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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
This application is a continuation-in-part of US 18/510,586, filed on 11/15/2023.
This application claims the benefit of foreign application CN202322922034.3, filed 10/27/2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference character “1601” in Fig. 18 should read ---1607---.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Par. [0034], lines 12-13, “A 1503” appears to be a typographical error and is missing the name of the structure associated with reference numeral 1503
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-11, and 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 14, “the dumbbell plate” should read ---the corresponding dumbbell plate---
Claim 1, lines 15-16, “the dumbbell plate” should read ---the corresponding dumbbell plate---
Claim 4, line 1, “a first surface” should read ---the first surface---
Claim 6, line 2, “the locking disk” should read ---the respective locking disk---
Claim 9, line 1, “each of the two sides” should read ---wherein each of the two sides---
Claim 10, lines 2-3, “the hanging assembly” should read ---the respective hanging assembly—
Claim 10, line 8, “the dividing disk” should read ---the respective dividing disk---
Claim 10, line 9, “the guide member” should read ---the at least one guide member---
Claim 10, line 9, “the guide groove” should read ---a respective one of the plurality of guide grooves---
Claim 10, line 11, “the dividing disk” should read ---the respective dividing disk---
Claim 11, lines 2-3, “the dumbbell plate” should read ---a respective one of the plurality of dumbbell plates---
Claim 13, line 5, “the locking groove” should read ---a respective one of the plurality of locking grooves---
Claim 13, line 6, “the locking groove” should read ---the respective locking groove---
Claim 13, line 8, “the dividing” should read ---the respective dividing---
Claim 13, lines 8-9, “the baffle” should read ---the respective baffle---
Claim 14, line 2, “the dividing” should read ---the respective dividing---
Claim 14, line 4, “the dividing” should read ---the respective dividing---
Claim 14, line 5, “the stopper” should read ---the respective stopper---
Claim 14, line 8, “the first slide groove” should read ---the respective first slide groove---
Claim 14, line 9, “the stopper” should read ---the respective stopper---
Claim 14, line 11, “the locking groove” should read ---the respective locking groove---
Claim 14, line 14, “the stopper” should read ---the respective stopper---
Claim 14, lines 14-15, “the locking groove” should read ---the respective locking groove---
Claim 14, line 15, “the stopper” should read ---the respective stopper---
Claim 14, lines 16-17, “the locking groove” should read ---the respective locking groove---
Claim 15, line 5, “the stopper” should read ---the respective stopper---
Claim 15, line 6, “the locking groove” should read ---the respective locking groove---
Claim 15, line 7, “the first slide groove” should read ---the respective first slide groove---
Claim 15, line 8, “the stopper” should read ---the respective stopper---
Claim 15, line 9, “the locking groove” should read ---the respective locking groove---
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.
Claims 1-16 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 1 recites “the hanging assembly” in lines 5-6. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a particular one of the two hanging assemblies or to each hanging assembly.
Claim 1 recites “the locking disk” in line 8. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a particular one of the plurality of locking disks of the two hanging assemblies or to each locking disk.
Claim 1 recites “the dumbbell plate” in line 11. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a particular one of the plurality of dumbbell plates or to each dumbbell plate.
Claim 1 recites “the dumbbell plate” in lines 11-12. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a particular one of the plurality of dumbbell plates or to each dumbbell plate.
Claims 2-3 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “the locking disk” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a particular one of the plurality of locking disks of the two hanging assemblies or to each locking disk.
Claim 4 recites “the hanging assembly” in line 6. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a particular one of the two hanging assemblies or to each hanging assembly.
Claim 5 recites “the hanging assembly” in line 2. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a particular one of the two hanging assemblies or to each hanging assembly.
Claim 5 recites “the plurality of locking disks” in line 3. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the plurality of locking disks of a particular one of the two hanging assemblies or the plurality of locking disks of each hanging assembly.
Claim 6 recites “the first clamping portion” in line 1. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the first clamping portion of a particular one of the locking disks or to the first clamping portion of each locking disk.
Claim 6 recites “the second clamping portion” in line 3. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the second clamping portion of a particular one of the locking disks or to the second clamping portion of each locking disk.
Claim 7 recites “the hanging assembly” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a particular one of the two hanging assemblies or to each hanging assembly.
Claim 7 recites “the plurality of locking disks” in line 5. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the plurality of locking disks of a particular one of the two hanging assemblies or the plurality of locking disks of each hanging assembly.
Claim 8 recites “the dumbbell plate” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a particular one of the plurality of dumbbell plates or to each dumbbell plate.
Claim 9 is similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 3.
Claim 10 recites “the dividing disk” in line 5. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a particular one of the dividing disks or to each dividing disk.
Claim 10 recites “the adjustment partitions” in lines 6-7. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the adjustment partitions of a particular locking disk of one of the hanging assemblies (i.e., the adjustment partitions of a respective one of the locking disks of one of the hanging assemblies), the adjustment partitions of all of the locking disks of one of the hanging assemblies (i.e., the adjustment partitions of the locking disks of one of the hanging assemblies), or to the total number of adjustment partitions of both hanging assemblies.
Claim 10 recites “the baffle” in line 8. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a particular one of the baffles of the two sides of the handle or to each baffle.
Claim 10 recites “the guide member” in line 11. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the at least one guide member of a particular one of the baffles or to each at least one guide member.
Claim 10 recites “an adjustment partition” in lines 11-12. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to one of the adjustment partitions of a respective one of the plurality of locking disks or to a materially new and different adjustment partition.
Claim 11 recites “the baffle” in line 2. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a particular one of the baffles of the two sides of the handle or to each baffle.
Claim 12 is similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 10
Claim 13 recites “the dividing plate” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation is the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a particular one of the dividing disks, or to each dividing disk, or to a materially different and new dividing plate. [Note – any changes to the limitation “the dividing plate” of line 1 of claim 13 should be similarly reflected with respect to additional references to the dividing plate throughout the claims].
Claim 13 recites “the adjustment partitions” in line 3. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the adjustment partitions of a particular locking disk of one of the hanging assemblies (i.e., the adjustment partitions of a respective one of the locking disks of one of the hanging assemblies), the adjustment partitions of all of the locking disks of one of the hanging assemblies (i.e., the adjustment partitions of the locking disks of one of the hanging assemblies), or to the total number of adjustment partitions of both hanging assemblies.
Claim 13 recites “the baffle” in line 4. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a particular one of the baffles of the two sides of the handle or to each baffle.
Claim 13 recites “a force of the elastic member” in line 5. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the previously recited force of an elastic member of claim 10, with respect to the at least one guide member, or if this limitation is intending to introduce a materially different and new force of an elastic member, unrelated to the previously recited limitation of claim 10.
Claim 13 recites “the stopper” in line 8. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the stopper of a particular one of the baffles or to each stopper.
Claim 14 recites “the locking groove” in line 1. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a particular one of the locking grooves or to each locking groove.
Claim 14 recites “the baffle” in line 3. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a particular one of the baffles of the two sides of the handle or to each baffle.
Claim 14 recites “a second spring” in line 7. However, no first spring has been previously recited. Therefore, it is unclear if the claimed invention requires a first spring.
Claim 14 recites “the first slide groove” in line 7. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the first slide groove a particular one of the baffles or to each first slide groove.
Claim 14 recites “the stopper” in line 10. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the stopper of a particular one of the baffles or to each stopper.
Claim 15 recites “the first slide groove” in line 5. It is unclear which first slide groove of which baffle this limitation is referring to (i.e., the first slide groove of one of the baffles).
Claim 16 is similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
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 1-2, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong (US 11,504,567).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hong discloses a weight-adjustable dumbbell assembly (weight-adjustable dumbbell and dumbbell seat 2), comprising:
a dumbbell (see Fig. 1), comprising a dumbbell bar assembly (1) and a plurality of dumbbell plates (3), wherein the dumbbell bar assembly comprises a dumbbell bar (handle tube 12),
wherein each of two sides of the dumbbell bar is arranged with a hanging assembly (annotated Fig. 2), and the hanging assembly on each of the two sides is mirror-symmetrical to each other (see Fig. 2); the hanging assembly comprises a plurality of locking disks (11) sequentially sleeved outside the dumbbell bar and capable of rotating synchronously with the dumbbell bar (col. 5 lines 39-42, “The both ends of grip bar assembly 1 is mounted with two groups of hanging disc 11 which are arranged adjacent to each other and are rotated synchronously”); a first surface of the locking disk is provided with a first clamping portion and a second clamping portion (see Fig. 14, each locking disk/hanging disc 11 is provided with two arc hanging strips 111, which constitute a first and second clamping portion), and a first opening and a second opening are defined between the first clamping portion and the second clamping portion (see Fig. 14, each locking disk/hanging disc 11 is provided with first and second openings between first and second clamping portions/hanging strips 111);
the dumbbell plate (3) is defined with an insertion port (U-shaped opening in U-shaped slot 31, see Fig. 15), and a first surface of the dumbbell plate is provided with a third clamping portion protruding outward (positioning block 32); and
each locking disk is configured to hang each corresponding dumbbell plate by means of the first clamping portion engaging with the third clamping portion of the dumbbell plate or by means of the second clamping portion engaging with the third clamping portion of the dumbbell plate (col. 8 lines 37-41, “Rotating the hanging disc 11, the hanging strip 111 is rotated and clamped between the positioning block 32 and the bottom wall of the U-shaped slot 31, so that the hanging disc 11 is engaged with the dumbbell disc 3”).
PNG
media_image1.png
487
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
452
387
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hong further discloses wherein the two sides of the dumbbell bar are prismatic upright posts (cylindrical prism shape of handle tube 12, see Fig. 14), each locking disk (11) is defined with a prismatic through hole (cylindrical prism shape of through hole, see Fig. 14) along its axial direction, and each prismatic upright post is engaged with one corresponding prismatic through hole (see Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 8, Hong further discloses wherein at least one side of the dumbbell plate (3) is provided with a weight plate (portion of dumbbell disc 3 extending outward from U-shaped slot 31).
Regarding claim 16, Hong further discloses wherein the dumbbell assembly also comprises a tray (dumbbell seat 2) for placing the dumbbell (see Fig. 1);
a plurality of plug-in plates mutually parallel to each other are arranged on a top of the tray (annotated Fig. 5), and each dumbbell plate (3) is capable of being placed upright between two adjacent plug-in plates (see Figs. 1-2).
PNG
media_image3.png
291
443
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 11,504,567) and further in view of Crawford et al. (US 7,614,982).
Regarding claim 3, Hong does not teach wherein a middle portion of the dumbbell bar is sleeved with a handle, the handle is defined with a channel along its axial direction, and the dumbbell bar is capable of rotating in the channel along its axial direction.
Crawford et al. teaches an analogous weight-adjustable dumbbell assembly (Fig. 26) comprising a dumbbell (210), comprising a dumbbell bar assembly (handle 236 and inner rod extending through handle 236), wherein the dumbbell bar assembly comprises a dumbbell bar (inner rod extending through handle 236), wherein a middle portion of the dumbbell bar is sleeved with a handle (handle 236), the handle is defined with a channel along its axial direction (see Fig. 26), and the dumbbell bar is capable of rotating in the channel along its axial direction (col. 16 lines 31-34, “the spring-loaded pin 212 locking mechanism prevents the inner disc 226, the collars 232, and the outer selector knob 234 from rotating with respect to the handle 236” indicating the inner disc 226, collars 232, and outer selector knob 234, which are connected by inner rod extending through handle 236, see Fig. 26, rotate relative to the handle 236).
PNG
media_image4.png
466
669
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dumbbell bar assembly of Hong to include a dumbbell bar rotatable relative to a handle sleeved on a middle portion of the dumbbell bar, as is similarly taught by Crawford et al., as a matter of simple substitution of one known mechanism of adjusting the weight of a weight-adjustable dumbbell with another known mechanism in the art to achieve the same predictable results of allowing a user to selectively secure the locking disks to the dumbbell plates to reach a desired weight of the dumbbell.
Regarding claim 9, Hong as modified by Crawford et al. further teaches wherein each of the two sides of the dumbbell bar (as modified by Crawford et al., see rejection to claim 3 above) is arranged with an adjustment disk (outer selector knobs 234 of Crawford et al., see Crawford et al. Fig. 26) and each adjustment disk rotates synchronously with the dumbbell bar (see Crawford et al. col. 16 lines 31-34).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 10-15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 4, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a weight-adjustable dumbbell in combination with all of the structural and functional limitations, and further comprising wherein a first surface of the locking disk is evenly divided into a quantity of adjustment partitions along its circumferential direction, the quantity of the adjustment partitions is N, and arc values of the first clamping portion and the second clamping portion are both integer multiples of an arc value of one adjustment partition; in response to the quantity of the locking disks of the hanging assembly being M, the quantity N of the adjustment partitions equals to M*2+2. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest the specific combination of a weight-adjustable dumbbell comprising locking disks each having a first clamping portion and a second clamping portion, a quantity of adjustment partitions, arc values of the first and second clamping portions both being integer multiples of an arc value of one of the adjustment partition, and the quantity of locking disks of each hanging assembly being M such that the quantity of adjustment partitions N equals M*2+2. Such a combination requires a specific arrangement of a first and second clamping portion on the locking disks with a specific number of adjustment partitions achieved by the locking disks which is not disclosed or taught in the prior art.
Claims 5-7 and 10-15 depend from claim 4 and are indicated as allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN FISK whose telephone number is (571)272-1042. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM M-F (Central).
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.
/KATHLEEN M FISK/Examiner, Art Unit 3784