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 .
Claims 1-23 have been examined.
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 head being provided on a base of the fitness training apparatus (Claim 5), how the sleeve is connected through the body to the separator (Claim 10), and the top plate being threaded onto the upper portion of the body (Claim 23) 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 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 1-23 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.
At the outset, it should be noted that claim 1 sets forth a “coupling device” that has an expressed intended use of “for connecting a handle or other accessory to a fitness training apparatus”. Thus, claim 1 is drawn solely to the subcombination of the coupling device and the handle/accessory/training apparatus/retractable line are not elements of the claim. However, the claim then seeks to recite positive interaction with the handle/accessory/training apparatus/retractable line (e.g., “to connect a retractable line of the fitness training apparatus” (Claim 1), “to connect the handle…” (Claim 2), “the second attachment is formed as part of the handle…” (Claim 4), “the head is provided on a base of the fitness training apparatus (Claim 5), etc.). Accordingly, it is unclear as to whether the claims are drawn to the combination or just the subcombination. For this Office action only, Examiner will presume that the subcombination is being claimed. However, Applicants should take note that the positive inclusion of what had been previously only inferentially referred to clearly creates the ambiguity as indicated above with regard to what actually is being required by the claims. Moreover, if the handle/accessory/training apparatus/retractable line is not an element of the coupling device, how can details of such handle/accessory/training apparatus/retractable line constitute a limitation of the coupling device?
As to Claims 11 and 13, these claims set forth “the biasing element” and “the at least on biasing element”. This element is not set forth in Claims 10 (or 1) from which they depend. It appears that Claim 10 should depend from claim 9 to provide proper antecedent basis for this limitation. Similarly, Claim 19 sets forth “the sleeve”, but does not provide proper antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 1-4, 6-9, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mallard et al (US Patent 11,389,699)
1. Mallard et al disclose a coupling device (Fig 2B) for connecting a handle or other accessory to a fitness training apparatus, comprising:
a head (226) having a pin with a catch (Fig 2B);
a body (205) having a mating portion to receive the pin of the head therein and form a mating connection between the head and the body (Fig 2B);
at least one latch (224) in the mating portion of the body, the at least one latch locking into the catch on the pin to removably secure the mating connection between the head and the body (Col 5, Line 41- Col 6, Line 23); and
a first attachment (212) on either of the head or the body, to connect a retractable line (210) of the fitness training apparatus.
Examiner’s Figure
[AltContent: textbox (Top Plate)][AltContent: textbox (2nd Attachment)][AltContent: textbox (Hook/Indent)]
PNG
media_image1.png
635
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2. Mallard et al disclose the coupling device of claim 1, further comprising a second attachment (See Examiner's Figure) on either of the head or the body, the second attachment to connect the handle (105/110) or other accessory of the fitness training apparatus.
3. Mallard et al disclose the coupling device of claim 2, wherein the second attachment is an opening formed through the head (See Examiner's Figure).
4. Mallard et al disclose the coupling device of claim 2, wherein the second attachment is formed as part of the handle (110) or other accessory of the fitness training apparatus (Fig 1).
6. Mallard et al disclose the coupling device of claim 1, further comprising a webbing material (110) to attach the head (120) to a handle or other accessory of the fitness training apparatus.
7. Mallard et al disclose the coupling device of claim 1, wherein the retractable line (210) is provided already connected to the first attachment.
8. Mallard et al disclose the coupling device of claim 1, further comprising a hook formed on the catch of the pin to tighten the catch against the latch when a pulling force is applied to the pin (See Examiner's Figure).
9. Mallard et al disclose the coupling device of claim 1, further comprising at least one biasing element (228) in the mating portion of the body, the at least one biasing element providing a biasing force against the at least one latch to retain the at least one latch in a closed position (Col 5, Lines 41- 59).
14. Mallard et al disclose the coupling device of claim 1, wherein the first attachment comprises a cavity formed in a core of the body to retain an end of the retractable line of the fitness training apparatus (Fig 2B).
15. Mallard et al disclose the coupling device of claim 14, further comprising an opening formed through the core of the body and into the cavity, wherein a diameter of the opening is smaller than a diameter of the cavity (Fig 2B).
16. Mallard et al disclose the coupling device of claim 15, further comprising a tapered passage between the opening and the cavity (Fig 2B).
17. Mallard et al disclose the coupling device of claim 16, wherein the retractable line of the fitness training apparatus extends through the opening formed through the core of the body, the retractable line further extends through the tapered passage and into the cavity formed in the core of the body to be retained within the cavity of the body (Fig 2B).
18. Mallard et al disclose the coupling device of claim 1, wherein the catch is an indent formed in the pin (See Examiner's Figure).
20. Mallard et al disclose the coupling device of claim 1, further comprising a top plate (See Examiner's Figure) for an upper portion of the body, wherein the at least one latch is installed into the mating portion of the body before assembling the top plate onto the upper portion of the body. Examiner notes that it is the patentability of the product, and not recited process steps, that is to be determined in product-by-process claims irrespective of whether or not only process has been recited. Accordingly, it is of little consequence how the latch was installed into the body when these claimed structural features are present. See MPEP § 2113.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(8) as being anticipated by Yang et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0118305).
1. Yang et al disclose a coupling device (Fig 2B) for connecting a handle or other accessory to a fitness training apparatus, comprising:
a head (11) having a pin with a catch (1264);
a body (125) having a mating portion to receive the pin of the head therein and form a mating connection between the head and the body (Fig 8);
at least one latch (1251) in the mating portion of the body, the at least one latch locking into the catch on the pin to removably secure the mating connection between the head and the body; and
a first attachment (Fig 10) on either of the head or the body, to connect a retractable line (110) of the fitness training apparatus.
5. Yang et al disclose the coupling device of claim 1, wherein the head is provided on a base of the fitness training apparatus (Par. 0066).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 10-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallard et al in view of Cassidy (US Patent 8,500,358).
10 and 19. Mallard et al disclose the coupling device of claim 1, further comprising:
a separator (232) in the mating portion of the body;
a manipulatable portion connected through the body to the separator in the mating portion of the body (Fig 2B).
However, Mallard et do not disclose wherein the manipulatable portion is a sleeve extending around a full circumference of the body.
Cassidy teaches a similar quick disconnect coupling for an exercise apparatus between a handle (300) and a retractable line (400), wherein the coupling comprises a body portion (110) in which a latch system (140) is mounted and a separator (120) comprising a sleeve portion (120) which allows a user to grasp the sleeve to manipulate the sleeve against a spring bias to disconnect a head portion having a pin and a catch (200). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the planar manipulatable portion of Mallard et al to extend downwardly around the body as a sleeve as taught by Cassidy to allow for easier disengagement of the hook from the body member by providing a greater surface area for a user to manipulate.
11. Mallard et al disclose the coupling device of claim 10, wherein the separator is movable by the sleeve against the at least one latch to open the at least one latch against the biasing force of the biasing element (Col 6, Lines 8-17).
12. Mallard et al disclose the coupling device of claim 10, wherein the separator is a wedge (Fig 2B).
13. Mallard et al disclose the coupling device of claim 10, wherein the at least one biasing mechanism is at least one spring (228).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallard et al in view of Parsian et al (US Patent Application 2019/0299049).
21. Mallard et al disclose the coupling device significantly as claimed, but do not disclose wherein the end of the retractable line is a knotted end.
Parsian et al teach a similar quick disconnect coupling for an exercise apparatus between a handle (1304) and a cable, wherein the coupling comprises a body portion (108) in which a latch system (12) is mounted to provide a connection mechanism with a head portion (102) having a pin and a catch (702) and wherein the base portion has a chamber (608) in which the cable has a knotted end mounted therein to secure the cable to the coupling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the end of the retractable line of Mallard et al to be a knotted end as taught by Parsian et al to reduce the amount of parts (by excluding the swaged portion 212) while maintaining the same function of securing the cable/retractable line within the coupling device.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallard et al.
22-23. Mallard et al disclose the coupling device significantly as claimed, but do not disclose wherein the top plate is threaded onto the upper portion of the body such that it is removable for servicing the at least one latch and/or the retractable line of the fitness training apparatus. Examiner initially notes that it has been consistently held with regards to separability of elements that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177,179 and further that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Accordingly, the examiner takes official notice that constructing the body of the coupler as a two piece member, with the body portions being mated via a threaded connection is well-understood, routine, conventional activity engaged in by those in the relevant art, in that the additional elements are widely prevalent or in common use in the art to provide accessibility to the body cavity to assemble, disassemble, and/or perform maintenance as necessary. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the body of the coupling device to be formed in two parts as such a modification is merely an engineering design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art and would produce expected and predictable results.
Note: Applicant may challenge the examiner's position of Official notice, specifically stating that such elements are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity by amending the claim, e.g., to add additional elements or modify existing elements, present persuasive arguments based on a good faith belief as to why the rejection is in error and/or submit evidence traversing the rejection. If Applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the examiner’s common knowledge or well-known in the art statement will be taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ward et al, Cassidy, and Parsian and all teach a similar quick release device for an exercise machine comprising a hook inserted into a body having a latching mechanism therebetween.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)272-8297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7a-4:30p MST.
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.
/JOSHUA T KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
12/9/2025