DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits based on the 18/741,688 application filed on 06/12/2024 and which claims as originally filed have been considered in the ensuing 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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Canada on 06/15/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CA3198620 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Examiner Note
It appears that multiple preliminary amendments were submitted prior to examination. For purposes of examination, the claims submitted on 08/22/2024 have been considered in the following office action. The Examiner notes that further amendments should denote any and all amendments and if a claim is cancelled, then any newly added claim would have a new sequential number (for example, if claim 10 is cancelled and another claim is added, the new claim would be claim 11). The Examiner further notes that the claims should be clear in dependency and consistent between claims. If a component is introduced as a column, then it should be referred to as “the column” throughout the claims.
With regards to the specification and drawings, specific objections are raised below. However, the Examiner notes that the entirety of the specification and drawings should be amended to conform with proper standards. Each component named in the claims should have a unique corresponding reference numeral that is used consistently throughout the specification and the drawings.
Specification
Regarding the abstract: the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. 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).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Regarding the specification: the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the paragraph beginning with “my certified copy” should be removed. Further, it appears that some reference numerals were placed in the specification, however, the reference numerals overlap and are not consistent and do not appear to match the drawings. The Applicant is reminded that the drawings should contain reference numerals for unique components that are consistent throughout the drawings and specification. For instance, the column could be denoted as reference numeral “1” and should be shown as reference numeral “1” in both drawings and the specification. No other component should be labeled “1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because while the drawings do contain reference numerals, the reference numerals are not consistent through the drawings and the specification. Please also see the specification objections above. All components listed in the claims should have a unique reference numeral that is used in the drawings and the specification. For instance, a carriage, a column, an elongated flexible element, circles, resistance, ends, etc. from claim 1 should be listed in the specification with their respective reference numerals that match the reference numerals pointing to the respective components in the drawings. 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 Objections
The Applicant is reminded to be consistent with all claim terminology. Specific claim objections will be discussed below, due to the nature of the claims, a broad statement addressing related amendments will be discussed broadly. The Applicant is required to address all amendments even if not expressly pointed out below. Specifically, if amendments are made to the introduction of a component, the Applicant should amend all subsequent limitations claiming that component to be consistent with the changes in the introduction (for example, the column should be referred to as only the “column” throughout the claims).
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On lines 1-2, “(post, or linear guide)” should be deleted. The column should be referred to as “the column” throughout claim 1 and its dependencies.
On line 2, “an elongated flexible element (cable)” should be amended to either ---an elongated flexible element” or “a cable”. All other instances of “the elongated flexible element”, “the cable”, “flexible element” in claim 1 and its dependencies should be amended to be consistent with the changes to line 2. Please also see the 35 USC 112(b) rejection below
On line 3, “the user” should be corrected to ---a user---
On line 4, “circles” should be amended to ---the two or more circles---
On line 6, “can” should be corrected to ---is configured to---
Claims 2-7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, “A resistance” should be corrected to ----The resistance---
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, “the carriage, (a multisided shape with openings top and bottom to allow travel along the column)” should be amended to ---the carriage, the carriage comprises a multisided shape with openings at a top and bottom to allow travel along the column---
On line 4, “(close to the center)” should be deleted
On lines 6-9, “(with an opening for the cable(s) and the cables are connected to stoppers and carabiners and another handle (eg a handle, a bar, a rope, a belt or a strap))” should be deleted. If the Applicant would like to claim that the handles disclosed in claim 1 can be different components the Examiner suggests claim language similar to ---wherein the handles comprise one of a bar, a rope, a belt or a strap--- Please also see the 35 USC 112(b) rejection below
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On lines 1-2, “(a multisided shape with openings top and bottom to allow travel along the column)” should be deleted
On line 3, “hole(s)” should be corrected to ---holes---
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On lines 2-5, “(eg a weight stack lifting, electric motor(s), resistance tubes-bands, nitrocell(s), hydraulic or pneumatic resistances, rods, locking of the crossbar, or handles)” should be deleted
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On lines 1-2, “wherein the crossbar can use a pin in a pinhole on the carriage to connect to the column” should be corrected to ---wherein the carriage comprises a pinhole configured to accept a pin from the crossbar to connect the carriage to the column---
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 11, “can” should be corrected to ---is configured to –
On line 11, “may exit” should be corrected to ---is capable of exiting---
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 10, “can” should be corrected to ---is configured to –
On line 11, “may exit” should be corrected to ---is capable of exiting---
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 9, “(around the column)” should be deleted
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and 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. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations of “the resistance” on line 3, “the resistance feature” on line 4, “the weight stack” on line 5 lack antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear if all of these resistances are the same. If there is only a single resistance, which appears to be the supported by the drawings, then the claim terminology should remain consistent throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" on line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “each cable” on line 6 is unclear. Only a single cable has been claimed above. Please also see the claim objections above regarding “an elongated flexible element (cable)”.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of “the guiding elements” on line 1, “the crossbar” on line 3, “the resistance element” on line 3 lack antecedent basis. Further, “the resistance element (eg weight stack)” is unclear for the same reasons listed above regarding “the resistance”.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “multiple flexible element circles” on line 2 lacks clarity, because it is unclear if this is the same as the previously claimed “two or more circles” of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “a pulley” on line 5, “a handle” on line 6, “each circle” of line 7 and “each half crossbar” on line 7 all lack clarity. It is unclear if the limitations are the same as the previously claimed components of “a plurality of pulleys” of claim 2, “handles” of claim 1, “the two or more circles” or “multiple flexible circles” (see rejection above) and “crossbar” of claim 2, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “cables” on line 2 and “rollers” on line 3 lack clarity, as it is unclear if the limitations refer to the previously claimed “elongated flexible element (cable)” of claim 1, please see claim objections above, and “rollers” of claim 4, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “exit through hole(s) with rollers to outside the carriage and with rollers to inside the crossbar” on lines 3-4 lacks clarity. It is unclear if the exit holes have rollers or if the carriage itself has rollers and how many rollers are being claimed.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the anchor points” on line 4 lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear if the limitation refers to the previously claimed “hole(s)” of claim 4, “hole” of claim 3, or “exit hole” of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “a resistance element” on line 1 and “cable(s)” on line 2 lack clarity, as it is unclear if the limitations refer to the various previously claimed resistance mechanisms, see rejection of claim 1 above and “elongated flexible element (cable)” of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of “a resistance element” on line 1, “a column” on line 2, “a crossbar” online 2, “a slidable plate” on lines 3-4, “the elongated flexible elements” on lines 4-5, “each plate” on line 5, “the holes” on line 6, “their handles” on line 8, “pulleys and pulley combinations” on lines 8-9, “the number of circles” on line 9, “cables” on line 9, and “cable” on line 11 lack clarity. It is unclear if the limitations are the same as the previous limitations of claims 1-6, upon which claim 7 dependents. It is unclear if claim 7 was meant to be an independent claim. If the claim should be dependent upon claim 6, then all limitations that have previously been introduced should be preceded by “the” instead of “a”, and should be consistent with the original terminology and the number of components (a single cable vs cables).
Regarding claim 8, the limitation of “a crossbar perpendicular to the column with a slide” on line 2 lacks clarity, as it is unclear if the crossbar or the column has a slit.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “a slidable plate on each side” on lines 3-4 lacks clarity as it is unclear what the slidable plate is a part of and what component is referred with respect to “each side”.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the elongated flexible elements” on lines 4-5, “the bar” on line 7, the number of circles of cables” on lines 8-9, “the percentage of resistance that the circles” on line 9, “the ends” on line 10 lack antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear if “the bar” in both instances refers to the previously claimed crossbar.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation of “the slidable plate” on line 5 lacks clarity as two slidable plates, one on each side (see rejection above) have been claimed, therefore it is unclear if the limitation refers to a single one of the slidable plates or to both plates. Similarly, “each plate” on line 5 is also unclear.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “their handles” on line 8 lacks clarity. It is unclear what has handles.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of “the crossbar” on line 1, “the ends” on line 1, “the center” on lines 1-2, “the protruding cables” on line 2, “the bar” on line 7, “the top or bottom” on line 7, ‘the mounted carriage” on line 8, “the column’ on line 8, and “the carriage” on lines 10-11 lack antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear if “the crossbar” is the same component as “the bar”, if “the protruding cables” are the same as “the cables” or “each cable” and if “the mounted carriage” is the same as “the carriage”.
Regarding claim 10, the entire claim is unclear as it appears that the claim should be dependent upon another claim, but is written as an independent claim. The claim also lacks a preamble. “the crossbar” on line 1 lacks antecedent basis.
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)(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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lyszxzarz (US 8,057,368). The Examiner notes that the prior art components will be italicized below.
Regarding claim 1:
Lyszxzarz discloses a carriage (carriage and arm assembly 80) coupled to a column(post, or linear guide) (vertical centre-post 40), and an elongated flexible element (cables)(cables 141, best shown in Fig. 4) connected to form two or more circles (the cables form multiple circles in the manner disclosed by Applicant) from the resistance (weight stack 170) to the protruding ends (see annotated Fig. below) to be pulled by the user (the ends are attached to handles 130a/b configured to be pulled by the user), the pulling of the cables shrinks the circles one, or both, at a time to act with force with the resistance feature to create resistance, such as lifting the weight stack (see Fig. 4, pulling the handles causes the cables to lift the weight stack, which also decreases the size of the cable circles attached directly to the weight stack), stoppers, and carabiners (see Fig. 4 the ends of the cables are attached to stoppers) attached to the ends of each cable(flexible element) that can attach to handles (see Fig. 4).
[AltContent: textbox (Stoppers)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Ends of cable)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
656
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2:
Lyszxzarz discloses that the guiding elements comprise a plurality of pulleys (pulleys 122b, 123, 124, 73a-d, 93a,b 103a,b, 215a,b, and 216a,b) for the flexible element to create multiple flexible element circles to connect to the crossbar (the crossbar includes mounting bracket 102a and arms 101a, 101b) and to the resistance element (eg a weight stack), the shrinking of any or all circles create a force upon the resistance element (see Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 3:
Lyszxzarz discloses that the cables travel along the column until exiting from inside to outside the carriage, (a multisided shape with openings top and bottom to allow travel along the column) the cables that connect to the crossbar from inside of the carriage to inside the crossbar via a hole in the center(close to the center) with rollers to perpendicular half portions of the crossbar to a pulley on each end of the inside of the crossbar and then to a slidable plate with an exit hole to a handle on each side while the other end of each circle servicing each half crossbar either connects to the slidable plate or (with an opening for the cable{s) and the cables are connected to stoppers and carabiners and another handle (eg a handle, a bar, a rope, a belt, or a strap)) through the slidable plate to another handle (As shown in Figs. 1-4, the cable travels along the column through the carriage, see Fig. 3b in particular, through an opening in the carriage to the respective arms of the device and out through the ends of the arms to attach to handles. The Examiner notes that the carriage is also disclosed to have rollers 82a-c that are perpendicular to the mounting bracket 102a, which has been interpreted as being part of the crossbar, as well as perpendicular to the column, to allow the carriage to more easily roll along the column. The carriage itself is made of slidable plates, the front slideable plate shown best in Fig. 3a includes a handle 96).
Regarding claim 4:
Lyszxzarz discloses that the carriage (a multisided shape with openings top and bottom to allow travel along the column) allows cables to enter and then to exit through hole(s) with rollers to outside the carriage and with rollers to inside the crossbar (see rejection of claim 3 above) while a pin (carriage selector pin 95, shown in Fig. 3a) connects to the anchor point holes (apertures) in the column.
Regarding claim 5:
Lyszxzarz discloses that a resistance element which is employed by pulling on the end of a cable(s) thereby using a force upon the resistance element (eg a weight stack lifting, electric motor(s), resistance tubes-bands, nitrocell(s), hydraulic or pneumatic resistances, rods, locking of the crossbar, or handles) (the resistance element has been disclosed as weight stack, please also see the 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, for purposes of examination the device has been interpreted as only having one means of resistance).
Regarding claim 6:
Lyszxzarz discloses that the crossbar can use a pin in a pinhole on the carriage to connect to the column (the crossbar is connected to the column through the carriage by a selector pin 95 into apertures 41, likewise, the arms of the crossbar are connected to the carriage through apertures and pins, shown in Fig. 3a).
Regarding claim 7:
Lyszxzarz discloses a resistance element (weight stack 170), a column(vertical centre-post 40) with pin holes and j hook holes (apertures 41) arranged to coexist (the apertures on through the vertical centre-post to accept the selection pin of the carriage), a crossbar(the crossbar includes carriage 80, mounting bracket 102a and arms 101a, 101b; the mounting bracket being perpendicular to the column) perpendicular to the column with a slit from close to center to close to end of each half of the crossbar (the carriage has a vertical through hole, similar to applicant’s that allows the carriage/crossbar to slide up and down the vertical centre-post) and a slidable plate (the carriage is made of four slidable plates) on each side with a hole so the slit is aligned and providing an exit for the elongated flexible elements (the cables 141 are elongated flexible elements; the cables are threaded through the carriage and the hollow arms) and a hole on the top of the slidable plate for a pin (see Fig. 1; the top plate has a plurality of holes and two different selector pins to change the angle of the arm with respect to the vertical centre-post) to hold each plate in place along the half of the crossbar connected to the holes on the top of the crossbar, a pin and pin hole (selector pin 95) in the front center of the crossbar for the crossbar to affix to the column sometimes to use the slidable plates and their handles (the selector pin interacts with the apertures of the column to affix the carriage and arms to the vertical centre-post), a sequence of pulleys and pulley combinations (pulleys 122b, 123, 124, 73a-d, 93a,b 103a,b, 215a,b, and 216a,b) designed to adjust the number of circles of cables (the cables form multiple circles in the manner disclosed by Applicant) that shrink and to adjust the percentage of resistance the circles are encountering and to also adjust the length the circle can shrink, the ends of the cable circles traveling inside the crossbar may exit through the slits or a hole with rollers in the center of the crossbar (the carriage has rollers 82a-c; the cable is configured to thread through the carriage and arms to emerge from the end of the arms and attach to handles 130a,b).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Donofrio (US 2014/0018215).
Regarding claim 10:
Several hooks (hooks 11) on top or/and bottom of the crossbar (crossbar 7) to connect to straps (18) or resistances tubes/bands.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyszxzarz (US 8,057,368) in view of Donofrio (US 2014/0018215).
Regarding claim 8:
Lyszxzarz discloses a resistance element(weight stack 170), a column(vertical centre-post 40) with pin holes and j hook holes (apertures 41) arranged to coexist (the apertures on through the vertical centre-post to accept the selection pin of the carriage), a crossbar(the crossbar includes carriage 80, mounting bracket 102a and arms 101a, 101b; the mounting bracket being perpendicular to the column) perpendicular to the column with a slit from close to center to close to end of each half of the crossbar (the carriage has a vertical through hole, similar to applicant’s that allows the carriage/crossbar to slide up and down the vertical centre-post) and a slidable plate (the carriage is made of four slidable plates) on each side with a hole so the slit is aligned and providing an exit for the elongated flexible elements (the cables 141 are elongated flexible elements; the cables are threaded through the carriage and the hollow arms) and a hole on the top of the slidable plate for a pin (see Fig. 1; the top plate has a plurality of holes and two different selector pins to change the angle of the arm with respect to the vertical centre-post) to hold each plate in place along the half of the crossbar connected to the holes on the top of the crossbar, a pin and pin hole (selector pin 95) in the front center of the crossbar for the crossbar to affix to the column sometimes to use the slidable plates and their handles (the selector pin interacts with the apertures of the column to affix the carriage and arms to the vertical centre-post), a sequence of pulleys and pulley combinations (pulleys 122b, 123, 124, 73a-d, 93a,b 103a,b, 215a,b, and 216a,b) designed to adjust the number of circles of cables (the cables form multiple circles in the manner disclosed by Applicant) that shrink and to adjust the percentage of resistance the circles are encountering and to also adjust the length the circle can shrink, the ends of the cable circles traveling inside the crossbar may exit through the slits or a hole with rollers in the center of the crossbar (the carriage has rollers 82a-c; the cable is configured to thread through the carriage and arms to emerge from the end of the arms and attach to handles 130a,b).
Lyszxzarz fails to distinctly disclose a number of hooks on top or/and bottom of the crossbar to connect to straps or resistance tubes/bands.
Donofrio teaches an exercise apparatus with a vertical post (3) having a plurality of apertures configured to interact with pins of carriages to lock the carriages in place. Donofrio further teaches a carriage having a cross bar (7) with a plurality of hooks configured to attach resistance bands (18) to.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lyszxzarz such that it has hooks similar to Donofrio to allow for different exercises to be performed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyszxzarz (US 8,057,368) in view of Kelly (US 12,036,434).
Regarding claim 9:
Lyszxzarz discloses that the crossbar (carriage and arm assembly) has a slit (the hollow opening in the arm has been considered a slit) from the ends to close to the center (see Fig. 3a), the crossbars’ main feature is that the protruding cables (cables 141) are separated into half the crossbar each and mirror each other in use (see Fig. 3a), each cable protruding from the slit is affixed with a stopper (stopper 133a,b) and then loop (see Fig. 3a), the stopper and loop are movable along the crossbar from close to the center to the end by means of a sliding mounted plate (lacking any other structural of functional limitation, the top of pulley housing 212a,b has been considered a plate; the pulley housing is placed over the opening of the arm, and the housing allows for the stopper and loop to be moved in any direction, including along the arm) over the slit that has a hole for the cable and rollers (pulleys shown in Fig. 3a) on the hole to protect the cable, the sliding mounted plates are connected to the bar also by a pin and hole each (the pulley housing is attached to the arm and pulleys through a pin and hole, shown in Fig. 3a) and a series of holes along the top or bottom of the crossbar (the front of the carriage and arm assembly has two series of holes), which align for use at many points, the mounted carriage (the carriage is part of the crossbar) on the column (vertical centre-post 40) which has a shape to surround or connect to the column(around the column) also has rollers (rollers 82a-b) to slide along the column and holes (apertures 41) on the column and a hole and pin (selector pin 95) on the crossbar connected to the carriage to align to mount the column at many points.
Lyszxzarz fails to disclose a carabiner.
Kelley teaches a similar apparatus having handles attached to the cable through a stopper and a carabiner.
PNG
media_image2.png
773
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lyszxzarz to have a carabiner instead of a loop, as taught by Kelly as a carabiner is a well-known equivalent of the loop for attaching handles.
Examiner’s Note Pro se
The Applicant appears to be a pro se. The Examiner suggests contacting the pro se assistance services through email at ProSeAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or by phone at 1-866-767-3848.
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN M ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6531. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6 a.m. -4 p.m. (Arizona).
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.
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784