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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/07/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 07/04/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the hand grip recited in each of claims 9 and 10 are not labeled in the figures. 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:
In paragraph 0054, “a slip grip” should read –a hand grip--.
The specification for a hand grip, which is recited in each of claims 9 and 10, has no reference numeral . The examiner notes in paragraphs 0054-0055, “According to one example, the top surface of the first and second base sections 102a, 102b of the flat base may include handprints for guiding or instructing the user where to place his or her hands. The handprints may be an image on the flat base 102 or may be a slip grip to keep the hands of the user from slipping off the flat base 102. According to one example, the generally flat base 102 may have indentations for a user to place his or her hands or feet on the generally flat base 102”. However, it is unclear if the handprints being a slip grip or the indentations are considered to be the hand grip of claims 9 and 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, line 2, “a base” should read –a flat base—
In claim 17, line 2, “a base” should read –a flat base--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that 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) of claim 1, 5-10, 11, and 14-16 is/are:
A/ the generic place holder is mechanism
B/ the functional language is connecting
C/ pulling member is not modified by sufficient “structure, material, or acts”
D/ the connecting mechanism is disclosed as one or more protruding tabs, one or more recesses, screws, pins, clasps, clamps, buttons, interference fits, flange mechanisms, press-fit systems, tongue and groove mechanisms, snap fit mechanisms, and/or tabs, among others. The structure is provided in paragraph 00012-00014, 00021-00023, 00027, 00045and 00048-00050 of the specification.
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.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (PG Patent Publication No. US20110166006A1), in view of Whitaker (PG Patent Publication No. US20170050082A1).
Regarding claim 1, Howard shows an exercise apparatus (Howard, device 100, paragraph 0016) comprising: a flat base (Howard, separate base sections 104, 106, paragraph 0016) having a top surface and an opposing bottom surface (Howard, see annotated FIG. 1D), the flat base comprising: a first base section (Howard, first base section 104); and a second base section (Howard, second base section 106), the second base section detachably secured to the first base section by a connecting mechanism (Howard, “FIG. 1D is a side view of the device 100 to illustrate the separate base sections 104, 106 being connected by their respective connection mechanisms 108”, paragraph 0016; The connection mechanism 108 of Howard shows the connecting mechanism. As noted above in the claim interpretation section, the connecting mechanism of the claimed invention is either one of one or more protruding tabs, one or more recesses, screws, pins, clasps, clamps, buttons, interference fits, flange mechanisms, press-fit systems, tongue and groove mechanisms, snap fit mechanisms, and/or tabs, among others. The connection mechanism 108 of Howard shows the connecting mechanism of the claimed invention being one or more protruding tabs, interface fits, flange mechanisms, tongue and groove mechanisms, and tabs); and a plurality of caster assemblies (Howard, “In place of the ball transfers 116, the device 100 may also include casters, i.e. any of a set of wheels or rotating balls mounted in a swivel frame”, paragraph 0022; The casters of Howard teaches the plurality of caster assemblies of the claimed invention) secured to the bottom surface of the flat base (Howard, see annotated FIG. 1D).
PNG
media_image1.png
313
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Howard
Howard fails to show a first strap secured to the top surface of the first base section; and a second strap secured to the top surface of the second base section.
However, Whitaker, from the same field of endeavor, discloses in paragraphs 0014-0020, “the invention is a rehabilitation and mobility improvement apparatus (RMIA) 10 and method of use for use in providing increased mobility in persons having reduced strength and mobility due to for instance injury or illness, comprising a base 20, a handle 30, a plurality of roller devices 40, and a strap device 50… VELCRO strap 52 of strap device 50 is threaded through strap retention slots 24 of base 20 and removably attached to itself… RMIA 10 is mounted to a user's hand such as by the user grasping knob 34 and by strap device 50 being secured around the user's hand”.
PNG
media_image2.png
370
371
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
418
394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Whitaker
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Howard to include the strap of device of Whitaker, as well as the strap retention slots of Whitaker, so that the hand of a user is more securely connected around a corresponding handle of Howard. More specifically, it would be obvious to incorporate the retention slots through the base of Howard, with the handle of Howard positioned between the retention slots, so that the strap device of Whitaker is able to engage and secure the hand of a user to the corresponding base section of Whitaker and connect the strap device with the base of Howard. The incorporation of the strap device and the retention slots specifically to the first base section 104 of Howard teaches the first strap of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, Whitaker discloses a rehabilitation and mobility improvement apparatus for a single hand with a base, a handle, a plurality of roller devices, and a strap device. Whereas Howard discloses a base section for each hand of a user, each first base section and second base section with a handle. It would be obvious to also add another strap device and strap retention slots to the second base section of Howard, like that of the first base section, for the same reason of more securely connecting a user’s hand with the second base section. See MPEP 2144.04.VI (Reversal, Duplication, or Rearrangement of Parts). In light of this duplicated modification for the second base section of Howard, the second strap of the claimed invention is also taught.
Regarding claim 2, Howard, in view of Whitaker, teaches the exercise apparatus of claim 1, wherein the connecting mechanism is a snap-fit mechanism (Howard; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the connecting rods 112 and the receptacles 114 of Howard shows the snap-fit mechanism of the claimed invention. See paragraph 0019 and FIGS. 1B, 1C, and 1D).
Regarding claim 3, Howard, in view of Whitaker, teaches the exercise apparatus of claim 1, wherein the connecting mechanism comprises one or more protruding tabs (Howard, juxtaposing edge regions 109, paragraph 0019) and one or more recesses (Howard, see annotated FIG. 1D below; The grooves of which each of the edge regions fills shows the one or more recesses of the claimed invention); wherein the one or more protruding tabs of the first base section are received in the one or more recesses of the second base section (Howard, see FIG. 1D below); and wherein one or more protruding tabs of the second base section are received in the one or more recesses of the first base section (Howard, see FIG. 1D below).
PNG
media_image4.png
245
528
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Howard
Regarding claim 4, Howard, in view of Whitaker, teaches the exercise apparatus of claim 1, wherein the connecting mechanism is a tongue and groove mechanism (Howard; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the juxtaposing edge regions of Howard shows the tongue and groove mechanism of the claimed invention. See paragraphs 0019 and FIGS. 1B-1D).
PNG
media_image5.png
228
459
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Howard
Regarding claim 5, Howard, in view of Whitaker, teaches the exercise apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first strap extends through a pair of slots in the flat base securing the first strap to the first base section (In light of the modification made in claim 1 by Whitaker, the pair of slots of the claimed invention is taught by the strap retention slots of Whitaker. Moreover, the strap retention slots have been integrated into the first base section of Howard, thereby teaching the pair of slots in the flat base securing the first strap to the first base section of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 6, Howard, in view of Whitaker, teaches the exercise apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second strap extends through a pair of slots in the flat base securing the second strap to the second base section (In light of the modification made in claim 1 by Whitaker, the strap device and the strap retention slots were duplicated with the second base section of Howard, thereby teaching the second strap extends through a pair of slots in the flat base securing the second strap to the second base section).
Regarding claim 9, Howard, in view of Whitaker, teaches the exercise apparatus of claim 1, wherein the top surface of the first base section includes a hand grip (Howard, “Each handle 110 preferably includes a soft, resilient outer layer to provide a gripping surface for a user. The soft outer layer may be formed with additional gripping bumps or grooves, or other traction mechanisms”, paragraph 0017; The handle 110 of Howard shows the hand grip of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 10, Howard, in view of Whitaker, teaches the exercise apparatus of claim 1, wherein the top surface of the second base section includes a hand grip (Howard, “Each handle 110 preferably includes a soft, resilient outer layer to provide a gripping surface for a user. The soft outer layer may be formed with additional gripping bumps or grooves, or other traction mechanisms”, paragraph 0017; The handle 110 of Howard shows the hand grip of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 11, Howard shows an exercise apparatus (Howard, device 100, paragraph 0016) comprising: a base (Howard, separate base sections 104, 106, paragraph 0016) having a top surface and an opposing bottom surface (Howard, see annotated FIG. 1D), the flat base comprising: a first base section (Howard, first base section 104) having a first indentation on the top surface (Howard, “each of the first and second base sections 104 and 106 can include a surface region, an indentation, or a glove-like structure for receiving a palm and/or fingers of a user, to enable the user to use the device with their palms flat on the first base section 104 and/or second base section 106. In this alternative, the fingers, palm and various muscles of the forearm are worked and exercised than with the handle”, paragraph 0018; The indentation corresponding to the first base section of Howard teaches the first indentation on the top surface of the claimed invention); and a second base section (Howard, second base section 106) having a second indentation on the top surface (Howard, “each of the first and second base sections 104 and 106 can include a surface region, an indentation, or a glove-like structure for receiving a palm and/or fingers of a user, to enable the user to use the device with their palms flat on the first base section 104 and/or second base section 106. In this alternative, the fingers, palm and various muscles of the forearm are worked and exercised than with the handle”; The indentation corresponding to the second base section of Howard teaches the second indentation on the top surface) the second base section detachably secured to the first base section by a connecting mechanism (Howard, “FIG. 1D is a side view of the device 100 to illustrate the separate base sections 104, 106 being connected by their respective connection mechanisms 108”, paragraph 0016; The connection mechanism 108 of Howard shows the connecting mechanism. As noted above in the claim interpretation section, the connecting mechanism of the claimed invention is either one of one or more protruding tabs, one or more recesses, screws, pins, clasps, clamps, buttons, interference fits, flange mechanisms, press-fit systems, tongue and groove mechanisms, snap fit mechanisms, and/or tabs, among others. The connection mechanism 108 of Howard shows the connecting mechanism of the claimed invention being one or more protruding tabs, interface fits, flange mechanisms, tongue and groove mechanisms, and tabs); a plurality of caster assemblies (Howard, “In place of the ball transfers 116, the device 100 may also include casters, i.e. any of a set of wheels or rotating balls mounted in a swivel frame”, paragraph 0022; The casters of Howard teaches the plurality of caster assemblies of the claimed invention) secured to the bottom surface of the flat base (Howard, see annotated FIG. 1D above ).
Howard fails to show a first strap secured to the top surface of the first base section; and a second strap secured to the top surface of the second base section.
However, Whitaker, from the same field of endeavor, discloses in paragraphs 0014-0020, “the invention is a rehabilitation and mobility improvement apparatus (RMIA) 10 and method of use for use in providing increased mobility in persons having reduced strength and mobility due to for instance injury or illness, comprising a base 20, a handle 30, a plurality of roller devices 40, and a strap device 50… VELCRO strap 52 of strap device 50 is threaded through strap retention slots 24 of base 20 and removably attached to itself… RMIA 10 is mounted to a user's hand such as by the user grasping knob 34 and by strap device 50 being secured around the user's hand”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Howard to include the strap of device of Whitaker, as well as the strap retention slots of Whitaker, so that the hand of a user is more securely connected around a corresponding handle of Howard. More specifically, it would be obvious to incorporate the retention slots through the base of Howard, with the handle of Howard positioned between the retention slots, so that the strap device of Whitaker is able to engage and secure the hand of a user to the corresponding base section of Whitaker and connect the strap device with the base of Howard. The incorporation of the strap device and the retention slots specifically to the first base section 104 of Howard teaches the first strap of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, Whitaker discloses a rehabilitation and mobility improvement apparatus for a single hand with a base, a handle, a plurality of roller devices, and a strap device. Whereas Howard discloses a base section for each hand of a user, each first base section and second base section with a handle. It would be obvious to also add another strap device and strap retention slots to the second base section of Howard, like that of the first base section, for the same reason of more securely connecting a user’s hand with the second base section. See MPEP 2144.04.VI (Reversal, Duplication, or Rearrangement of Parts). In light of this duplicated modification for the second base section of Howard, the second strap of the claimed invention is also taught.
Regarding claim 12, Howard, in view of Whitaker, teaches the exercise apparatus of claim 11, wherein the connecting mechanism is a snap-fit mechanism (Howard; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the connecting rods 112 and the receptacles 114 of Howard shows the snap-fit mechanism of the claimed invention. See paragraph 0019 and FIGS. 1B, 1C, and 1D).
Regarding claim 13, Howard, in view of Whitaker, teaches the exercise apparatus of claim 11, wherein the connecting mechanism comprises one or more flexible protruding tabs (Howard, juxtaposing edge regions 109, paragraph 0019) and one or more recesses (Howard, see annotated FIG. 1D above in claim 3; The grooves of which each of the edge regions fills shows the one or more recesses of the claimed invention); wherein the one or more protruding tabs of the first base section are received in the one or more recesses of the second base section (Howard, see FIG. 1D above in claim 3); and wherein one or more protruding tabs of the second base section are received in the one or more recesses of the first base section (Howard, see FIG. 1D above in claim 3).
Regarding claim 14, Howard, in view of Whitaker, teaches the exercise apparatus of claim 11, wherein the first strap extends through a pair of slots in the flat base securing the first strap to the first base section (In light of the modification made in claim 1 by Whitaker, the pair of slots of the claimed invention is taught by the strap retention slots of Whitaker. Moreover, the strap retention slots have been integrated into the first base section of Howard, thereby teaching the pair of slots in the flat base securing the first strap to the first base section of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 15, Howard, in view of Whitaker, teaches the exercise apparatus of claim 11, wherein the second strap extends through a pair of slots in the flat base securing the second strap to the second base section (In light of the modification made in claim 1 by Whitaker, the strap device and the strap retention slots were duplicated with the second base section of Howard, thereby teaching the second strap extends through a pair of slots in the flat base securing the second strap to the second base section).
Regarding claim 16, Howard, in view of Whitaker, teaches the exercise apparatus of claim 11, wherein the first and second straps are made of a hook and loop fastener (Whitaker, “Strap device 50 further defines a conventional strap device comprising a VELCRO strap 52 connected to a preferably plastic buckle 54”, paragraph 0018; The Velcro strap 52 teaches the hook and loop fastener of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 17, Howard shows an exercise apparatus (Howard, device 100, paragraph 0016) comprising: a base (Howard, separate base sections 104, 106, paragraph 0016) having a top surface and an opposing bottom surface (Howard, see annotated FIG. 1D), the flat base comprising: a first base section (Howard, first base section 104) having a first indentation on the top surface (Howard, “each of the first and second base sections 104 and 106 can include a surface region, an indentation, or a glove-like structure for receiving a palm and/or fingers of a user, to enable the user to use the device with their palms flat on the first base section 104 and/or second base section 106. In this alternative, the fingers, palm and various muscles of the forearm are worked and exercised than with the handle”, paragraph 0018; The indentation corresponding to the first base section of Howard teaches the first indentation on the top surface of the claimed invention); and a second base section (Howard, second base section 106) having a second indentation on the top surface (Howard, “each of the first and second base sections 104 and 106 can include a surface region, an indentation, or a glove-like structure for receiving a palm and/or fingers of a user, to enable the user to use the device with their palms flat on the first base section 104 and/or second base section 106. In this alternative, the fingers, palm and various muscles of the forearm are worked and exercised than with the handle”, The indentation corresponding to the second base section of Howard teaches the second indentation on the top surface), the second base section detachably secured to the first base section by a connecting mechanism (Howard, “FIG. 1D is a side view of the device 100 to illustrate the separate base sections 104, 106 being connected by their respective connection mechanisms 108”, paragraph 0016; The connection mechanism 108 of Howard shows the connecting mechanism. As noted above in the claim interpretation section, the connecting mechanism of the claimed invention is either one of one or more protruding tabs, one or more recesses, screws, pins, clasps, clamps, buttons, interference fits, flange mechanisms, press-fit systems, tongue and groove mechanisms, snap fit mechanisms, and/or tabs, among others. The connection mechanism 108 of Howard shows the connecting mechanism of the claimed invention being one or more protruding tabs, interface fits, flange mechanisms, tongue and groove mechanisms, and tabs); a plurality of caster assemblies (Howard, “In place of the ball transfers 116, the device 100 may also include casters, i.e. any of a set of wheels or rotating balls mounted in a swivel frame”, paragraph 0022; The casters of Howard teaches the plurality of caster assemblies of the claimed invention) secured to the bottom surface of the flat base (Howard, see annotated FIG. 1D); and wherein the connecting mechanism comprises one or more protruding tabs (Howard, juxtaposing edge regions 109, paragraph 0019) and one or more recesses (Howard, see annotated FIG. 1D above in claim 3; The grooves of which each of the edge regions fills shows the one or more recesses of the claimed invention); wherein the one or more protruding tabs of the first base section are received in the one or more recesses of the second base section (Howard, see FIG. 1D above in claim 3); and wherein one or more protruding tabs of the second base section are received in the one or more recesses of the first base (Howard, see FIG. 1D above in claim 3).
Howard fails to show a first strap secured to the top surface of the first base section; and a second strap secured to the top surface of the second base section.
However, Whitaker, from the same field of endeavor, discloses in paragraphs 0014-0020, “the invention is a rehabilitation and mobility improvement apparatus (RMIA) 10 and method of use for use in providing increased mobility in persons having reduced strength and mobility due to for instance injury or illness, comprising a base 20, a handle 30, a plurality of roller devices 40, and a strap device 50… VELCRO strap 52 of strap device 50 is threaded through strap retention slots 24 of base 20 and removably attached to itself… RMIA 10 is mounted to a user's hand such as by the user grasping knob 34 and by strap device 50 being secured around the user's hand”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Howard to include the strap of device of Whitaker, as well as the strap retention slots of Whitaker, so that the hand of a user is more securely connected around a corresponding handle of Howard. More specifically, it would be obvious to incorporate the retention slots through the base of Howard, with the handle of Howard positioned between the retention slots, so that the strap device of Whitaker is able to engage and secure the hand of a user to the corresponding base section of Whitaker and connect the strap device with the base of Howard. The incorporation of the strap device and the retention slots specifically to the first base section 104 of Howard teaches the first strap of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, Whitaker discloses a rehabilitation and mobility improvement apparatus for a single hand with a base, a handle, a plurality of roller devices, and a strap device. Whereas Howard discloses a base section for each hand of a user, each first base section and second base section with a handle. It would be obvious to also add another strap device and strap retention slots to the second base section of Howard, like that of the first base section, for the same reason of more securely connecting a user’s hand with the second base section. See MPEP 2144.04.VI (Reversal, Duplication, or Rearrangement of Parts). In light of this duplicated modification for the second base section of Howard, the second strap of the claimed invention is also taught.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (PG Patent Publication No. US20110166006A1), in view of Whitaker (PG Patent Publication No. US20170050082A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bahrami (PG Patent Publication No. US20180050232A1).
Howard in view of Whitaker substantially discloses the claimed invention. See above.
Howard discloses in paragraph 0017, “The base 101 can be formed of wood, plastic, polyvinyl carbonate or other synthetic material, carbon fiber, metal or any other rigid material”, Howard and Whitaker fail to teach the flat base is made of high-density polyethylene.
Bahrami, from the same field of endeavor, discloses in paragraph 0006, “the exercise device 100 includes a support ring 101, a bowl 102, and a plurality of wheels 103”. Bahrami also discloses in paragraph 0010, “Ring 101 may be made of any rigid material, such as plastic (ABS, HDPE, LDPE, or similar), metal, or any other suitable rigid material”.
PNG
media_image6.png
393
331
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have specified the material of the base of Howard to specifically be HDPE, as taught by Bahrami, since Howard already discloses the option of the base being made of other rigid materials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J NICOLE LOBERIZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4741. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5:30pm.
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.
/JACQUELINE N L LOBERIZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/LOAN B JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3784