DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits based on the 18/809,264 application filed on 08/19/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The effective filing date of the present application is 03/04/2024. Claims 1-5, as originally filed, are currently pending and considered below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/04/2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “the bottom surface” should be --- a bottom surface thereof ---.
In lines 2-3, “a space for a user to sit and the standing angle and the height of which are adjustable” should be --- a space for a user to sit, and a standing angle and a height which are adjustable ---.
In line 5, “a seated user to hang his or her legs” should be --- the user to be seated and hang his or her legs ---.
In line 9, “the weight of the weight portion” should be --- the plurality of weights of the weight portion ---.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, “a seated user to hang his or her legs” should be --- the user to be seated and hang his or her legs ---.
In claim 1, line 12, “the weight of the weight portion” should be --- the plurality of weights of the weight portion ---.
In claim 1, line 19, “arranged in parallel with the hip seating portion for a user to grip them” should be --- arranged in parallel with the hip seating portion to be configured for gripping by the user ---.
In claim 2, line 11, “the exercise rotation portion, and” should be --- the exercise rotation portion, ---.
In claim 2, line 12, “the seating support portion includes:” should be --- wherein the seating support portion includes: ---.
In claim 2, line 17, “where” should be --- wherein ---.
In claim 3, line 3, “the rotational link” should be --- the plurality of rotational links ---.
In claim 3, lines 11-12, “the seating support piece” should be --- the pair of seating support pieces ---.
In claim 4, line 3, “a plurality of weights” should be --- the plurality of weights ---.
In claim 4, lines 5-6, “connected to the weight stacking portion and raising and lowering the weight stacking portion based on the movement of the weight delivering portion” should be --- connected to the weight stacking portion, wherein raising and lowering the weight stacking portion is based on movement of the weight delivering portion ---.
In claim 4, line 14, “the guide roller includes:” should be --- wherein the guide roller includes: ---.
In claim 4, line 22, “the weight delivering portion includes:” should be --- wherein the weight delivering portion includes: ---.
In claim 4, line 26, “the delivering control plate includes:” should be --- wherein the delivering control plate includes: ---.
In claim 5, line 10, “where a resting portion, on which a user's legs can rest” should be --- wherein a resting portion, on which the user's legs can rest ---.
In claim 5, line 12, “the connection rotation axis includes:” should be --- wherein the connection rotation axis includes: ---.
In claim 5, line 22, “the exercise control plate includes:” should be --- wherein the exercise control plate includes: ---.
In claim 5, line 26, “the exercise connection portion includes:” should be --- wherein the exercise connection portion includes: ---.
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) is/are:
In claim 1, lines 5-7: “an exercise rotation portion connected to the frame portion, disposed adjacent to the seating portion to provide a space for a seated user to hang his or her legs, and rotated by an external force applied by the user.” Emphasis added.
In claim 1, lines 10-12: “a weight delivering portion connected to the frame portion, connecting the exercise rotation portion and the weight portion, and linked to the rotation of the exercise rotation portion to raise and lower the weight of the weight portion.” Emphasis added.
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 (see MPEP § 2183).
Such corresponding structure is/are:
Regarding the exercise rotation portion, in the specification, as originally filed, page 9, line 20, through page 11, line 6, and Figures 6 and 8: the exercise rotation portion comprising:
a connection rotation axis formed in concentric multi-stages and including a bending selection portion disposed parallel to a first fan-shaped portion formed in a fan shape, and an interlocking button portion inserted into one of a plurality of first through holes of the first fan-shaped portion;
an interlocking bar connected perpendicularly to the connection rotation axis;
an adjustment rotation axis rotatably connected to an end of the interlocking bar;
an exercise control plate formed at another end of the interlocking bar and including a second fan-shaped portion formed in a fan shape, and a plurality of second through holes penetrating the second fan-shaped portion and spaced apart from each other along an arc shape; and
an exercise connection portion connected to the adjustment rotation axis, and configured to provide a space where a resting portion, on which a user's legs can rest, is mounted, and may be detachably connected to the exercise control plate.
Regarding the weight delivering portion, in the specification, as originally filed, page 12, line 19, through page 13, line 13, and Figure 8: the weight delivering portion comprising:
a delivering rotation axis rotatably connected to the delivering support portion of the frame portion; and
a delivering control plate connected to and interlocked with the delivering rotation axis and rotatable by the wire connected to the weight stacking portion, wherein the delivering control plate includes:
the first fan-shaped portion formed in the fan shape (refer to the corresponding structure of the exercise rotation portion, see item number 1 immediately above);
the plurality of first through holes (refer to the corresponding structure of the exercise rotation portion, see item number 1 immediately above);
a wire fixing portion formed on one side of the first fan-shaped portion to fix the wire; and
a wire guide portion to prevent the wire from being separated from the first fan-shaped portion when the wire is wound or unwound along an outer peripheral surface of the first fan-shaped portion.
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 § 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 1-5 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 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the bottom surface and standing upright” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a bottom surface thereof and standing upright ---.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a space for a user to sit and the standing angle and the height of which are adjustable” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the standing angle” and “the height” in this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a space for a user to sit, and a standing angle and a height which are adjustable ---.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the buttocks of a seated user” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- buttocks of the user while seated ---.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the back of a seated user” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a back of the user while seated ---.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the angle of the back seating portion” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- an angle of the back seating portion ---.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “both sides of the hip seating portion” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- opposing sides of the hip seating portion ---.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the rear of the seating portion” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a rear of the seating portion ---.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the first point of the pair of seating support pieces” in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a first point of the pair of seating support pieces ---.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the space between the pair of seating support pieces” in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a space between the pair of seating support pieces ---.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the height of the pair of bending support pieces” in lines 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a height of the pair of bending support pieces ---.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the other end” in lines 20-21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- another end ---.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the second point of the seating support piece” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a second point of the pair of seating support pieces ---.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the third point of the seating support piece and the first point of the angle adjusting plate” in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a third point of the pair of seating support pieces and a first point of the angle adjusting plate ---.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the other side” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- another side ---.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the upper side within the weight accommodating portion” in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- an upper side within the weight accommodating portion ---.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the same line as the weight mediating portion” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a same line as the weight mediating portion ---.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the outer peripheral surface of the first fan-shaped portion” in line 33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- an outer peripheral surface of the first fan-shaped portion ---.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the outer peripheral surface of the delivering rotation axis” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- an outer peripheral surface of the delivering rotation axis ---.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the end of the interlocking bar” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- an end of the interlocking bar ---.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claims 1-4, the limitation “an exercise control plate formed at the end of the interlocking bar” is recited in line 8. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether or not “the end of the interlocking bar” is the same as, different from, in addition to, and/or part of “the end of the interlocking bar” to which the adjustment rotation axis is rotatably connected, as recited in claim 5, line 7. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- an exercise control plate formed at another end of the interlocking bar ---.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “both ends” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- opposing ends ---. Refer to Figures 6 and 8.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claims 1-4, the limitations “an interlocking button portion formed at the end of the bending selection portion, inserted into one of the plurality of first through holes and then released from the through hole by an applied external force, and returned to be inserted into an opposing through hole when the applied external force is released” are recited in lines 15-18. The limitations render the claim indefinite because it is unclear:
at which of the “both ends” (claim 5, lines 13-14) of the bending selection portion the interlocking button portion is formed (claim 5, line 15);
whether or not “the through hole” (claim 5, line 16) is the same as, different from, in addition to, and/or part of “one of the plurality of first through holes” (claim 5, line 16); and
whether or not “an opposing through hole” (claim 5, line 17) is the same as, different from, in addition to, and/or part of “one of the plurality of first through holes” and/or “the through hole” (claim 5, line 16).
Applicant is suggested to amend the limitations to --- an interlocking button portion formed at one of the opposing ends of the bending selection portion, inserted into one of the plurality of first through holes and then released from the one of the plurality of first through holes by an applied external force, and returned to be inserted into a different one of the plurality of first through holes when the applied external force is released ---. Refer to Figures 6 and 8. Refer as well to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 5, line 14, see above.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the position at which the exercise button portion is connected to the second fan-shaped portion” in lines 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a position at which the exercise button portion is connected to the second fan-shaped portion ---.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the angle between the bottom surface and the interlocking bar changes” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- an angle between the bottom surface and the interlocking bar changes ---.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the resting portion’s height from the bottom surface” in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a height of the resting from the bottom surface ---.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “both ends” in line 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- opposing ends ---. Refer to Figure 6.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claims 1-4, the limitations “an exercise button portion formed at the end of the exercise selection portion, inserted into any one of the plurality of second through holes and then released from the through hole by an applied external force, and returned to be inserted into an opposing through hole when the applied external force is released” are recited in lines 29-32. The limitations render the claim indefinite because it is unclear:
at which of the “both ends” (claim 5, lines 27-28) of the exercise selection portion the exercise button portion is formed (claim 5, line 15);
whether or not “the through hole” (claim 5, line 30) is the same as, different from, in addition to, and/or part of “any one of the plurality of second through holes” (claim 5, line 30);
whether or not “an opposing through hole” (claim 5, line 31) is the same as, different from, in addition to, and/or part of “any one of the plurality of second through holes” and/or “the through hole” (claim 5, line 30); and
“an applied external force” (claim 5, line 31) and “the applied external force” (claim 5, line 32) is/are the same as, different from, in addition to, and/or part of “an applied external force” (claim 5, line 17) and “the applied external force” (claim 5, line 18).
Applicant is suggested to amend the limitations to --- an exercise button portion formed at one of the opposing ends of the exercise selection portion, inserted into any one of the plurality of second through holes and then released from the one of the plurality of second through holes by a second applied external force, and returned to be inserted into a different one of the plurality of second through holes when the second applied external force is released ---. Refer to Figure 6. Refer as well to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 5, line 28, see above.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the position at which the exercise button portion is connected to the second fan-shaped portion” in lines 33-34. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a position at which the exercise button portion is connected to the second fan-shaped portion ---.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the distance between the resting portion and the seating portion is changed” in lines 34-35. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- a distance between the resting portion and the seating portion is changed ---.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record (Hao (CN 117046046 A); Eriksson (WO 2005089881 A1); Ellis (US 6,719,672; US 6,558,303); Jones (US 5,499,962; US 5,338,274)), alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious a leg extension machine in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed in claim 1 and further including:
an exercise rotation portion and a weight delivery portion, as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), see above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY D URBIEL GOLDNER whose telephone number is (313)446-6554. The examiner can normally be reached between 9AM and 5PM, Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
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 B 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. Visit https://patentcenter.uspto.gov to file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. For information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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.
/GARY D URBIEL GOLDNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784