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 .
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 detachable pedal and a backrest plate (claim 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Par. [0002], line 2, “Huck squat” should read ---Hack squat---
The semicolon at the end of par. [0015] should be a period
Par. [0023], line 1, “termi-nology” should read ---terminology---
The semicolon at the end of par. [0030] should be a period
The semicolon at the end of par. [0033] should be a period
The semicolon at the end of par. [0041] should be a period
The semicolon at the end of par. [0047] should be a period
The first word “the” in par. [0048] should be capitalized
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 line 2, “the second adjustment mechanism” should read ---the second angle adjustment mechanism---
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 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a first angle adjustment mechanism (claim 1); a second angle adjustment mechanism (claim 1); a locking member (claim 9)
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.
The first angle adjustment mechanism, using generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language of adjusting an angle between the first frame body and the underframe and not preceded by sufficient structure, has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of a swing rod pivotally connected to the bottom of the first frame body and a locking member fixed on the underframe, as defined in par. [0037].
The second angle adjustment mechanism, using generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language of adjusting an angle between the second frame body and the underframe and not preceded by sufficient structure, has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of a connecting frame fixedly connected with the underframe and a telescopic member arranged between the connecting frame and the second frame body, as defined in par. [0041].
The locking member, using generic placeholder “member” coupled with functional language of “for locking the telescopic tube in the sleeve” and not preceded by sufficient structure, has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of a pin or a bolt, as defined in par. [0047] and [0051].
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.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites “the clamping member is intended to form a plurality of clamping grooves” in line 3. It is unclear what is meant by “is intended to form” in the context of the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2025/0325868, filed on 04/22/2024).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim et al. discloses a back-pedal Hack integrated machine convenient for angle adjustment (100), comprising:
an underframe (310), wherein a rotatable first frame body (340) and a rotatable second frame body (330) are arranged on the underframe; a slider (200) which can freely slide is arranged on a long side of the second frame body, and the slider is used for arranging a required counterweight (via weight plate holders 213; par. [0031], “The incline locking mechanism can be in a released or “free” position wherein the adjustable exercise bed is allowed to travel up and down the incline for performing leg presses”);
an angle between the first frame body and the underframe is adjusted by a first angle adjustment mechanism (incline adjustment mechanism 343; equivalent to the first angle adjustment mechanism as defined by applicant as it achieves the same function of adjusting an angle between the first frame body/footpad 340 and the underframe/base 310); and
an angle between the second frame body and the underframe is adjusted by a second angle adjustment mechanism (adjustable incline mechanism 320; equivalent to the second angle adjustment mechanism as defined by applicant as it achieves the same function of adjusting an angle between the second frame body/slide structure 330 and the underframe/base 310).
PNG
media_image1.png
505
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. further discloses wherein the second adjustment mechanism comprises a connecting frame fixedly connected with the underframe (U-shaped frame fixedly connected to end of underframe/base 310 having pivots attached thereto) and a telescopic member (two telescopic rods) arranged between the connecting frame and the second frame body (par. [0042], “the adjustable incline mechanism 320 comprises a pair of telescoping arms with pins for locking the telescoping arms to a particular length”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2025/0325868, filed on 04/22/2024) and further in view of Ellis (US 11,794,066).
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. further teaches wherein the first frame body and the underframe form a rotatable structure through a first pivot (see first pivot at end of underframe/base 310 connecting first angle adjustment mechanism/incline adjustment mechanism 323 to underframe/base 310 and pivot connecting first frame body/footpad 340 to underframe/base 310), and the second frame body and the underframe form a rotatable structure through a second pivot (see second pivots at U-shaped frame connecting telescoping rods of second angle adjustment mechanism/incline adjustment mechanism 320 to underframe/base 310 and pivot connecting second frame body/slide structure 330 to underframe/base 310), but does not teach bearings are arranged in both the first pivot and the second pivot.
Ellis, in the same field of endeavor with respect to rotatably connecting two structures to one another at a pivot, teaches using bearings in a pivot to rotatably connected one structure to another of an exercise device (col. 29 lines 49-55, “The rearward end of movable user support frame 410, 610 is rigidly connected to flange 409 which is rigidly connected to axle 412, 612 and axle 412, 612 is connected to cross bar 404 with two bearings 408 such that movable user support frame 410 can pivot about axle 412, 612 on a rearward portion of stationary base frame 405”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second pivots of Kim et al. to further include bearings arranged therein, as is similarly taught by Ellis, for the purpose of achieving the same predictable results of allowing the first and second frame bodies to rotate relative to the underframe, thereby allowing smooth and efficient movement of the first and second frame bodies between desired angular positions.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2025/0325868, filed on 04/22/2024) and further in view of Contessa (US 12,070,652).
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. teaches wherein a force bearing surface of the first frame body is a backrest plate (in the broadest reasonable interpretation, footpad 340 is capable of being used as a backrest plate by a user to perform an exercise), but does not teach the force bearing surface is provided with a detachable pedal, and the functions of the integrated machine are switched by exchanging the pedal and the backrest plate.
Contessa, in the same field of endeavor with regards to back-pedal Hack integrated machines, teaches a force bearing surface of a first frame body that is provided with a detachable pedal (backrest 12; as applicant has not shown the structure of the detachable pedal, the Office takes the position that backrest 12 of Contessa satisfies the limitation of being a pedal as a user is capable of using the backrest 12 as a pedal to support his/her feet) and a backrest plate (foot plate 116, in the broadest reasonable interpretation foot plate 116 is capable of being used as a backrest plate by a user to perform an exercise), and the functions of the integrated machine are switched by exchanging the pedal and the backrest plate (see Figs. 1A-2B illustrating alternative functionality of the exercise machine 100 of Contessa, where Figs. 1A-1B illustrate a Hack squat function and Figs. 2A-2B illustrate a leg press function).
PNG
media_image2.png
446
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
458
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Kim et al. to include alternative functionality by providing a detachable pedal/backrest for the force bearing surface of the first frame body, as is similarly taught by Contessa, for the purpose of increasing the versatility of the machine, thereby reducing costs to a user by allowing a user to perform a greater variety of exercises using a single machine.
Claims 4-5 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2025/0325868, filed on 04/22/2024) and further in view of Shifferaw (US 7,731,639).
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. does not teach wherein the first angle adjustment mechanism (343) comprises a swinging rod pivoted at a bottom of the first frame body (340) and a clamping member fixed on the underframe (310).
Shifferaw, in the same field of endeavor with regards to angle adjustment mechanisms for selectively changing the angle between two structures of an exercise machine, teaches an angle adjustment mechanism comprising a swinging rod (support strut 26) pivoted at a bottom of a first frame body (i.e., backrest) and a clamping member (plurality of stops 27) fixed on an underframe (leg 14; col. 2 lines 14-16, “A support strut 26 is pivotally connected to the backrest and engagable with stops 27 on leg 14 to support the backrest at different angles relative to the seat”).
PNG
media_image4.png
348
506
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the first angle adjustment mechanism of Kim et al. with the angle adjustment mechanism comprising a swinging rod pivoted at a bottom of the first frame body and a clamping member fixed on the underframe, as is taught by Shifferaw, as a matter of simple substitution of one known mechanism for adjusting an angle of two structures of an exercise machine relative to one another for another known mechanism in the art. Such a modification would achieve the same predictable results of allowing a user to selectively alter the angle between the first frame body and the underframe based on the user’s exercising preferences.
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. as modified by Shifferaw further teaches wherein a free end of the swinging rod is set as clamping parts (see end of swinging rod/support strut 26 of Shifferaw having bilateral extensions acting as clamping parts), and the clamping member is intended to form a plurality of clamping grooves (i.e., grooves formed between adjacent stops 27), and the clamping grooves are set corresponding to the clamping parts (see Fig. 3 of Shifferaw above, clamping parts of support strut 26 engage with respective one of the grooves formed between adjacent stops 27 to achieve desired angular orientation).
Regarding independent claim 15, Kim et al. teaches a back-pedal Hack integrated machine convenient for angle adjustment (100), comprising:
an underframe (310), wherein a rotatable first frame body (340) and a rotatable second frame body (330) are arranged on the underframe, and a slider (200) which can freely slide is arranged on a long side of the second frame body (par. [0031], “The incline locking mechanism can be in a released or “free” position wherein the adjustable exercise bed is allowed to travel up and down the incline for performing leg presses”); and
wherein the first frame body is rotatably connected to the under frame by an angle adjustment mechanism (incline adjustment mechanism 343); and
one end of the underframe is fixedly connected with a connecting frame (U-shaped frame fixedly connected to end of underframe/base 310 having pivots attached thereto) positioned below the second frame body, and a telescopic member (two telescopic rods) is arranged between the connecting frame and the second frame body for angle fixation of the second frame body (par. [0042], “the adjustable incline mechanism 320 comprises a pair of telescoping arms with pins for locking the telescoping arms to a particular length”).
Kim et al. does not teach wherein one side of the first frame body facing the underframe is rotatably connected with a swinging rod; and the underframe is provided with a clamping member which is clamped with the swinging rod.
Shifferaw, in the same field of endeavor with regards to angle adjustment mechanisms for selectively changing the angle between two structures of an exercise machine, teaches an angle adjustment mechanism comprising a swinging rod (support strut 26) rotatably connected to one side of a first frame body (i.e., backrest) facing an underframe (leg 14), and the underframe (14) is provided with a clamping member (plurality of stops 27) which is clamped with the swinging rod (col. 2 lines 14-16, “A support strut 26 is pivotally connected to the backrest and engagable with stops 27 on leg 14 to support the backrest at different angles relative to the seat”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the angle adjustment mechanism of Kim et al. with the angle adjustment mechanism comprising a swinging rod and a clamping member, as is taught by Shifferaw, as a matter of simple substitution of one known mechanism for adjusting an angle of two structures of an exercise machine relative to one another for another known mechanism in the art. Such a modification would achieve the same predictable results of allowing a user to selectively alter the angle between the first frame body and the underframe based on the user’s exercising preferences.
Regarding claim 16, Kim et al. as modified by Shifferaw further teaches wherein a free end of the swinging rod is set as a clamping part (see end of swinging rod/support strut 26 of Shifferaw having bilateral extensions acting as clamping parts), and the clamping member is indented to form a plurality of clamping grooves (i.e., grooves formed between adjacent stops 27), and the clamping part is inserted into one of the clamping grooves (see Fig. 3 of Shifferaw above, clamping parts of support strut 26 engage with respective one of the grooves formed between adjacent stops 27 to achieve desired angular orientation).
Regarding claim 17, Kim et al. as modified further teaches wherein the telescopic member comprises a sleeve and a telescopic tube (annotated Fig. 2), and further teaches the sleeve being rotatably connected to the second frame body (see rotatable connection of sleeves of telescopic members of second angle adjustment mechanism/adjustable incline mechanism 320 to slide structure 330 in Fig. 2) and the telescopic tube being rotatably connected to the connecting frame (see rotatable connection of telescopic tubes of telescopic members of second angle adjustment mechanism/adjustable incline mechanism 320 to U-shaped frame in Fig. 2), but does not teach the sleeve is rotatably connected to the connecting frame.
PNG
media_image5.png
562
712
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the telescopic members of Kim et al. such that the sleeves of the telescopic members are rotatably connected to the connecting frame and the telescopic tubes of the telescopic members are rotatable connected to the second frame body as a matter of merely reversing the essential working parts of the device. Such a modification merely reverses the connection of the telescopic members and does not affect the functionality of the telescopic members to selectively adjust the angle between the second frame body and the underframe. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A).
Regarding claim 18, Kim et al. as modified further teaches wherein one end of the telescopic tube is rotatably connected to the second frame body (as modified above in claim 17), while the other end of the telescopic tube passes through the sleeve, and the telescopic tube is slidably connected with the sleeve (see connection of sleeve and telescopic tube in Fig. 2), and the sleeve is provided with a locking member (i.e., pins) for locking the telescopic tube in the sleeve (par. [0042], “the adjustable incline mechanism 320 comprises a pair of telescoping arms with pins for locking the telescoping arms to a particular length”).
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2025/0325868, filed on 04/22/2024).
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. teaches wherein the telescopic member comprises a sleeve and a telescopic tube (see annotated Fig. 2 above), and further teaches the sleeve being rotatably connected to the second frame body (see rotatable connection of sleeves of telescopic members of second angle adjustment mechanism/adjustable incline mechanism 320 to slide structure 330 in Fig. 2) and the telescopic tube being rotatably connected to the connecting frame (see rotatable connection of telescopic tubes of telescopic members of second angle adjustment mechanism/adjustable incline mechanism 320 to U-shaped frame in Fig. 2), but does not teach the sleeve is rotatably connected to the connecting frame.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the telescopic members of Kim et al. such that the sleeves of the telescopic members are rotatably connected to the connecting frame and the telescopic tubes of the telescopic members are rotatable connected to the second frame body as a matter of merely reversing the essential working parts of the device. Such a modification merely reverses the connection of the telescopic members and does not affect the functionality of the telescopic members to selectively adjust the angle between the second frame body and the underframe. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A).
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. as modified further teaches wherein one end of the telescopic tube is rotatably connected to the second frame body (as modified above in claim 7), while the other end of the telescopic tube passes through the sleeve, and the telescopic tube is slidably connected with the sleeve (see connection of sleeve and telescopic tube in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al. as modified teaches wherein the sleeve is provided with a locking member (i.e., pins) for locking the telescopic tube in the sleeve (par. [0042], “the adjustable incline mechanism 320 comprises a pair of telescoping arms with pins for locking the telescoping arms to a particular length”).
Regarding claim 10, Kim et al. as modified teaches wherein the locking member is a pin, and the pin penetrates into the sleeve (see par. [0042] and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al. as modified teaches wherein a surface of the telescopic tube facing the locking member is uniformly provided with a plurality of jacks (i.e., plurality of openings or apertures), and the pin is inserted into one of the jacks (see par. [0042] and Fig. 2 illustrating plurality of openings/apertures on surface of telescopic tube for receiving the pin to secure the telescopic tube into a desired position relative to the sleeve).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2025/0325868, filed on 04/22/2024) and further in view of Elkins (US 4,082,266).
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. does not teach wherein the locking member is a bolt, and the bolt is in threaded connection with the sleeve.
Elkins, in the same field of endeavor with regards to telescoping members, teaches a telescoping member comprising a sleeve (support tube 22), a telescopic tube (telescopic tube section 23), and a locking member (24), wherein the locking member is a bolt (thumb screw 24), and the bolt is in threaded connection with the sleeve (col. 1 lines 43-45, “a telescopic tube section 23 is fixed in place by a thumb screw 24 threaded to the wall of support tube 22”).
PNG
media_image6.png
316
493
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the locking member of Kim et al. with a bolt in threaded connection with the sleeve, as is similarly taught by Elkins, as a matter of simple substitution of one known locking member for a telescoping member of an exercise machine with another known locking member in the art. Such a modification does not affect the functionality of the telescoping members to selectively adjust the angle between the second frame body and the underframe.
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. as modified by Elkins further teaches wherein one end of the bolt (thumb screw 24 of Elkins) penetrates into the sleeve and closely adheres to a surface of the telescopic tube (see Elkins col. 1 lines 43-45 and Figs. 2-3).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2025/0325868, filed on 04/22/2024) and further in view of Hallmark (US 10,675,502).
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al. does not teach wherein a damping hinge or a hydraulic support rod is arranged between the second frame body and the connecting frame.
Hallmark, in the same field of endeavor with regards to exercise machines having two structures angularly adjustable relative to one another using a telescopic member, teaches a frame body (bench frame 10) angularly adjustable relative to a connecting frame (cross member 21 of base frame 1) using a telescopic member (telescoping assembly 6), and further teaches a damping hinge or a hydraulic support rod (mechanical spring, hydraulic or pneumatic dashpot 7) arranged between the frame body and the connecting frame (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image7.png
591
570
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Kim et al. to further include a damping hinge or a hydraulic support rod arranged between the second frame body and the connecting frame, as is similarly taught by Hallmark, for the purpose of assisting a user when adjusting the angle of the second frame body relative to the underframe by preventing sudden loss of position of the telescopic member (Hallmark col. 4 lines 37-45, “An additional mechanical spring, hydraulic or pneumatic dashpot 7 can also be provided alongside the adjustable arm 13. A dashpot is a mechanical device, a damper which resists motion via viscous friction. The resulting force is proportional to the velocity, but acts in the opposite direction, slowing the motion and absorbing energy. The dashpot therefore prevents any sudden loss of position of the adjustable arm 13 that may injure the user while adjusting the bench frame 10.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN FISK whose telephone number is (571)272-1042. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM M-F (Central).
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.
/KATHLEEN M FISK/Examiner, Art Unit 3784