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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “pull rope with a hand grip” in claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “a foot” in line 1, needs to be changed to “each foot of a user”,
the term “comprising” in line 2, needs to be changed to “comprising:”,
the phrase “at least one leaf spring” in line 7, needs to be changed to “at least one projecting leaf spring” (please note that there are two instances where such phrase is recited in line 7, and therefore, both instances have to be corrected), and
the phrase “the leaf spring/s” in line 9, needs to be changed to “the at least one projecting leaf spring”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “said other end” in line 2, needs to be changed to “said other end of the at least one projecting leaf”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “can be adjusted by means of” in line 2, needs to be changed to “is adjustable by”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “at least one leaf spring” in line 3, needs to be changed to “at least one projecting leaf spring”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “mounted in a center of the cross bar on the at least one leaf spring” in line 3, needs to be changed to “mounted at its center on the at least one projecting leaf spring”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “each leaf spring in a position of rest extends” in line 2, needs to be changed to “each projecting leaf spring of the at least one projecting leaf spring in a rest position, extends”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “each leaf spring in a position of rest” in line 2, needs to be changed to “each projecting leaf spring of the at least one projecting leaf spring in a rest position,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “each leaf spring” in line 2, needs to be changed to “each projecting leaf spring of the at least one projecting leaf spring”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “each auxiliary leaf spring” in line 2, needs to be changed to “each auxiliary leaf spring of the at least one auxiliary leaf spring”, and
the phrase “with an other end on the respective leaf spring” in line 3, needs to be changed to “with another end on the respective projecting leaf spring of the at least one projecting leaf spring”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “engages on” in each of lines 3 and 4, needs to be changed to “engages”, and
the phrase “the underside of the respective leaf spring” in lines 4-5, needs to be changed to “an underside of the respective projecting leaf spring of the at least one projecting leaf spring”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “engages on” in each of lines 4 and 5, needs to be changed to “engages”,
the phrase “or on” in each of lines 4 and 5, needs to be changed to “or”, and
the phrase “the underside of the respective leaf spring” in line 5, needs to be changed to “an underside of the respective projecting leaf spring of the at least one projecting leaf spring”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “each leaf spring in the position of rest” in lines 1-2, needs to be changed to “each projecting leaf spring of the at least one projecting leaf spring in the rest position”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “each leaf spring in the position of rest” in lines 1-2, needs to be changed to “each projecting leaf spring of the at least one projecting leaf spring in the rest position”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “each leaf spring in the position of rest” in lines 1-2, needs to be changed to “each projecting leaf spring of the at least one projecting leaf spring in the rest position”.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason. Claim 6 recites: “wherein two leaf springs are provided extending in parallel next to another”, while claim 1, upon which claim 6 depends, recites: “at least one projecting leaf spring”. However, it is unclear whether “two leaf springs” recited in claim 6, are part of or in addition to the “at least one projecting leaf spring” recited in claim 1. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested. In the case that “two leaf springs” recited in claim 6, are part of the “at least one projecting leaf spring” recited in claim 1, applicant is advised to amend claim 6 to recite: “wherein the at least one projecting leaf spring comprises two projecting leaf springs extending in parallel next to one another”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections and 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 1, the prior art references of record fail to disclose, teach or render obvious a device for training muscles of a sole of each foot of a user, with all the structural components and functional limitations comprising: a base, an upper face of which provides a standing surface for both soles of the feet from heels to balls of the feet, and a toe support, which is movably arranged on the base adjacent to a ball region of the standing surface, wherein the toe support is arranged at one end of at least one projecting leaf spring, the other end of which is secured to the base, wherein, in a central region of the at least one projecting leaf spring, the at least one projecting leaf spring is supported on a support slide which is mounted on the base in a manner adjustable in longitudinal direction of the at least one projecting leaf spring.
With respect to claim 1, one close prior art, Sasaki et al. (JP 2022011573 A), teaches a device for training muscles of a sole of a foot comprising a base (2), an upper face of which provides a standing surface for soles of the feet from heels to balls of the foot (2a-2c, Figs. 9, 13 and 18A-18B), and a toe support (3), which is movably arranged on the base adjacent to a ball region of the standing surface (Figs. 18A-18C), wherein the toe support is arranged at one end of at least one projecting leaf spring (45), the other end of which is secured to the base (Figs. 18A-18C). However, Sasaki is silent about wherein, in a central region of the at least one projecting leaf spring, the at least one projecting leaf spring is supported on a support slide which is mounted on the base in a manner adjustable in longitudinal direction of the at least one projecting leaf spring.
With respect to claim 1, another close prior art, Drago (US 5,413,543), teaches a device for training muscles of a sole of a foot comprising a base (20), an upper face of which provides a standing surface (i.e., at 56 or 58, Figs. 1-2 and 6) for a sole of a foot from heel to ball of the foot, and a toe support (77), which is movably arranged on the base adjacent to a ball region of the standing surface (Figs. 2, 7 and 12), wherein the toe support is arranged at one end of at least one projecting spring, the other end of which is secured to the base (Figs. 1-2, 7 and 12). However, Drago is silent about the upper face of the standing surface supporting both soles of the feet from heels to balls of the feet, the at least one projecting spring being a leaf spring, and wherein, in a central region of the at least one projecting leaf spring, the at least one projecting leaf spring is supported on a support slide which is mounted on the base in a manner adjustable in longitudinal direction of the at least one projecting leaf spring.
With respect to claim 1, another pertinent prior art, Townsend (US 2019/0076696 A1) teaches a device for training muscles of a sole of a foot comprising: a base (216 with 245, 260 and 270), an upper face of which provides a standing surface for both soles of the feet from heels to toes of the feet (260A-260B and 245A-245B, Figs. 5-7), wherein the upper face (i.e., at 545) is arranged at one end of at least one projecting leaf spring (i.e., 591, Figs. 13-14), the other end of which is secured to a lower face of the base (516, Figs. 13-14), wherein, in a central region of the at least one projecting leaf spring (591), the at least one projecting leaf spring is supported on a support slide (596 with 595A-595B) which is mounted on the base in a manner adjustable in longitudinal direction of the at least one projecting leaf spring (¶ [77]). However, Townsend is silent about the standing surface supporting soles of the feet from heels to balls of the feet, a toe support being movably arranged o the base adjacent a ball region of the standing surface, wherein the toe support is arranged at one end of the at least one projecting leaf spring.
Furthermore, due to specific device configuration of each of Sasaki, Drago and Townsend, it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify either of Sasaki or Drago with features of Townsend (or vice versa) without introducing hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 pm.
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.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights