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 .
Status of Claims
This is a FINAL Rejection to Amendments and Arguments filed by Applicant on 05/15/2026. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended. Currently pending for review are Claims 1-8.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections made in the Office Action filed on 02/18/2026. Amendments/Remarks & Arguments filed by Applicant on 05/15/2026 correct the rejection and/or are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections made in the Office Action filed on 02/18/2026 has been withdrawn unless otherwise indicated below.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sarkozi (US 5009417).
Regarding Claim 1, Sarkozi teaches a lower body exercise equipment that is disposed on a bed, the lower body exercise equipment comprising: a first support element 13 comprising a plate disposed on an upper surface of the bed; a second support element 16 comprising a plate spaced apart from the first support element in a longitudinal direction; a connection element 14,15 disposed between the first support element and the second support element in the longitudinal direction, connecting the first support element to the second support element and having a variable length (Refer to Fig. 1&2 to depict that the connection element 14,15 change lengths by being folded); and a stand 11,12 comprising a body 29 arranged at one side of the first support element 14,15 the body 29 being supported by a support panel 11 disposed at an end of the bed 25,26.
Regarding Claim 2, Sarkozi continues to teach wherein a distance between the first support element 13 and the second support element 16 changes as the variable length of the connection element 14,15 changes (Refer to Figs. 1&2 to depict that the connection element 14,15 changes length via folding and changes the distance between first support element 13 and second support element 16).
Regarding Claim 3, Sarkozi continues to teach wherein the first support element 13 and the second support element comprise a plastic material slidable with respect to the upper surface of the bed 25,26 (Refer to Cols 2-3 Lines 68-2:” When using sheets constructed of an inflexible material such as hard plastics, wood or chipboard, the fold lines 17-21 may be hinged.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Sarkozi continues to teach wherein the stand 11,12 comprises one or more length adjustment members (hinge) on a surface of the stand in contact with the support panel 25,26 (Refer to Fig. 1-3, the Office takes the position that the hinge changes the length of the stand).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkozi (US 5009417) in view of Essex et al (US 20200282257 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Sarkozi teaches the claimed invention as noted above but fails to teach wherein the connection element comprises a deformable fabric material. Essex et al teaches an exercise board comprising foldable hinges made of fabric (Refer to Paragraph [0047]:” The hinge may be configured with padding, beveling, protective fabric and the like to reduce the chance of pinching or other injuries to the user during use.”). Essex et al is analogous with Applicants invention in that they both teach exercise platforms and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the connection element 14,15 such that they comprise fabric at the hinges since Essex et al teaches that such material is known in the art for the intended use and therefore does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Sarkozi is the closest prior art to the claimed invention but fails to teach the claimed invention as a whole being further comprising a pair of guides detachably disposed on an upper surface of the first support element and arranged parallel to each other at both edges of the first support element in a width direction and/or wherein the stand further comprises an angle adjustment member comprising: a footrest; a pair of first links extending from both sides of the footrest and supported by a support surface; a pair of second links rotating integrally with the footrest and extending diagonally toward the second support element; and a third link connecting the pair of second links to each other.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 05/15/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NYCA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7168. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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.
/NYCA T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights