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 August 1, 2024, December 9, 2025, and August 5, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “th” appears on line 8. 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 3, 5-6, and 8-15 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the gripping tool includes one of a rubber, a polymer, an elastomer, and a plastic” on lines 1-2. However, applicant has not written in the Markush claim format to properly limit the metes and bounds of the limitation— see MPEP 2173.05(h).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the top of the spherical side" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 depends from claim 5, which has a 112(b) issue. Therefore, claim 6 has the same 112(b) defect.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the interior" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the instrument grip" in line 7. It is unclear if this recitation refers to the first or second instrument grip. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10-13 and 15 depend from claim 9, which has a 112(b) issue. Therefore, claims 10-13 and 15 have the same 112(b) defect.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the interior" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 depends from claim 13, which depends from claim 9. Claim 9 has a 112(b) issue, and therefore, claim 14 has the same 112(b) defect.
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.
Claims 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oberg et al (US 8,251,416).
As to claim 16, Oberg et al discloses a gripping tool wedge system, as illustrated in Figures 1-4, comprising a first connecting node (30); a second connecting node (28); and a wedge (12).
With claim 17, the wedge is cylindrical, wherein the wedge includes a first port (24) adapted for receiving the first connecting node and the second port (24) adapted for receiving the second connecting node, and wherein the first port and the second port are at opposite ends of the cylinder.
With claim 20, the first connecting node and the second connecting node are threaded (32) (sockets 24 are internally threaded to accept external threads formed on the shanks of hook members 28 and 30 – see col. 2, lines 51-52 and Figure 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amazon.com- Yes4All Adjustable Kettlebell Set (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0855H4ZCR/?th=1) in view of Amazon.com - Yes4All Powder Coated Kettlebell (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XRBBB5V?ref=emc_p_m_5_i_atc&th=1).
As to claim 1, Amazon.com - Yes4All Adjustable Kettlebell Set discloses a gripping tool (see annotated left picture below) comprising a first instrument grip, wherein the first instrument grip is substantially torical, wherein the first instrument grip includes a first instrument channel through the first instrument grip, a digit grip and, a second instrument grip, wherein the second instrument grip is hemispherical, and wherein the second instrument grip includes a second instrument channel (insertion area for the digit grip). Amazon.com - Yes4All Powder Coated Kettlebell teaches a kettlebell having a grip that is torical (see annotated right picture below).
Thus, the manner of enhancing a particular device (kettlebell) was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Amazon.com - Yes4All Powder Coated Kettlebell. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art first instrument grip of Amazon - Yes4All Adjustable Kettlebell Set and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that constructing the first instrument grip to have a torical shape in Amazon.com - Yes4All Adjustable Kettlebell Set would
provide a comfortable and secure grip, allowing for easy handling during exercises.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
447
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
609
475
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With claim 2, it is best interpreted that the first instrument grip, the digit grip, and the second instrument grip are unitary.
With claim 4, the first instrument grip is connected to the digit grip, and the digit grip is connected to the second instrument grip.
With claim 7, the first instrument channel forms an enclosed tubular shape.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amazon.com- Yes4All Adjustable Kettlebell Set (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0855H4ZCR/?th=1) in view of Amazon.com - Yes4All Powder Coated Kettlebell (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XRBBB5V?ref=emc_p_m_5_i_atc&th=1) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Amazon Basics Neoprene Dumbbell (https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-Pound-Neoprene-Dumbbells-Weights/dp/B01LR5SEKE/?th=1), as evidenced by “What Is Neoprene and What’s it Used For?” (https://coatingsystems.com/what-is-neoprene/).
Amazon.com- Yes4All Adjustable Kettlebell Set discloses the claimed invention except for the gripping tool to have a rubber material or elastomer. Amazon Basics Neoprene Dumbbell teaches that the grip has a neoprene coating (see page 1). Neoprene coating is considered to be synthetic rubber and a type of elastomer as evidenced by “What Is Neoprene and What’s it Used For?” (see pages 1-2).
Thus, the manner of enhancing a particular device (kettlebell) was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Amazon Basics Neoprene Dumbbell. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art of Amazon.com- Yes4All Adjustable Kettlebell Set and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that providing a neoprene coating on the second instrument grip of the kettlebell in Amazon.com- Yes4All Adjustable Kettlebell Set would protect the surface of the second instrument grip in the event that the user accidentally drops the kettlebell to the ground.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberg et al (US 8,251,416) in view of Lin et al (US 2021/0316425).
Oberg et al discloses the claimed invention except for the first connecting node and the second connecting node are cubic.
Lin et al teaches a prior art sleeve tool (10) having a joint (111) that is cubic to fit within socket (112) (see Figures 1-4).
Thus, the manner of enhancing a particular device was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Lin et al. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art of Oberg et al and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized modifying the ports (24) from a threaded socket to a cubic socket and the first and second connecting nodes (28,30) from threaded to a cubic shape for interlocking with the wedge in Oberg et al would positively a quick snap adjustable connection.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberg et al (US 8,251,416) in view of Flores-Garay et al (US 2011/0086714).
Oberg et al discloses the claimed invention except for the first connecting node and the second connecting node are bulbous.
Flores-Garay et al teaches a joint connection comprising a shaft (24) having a bulbous shape (34) with a plurality of balls (38) for insertion into the socket (28) with grooves (30) of joint (20) (see Figures 1-4).
Thus, the manner of enhancing a particular device was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Flores-Garay et al. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art of Oberg et al and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized modifying the ports (24) from a threaded socket to a tubular socket with grooves and the first and second connecting nodes (28,30) from threaded to a bulbous shape with a plurality of balls for interlocking with the wedge in Oberg et al would reduce noise and vibration.
Double Patenting
40. Claims 9-15 of this application are patentably indistinct from claims 11-14 and 17-19 of Application No. 18/509669. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
41. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit
www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
42. Claims 1 and 4-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 15-17 of copending Application No. 18/509669 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the referenced copending Application No. 18/509669 and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: a gripping tool comprising a first instrument grip, a second instrument grip, and a wedge connecting to the first and second instrument grips.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 am - 3:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
STEPHEN VU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/STEPHEN A VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
