DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11, as filed on 09/23/2024, are currently pending and considered below.
Double Patenting
Claim 1-11 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-11 of Application No. 18770912. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822. Claims 1-11 in both applications are identical.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered:
Claims 2 and 3: “The Loop” (It is unclear what the loop is within the figures, the loop does not have reference numbers in the specification, as much as applicant has shown the best understanding is that the loop is formed by the cables and pulleys).
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
Claims 4 and 8 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only (for claim 4) and should refer to other claims in the alternative only and cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim (for claim 8). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 4-10 are not been further treated on the merits.
Claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities (appropriate correction is required):
Claim 1, line 1 amend: “The New lever functional telescoping trainer is” to ---A lever functional telescoping trainer for---.
Claim 1, line 1 amend: “comprising, of” to ----comprising:---.
Claim 2, line 7 amend: “flexible element” to ---the flexible element---.
Claim 2, line 3 amend: “and has a loop that allows at least one end the be pulled by the user” to ---a loop configured to be pulled by a user at at least one end---.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —the specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claim 1, line 2: the phrase "such as" 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). It is unclear if the linear guide needs to be a post with a carriage. Applicant suggested to amend the limitation to ---comprising: ---.
Claim 1, line 1 recites: “a carriage (the lever bar carriage)”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims. It is unclear if the carriage is meant to be the carriage. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to ---a lever bar carriage---.
Claim 1, lines 1-2 recites: “the post (the lever bar connected to the carriage)” There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims. It is unclear if the lever bar is the post or if there is additional structure. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to ---the post with lever bars connected thereto--- (see Claim 2, line 1 112(b) rejection referencing to multiple bars below).
Claim 1, line 3-4 recites: “surrounding the post or portion of the post has holes spaced along the front (but not limited to the front)”. It is unclear the metes and bounds of this limitation. It is unclear if the holes are surrounding the post of if the carriage surrounds the post. There is a lack of antecedent basis for the front. It is unclear what structure is being referred to for the front. It is unclear the metes and bounds of “but not limited to the front” as this means the holes can be spaced along any surface. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to ---wherein holes are spaced along at least a portion of at least a front of the post---.
Claim 1, line 4 recites: “the carriage can connect to these holes”. The phrase "can" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear if the carriage needs to be connected or not. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to ---wherein the carriage is configured to connect to the holes---.
For applicant convenience claim 1’s various changes are integrated into the claim below:
1. A lever functional telescoping trainer for a resistance exercise machine comprising:
a linear guide comprising:
a post with a lever bar carriage on the post with lever bars connected thereto, wherein holes are spaced along at least a portion of at least a front of the post, and wherein the carriage is configured to connect to the holes, to lock in position via a pin.
Claim 2, line 1 recites: “the functional trainer portion”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is unclear what portion of the device is considered the functional trainer portion. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to ---a functional trainer portion---.
Claim 2, line 2 recites: “the bars”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation within the claim. It is unclear if this is the lever bar of claim 1 as claim 1 has that in the singular, is an additional bar to said lever bar, or is a separate structure entirely. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to ---the lever bars---.
Claim 2, line 2 recites: “known as the “sliding entrance openings and exits opening for the cable ends” connects to the carabiners”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for the sliding entrance openings, the exit opening, the cable ends, a cable for the cable end, and the carabiners. It is unclear the metes and bounds of the limitation within the quotation marks due to the verbiage “known as” as it is unclear if the limitations within the quotation marks are part of the claimed invention. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to ---are sliding entrance openings and exit openings for a cable end of a cable, wherein the cable ends are connected to carabiners ---.
Claim 2, line 4 recites: “(by pressing or pulling the lever arms)”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the lever arms” within the claims, it is unclear if this is in reference to the lever bar or a new structure. It is unclear if this limitation is part of the claim invention due to the parentheses. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to ---by pressing or pulling the lever bars---.
Claim 2, lines 4-5 recites: “shrinking the loop until the flexible element generates a force upon the resistance, such as a weight stack (but not limited to a weight stack ie: hydraulic or pneumatic pistons, electric motor(s), rods, magnetic features, resistance tubes or cables, bungee cables, or weight plates, or gravity)”. The phrases "i.e.", “such as”, and the parentheses render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following any of these phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear what the “such as a weight stack” is an example of, the force, the antecedent basis issue resistance, or the shrinking of the flexible element. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the flexible element”. It is unclear if this is the cable or additional structure however later in the claim alludes to these structures being two separate things.
Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to ---wherein shrinking the loop generates a force upon a resistance via a flexible element, wherein the resistance is selected from a group consisting of: a weight stack, hydraulic, pneumatic pistons, at least one electric motor, rods, magnetic features, resistance tubes, bungee cables, weight plates, and gravity; ---.
Claim 2, lines 7-8 recite: “from the functional trainer arms”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims, it is unclear if these arms are the functional trainer portion of the [lever] bars, the lever arms, or additional structures. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to ---from the lever bars---.
Claim 2, line 8 recites: “a plethora of pulleys or rollers”. The claim is rendered indefinite as it is unclear what amount is considered a plethora as a plethora is a large or excessive amount. It is unclear how many pulleys or rollers are necessary to meet the requirements of the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to ---at least two or more of pulleys or rollers---.
For applicant convenience claim 2’s various changes are integrated into the claim below:
2. The resistance training machine according to claim 1, wherein a functional trainer portion of the lever bars are sliding entrance openings and exit openings for a cable end of a cable, wherein the cable ends are connected to carabiners, and
a loop configured to be pulled by a user at at least one end by pressing or pulling the lever arms,
wherein shrinking the loop generates a force upon a resistance via a flexible element, wherein the resistance is selected from a group consisting of: a weight stack, hydraulic, pneumatic pistons, at least one electric motor, rods, magnetic features, resistance tubes, bungee cables, weight plates, and gravity; and
wherein the cable or the flexible element is connected from the lever bars to the resistance element by at least two or more of pulleys or rollers.
Claim 3 in its entirety: There is a lack of antecedent basis or consistent limitation language throughout the claim. All limitations within parentheses or brackets are considered indefinite as it is unclear if these limitations are required by the claim. “Another instance of the same idea”, “known as”, “such as”, and “plethora” 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). It is unclear how many a plethora is. Applicant is suggested to amend the claim to the following:
---3. The resistance training machine according to claim 1, wherein a functional trainer portion of the lever bars are non-sliding entrance openings and exits for a cable ends of cables, wherein the cable ends are connected to the carabiners,
a loop configured to be pulled by a user at at least one end by pressing or pulling the lever arms,
wherein shrinking the loop generates a force upon a resistance via a flexible element, wherein the resistance is selected from a group consisting of: a weight stack, hydraulic, pneumatic pistons, at least one electric motor, rods, magnetic features, resistance tubes, bungee cables, weight plates, and gravity; and
wherein the cable or the flexible element is connected from the lever bars to the resistance element by at least two or more of pulleys or rollers. ---
Claim 11, line 1 recites: “the lever bar may have horns as well for weight plates or other resistance features.” There is a lack of antecedent basis for “The lever bar”. It is unclear if claim 11 is meant to be written to be an independent claim and it is unclear what claim it would be dependent upon. “May have” rendered any limitations following indefinite as it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Applicant is suggested to amend the claim to ---The resistance training machine according to claim 1, wherein the lever bar further comprises horns configured for weight plates or other resistance features. ---.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) The claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by US 8057368 B1 (Lyszczarz; henceforth Czar).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Czar discloses a lever functional telescoping trainer (upstanding frame 20) for a resistance exercise machine (exercise machine 10, Figure 1) comprising:
a linear guide (carriage assembly 80 with post 40 and arms 100) comprising:
a post (post 40) with a lever bar carriage (carriage assembly 80) on the post with lever bars connected thereto (rotating arm assemblies 100A, 100B), wherein holes (apertures 41) are spaced along at least a portion of at least a front of the post (holes 41 are disposed on a forward face of post 40), and wherein the carriage is configured to connect to the holes (via a carriage selector pin 95 operatively connected to handle 96), to lock in position via a pin (selector pin 95).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
Regarding Claim 11, Czar further discloses the resistance training machine according to claim 1, wherein the lever bar further comprises horns (bars 201A; attached along the middle of the arms 100A, 100B) configured for other resistance features (handles 204A).
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 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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8057368 B1 (Lyszczarz; henceforth Czar) in view of US 8485950 B2 (Adams).
Regarding Claim 2, Czar further discloses the resistance training machine according to claim 1, wherein a functional trainer portion of the lever bars (distal ends) are sliding entrance openings and exit openings (pulley assemblies 210A, 210B; in as much as applicant has shown the pulley assemblies rotates about arms 100A, 100B allowing for sliding movement of the exit/entrance of the cable stopper with cable 133A) for a cable end of a cable (cable 141), and
a loop (loops created by cable 141 around pulleys 73, 124, Figure 4) configured to be pulled by a user at at least one end by pressing or pulling the lever arms (see Figure 4 wherein one end of cable 141 is pulled by the user through the arms 100A, 100B moving the bracket 121 up and down changing the size of the loop),
wherein shrinking the loop generates a force upon a resistance via a flexible element (anchor cable 143; pulling on cable 141 forces backet 121 upwards shrinking the loop and causing upward force on a weight stack 170), wherein the resistance is selected from a group consisting of: a weight stack (weight stack 170), hydraulic, pneumatic pistons, at least one electric motor, rods, magnetic features, resistance tubes, bungee cables, weight plates, and gravity; and
wherein the cable or the flexible element is connected from the lever bars to the resistance element by at least two or more of pulleys or rollers (pulleys 73A-73D).
Czar discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Czar further discloses attaching different handles to the cable. Czar does not disclose wherein the cable ends are connected to carabiners.
Adams teaches an analogous exercise device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
A cable (resistance tube 36) with a handle (handle 38) thereon wherein the cable is connected to the handle (handle 38) via a carabiner (carabiner 40). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the cable handle connection with carabiners, as taught by Adams, in order to allow for quick easy connect/disconnect of the handles for easy handle exchanges.
Regarding Claim 3, Czar further discloses the resistance training machine according to claim 1, wherein a functional trainer portion of the lever bars (distal ends) are non-sliding entrance openings and exits for a cable ends of cables (hollow shafts 213A, hollow shafts 213A are located at the ends of bars 100A, 100B allowing for entrance/exit of the cable into and out of the bars 100A, 100B, wherein the hollow shaft 213A does not move relative to the bar),
a loop (loops created by cable 141 around pulleys 73, 124, Figure 4) configured to be pulled by a user at at least one end by pressing or pulling the lever arms (see Figure 4 wherein one end of cable 141 is pulled by the user through the arms 100A, 100B moving the bracket 121 up and down changing the size of the loop),
wherein shrinking the loop generates a force upon a resistance via a flexible element (anchor cable 143; pulling on cable 141 forces backet 121 upwards shrinking the loop and causing upward force on a weight stack 170), wherein the resistance is selected from a group consisting of: a weight stack (weight stack 170), hydraulic, pneumatic pistons, at least one electric motor, rods, magnetic features, resistance tubes, bungee cables, weight plates, and gravity; and
wherein the cable or the flexible element is connected from the lever bars to the resistance element by at least two or more of pulleys or rollers (pulleys 73A-73D).
Czar discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Czar further discloses attaching different handles to the cable. Czar does not disclose wherein the lever bars are connected to carabiners.
Adams teaches an analogous exercise device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
A cable (resistance tube 36) with a handle (handle 38) thereon wherein the cable is connected to the handle (handle 38) via a carabiner (carabiner 40). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the cable handle connection with carabiners between the cable end and handle, as taught by Adams, in order to allow for quick easy connect/disconnect of the handles for easy handle exchanges.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-0063. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00am - 4:00pm EST.
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 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. 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.
/ZACHARY T MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3784