cross-member raises issues of internal geometry, deployment clearance, structural reinforcement, and attachment to the bracket bottom portion,” telescoping members are well understood in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the stabilizer must be a smaller member sleeved into the parallel member, similarly to how Lawton has shown a telescoping stabilizer.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1 and 5 under Ivanov in view of Lawton are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Priday (US 2011/0183823) teaches a physical therapy device comprising a support bracket, a cross-member coupled directly the support bracket, stability supports contained within the cross-member, and a stanchion rotatably coupled to the support bracket.
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 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 Catrina Letterman whose telephone number is (303)297-4297. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday, 8am - 5pm 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
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights