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 .
Claims 1-7 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The present disclosure relates to,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,”. This phrase should be removed.
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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example:
As to Claim 1:
Claim 1, Paragraph 1 does not make it clear whether or not the dumbbell plate body has a groove and a protrusion on opposing sides, but the remainder of the claims appears to imply such an arrangement. Examiner suggests amending the claim to have a radial protrusion located on a first side of the plate body and a radial groove located on a second, opposing side of the plate body.
It is not clear how the radial groove and protrusion are “matched” or how the blocking places are arranged on an outer end surface. Examiner suggests clarifying the structure of these features by defining the inner periphery of the radial groove and the outer periphery of the radial protrusion in terms of the blocking plates and corresponding insertion grooves.
It is not clear what “at groove end” and “at protrusion end” are intending to set forth. It appears that these are intended to set forth the first side and the second sides of the plate body, but it is not clear.
It is not clear how the positioning groove located on the side of the protrusion is “facing” the positioning protrusion which is appears to be located on an opposing side of the plate.
As to Claim 3:
There is no antecedent basis for “the at least one side panel”.
As to Claim 4:
It is unclear how a “gap” is “clamped”.
As to Claim 5:
It appears that the inner radial blocking plate is the same as the axial blocking plate of the radial groove.
As to Claim 6:
It appears that the outer radial blocking plate is the same as the axial blocking plate of the protrusion.
Clarification and correction are required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Witzmann et al, McCoy et al, Burwell, Wang, and Jiang all disclose similar dumbbell assemblies having weights that are attachable via lugged/bayonet joints but do not explicitly disclose having a position protrusion extending from a wall into the radial groove and a corresponding radially extending elastic sheet provided on the radial protrusion which comprises a positioning groove to engage the position protrusion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)272-8297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7a-4:30p MST.
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.
/JOSHUA T KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784 11/4/2025