Detailed Action
This is the Final Rejection based on application 18/799,239 filed on 08/29/2024, and which claims as amended on 07/22/2026 have been considered in the ensuing 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made to the instant application’s claim for priority to provisional application 63/531,894, and as such the earliest date of priority of 08/10/2023 is granted to the instant application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments have been sufficient to overcome the original drawing objections, claim objections, and rejections under 35 USC 112(b) present in the Non-Final Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 3, “each panel” should be –each panel of the plurality of panels--.
On line 6, “each of the plurality of panels” should be – each panel of the plurality of panels--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 18
invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,5-6,13-14,16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schneider DE 102005063225 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
Schneider discloses a campus board climbing assembly comprising: a plurality of panels (Handle support surfaces 2), each panel having a front surface (rectangular functional surface 4), a rear surface (See annotated figure 2, where the examiner notes since the panels are a 3-dimensional object they inherently include a back surface), a first side surface (The examiner notes that the handle support surfaces are stated as having lateral edges in paragraph [0033] of the translated description, which are side surfaces and since they are 3-dimensional panels they inherently include a first side surface), and a second side surface (The examiner notes that the handle support surfaces are stated as having lateral edges in paragraph [0033] of the translated description, which are side surfaces and since they are 3-dimensional panels they inherently include a first side surface), wherein the plurality of panels are stacked vertically such that the front surfaces together form a climbing surface (See figure 1); a first side pane and a second side pane (Profile rails 6. The examiner notes that the definition of a pane as provided by Meriam-Webster dictionary is “a piece, section, or side of something” and therefore the side profile rails 6 are being considered panes.), wherein each of the plurality of panels is slidably connected to the first and second side panes (“In a further embodiment of the invention, it is provided that the handle support surfaces are individually or synchronously adjustable, in particular pivotably movable and/or slidably attached to the profile rails.” See paragraph [0014] of the translated description. The examiner notes that the grooves 23 which are part of the side panes 6, allow the handle support surfaces to slide up and down the lengths of the panes to adjust their position.); and an adjustment system configured to move the plurality of panels about the slidable connection between each of the plurality of panels and the first and second side panes between at least: a first position, in which the front surfaces of the panels form a continuous climbing surface (The examiner notes that the handle support surfaces/panels of Schneider can be oriented either to be flat as shown in figure 1 at the bottom, for either storage or a continuous walled climbing surface), and a second position, in which the front surfaces of the panels form a stepped climbing surface (The examiner notes that page 1 of the specification of the instant application defines a stepped configuration as “the panels near the top of the campus board climbing assembly extend further forward than the panels near the bottom of the campus board climbing assembly.” Therefore as shown in figures 1 and 2 of Schneider the user can angle/orient the panels to create a stepped climbing surface where the top panels extend further forward than the bottom panels. See figures 1 and 2); wherein the adjustment system comprises one or more adjustable frames (triangular chamfers 15 which include semi-circular slots 18, which are shown in detail in figure 2), each adjustable frame being configured (i) to rotate or pivot forward (“The lower grip support surfaces 2a can be moved from a rest position parallel to the profile rail 6 in a clockwise direction to a substantially vertically aligned functional position by a pivoting movement about a pivot axis 11, as shown in Fig. 2.” See paragraph [0034]), causing the plurality of panels to slide in a forward direction, and (ii) to rotate or pivot rearward, causing the plurality of panels to slide in a rearward direction (“The upper handle support surface 2b, on the other hand, can be moved from the illustrated rest position, aligned parallel to the profile rail 6, counterclockwise as shown in Fig. 2 into a substantially horizontal or horizontally oriented functional position.” See paragraph [0034].).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
690
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2:
The campus board climbing assembly of claim 1, in which the adjustment system is configured to move the plurality of panels to a plurality of different positions in which the front surfaces of the panels form a stepped climbing surface (The examiner notes that as stated above in the rejection of claim 1, that page 1 of the specification of the instant application defines a stepped configuration as “the panels near the top of the campus board climbing assembly extend further forward than the panels near the bottom of the campus board climbing assembly.” Therefore as shown in figures 1 and 2 of Schneider the user can angle/orient the panels to create a stepped climbing surface where the top panels extend further forward than the bottom panels. See figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 3:
Schneider as modified discloses the campus board climbing assembly of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of panels is slidably connected to the first and second side panes (See rejection of claim 1) by a combination of a guide rail (Groove 23) and an element that travels along the guide rail (Locking levers 10).
Regarding claim 5:
Schneider discloses the campus board climbing assembly of claim 1,wherein the one or more adjustable frames are positioned behind the plurality of panels and between the first and second side panes (The examiner notes that as depicted in figure 1 the adjustable frame of the triangular chamfers 15 are behind each panel and in between the profile rails/panes).
Regarding claim 6:
The campus board climbing assembly of claim 1,wherein the adjustment system further comprises one or more actuators configured to bring about the rotation or pivoting of the one or more adjustable frames (“In a further embodiment of the invention, it is provided that at least one handle support surface and/or at least one pivot joint and/or at least one support strut is assigned an adjustment device, which is in particular electrically operable. The adjustment device can, for example, be designed as an electrically driven geared motor and act directly on the swivel joint to adjust an angle between the profile rails and the support arms, or directly on at least one grip support surface to set an angular position relative to the profile rail.” See paragraph [0027] of the translated description. The examiner notes that an electrically driven geared motor is an actuator).
Regarding claim 13:
Schneider as modified discloses the campus board climbing assembly of claim 1, wherein the adjustment system is configured to be operated automatically (“In a further embodiment of the invention, it is provided that at least one handle support surface and/or at least one pivot joint and/or at least one support strut is assigned an adjustment device, which is in particular electrically operable. The adjustment device can, for example, be designed as an electrically driven geared motor and act directly on the swivel joint to adjust an angle between the profile rails and the support arms, or directly on at least one grip support surface to set an angular position relative to the profile rail.” See paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 14:
Schneider as modified discloses the campus board climbing assembly of claim 1, wherein the adjustment system is configured to be operated manually (“The adjustment of the handle carrying surfaces can be provided in particular by means of clamping levers that can be operated manually by the user and that ensure a reliable fixing of the handle carrying surfaces.” See paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 16:
Schneider as modified discloses the campus board climbing assembly of claim 1, in which the front surface of one or more of the plurality panels, and optionally the front surfaces of each of the plurality of panels, comprises at least one grip (The examiner notes that it appears like the claim language is merely claiming that one, some, or all of the front surfaces of the panels comprise at least one grip, which paragraph [0033] of the translated description discusses that the handle support surfaces include a rectangular functional surface with a plurality of receiving device through holes, which enable the use of handle adapted elements 5 which are grips).
Regarding claim 18:
Schneider as modified discloses the campus board climbing assembly of claim 1, in which the front surface of one or more of the panels, and optionally the front surfaces of each of the plurality of panels, comprises one or more apertures configured to receive a user-held peg (The examiner notes that it appears like the claim language is merely claiming that one, some, or all of the front surfaces of the panels comprise apertures configured to receive a user-held peg, which paragraph [0033] of the translated description states, “The handle support surfaces 2 are manufactured as essentially flat, edge-folded sheet metal panels made of aluminum or steel sheet and have on a rectangular functional surface 4 a multitude of schematically illustrated receiving devices 13 designed as through holes, which enable the screwing on of not shown, prefabricated or individually adapted handle elements 5., which since the user held pegs have not been positively recited, only as the functionality of the apertures, the apertures of Schneider could receive a user held peg since they are configured to accept handle elements as stated).
Regarding claim 20:
Schneider as modified discloses the campus board climbing assembly of claim 1, in which the climbing surface has a first incline angle when in the first position and a second incline angle when in the second position (“In a further embodiment of the invention, it is provided that the support strut is attached to the profile rail and/or to the support arm in a sliding and/or pivoting manner for an angle adjustment between the profile rail and the support arm. This allows the inclination of the profile rails relative to the support arms to be easily changed, thus simulating different climbing situations on walls with varying degrees of overhang.” See paragraph [0016]), the second incline angle being greater than the first incline angle (“The angle between the profile rail and the support arm is designed to have an angle range of 0 degrees to 55 degrees, preferably from 0 degrees to 75 degrees. At an angle of 0 degrees, the support arm is compactly positioned against the profile rail and aligned parallel to it. At low angles, the grip surfaces simulate a strongly overhanging wall section, while at higher angles a smaller overhang is simulated.” See paragraph [0017] with the examiner noting that 0 would be the smallest first angle the assembly can be set-up with, and 75 being the highest second incline angle it can have.).
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider DE 102005063225 A1 and further in view of Sweeney et al. US 20220016505 A1.
Schneider teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 15:
Schneider teaches the campus board climbing assembly of claim 14, but fails to teach wherein the adjustment system is configured to be operated by a hand crank.
Sweeny, however, teaches an adjustable-incline climbing wall comprising a climbing surface and a system for adjusting the climbing surface to a desired incline (See abstract), and further teaches wherein the adjustment system is configured to be operated by a hand crank (hand crank 54, with paragraph [0059] stating, “At least one of the first and second jacks, and optionally both, may either comprise a hand crank 54 or be configured to receive a hand crank. Using the hand crank 54, a user may move the climbing surface 13 within the permitted range of angles”.)
PNG
media_image3.png
528
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the climbing assembly of Schneider to use a hand crank to operate the adjustment system as taught by Sweeney, since Schneider already allows for manual adjustment of both the overall incline of the climbing wall, and manual adjustment of each individual panel through the use of locking pins, levers, and sliding joints so the hand crank would allow for precise control over the incline adjustment of the wall and would remove the need for locking pins and levers to be manually actuated by the user to hold the wall in place once adjusted to their needs.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider DE 102005063225 A1, and further in view of Speed US 12036461 B2.
Schneider teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 17:
Schneider discloses the campus board climbing assembly of claim 16, in which the at least one grip comprises a rung.
Speed, however, teaches systems and methods for providing climbing walls including a climbing wall that has a base member and a climbing surface that includes at least one climbing hold (See abstract) and further teaches where at least one grip comprises a rung (“Moreover, in some embodiments, the sizing of the holds 200 is carefully optimized for a wide range of climbers. Moreover, in some embodiments, one or more portions of the climbing holds (or flow holds) are symmetrical and/or are otherwise shaped for uses as a natural “pull-down” holds, like a ladder rung.” See col. 31 lines 40-45”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the climbing grips of Schneider to include a rung as taught by Speed, as Schneider is already configured to accept various climbing holds, and a rung increases the variety of climbing exercises/movements/ the user can execute while training with the climbing assembly.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider DE 102005063225 A1 and further in view of Pons ES 2645917 B1.
Regarding claim 19:
Schneider teaches the campus board climbing assembly of claim 1, but fails to teach in which the first and second side panes are mounted to a support wall, such that the campus board climbing assembly is elevated above a ground surface.
Pons, however, teaches a tread campus board (1) to perform the exercises that are done on a campus board, but indefinitely, without having to jump or descend, thanks to a chain conveyor system (See abstract), and further teaches wherein the first and second side panes (side plates 6) are mounted to a support wall (incline wall 7), such that the campus board climbing assembly is elevated above a ground surface (See figure 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
332
382
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify the system of Schneider to mount the side panes to a support wall as taught by Pons, instead of solely relying on the frame members as the support wall provides a more rigid support structure, and the frame could still be used to provide the incline adjustments as well as allow the panels to move in the slidable connections as discussed above in claim 1, since if the frame itself is on the support wall the panels would still be free to move according to the user’s needs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the argument’s with respect to the rejection presented under 35 USC 102(a)(1) in view of the Schneider reference, the examiner respectfully disagrees and due to the subject matter of dependent claim 4 which was also rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1), the rejection has been maintained above. In regards to the rejection of the sliding/slidable connection of the instant application, the examiner notes that as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, and depicted in figure 2 Schneider the locking pins both slide in the grooves 23 which allow the panels to be moved along the frame as the applicant mentions, which would still satisfy movement between first and second positions, but also when the pin is removed allow the panels to pivot due to the semi-circular slots 18 in each triangular chamfer 15 which change the angle of the panels along said groove and would create the flat or stepped configurations claimed.
Furthermore, with respect to the arguments regarding the triangular chamfer 15 being both the side surface of the panel, and the adjustment system, the examiner notes that as stated in the rejection above, the chamfers are solely pointed to in regards to the adjustment system, however, the 3-dimensional shape of the panels themselves as described in paragraph [0033] of Schneider which include lateral edges, even if they are thin and not a full panel or with a large thickness, are the first and second side surfaces, which are attached to the chamfers 15.
In addition, with respect to the adjustment of the panels both forwards and backwards, and pivoting around the pivot axis 11, the examiner notes that as depicted in the figures of Schneider the frame holding each panels elevated above the ground is at an angle, and therefore when the panels are slid along the grooves 23 they move both upwards and forwards, and downwards and backwards relative to the front or rear of the frame, as well as the semicircular slot 18 allowing the panels to rotate/pivot around axis 11 to change the angle of the front face of the panels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are allowable over the closest prior art of record, however, please see the claim objections regarding minor informalities above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to teach or disclose the campus board climbing assembly of independent claim 7 including wherein the adjustment system comprises a lever assembly configured (i) to pivot forward, causing the plurality of panels to move in a forward direction, and (ii) to pivot rearward, causing the plurality of panels to move in a rearward direction; and wherein the adjustment system further comprises one or more actuators configured to bring about the pivoting of the lever assembly, and in regards to dependent claim 8 the closest prior art of record fails to teach, wherein the pivot point for the lever assembly is located at or near the bottommost of the plurality of panels, such that the upper portion of the lever assembly is pivoted forward a greater distance than the lower portion of the lever assembly to bring about the stepped climbing surface.
The closest prior art of record includes Schneider DE 102005063225 A, Sudeith et al US 20200171369 A1, and Speed US 12036461 B1.
The closest prior art references of record have been discussed fully in the previous Non-Final Action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN ANGELO DICUIA whose telephone number is (703)756-4713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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 on (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.
/JONATHAN A DICUIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
