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
This application is a 371 filing of international application PCT/KR2022/010898, filed on 07/25/2022, and claims the benefit of prior filed foreign applications KR10-2021-0133236, filed on 10/07/2021, and KR10-2022-0016356, filed on 02/08/2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/05/2024, 08/07/2025, 09/25/2025, and 11/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 2-12 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.
Claim 2 recites “each of the handle guide modules” in lines 4-5. However, only one handle guide module has been previously claimed. Therefore, it is unclear if this limitation is intending to positively claim more than one handle guide module or is instead intended to refer to the previously claimed handle guide module.
Claim 12 recites “a shaft hole formed in each of shaft support members” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the previously recited pair of shaft support members of claim 9.
Claim 12 recites “such that each of opposite ends of the handle shaft member is rotatably inserted into the shaft hole” in lines 2-3. It is unclear which shaft hole of the shaft support members this limitation is referring to. Specifically, it is unclear if this limitation is intending to refer to a respective one of the shaft holes for each of the opposite ends, such that the limitation would read similar to ---such that each of opposite ends of the handle shaft member is rotatably inserted into a respective one of the shaft holes---.
Claim 12 recites “the shaft hole” in line 6. It is unclear which shaft hole of the shaft support members this limitation is referring to.
Claims 3-11 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 2.
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)(2) as being anticipated by Fortuin et al. (US 2022/0184445, filed on 03/20/2020).
Regarding independent claim 1, Fortuin et al. discloses a mat-type exercise device (apparatus 10) comprising:
a device body (portable support structure 12) which supplies an exercise load (via resistance mechanism 16 housed therein);
a cable (20) which extends outward from the device body and transmits the exercise load supplied from the device body (par. [0026], “a single inextensible tether in the form of a cable 20 which is connected to the resistance mechanism via the pulley system”); and
a handle guide module (guide pulleys 31 and respective openings in structure 12 allowing passage of cable 20 to extend therethrough) which is installed in the device body and guides a movement of the cable out of the device body such that the cable is moved in at least one direction along a surface of the device body (see Figs. 1-2 showing routing of cable 20 through guide pulleys 31 and resistance mechanism 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
579
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Fortuin et al. further discloses wherein the handle guide module (31) is installed in each of edges of opposite sides of the device body (12) in a longitudinal direction thereof (see Figs. 1-2, guide pulleys 31 located on each of two opposed sides of portable support structure 12), and the cable (20) extends from each of the opposite sides of the device body (12) in the longitudinal direction through each of the handle guide modules to the outside (see Figs. 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortuin et al. (US 2022/0184445, filed on 03/20/2020) and further in view of Ihli et al. (US 8,465,401).
Regarding claim 3, Fortuin et al. does not teach a handle casing to which an end of the cable is fastened outside the device body, and to which an exercise handle is detachably coupled, wherein when the cable is pulled from the inside of the device body, the handle casing is held in the handle guide module.
Ihli et al., in the same field of endeavor with regards to cables extending through cable guide modules, teaches a cable (620) extending through a cable guide module (bearing 640 and internal components of resistance device 600, see Figs. 4-5) and further comprising a handle casing (insomuch as applicant has illustrated and disclosed “a handle casing,” the Office takes the position that bead/stop 624 of Ihli et al. constitutes a handle casing) to which an end of the cable is fastened outside of a device body (housing 692, see Figs. 4-5), and to which an exercise handle (90) is detachably coupled (via carabineer 622), wherein when the cable is pulled from the inside of the device body, the handle casing is held in the handle guide module (insomuch as applicant has illustrated and disclosed this limitation, the Office takes the position that the handle casing/bead/stop 624 of Ihli et al. achieves the same functionality as it will be held by the bearing 640 when the cable is outside the device body/housing 692).
PNG
media_image2.png
398
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exercise device of Fortuin et al. to further comprise a handle casing to which an end of the cable is fastened outside the device body, and to which an exercise handle is detachably coupled, as is similarly taught by Ihli et al., for the purpose of allowing a user to interchange handles as desired based on the type of exercise being performed and to easily replace the handles should they become worn or damaged. As modified, the handle casing will similarly be held in the handle guide module of Fortuin et al. when the cable is pulled from the inside of the device body, as by the handle casing being held in the opening of the handle guide module allowing passage of the cable therethrough.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortuin et al. (US 2022/0184445, filed on 03/20/2020) in view of Ihli et al. (US 8,465,401), and further in view of Rubin et al. (US 11,123,609).
Regarding claim 4, Fortuin et al. as modified does not teach wherein the handle guide module comprises a handle cover which is installed inside the device body such that the handle cover is rotatable relative to a first direction as an axis and guides a movement of the cable in a second direction intersecting with the first direction.
Rubin et al., in the same field of endeavor with regards to cables extending through cable guide modules, teaches a cable (106) extending through a handle guide module (fairlead 124 and spool 304) installed in a device body (platform 100), wherein the handle guide module comprises a handle cover (in the broadest reasonable interpretation, either rollers 142A, 142B or rollers 144A, 144B of fairlead 124 may constitute a handle cover as each set of rollers guides the cable through and out of the device body similar to the disclosed and illustrated handle cover of the instant invention) which is installed inside the device body (see Fig. 6) such that the handle cover is rotatable relative to a first direction as an axis (rollers 142A, 142B of fairlead 124 rotatable relative to a first direction as an axis and/or rollers 144A, 144B of fairlead 124 rotatable relative an alternative first direction as an axis) and guides movement of the cable in a second direction intersecting with the first direction (upward/downward movement of cable 106 intersects respective rotation axes of rollers 142A, 142B and rollers 144A, 144B, see Figs. 8A-8C).
PNG
media_image3.png
487
624
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
352
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handle guide module of Fortuin et al. to include a handle cover installed inside the device body such that the handle cover is rotatable relative to a first direction as an axis and guides a movement of the cable in a second direction intersecting with the first direction, as is similarly taught by Rubin et al., for the purpose of providing enhanced guidance to the cable out of the device body and reducing friction of the cable as it is extended and retracted through the device body (Rubin et al. col. 10 lines 61-64, “the fairlead 124 generally includes a fairlead body 140 that supports bearings that direct and reduce friction of the cable 106 as the cable 106 is extended and retracted through the fairlead 124”).
Regarding claim 5, Fortuin et al. as modified by Rubin et al. further teaches wherein the handle cover has a cable moving hole (i.e., hole between rollers 142A, 142B or hole between rollers 144A, 144B of fairlead 124 as modified by Rubin et al.) through which the cable extending from the inside of the device body passes through, and the cable moving hole is formed by extending along the first direction and guides a movement of the cable in the first direction (interpreting rollers 142A, 142B as constituting the handle cover, the opening between rollers 142A, 142B similarly extends in the first direction and allow the cable to move along the first direction within the opening).
Regarding claim 6, Fortuin et al. as modified by Rubin et al. further teaches wherein a handle installation hole is formed vertically through an upper surface of the device body (i.e., hole formed by fairlead 124 that houses rollers 142A, 142B; the Office notes this limitation is broad and therefore any hole that operates to install a structure in the upper surface of the device body constitutes an installation hole); the handle guide module further comprises a discharge cover which covers the handle installation hole (in the broadest reasonable interpretation, rollers 142A, 142B constitute a discharge cover as they act to discharge the cable from within the device body to the exterior of the device body to be engaged by a user, similar to the illustrated and disclosed discharge cover of the instant application; under this interpretation, rollers 144A, 144B are interpreted to be the handle cover, see rejection to claim 4 above) and has an upper discharge hole and a lower discharge hole formed vertically through the discharge cover (i.e., upper and lower holes forming opening between rollers 142A and 142B); and while an upper surface of the handle cover (rollers 144A, 144B) is in contact with the lower discharge hole (as illustrated in Figs. 8B-8C), the handle cover rotates relative to the first direction as an axis (rollers 144A, 144B of fairlead 124 rotatable relative to alternative first direction as an axis, see Figs. 8B-8C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7-12 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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:
With respect to claim 7, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a mat-type exercise device in combination with all of the structural and functional limitations, and further comprising wherein the upper surface of the handle cover in contact with the lower discharge hole has a round dome shape.
With respect to claim 8, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a mat-type exercise device in combination with all of the structural and functional limitations, and further comprising wherein the discharge cover has a cone shape in which an inner diameter of the upper discharge hole is larger than an inner diameter of the lower discharge hole.
With respect to claim 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a mat-type exercise device in combination with all of the structural and functional limitations, and further comprising wherein the handle guide module further comprises: a handle body, a handle shaft member located under the handle cover, a pair of shaft support members which support the handle shaft member such that the handle shaft member rotates, and wherein the rotation of the handle shaft member is transmitted through the handle body to the handle cover.
Claims 10-12 depend from claim 9 and are indicated as allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN FISK whose telephone number is (571)272-1042. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM M-F (Central).
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.
/KATHLEEN M FISK/Examiner, Art Unit 3784