DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits based on the 18/729,064 application filed on 07/15/2024 and applicant’s preliminary amendments filed 07/15/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The effective filing date of the present application is 01/18/2022. In applicant’s preliminary amendments filed 07/15/2024, claims 1-10 were amended, and new claims 11-20 were added. Claims 1-20, as filed on 07/15/2024, are currently pending and considered below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 4-5, “the inner wall of the chamber” should be --- an inner wall of the cylindrical chamber ---.
In line 8, “the inner wall of the chamber; a magnetic induction coil” should be --- the inner wall of the cylindrical chamber; and a magnetic induction coil ---.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, lines 1-11, “The boxing training device (10) according to claim 1, characterized in that it further comprises a second generating electrical energy from an oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2), this second electrical energy generation module integrating
- a second magnetic induction coil (41) disposed in a first transverse through hole (44) of the support (2);
- a first cylindrical magnet (42) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, this first cylindrical magnet (42) being connected via its first end and/or its second end to the inner wall of the chamber (16) so that it extends at least partially inside the first through hole (44), the first cylindrical magnet (42) causing, during an oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2)” should be
--- The boxing training device (10) according to claim 1, further comprising a second module for generating electrical energy from the oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2), the second module for generating electrical energy integrating:
- a second magnetic induction coil (41) disposed in a first transverse through hole (44) of the support (2); and
- a first cylindrical magnet (42) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, the first cylindrical magnet (42) being connected via the first end and/or the second end thereof to the inner wall of the cylindrical chamber (16) so that it extends at least partially inside the first transverse through hole (44), the first cylindrical magnet (42) causing, during the oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2) ---.
In claim 3, line 2, “characterized in that it comprises” should be --- further comprising ---.
In claim 3, line 3, “the chamber (16)” should be --- the cylindrical chamber (16) ---.
In claim 4, line 2, “characterized in that” should be --- wherein ---.
In claim 4, lines 3-4, “an oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2)” should be --- the oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2) ---.
In claim 5, line 2, “characterized in that” should be --- wherein ---.
In claim 6, line 2, “characterized in that the striking body (1) comprises” should be --- wherein the striking body (1) further comprises ---.
In claim 6, lines 3-4, “this striking body (1), said third electrical energy generation module comprising” should be --- the striking body (1), the third module for generating electrical energy comprising: ---.
In claim 6, line 5, “the first central axis (11);” the first central axis (11); and ---.
In claim 8, lines 2-5, “characterized in that the fourth electrical energy generation module further integrates a second piezoelectric element (33) disposed between the base (3) or the support (2) and said bearing end of said elastic return means (32) of the second plurality so that this bearing end” should be --- wherein the fourth module for generating electrical energy further integrates a second piezoelectric element (33) disposed between the base (3) or the support (2) and the bearing end of the second plurality of elastic return means (32) so that the bearing end ---.
In claim 9, line 2, “characterized in that” should be --- wherein ---.
Claims 11, 13, and 16 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates of claims 6, 7, and 10, respectively, when applicant respectively amends claims 6, 7, and 10 as suggested by the Office in order to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections, see below. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Therefore, applicant is suggested to cancel claims 11, 13, and 16.
In claim 17, line 1, “characterized in that” should be --- wherein ---.
In claim 17, lines 2-4, “an oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2)” should be --- the oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2) ---.
In claim 18, line 2, “characterized in that” should be --- wherein ---.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the term “means” or “step” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) that use the term “means” or “step” are coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and the term “means” or “step” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1, lines 12-14: “a first plurality of elastic return means (17) connecting the support (2) to the inner wall of the chamber (16) so that the striking body (1) can oscillate around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2).”
In claim 3, lines 2-3: “a first elastic connection means (43) connecting the first cylindrical magnet (42) to the inner wall of the chamber (16).”
In each of claims 7, 12, and 13, lines 3-4: “a second plurality of elastic return means (32) connecting the support (2) to the base (3) so that the support (2) can oscillate around the second central axis (31).”
In each of claims 10 and 14-16, lines 9-11: “at least a first plurality of elastic connection means (43) connecting the third end of the second cylindrical magnet (42) to the support (2) so that this second cylindrical magnet (42) is at least partially inside the second through hole (44).”
In claim 20, lines 15-17: “at least a first plurality of elastic connection means (43) connecting the first end of the cylindrical magnet (42) to the support (2) so that this cylindrical magnet (42) is at least partially inside the through hole (44).”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (see MPEP § 2183).
Such corresponding structure is/are:
Regarding the first plurality of elastic return means (17) (claim 1, lines 12-14), in the specification, as originally filed, paragraph 0034: “The elastic return means 17 comprise, in one embodiment, a plurality of substantially identical springs. In one embodiment, the elastic return means 17 comprise at least three springs uniformly distributed around the support 2. Elastic return means 17 uniformly distributed around the support 2 are substantially at the same height therefrom.”
Regarding the first elastic connection means (43) (claim 3, lines 2-3), in the specification, as originally filed, paragraph 0047: “In one embodiment, the cylindrical magnet 42 is connected to the inner wall of the chamber 16 through at least one elastic
connection means 43 allowing an additional oscillation or radial back-and-forth movement of the cylindrical magnet 42 around the longitudinal axis 21 of the support 2. This elastic connection means 43 comprises, in one embodiment, a spring.”
Regarding the second plurality of elastic return means (32) (each of claims 7, 12, and 13, lines 3-4), in the specification, as originally filed, paragraph 0019: “In one embodiment, the elastic return means 32 comprise three springs uniformly distributed around the support 2, i.e. extending between the support 2 and the base 3 so as to form two by two substantially the same angle around the support 2.”
Regarding the at least a first plurality of elastic connection means (43) (each of claims 10 and 14-16, lines 9-11), in the specification, as originally filed, paragraph 0048:
In another embodiment illustrated in Figure 2, a plurality of elastic connection means 43 connects at least one of the ends of the cylindrical magnet 42 to the support 2 so that this cylindrical magnet 42 is at least partially inside the through hole 44. These elastic connection means 43 include, for example, springs and/or straps. In one embodiment, each end of the cylindrical magnet 42 is connected to the support 2 by at least three substantially identical springs or straps uniformly distributed around this end. Thanks to these elastic connection means 43, when the support 2 oscillates around the central axis 31 of the base 3, the same goes for the cylindrical magnet 42 relative to the second magnetic induction coil 41 disposed in the through hole 44.
Regarding the at least a first plurality of elastic connection means (43) (claim 20, lines 15-17), in the specification, as originally filed, paragraph 0048:
In another embodiment illustrated in Figure 2, a plurality of elastic connection means 43 connects at least one of the ends of the cylindrical magnet 42 to the support 2 so that this cylindrical magnet 42 is at least partially inside the through hole 44. These elastic connection means 43 include, for example, springs and/or straps. In one embodiment, each end of the cylindrical magnet 42 is connected to the support 2 by at least three substantially identical springs or straps uniformly distributed around this end. Thanks to these elastic connection means 43, when the support 2 oscillates around the central axis 31 of the base 3, the same goes for the cylindrical magnet 42 relative to the second magnetic induction coil 41 disposed in the through hole 44.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function, but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1, lines 15-24: “a first module for generating electrical energy from an oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2), this first module (14) for generating electrical energy integrating - an annular magnet (18) fixed to the inner wall of the chamber (16) around the first central axis (11); - a first magnetic induction coil (19) disposed on the support (2) so that this first magnetic induction coil (19) is at least partially inside the annular magnet (18), the annular magnet (18) causing, during an oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2), a change in the magnetic field in the first magnetic induction coil (19).” Emphasis added.
In claim 2, lines 2-12: “a second module for generating electrical energy from an oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2), this second electrical energy generation module integrating - a second magnetic induction coil (41) disposed in a first transverse through hole (44) of the support (2);- a first cylindrical magnet (42) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, this first cylindrical magnet (42) being connected via its first end and/or its second end to the inner wall of the chamber (16) so that it extends at least partially inside the first through hole (44), the first cylindrical magnet (42) causing, during an oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2), a change in the magnetic field in the second magnetic induction coil (41).” Emphasis added.
In claim 6, lines 2-7; claim 11, lines 2-6: “a third module for generating electrical energy from a striking energy received by this striking body (1), said third electrical energy generation module comprising - two annular plates (14) concentric with the first central axis (11);- at least one piezoelectric part (13) disposed between the two annular plates (14).” Emphasis added.
In each of claims 7, 12, and 13, lines 5-10: “a fourth module for generating electrical energy from a mechanical pressure exerted, during an oscillation movement of the support (2) around the second central axis (31), by an elastic return means (32) of said second plurality on the support (2) and/or on the base (3), this fourth electrical energy generation module integrating a first piezoelectric element (33) disposed between the base (3) or the support (2) and a bearing end of said elastic return means (32) of the second plurality.” Emphasis added.
In each of claims 10 and 14-16, lines 2-8 and 11-13: “a fifth module for generating electrical energy from an oscillation movement of the support (2) around the second central axis (31), this fifth electrical energy generation module integrating- a third magnetic induction coil (41) disposed in a second transverse through hole (44) of the support (2); - a second cylindrical magnet (42) having a third end and a fourth end opposite the third end; […] the second cylindrical magnet (42) causing, during an oscillation movement of the support (2) around the second central axis (31), a change in the magnetic field in the third magnetic induction coil (41).” Emphasis added.
In claim 19, lines 8-19: “a module for generating electrical energy from an oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2), this electrical energy generation module integrating - a magnetic induction coil (41) disposed in a transverse through hole (44) of the support (2);- a cylindrical magnet (42) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, this cylindrical magnet (42) being connected via its first end and/or its second end to the inner wall of the chamber (16) so that it extends at least partially inside the through hole (44), the cylindrical magnet (42) causing, during an oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2), a change in the magnetic field in the magnetic induction coil (41).” Emphasis added.
In claim 20, lines 8-14 and 17-19: “a module for generating electrical energy from an oscillation movement of the support (2) around the second central axis (31), this electrical energy generation module integrating - a magnetic induction coil (41) disposed in a transverse through hole (44) of the support (2); - a cylindrical magnet (42) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end; […] the cylindrical magnet (42) causing, during an oscillation movement of the support (2) around the second central axis (31), a change in the magnetic field in the magnetic induction coil (41).” Emphasis added.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-20 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.
The claims are replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. Specifically, the dependency of the claims presents numerous occurrences of insufficient antecedent basis, see below.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations in lines 1-24:
“A boxing training device (10) comprising
- a support (2) extending along a longitudinal axis (21) between a first end (22) and a second end (23) opposite the first end (22);
- a striking body (1) having a first central axis (11), this striking body (1) being mounted on the first end (22) of the support (2);
- a base (3) having a second central axis (31), the second end (23) of the support (2) being fixed to the base (3);
this boxing training device (10) being characterized in that
- the striking body (1) comprises a cylindrical chamber (16) of substantially circular section extending along the first central axis (11), this chamber (16) receiving the first end (22) of the support (2);
- a first plurality of elastic return means (17) connecting the support (2) to the inner wall of the chamber (16) so that the striking body (1) can oscillate around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2);
- a first module for generating electrical energy from an oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2), this first module (14) for generating electrical energy integrating
- an annular magnet (18) fixed to the inner wall of the chamber (16) around the first central axis (11);
- a first magnetic induction coil (19) disposed on the support (2) so that this first magnetic induction coil (19) is at least partially inside the annular magnet (18), the annular magnet (18) causing, during an oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2), a change in the magnetic field in the first magnetic induction coil (19).”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the inner wall of the chamber (16)” (claim 1, lines 12-13) and “the magnetic field in the first magnetic induction coil (41)” (claim 1, lines 23-24) in these limitations in the claim.
Applicant is suggested to amend the claim 1, lines 1-24, to
--- A boxing training device (10) comprising:
- a support (2) extending along a longitudinal axis (21) between a first end (22) and a second end (23) opposite the first end (22);
- a striking body (1) having a first central axis (11), the striking body (1) being mounted on the first end (22) of the support (2), wherein the striking body (1) comprises a cylindrical chamber (16) having a substantially circular section extending along the first central axis (11), the cylindrical chamber (16) receiving the first end (22) of the support (2);
- a base (3) having a second central axis (31), the second end (23) of the support (2) being fixed to the base (3);
- a first plurality of elastic return means (17) connecting the support (2) to an inner wall of the cylindrical chamber (16) so that the striking body (1) can oscillate around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2);
- a first module for generating electrical energy from the oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2), the first module (14) for generating electrical energy integrating:
- an annular magnet (18) fixed to the inner wall of the cylindrical chamber (16) around the first central axis (11); and
- a first magnetic induction coil (19) disposed on the support (2) so that the first magnetic induction coil (19) is at least partially inside the annular magnet (18), the annular magnet (18) causing, during the oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2), a change in a magnetic field in the first magnetic induction coil (19). ---.
Claims 2-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency on claim 1, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, see above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the magnetic field in the second magnetic induction coil” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a magnetic field in the second magnetic induction coil ---.
Claims 3, 11, 12, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency on claim 2, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, see above.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the distance between the first magnetic induction coil (19) and the annular magnet (18)” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a distance between the first magnetic induction coil (19) and the annular magnet (18) ---.
Claim 6, which depends from claim 1, recites the limitation “a third module for generating electrical energy” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because applicant has failed to recite a second module for generating electrical energy in the claim from which claim 6 depends. Applicant is therefore suggested to amend claim 6 such that it depends from claim 2 instead of from claim 1.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency on claim 6, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, see above.
Claim 7, which depends from claim 1, recites the following limitations in lines 1-10:
“The boxing training device (10) according to claim 1, characterized in that it further comprises,
- a second plurality of elastic return means (32) connecting the support (2) to the base (3) so that the support (2) can oscillate around the second central axis (31);
- a fourth module for generating electrical energy from a mechanical pressure exerted, during an oscillation movement of the support (2) around the second central axis (31), by an elastic return means (32) of said second plurality on the support (2) and/or on the base (3), this fourth electrical energy generation module integrating a first piezoelectric element (33) disposed between the base (3) or the support (2) and a bearing end of said elastic return means (32) of the second plurality.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “a fourth module for generating electrical energy” (claim 7, line 5) in the claim because applicant has failed to recite a second module for generating electrical energy and a third module for generating electrical energy in the claim from which claim 7 depends.
Applicant is therefore suggested to amend claim 7 such that it depends from claim 6 instead of from claim 1. Refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claim 6, see above. Accordingly, applicant is suggested to amend claim 7, lines 1-10, to
--- The boxing training device (10) according to claim 6, further comprising:
- a second plurality of elastic return means (32) connecting the support (2) to the base (3) so that the support (2) can oscillate around the second central axis (31); and
- a fourth module for generating electrical energy from a mechanical pressure exerted, during the oscillation movement of the support (2) around the second central axis (31), by the second plurality of elastic return means (32), and/or on the base (3), the fourth module for generating electrical energy integrating a first piezoelectric element (33) disposed between the base (3) or the support (2) and a bearing end of the second plurality of elastic return means (32). ---.
Claims 8, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency on claim 7, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, see above.
Claim 10, which depends from claim 1, recites the following limitations in lines 1-13:
“The boxing training device (10) according to claim 1, characterized in that it further comprises a fifth module for generating electrical energy from an oscillation movement of the support (2) around the second central axis (31), this fifth electrical energy generation module integrating
- a third magnetic induction coil (41) disposed in a second transverse through hole (44) of the support (2);
- a second cylindrical magnet (42) having a third end and a fourth end opposite the third end;
- at least a first plurality of elastic connection means (43) connecting the third end of the second cylindrical magnet (42) to the support (2) so that this second cylindrical magnet (42) is at least partially inside the second through hole (44), the second cylindrical magnet (42) causing, during an oscillation movement of the support (2) around the second central axis (31), a change in the magnetic field in the third magnetic induction coil (41).”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the magnetic field in the third magnetic induction coil” (claim 10, line 13) in the claim. In addition, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “a fifth module for generating electrical energy” (claim 10, lines 2-3) in the claim because applicant has failed to recite a third module for generating electrical energy and a fourth module for generating electrical energy in the claim from which claim 10 depends.
Applicant is suggested to amend claim 10 such that it depends from claim 7 instead of from claim 1. Refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claims 6 and 7, see above. Accordingly, applicant is suggested to amend claim 10, lines 1-13, to
--- The boxing training device (10) according to claim 7, further comprising a fifth module for generating electrical energy from the oscillation movement of the support (2) around the second central axis (31), the fifth module for generating electrical energy integrating:
- a third magnetic induction coil (41) disposed in a second transverse through hole (44) of the support (2);
- a second cylindrical magnet (42) having a third end and a fourth end opposite the third end; and
- at least a first plurality of elastic connection means (43) connecting the third end of the second cylindrical magnet (42) to the support (2) so that the second cylindrical magnet (42) is at least partially inside the second transverse through hole (44), the second cylindrical magnet (42) causing, during the oscillation movement of the support (2) around the second central axis (31), a change in a magnetic field in the third magnetic induction coil (41). ---.
Claim 12, which depends from claims 1 and 2, recites the limitation “a fourth module for generating electrical energy” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because applicant has failed to recite a third module for generating electrical energy in any of the claims from which claim 12 depends. Amending claim 12 such that it depends directly from claim 11 instead of directly from claim 2 would overcome this 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection. However, in doing so, claim 12 would be identical to claim 7, when applicant amends claim 7 as suggested by the Office in order to overcome the corresponding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections, see above. Therefore, applicant is suggested to cancel claim 12.
Claim 14, which depends from claims 1 and 2, recites the following limitations in lines 1-13:
“The boxing training device (10) according to claim 2, characterized in that it further comprises a fifth module for generating electrical energy from an oscillation movement of the support (2) around the second central axis (31), this fifth electrical energy generation module integrating
- a third magnetic induction coil (41) disposed in a second transverse through hole (44) of the support (2);
- a second cylindrical magnet (42) having a third end and a fourth end opposite the third end;
- at least a first plurality of elastic connection means (43) connecting the third end of the second cylindrical magnet (42) to the support (2) so that this second cylindrical magnet (42) is at least partially inside the second through hole (44), the second cylindrical magnet (42) causing, during an oscillation movement of the support (2) around the second central axis (31), a change in the magnetic field in the third magnetic induction coil (41).”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the magnetic field in the third magnetic induction coil” (claim 14, line 13) in the claim. In addition, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “a fifth module for generating electrical energy” (claim 14, line 2) in the claim because applicant has failed to recite a third module for generating electrical energy and a fourth module for generating electrical energy in any of the claims from which claim 14 depends.
Amending claim 14 such that it depends directly from claim 12 instead of directly from claim 2, and amending “the magnetic field in the third magnetic induction coil” to --- a magnetic field in the third magnetic induction coil --- would overcome these 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections. However, in doing so, claim 14 would be identical to claim 10, when applicant amends claim 10 as suggested by the Office in order to overcome the corresponding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections, see above. Therefore, applicant is suggested to cancel claim 14.
Claim 15, which depends from claims 1 and 6, recites the following limitations in lines 1-13:
“The boxing training device (10) according to claim 6, characterized in that it further comprises a fifth module for generating electrical energy from an oscillation movement of the support (2) around the second central axis (31), this fifth electrical energy generation module integrating
- a third magnetic induction coil (41) disposed in a second transverse through hole (44) of the support (2);
- a second cylindrical magnet (42) having a third end and a fourth end opposite the third end;
- at least a first plurality of elastic connection means (43) connecting the third end of the second cylindrical magnet (42) to the support (2) so that this second cylindrical magnet (42) is at least partially inside the second through hole (44), the second cylindrical magnet (42) causing, during an oscillation movement of the support (2) around the second central axis (31), a change in the magnetic field in the third magnetic induction coil (41).”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the magnetic field in the third magnetic induction coil” (claim 15, line 13) in the claim. In addition, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “a fifth module for generating electrical energy” (claim 15, line 2) in the claim because applicant has failed to recite a fourth module for generating electrical energy in any of the claims from which claim 15 depends.
Amending claim 15 such that it depends directly from claim 7 instead of directly from claim 6, and amending “the magnetic field in the third magnetic induction coil” to --- a magnetic field in the third magnetic induction coil --- would overcome these 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections. However, in doing so, claim 15 would be identical to claim 10, when applicant amends claim 10 as suggested by the Office in order to overcome the corresponding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections, see above. Therefore, applicant is suggested to cancel claim 15.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the distance between the first magnetic induction coil (19) and the annular magnet (18)” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a distance between the first magnetic induction coil (19) and the annular magnet (18) ---.
Claim 19 recites the following limitations in lines 1-19:
“The boxing training device (10) comprising:
- a support (2) extending along a longitudinal axis (21) between a first end (22) and a second end (23) opposite the first end (22);
- a striking body (1) having a first central axis (11), this striking body (1) being mounted on the first end (22) of the support (2);
- a base (3) having a second central axis (31), the second end (23) of the support (2) being fixed to the base (3);
this boxing training device (10) being characterized in that it further comprises a module for generating electrical energy from an oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2), this electrical energy generation module integrating
- a magnetic induction coil (41) disposed in a transverse through hole (44) of the support (2);
- a cylindrical magnet (42) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, this cylindrical magnet (42) being connected via its first end and/or its second end to the inner wall of the chamber (16) so that it extends at least partially inside the through hole (44), the cylindrical magnet (42) causing, during an oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2), a change in the magnetic field in the magnetic induction coil (41).”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “The boxing training device (10)” (claim 19, line 1), “the inner wall of the chamber (16)” (claim 19, line 16), and “the magnetic field in the magnetic induction coil (41)” (claim 19, lines 18-19) in these limitations in the claim.
Applicant is suggested to amend the claim 19, lines 1-19, to
--- A boxing training device (10) comprising:
- a support (2) extending along a longitudinal axis (21) between a first end (22) and a second end (23) opposite the first end (22);
- a striking body (1) having a first central axis (11), the striking body (1) being mounted on the first end (22) of the support (2);
- a base (3) having a second central axis (31), the second end (23) of the support (2) being fixed to the base (3);
- a module for generating electrical energy from an oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2), the module for generating electrical energy integrating:
- a magnetic induction coil (41) disposed in a transverse through hole (44) of the support (2); and
- a cylindrical magnet (42) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, the cylindrical magnet (42) being connected via the first end and/or the second end thereof to an inner wall of a chamber (16) so that it extends at least partially inside the transverse through hole (44), the cylindrical magnet (42) causing, during the oscillation movement of the striking body (1) around the longitudinal axis (21) of the support (2), a change in a magnetic field in the magnetic induction coil (41). ---.
Claim 20 recites the following limitations in lines 1-19:
“The boxing training device (10) comprising
- a support (2) extending along a longitudinal axis (21) between a first end (22) and a second end (23) opposite the first end (22);
- a striking body (1) having a first central axis (11), this striking body (1) being mounted on the first end (22) of the support (2);
- a base (3) having a second central axis (31), the second end (23) of the support (2) being fixed to the base (3);
this boxing training device (10) being characterized in that it further comprises a module for generating electrical energy from an oscillation movement of the support (2) around the second central axis (31), this electrical energy generation module integrating
- a magnetic induction coil (41) disposed in a transverse through hole (44) of the support (2);
- a cylindrical magnet (42) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end;
- at least a first plurality of elastic connection means (43) connecting the first end of the cylindrical magnet (42) to the support (2) so that this cylindrical magnet (42) is at least partially inside the through hole (44), the cylindrical magnet (42) causing, during an oscillation movement of the support (2) around the second central axis (31), a change in the magnetic field in the magnetic induction coil (41).”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “The boxing training device (10)” (claim 20, line 1) and “the magnetic field in the magnetic induction coil (41)” (claim 20, lines 18-19) in these limitations in the claim.
Applicant is suggested to amend the claim 20, lines 1-19, to
--- A boxing training device (10) comprising:
- a support (2) extending along a longitudinal axis (21) between a first end (22) and a second end (23) opposite the first end (22);
- a striking body (1) having a first central axis (11), the striking body (1) being mounted on the first end (22) of the support (2);
- a base (3) having a second central axis (31), the second end (23) of the support (2) being fixed to the base (3);
- a module for generating electrical energy from an oscillation movement of the support (2) around the second central axis (31), the module for generating electrical energy integrating:
- a magnetic induction coil (41) disposed in a transverse through hole (44) of the support (2);
- a cylindrical magnet (42) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end; and
- at least a first plurality of elastic connection means (43) connecting the first end of the cylindrical magnet (42) to the support (2) so that the cylindrical magnet (42) is at least partially inside the transverse through hole (44), the cylindrical magnet (42) causing, during the oscillation movement of the support (2) around the second central axis (31), a change in a magnetic field in the magnetic induction coil (41). ---.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections 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 (Zhang (CN 106390412 A); Ishibashi Noriko et al. (“Design and fabrication of a smart punching bag with micro energy generator”, 2017 IEEE REGION 10 SYMPOSIUM (TENSYMP), IEEE, 14 July 2017 (2017-07-14), pages 1-6); León, III (US 2021/0008428); Kim (US 2021/0146217); Hyun-Jae Shin (GB 2583740 A); Savelli (FR 3010910 A1); Mughal Humayun Akhter (GB 2444116 A)), alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious a boxing training device in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
a first plurality of elastic return means connecting the support to the inner wall of the chamber so that the striking body can oscillate around the longitudinal axis of the support; a first module for generating electrical energy from an oscillation movement of the striking body around the longitudinal axis of the support, this first module for generating electrical energy integrating: an annular magnet fixed to the inner wall of the chamber around the first central axis; and a first magnetic induction coil disposed on the support so that this first magnetic induction coil is at least partially inside the annular magnet, the annular magnet causing, during an oscillation movement of the striking body around the longitudinal axis of the support, a change in the magnetic field in the first magnetic induction coil (claim 1).
The prior art of record (Zhang (CN 106390412 A); Ishibashi Noriko et al. (“Design and fabrication of a smart punching bag with micro energy generator”, 2017 IEEE REGION 10 SYMPOSIUM (TENSYMP), IEEE, 14 July 2017 (2017-07-14), pages 1-6); León, III (US 2021/0008428); Kim (US 2021/0146217); Hyun-Jae Shin (GB 2583740 A); Savelli (FR 3010910 A1); Mughal Humayun Akhter (GB 2444116 A)), alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious a boxing training device in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
a module for generating electrical energy from an oscillation movement of the striking body around the longitudinal axis of the support, this electrical energy generation module integrating: a magnetic induction coil disposed in a transverse through hole of the support; and a cylindrical magnet having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, this cylindrical magnet being connected via its first end and/or its second end to the inner wall of the chamber so that it extends at least partially inside the through hole, the cylindrical magnet causing, during an oscillation movement of the striking body around the longitudinal axis of the support, a change in the magnetic field in the magnetic induction coil (claim 19).
The prior art of record (Zhang (CN 106390412 A); Ishibashi Noriko et al. (“Design and fabrication of a smart punching bag with micro energy generator”, 2017 IEEE REGION 10 SYMPOSIUM (TENSYMP), IEEE, 14 July 2017 (2017-07-14), pages 1-6); León, III (US 2021/0008428); Kim (US 2021/0146217); Hyun-Jae Shin (GB 2583740 A); Savelli (FR 3010910 A1); Mughal Humayun Akhter (GB 2444116 A)), alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious a boxing training device in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
a module for generating electrical energy from an oscillation movement of the support around the second central axis, this electrical energy generation module integrating: a magnetic induction coil disposed in a transverse through hole of the support; a cylindrical magnet having a first end and a second end opposite the first end; and at least a first plurality of elastic connection means connecting the first end of the cylindrical magnet to the support so that this cylindrical magnet is at least partially inside the through hole, the cylindrical magnet causing, during an oscillation movement of the support around the second central axis, a change in the magnetic field in the magnetic induction coil (claim 20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY D URBIEL GOLDNER whose telephone number is (313)446-6554. The examiner can normally be reached between 9AM and 5PM, Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
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 B Jimenez can be reached on (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. Visit https://patentcenter.uspto.gov to file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. For information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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.
/GARY D URBIEL GOLDNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784