DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action on the merits based on the 18/747,948 application filed on 08/27/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-7, as originally filed, are currently pending and considered below.
Priority
A petition, dated 01/16/20206, for unintentionally delayed claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (37 CFR 1.78(c)) and/or to accept an unintentionally delayed claim under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (37 CFR 1.78(e)) for the benefit of a prior-filed application is currently under review by the Office of Petitions.
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
two loops of claims 2, 4, 6, and 7
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.
Claim Objections
The claims are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The following objections are merely suggestions by the Examiner to define the claims to be more definite and organized. Please refer to the 112(b) rejections below.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, “The New Lever Functional Trainer is a resistance exercise machine comprising” should be corrected to --- A resistance exercise machine, comprising: ---
On lines 1-3, “a linear guide such as a post (column usually vertical) with a carriage (the lever carriage) post (the lever bar connected to the carriage) , surrounding the post or portion of, as well as” should be corrected to --- a lever carriage coupled to move along a linear post; wherein the lever carriage comprises two linear bars surrounding the post;---
On line 4, “of the functional trainer type below the lever carriage,” should be corrected to --- below the lever carriage, ---
On line 4, “the post” should be corrected to --- ; wherein the post ---
On line 5, “the front (but not limited to the front), the carriages can connect to these holes to lock in position.” should be corrected to --- the front of the post, wherein the lever carriage and the second carriage can connect to the holes of the post to lock in position. ---
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On lines 1-8, “The resistance training machine according to claim 1, wherein the functional carriage (the lower carriage) has two loops (or more) that allow at least one end to be pulled (or pressed by using the above carriage bars) by the user, shrinking the until the flexible element generates a force upon the resistance elements (weights, motor(s), resistance tube bands or bungee cord, nitrocells or pneumatic or hydraulic elements, rods, gravity body weight levers or cables, and any combination of), such as a weight stack (but not limited to), the cable or flexible element is connected from the functional trainer carriage resistance element by a plethora of pulleys or rollers.” should be corrected to --- The resistance exercise machine according to claim 1, wherein the second carriage comprises two loops that allow a respective flexible element or cable to generates a force upon a resistance element, wherein the resistance element comprises one of: weights, motors, resistance tube bands, bungee cord, nitrocells, pneumatic, hydraulic elements, rods, gravity body weight levers, cables, or any combination thereof; wherein the flexible element connects the carriage to the resistance element by way of a plurality of pulleys or rollers. ---
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, “The resistance training machine according to claim 2 wherein” should be corrected to --- The resistance exercise machine according to claim 2, wherein ---
On lines 1-6, “wherein the lever bar when in position can be either locked for combined movement, synchronized of the two sides of the lever arms or unlocked to acts such as an iso-linear press or pull motion because there are two handles and bars connecting to the main bar carriage (via an axle or axles,but not limited to such) and starting from several starting positions because of a pin on the side of the post with holes, spaced along the side(s) of the post.” should be corrected to --- wherein the two lever arms can be either locked for combined synchronized movement, or unlocked to allow for an iso-linear press movement or for a pull motion; wherein the carriage comprises two pins that operatively connect to the lever arms to allow for either the unlocked or locked position; and wherein a singular pin can be inserted into the holes of the post to lock the carriage along the post. ---
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, “The resistance training machine according to claim 3 wherein” should be corrected to --- The resistance exercise machine according to claim 3, wherein ---
On lines 1-6, “each side of the independently or combined (with a pin joining both sides) movable lever bar sides (also handles) has a hook for one or none of the flexible elements ends (connected to carabiner each) for connecting the functional carriage below to the lever bar above for the purpose of shrinking the functional trainer loop(s) with the lever bars press or pull motion.” should be corrected to “wherein one side of each of the two lever bars has a hook to attach an end of one of the flexible elements in order to connect the second carriage to the lever carriage above for the purpose of shrinking the two loops with the lever bars to allow for an iso-linear press movement or for a pull motion.”
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, “The resistance training machine according to claim 4 wherein” should be corrected to --- The resistance exercise machine according to claim 4, wherein ---
On lines 1-2, “wherein the lever bar may have horns as well for weight plates or other resistance features.” should be corrected to --- wherein the lever bars have horns allowing for the addition of weight plates or other resistance features onto. ---
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, “The New Lever Functional Trainer is a resistance exercise machine comprising,” should be corrected to --- A resistance exercise machine, comprising: --
On lines 1-3, “of a linear guide such as a post (column usually vertical) with a carriage (the lever carriage) post (the lever bar connected to the carriage) , surrounding the post or portion of, as well as” should be corrected to --- a lever carriage coupled to move along a linear post; wherein the lever carriage comprises two linear bars surrounding the post;---
On line 4, “of the functional trainer type below the lever carriage.” should be corrected to --- below the lever carriage, ---
On line 4, “the post” should be corrected to --- ; wherein the post ---
On lines 5-6, “the front (but not limited to the front), the carriages can connect pins to these holes, to lock in position,” should be corrected to --- the front of the post, wherein the lever carriage and the second carriage can connect to the holes of the post to lock in position. ---
On lines 6-13, “the functional trainer carriage has two loops (or one or more) that allow at least one end to be pulled (or pressed by the carriage bars) by the user, shrinking the loop until the flexible element generates a force upon the the resistive elements (weights, motor(s), resistance tube bands or bungee cord, nitrocells or pneumatic or hydraulic elements, rods, gravity body weight levers or cables, and any combination of), such as a weight stack (but not limited to a weight stack), the cable or flexible element is connected from the functional trainer carriage to the resistance element by a pletora of pulleys or rollers,” should be corrected to --- wherein the second carriage comprises two loops that allow a respective flexible element or cable to generates a force upon a resistance element, wherein the resistance element comprises one of: weights, motors, resistance tube bands, bungee cord, nitrocells, pneumatic, hydraulic elements, rods, gravity body weight levers, cables, or any combination thereof; wherein the flexible element connects the carriage to the resistance element by way of a plurality of pulleys or rollers,---
On lines 13-18 ,“the lever bar when in position can be either locked for combined movement, sychronizing the two sides of the lever arms or unlocked via a pin to act as an iso-linear press or pull motion because there are two handles and bars connecting to the main bar or carriage (via an axle or axles, but not limited to such) and from several starting positions because of a pin on the side of the post with holes, spaced along the side(s) of the post,” should be corrected to --- wherein the two lever arms can be either locked for combined synchronized movement, or unlocked to allow for an iso-linear press movement or for a pull motion; wherein the carriage comprises two pins that operatively connect to the lever arms to allow for either the unlocked or locked position; and wherein a singular pin can be inserted into the holes of the post to lock the carriage along the post, ---
On lines 18-23, “each side of the independently or combined (with a pin joining both sides) movable lever bar sides (also handles) has a hook for one or none of the flexible elements ends (connected to carabiner each) for connecting the functional carriage below to the lever bar above for the purpose of shrinking the functional trainer loop(s) with the lever bars press or pull motion.” should be corrected to “wherein one side of each of the two lever bars has a hook to attach an end of one of the flexible elements in order to connect the second carriage to the lever carriage above for the purpose of shrinking the two loops with the lever bars to allow for an iso-linear press movement or for a pull motion.”
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, “The New Lever Functional trainer is a resistance exercise machine, the New Lever Functional Trainer is comprised” should be --- A resistance exercise machine, comprising:---
On lines 2-3, “of a linear guide such as a post with a carriage on the post (the lever bar), surrounding the post or portion of, as well as” should be corrected to --- a lever carriage coupled to move along a linear post; wherein the lever carriage comprises two linear bars surrounding the post;---
On line 4, “of the functional trainer type below the lever carriage.” should be corrected to --- below the lever carriage, ---
On line 4, “the post” should be corrected to --- ; wherein the post ---
On lines 4-5, “the front (but not limited to), the carriages can connect to these holes, sometimes, to lock in position,” should be corrected to --- the front of the post, wherein the lever carriage and the second carriage can connect to the holes of the post to lock in position, ---
On lines 5-10, “the functional trainer carriage has two loops (or one or more) that allow at least one end to be pull by the user, shrinking the loop until the flexible element generates a force upon the resistive elements, such as a weight stack (but not limited to), the cable or flexible element is connected from the functional trainer carriage to the resistance element by a pletora of pulleys or rollers,” should be corrected to --- wherein the second carriage comprises two loops that allow a respective flexible element or cable to generates a force upon a resistance element, wherein the resistance element comprises a weight stack, wherein the flexible element connects the carriage to the resistance element by way of a plurality of pulleys or rollers, ---
On lines 10-14, “the lever bar when in position can be either unlocked to acts such as an iso-linear press motion, because there are two handles and bars connecting to the main bar or carriage (via an axle or axles, but not limited to such) from several starting positions because of a pin on the side of the post with holes, spaced along the side(s) of the post,” should be corrected to --- wherein the two lever arms can be either locked for combined synchronized movement, or unlocked to allow for an iso-linear press movement or for a pull motion; wherein the carriage comprises two pins that operatively connect to the lever arms to allow for either the unlocked or locked position; and wherein a singular pin can be inserted into the holes of the post to lock the carriage along the post, ---
On lines 14-18, “each side of the independantly or combined (with a pin joining both sides) movable lever bar sides (also handles) has a hook for one or none of the flexible elements ends (connected to a carabiner each) for connecting the functional carriage below to the lever bar above, the lever bar may have horns as well for weight plates or other resistance features.” should be corrected to --- wherein one side of each of the two lever bars has a hook to attach an end of one of the flexible elements in order to connect the second carriage to the lever carriage above; wherein the lever bars have horns allowing for the addition of weight plates or other resistance features onto. ---
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 1-7 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.
No prior art rejection has been made with respect to claims 1-7, as the indefiniteness of the claim renders the scope of the claim unascertainable with a high degree of uncertainty. "When there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art.” See MPEP § 2173.06.
The claims 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 claims must be in one sentence form only. Examiner suggests reviewing the claim format and structure of the cited prior art.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "1 The New Lever Functional Trainer” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to change the limitation “1 The New Lever Functional Trainer is a resistance exercise machine" to --- A resistance exercise machine ---. Claims 2-11 are rejected as being dependent off of rejected claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “such as a post (column usually vertical)” in line 2. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention and the term “usually vertical” is indefinite as it renders the scope of the claim to be unascertainable. Applicant is advised to reconsider adding limitations into parentheses as it could obscure weather a feature is essential or merely illustrative. Additionally, 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).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “carriage (the lever carriage) post” in line 2. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention and the term lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, it is indefinite if the structures “carriage” and “post” are the same single structure or separate structures.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “(the lever bar connected to the carriage)” in line 3. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention and the term “the lever bar” lacks antecedent basis. There are a number of antecedent basis throughout the claims which result in a lack of clarity of the recited structural features (e.g. “the lever bar”, “the front”, “the functional carriage” and “the lower carriage”, etc.). The first time an article is set forth in the claims it must be preceded by 'a' or 'an' and each subsequent instance of the article (using the same nomenclature) must be preceded by 'the' or 'said'.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the front" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “(but not limited to the front)” in line 5. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention and the term “but not limited to” is indefinite as it renders the scope of the claim to be unascertainable.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the functional carriage (the lower carriage)” in line 1. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention and the term “the functional carriage” and “the lower carriage” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “two loops (or more)” in line 2. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “(or pressed by using the above carriage bars)” in lines 2-3. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the user" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “shrinking the until” in line 3. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is being shrunk. Applicant is advised to add the term “the two loops” after the term “shrinking the”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the flexible element" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the resistance elements" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “(weights, motor(s), resistance tube bands or bungee cord, nitrocells or pneumatic or hydraulic elements, rods, gravity body weight levers or cables, and any combination of)” in lines 4-6. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “such as a weight stack (but not limited to)” in lines 4-6. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention. Additionally, 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).
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the cable" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the functional trainer carriage resistance element" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the lever bar when in position can be either locked for combined movement, synchronized of the two sides of the lever arms or unlocked to acts such as an iso-linear press or pull motion” in lines 1-3. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the claim does not adequately distinguish which state applies to synchronization of the two sides of the lever arms or the lever bar acting as an iso-linear press or pull motion. Applicant is advised to change the limitation “the lever bar when in position can be either locked for combined movement, synchronized of the two sides of the lever arms or unlocked to acts such as an iso-linear press or pull motion” to --- the lever bar when in position can be either locked for a combined synchronized movement to allow for the synchronized movement of the two sides of the lever arms or unlocked to allow for an iso-linear press or pull motion ---.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the main bar carriage" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “(via an axle or axles, but not limited to such)” in lines 4-5. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the side" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “side(s)” in lines 6. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “(with a pin joining both sides)” in line 2. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “(also handles)” in lines 2-3. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “(connected to carabiner each)” in lines 3-4. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the functional trainer loop(s)” in lines 3-4. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the phrase "may have" in lines 1-2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "The New Lever Functional Trainer” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to change the limitation “The New Lever Functional Trainer is a resistance exercise machine" to --- A resistance exercise machine ---.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “such as a post” in 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).
Claim 6 recites the limitation “(the lever carriage)” in line 2. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention and the term lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “(the lever bar connected to the carriage)” in line 3. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention and the term “the lever bar” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the front (but not limited to the front)” in line 5. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention and the term “but not limited to” is indefinite as it renders the scope of the claim to be unascertainable. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the front” in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “two loops (or one or more)” in line 6. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “(or pressed by using the above carriage bars)” in line 7. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the loop" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the flexible element" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the resistance elements" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “(weights, motor(s), resistance tube bands or bungee cord, nitrocells or pneumatic or hydraulic elements, rods, gravity body weight levers or cables, and any combination of)” in lines 9-11. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “such as a weight stack (but not limited to)” in line 11. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention. Additionally, 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).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the cable" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the functional trainer carriage " in lines 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the lever bar when in position can be either locked for combined movement, synchronized of the two sides of the lever arms or unlocked to acts such as an iso-linear press or pull motion” in lines 13-15. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the claim does not adequately distinguish which state applies to synchronization of the two sides of the lever arms or the lever bar acting as an iso-linear press or pull motion. Applicant is advised to change the limitation “the lever bar when in position can be either locked for combined movement, synchronized of the two sides of the lever arms or unlocked to acts such as an iso-linear press or pull motion” to --- the lever bar when in position can be either locked for a combined synchronized movement to allow for the synchronized movement of the two sides of the lever arms or unlocked to allow for an iso-linear press or pull motion ---.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the main bar " in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “(via an axle or axles, but not limited to such)” in lines 16-17. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the side" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “side(s)” in line 18. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “(with a pin joining both sides)” in line 19. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “(also handles)” in line 20. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “(connected to carabiner each)” in line 21. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the functional trainer loop(s)” in line 22. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "The New Lever Functional Trainer” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to change the limitation “The New Lever Functional Trainer is a resistance exercise machine" to --- A resistance exercise machine ---.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “such as a post” in 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).
Claim 7 recites the limitation “(the lever bar)” in line 3. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention and the term “the lever bar” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “(but not limited to)” in lines 4-5. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention and the term “but not limited to” is indefinite as it renders the scope of the claim to be unascertainable.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “sometimes” in line 5. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the term “sometimes” does not clearly define if the carriages connect to the post.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the functional trainer carriage” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “(or one or more)” in line 6. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the loop” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “such as a weight stack (but not limited to)” in line 8. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention. Additionally, 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).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the cable" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “to acts such as an iso-linear press motion” in lines 10-11. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what to acts is intended to describe. Additionally, 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).
Claim 7 recites the limitation “(via an axle or axles, but not limited to such)” in line 12. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “(with a pin joining both sides)” in line 14. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “(also handles)” in line 15. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “(connected to carabiner each)” in line 16. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations inside the parentheses are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites the phrase "may have" in line 17 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited for additional pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M KOBYLARZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8096. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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.
/ANDREW M KOBYLARZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3784