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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the newly added handles lock positioning on pages 6 and 7 of the response are not persuasive. The below rejections have been updated to address the specific positioning limitations.
Specifically applicant argues that the fly and press exercises performed by Chu would not allow the claimed handles lock position because they would physically obstruct the user’s body from performing the fly and press exercises.
It is unclear how the press exercises of Chu would be in anyway effected by the inclusion of a locking handle at the claimed location. Per the below annotated figures of Chu, no obstruction would appear to occur. The same is true of the fly exercises performed in the annotated figures 6 and 7.
PNG
media_image1.png
757
994
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
418
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Finally shifting the position of the locking handles is not seen to have modified the operation of the exercise devices and as such the positioning is found to be a matter of design choice. MPEP 2144.04 VI C. citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Neither applicant’s specification or arguments have stated any criticality or importance in the locking handle location along the arms which would weight against such a finding of design choice.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US 6234941) in view of Hatsutori (JP 2007000341).
With respect to claim 1, Chu discloses, an exercise bar, comprising:
a shaft (shaft along axis 14 in fig. 1);
a first rigid handle unit rotatably connected to the shaft at a distal end of the first rigid handle unit (left 40 in fig. 1);
a second rigid handle unit rotatably connected to the shaft at a distal end of the second rigid handle unit (right 40 in fig. 1);
wherein each rigid handle unit comprises:
at least one arm rotatably connectable to the shaft at a first end of the arm (42 in fig. 1 is rotatably connected to the shaft per figs. 1 and 3-4); and a grip connected to a second end of the at least one arm (44 in fig. 1).
Chu does not expressly disclose a handles lock.
Hatsutori discloses, a handles lock (elements 27-42 in fig. 5), wherein the handles lock has an unlocked state in which each of the first and second rigid handle units (two rigid handle units, 5, in figs. 5-6) is free to rotate around the shaft independent of the other (fig. 5 details an unlocked state where the two handle units, 5, are free to rotate independently), and a locked state in which the first and second rigid handle units are rotatable together and at a same direction around the shaft (fig. 6 details a locked state where the two handle units are not locked together and move as a singular element.) wherein the handles lock is located at any location along the arms (fig. 5-6 detail the lock location along the arms.).
Chu and Hatsutori are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the known handles lock taught by Hatsutori to the known exercise device of Chu. The result would have predictably resulted in a lockable exercise device.
As to the limitation requiring the handles lock is located at any location along the arms between the middle of the arms and the grip, the specific location of the handles lock location is not seen as a patentable distinction over the Chu and Hatsutori combination. Shifting the position of the locking handles would not have modified the operation of the exercise devices and as such is seen as a matter of design choice. MPEP 2144.04 VI C. citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Additionally neither applicant’s specification or arguments have stated any criticality or importance in the locking handle location along the arms which would weight against such a finding of design choice.
With respect to claim 2, Chu in view of Hatsutori disclose, the exercise bar of claim 1 (see above).
Hatsutori further discloses, wherein the handles lock comprises at least one connector, detachably connecting the first rigid handle unit to the second rigid handle unit (27 and 29 detail a detachable connection in fig. 5).
With respect to claim 3, Chu in view of Hatsutori disclose, the exercise bar of claim 1 (see above).
Chu further discloses, wherein each of the arms comprises at least one hinge (rotation about drawn axis 14 in fig. 1), configured to allow rotation of at least a portion of the arm, around an axis (14 in fig. 1) parallel to the shaft (figs. 3-4).
With respect to claim 5, Chu in view of Hatsutori discloses, the exercise bar of claim 3 (see above).
Chu further discloses, wherein the at least one hinge is configured to allow 360° rotation around the axis parallel to the shaft (clear from figs. 1-2 that the shaft/bearing disclosed therein would be capable to allow for 360° rotation around the axis 14).
With respect to claim 9, Chu in view of Hatsutori disclose, the exercise bar according to claim 1 (see above).
Chu further discloses, wherein the shaft is connectable to a support element (20 in fig. 1).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US 6234941) in view of Hatsutori (JP 2007000341) and further in view of Chen (US 5290214).
With respect to claim 4, Chu in view of Hatsutori disclose, the exercise bar of claim 3 (see above).
Neither Chu nor Hatsutori expressly disclose an arm lock.
Chen discloses, wherein each arm further comprises an arm lock configured to prevent rotation of the at least portion of the arm, when in a locked position, and to allow rotation when in an unlocked position (col. 2, line 61 – col. 3, line 4; also see abstract, detail locks to prevent rotation of the arms).
Chu, Hatsutori and Chen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the locks of Chen into the combined device of Chu/Hatsutori. The result would have been predictable namely safety of the user and also ability to facilitate changes between exercises.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US 6234941) in view of Hatsutori (JP 2007000341) and further in view of Watterson (US 10661114).
With respect to claim 6, Chu in view of Hatsutori discloses, the exercise bar of claim 3 (see above).
Neither Chu nor Hatsutori expressly disclose a piston.
Watterson discloses, wherein each arm comprises at least one piston for adjusting the distance between the hinge and the shaft (fig. 10 discloses telescoping portions which can translate in and out akin to a piston).
Watterson, Chu and Hatsutori are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art to enable distance adjustment between the rigid handles and hinge of Chu/Hatsutori as taught by Watterson using a piston. Such a combination would have been predictable and yielded an exercise device that provides the ability to increase the difficulty and also provide positioning refinement for each user’s body (Watterson; col. 7, lines 40-42).
Claim(s) 7-8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US 6234941) in view of Hatsutori (JP 2007000341) and further in view of Panaiotov (US 7736286).
With respect to claim 7, Chu in view of Hatsutori disclose, the exercise bar of claim 1 (see above).
Neither Chu nor Hatsutori expressly disclose, a distance adjusting mechanism.
Panaiotov discloses, a distance adjusting mechanism (24 in fig. 1; col. 5, lines 29-37) for adjusting the distance between the first handle unit and the second handle unit (280 in fig. 23 demonstrates two distinct handle units connected to the variable distance mounts 62).
Panaiotov, Chu and Hatsutori are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art to enable distance adjustment between the rigid handles of Chu/Hatsutori as taught by Panaiotov. Such a combination would have been predictable and yielded an exercise device that provides “numerous variation of the angle of the resistance elements with respect to the user’s body to provide the exact motion desired.” (Panaiotov; col. 5, lines 24-28).
With respect to claim 8, Chu, Hatsutori, and Panaiotov disclose, the exercise bar of claim 7 (see above).
Panaiotov further discloses, wherein the first rigid handle unit and the second rigid handle unit are slidable on the shaft and wherein the distance adjusting mechanism comprises a first latch (left 24 in fig. 1) for locking the first rigid handle unit at a first location on the shaft and a second latch (right 24 in fig. 1) for locking the second rigid handle unit at a second location on the shaft while allowing rotation of the first and second rigid handle units (clear from fig. 1 and the accompanying discussion in column 5, that the mounts are slidable along the shaft 18).
With respect to claim 10, Chu in view of Hatsutori disclose, the exercise bar of claim 9 (see above).
Neither Chu nor Hatsutori expressly disclose that the support element is connectable to an exercise bench.
Panaiotov discloses, wherein the support element (11 in fig. 23) is connectable to an exercise bench (44, 46 in fig. 23; specifically note the connection at the bottom rear between the bench and support frame).
Panaiotov, Chu and Hatsutori are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art to enable connection between an exercise bench and the exercise machine of Chu/Hatsutori as taught by Panaiotov. Such a combination would have been quite predictable and yielded a stable support for the user to perform the exercises upon.
With respect to claim 11, Chu, Hatsutori and Panaiotov disclose, the exercise bar of claim 10 (see above).
Panaiotov further discloses, wherein the shaft is at least 50% longer than the width of the exercise bench (seems clear from fig. 23 that shaft 18 is more than 50% longer than the width of 44; also see fig. 11 for a more clear size comparison).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McBride US20090098987: discloses a pilates tower exercise device.
Niznik US4844448: discloses a rigid handle bar exercise device.
Harney US6934980: discloses a two rigid handles in patient transfer device (fig. 4a-b).
Hauser US7540831: discloses two rigid handles in an exercise device.
Webber US7563214: discloses rotatably mounted hand grips 44 in an exercise device.
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 William L Boddie whose telephone number is (571)272-0666. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4:15 M-F.
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, Alex Beck can be reached at 571-272-3750. 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.
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625