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 claims the benefit of US Provisional 63/530,696, filed on 08/03/2023.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The platform tops further comprise notches on their underside, said notches being configured to engage with the inner side walls of the support platforms when the platform tops are positioned within the central space to create an inclined surface (claim 8)
A plurality of foot supports (claim 10)
A removable connecting structure (claim 13)
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: band hooks 126 (par. [0060]); platform lid 128 (par. [0061]-[0062]); band hooks 226 (par. [0070]).
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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification does not provide antecedent basis for the limitation of “wherein at least one of the platform tops is further configured to be removably positioned within the central space” of claim 1.
The specification does not provide antecedent basis for the limitation of “wherein the first and second support platforms are joined by a removable connecting structure positioned beneath the central space to provide additional structural stability” of claim 13. See drawing objection above as well.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Par. [0059], line 1, “carrying handles 124” should read ---carrying handles 109---
Par. [0065], lines 2-3, “internal band hooks / handles 124” should read ---internal band hooks 124---
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 9, and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 13, “secure horizontal cross member” should read ---secure the horizontal cross member---
Claim 6, line 2, “the ground” should read ---a ground---
Claim 9, line 3, “the length” should read ---a length---
Claim 11, line 3, “the platform” should read ---the multifunctional exercise platform---
Claim 12, line 1, “the platform” should read ---the multifunctional exercise platform---
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 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: a securing mechanism (claim 1).
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.
The securing mechanism of claim 1, using generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language “securing” and “configured to adjustably secure horizontal cross member at one of a plurality of vertical positions relative to the central space” and not preceded by a structural modifier, has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of “any device or method that locks the horizontal cross member into place at different heights relative to the support platforms,” including “linchpins, ratcheted locking systems, or spring-loaded pins” as defined in par. [0047].
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.
Claim 2 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 2 recites “the vertical extensions” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-14 allowed.
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a multifunctional exercise platform in combination with all of the structural and functional limitations, and further comprising an elevated structure having a first and second support platform each comprising a top surface and an inner side wall, a central space defined between the inner side walls, a plurality of attachment brackets, a horizontal cross member positioned above the central space and extending between the first and second support platforms, a securing mechanism configured to adjustably secure the horizontal cross member at one of a plurality of vertical positions relative to the central space, a plurality of band hooks positioned along the support platforms, and wherein each of the support platforms comprises a removable platform top.
The closest prior art of record includes Flook (US 2018/0085623), Leavitt (US 7,488,282), and Siaperas (US 6,245,001).
Flook teaches an exercise platform (10, Fig. 8) comprising an elevated structure having a first support platform (60) and a second support platform (62) each comprising a top surface and an inner side wall (Fig. 8), a central space defined between the inner side walls (Fig. 8), apertures (64) configured to receive horizontal bars therein (66) where the bars are capable of being positioned above the central space such that they extend between the first and second support platforms, and where the apertures are capable of receiving straps (68) connectable to resistance bands (69). Flook does not teach a plurality of attachment brackets or a securing mechanism configured to adjustably secure the horizontal cross member at one of a plurality of vertical positions relative to the central space, or wherein each of the support platforms comprises a removable platform top.
Leavitt teaches an exercise platform (100) comprising an elevated structure having a first support platform and a second support platform (left and right platform portions) each comprising a top surface (formed by 101) and an inner side wall (104, 105), a central space defined between the inner side walls (Fig. 1C), and a plurality of band hooks (420) positioned along the support platforms. Leavitt does not teach a plurality of attachment brackets, a horizontal cross member, or a securing mechanism configured to adjustably secure the horizontal cross member at one of a plurality of vertical positions relative to the central space, or wherein each of the support platforms comprises a removable platform top.
Siaperas teaches an exercise platform (10) comprising an elevated structure having a first support platform (seat portion formed by storage section top 17) and a second support platform (mean section formed by main section top 19), a plurality of band hooks (48), and wherein each of the support platforms comprises a hinged platform top (17, 19). Siaperas does not teach a central space defined between inner side walls of the first and second support platforms, a plurality of attachment brackets, a horizontal cross member, or a securing mechanism configured to adjustably secure the horizontal cross member at one of a plurality of vertical positions relative to the central space, or wherein the platform tops are removable.
None of the prior art of record alone or in combination reasonably teaches or suggests the limitations of instant claim 1, and modifications to the prior art to meet the claimed invention would require substantial structural and functional changes and would rely on improper hindsight.
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.”
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