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
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for priority to provisional application no. 63/619,973 filed 11 January 2024.
Response to Amendment
The claim objections have been obviated in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 10 July 2026 except with regards to claim 5. Applicant’s amendments have resulted in the additional claim objections made below.
The rejections of claims 1-15 and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been obviated in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 10 July 2026 and are withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments have resulted in additional rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) made below.
Claims 1-21 are still pending. An action on the merits follows.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 8-9, 12, and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, lines 1-2, “the striking-pad unit” should read --the at least one striking-pad unit--
Claim 5, line 5, “a plurality of the at least one striking-pad units” should read --wherein the at least one striking-pad unit comprises a plurality of striking-pad units--
Claim 5, lines 5-6, “each of the respective striking-pad units” should read --each striking-pad unit of the plurality of striking-pad units--
Claim 5, lines 7-8, “and stem” should read --and the stem--
Claim 5, line 8, “the striking-pad unit” should read --the respective striking-pad unit--
Claim 5, line 8, “the striking-pad units” should read --the plurality of striking-pad units--
Claim 8, lines 1-2, “at least one of the striking-pad unit” should read --at least one of the plurality of striking-pad units--
Claim 9, line 3, “a plurality of the at least one striking-pad units” should read --a plurality of striking-pad units--
Claim 9, lines 3-4, “each of the respective striking-pad unit” should read --each striking-pad unit--
Claim 12, line 2, “the striking-pad units” should read --the plurality of striking-pad units--
Claim 17, line 3, “a plurality of the at least one striking-pad units” should read --wherein the at least one striking-pad unit comprises a plurality of striking-pad units--
Claim 17, lines 3-4, “each of the respective striking-pad unit of the striking pad units” should read --each striking-pad unit of the plurality of striking-pad units--
Claim 17, lines 5-6, “the plurality of the at least one striking-pad units” should read --the plurality of striking-pad units--
Claim 17, line 6, “the plurality of the at least one striking-pad units” should read --the plurality of striking-pad units--
Claim 18, lines 1-2, “each striking-pad unit” should read --each striking-pad unit of the plurality of striking-pad units--
Claim 18, line 3, “the at least one striking-pad unit” should read --each striking-pad unit--
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.
Claims 1-8 and 18-21 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 recite the limitation “a striking-pad assembly” in line 6. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the “at least one striking-pad unit” previously recited in line 3. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referring to --the at least one striking-pad unit--. Applicant is suggested to amend the claim accordingly. Recitation of “the striking-pad assembly” in line 9 should also be amended to read --the at least one striking-pad unit--.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a striking-pad assembly” in lines 4-5. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the “at least one striking-pad unit” recited previously in claim 16, one of the “plurality of the at least one striking-pad units” recited previously in claim 17, the “each striking-pad unit” recited in claim 18, or to another, separate structure. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted to be referring to --each striking-pad unit--.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaynor (US 7,938,759) in view of Soubis (FR282744, a copy and translation of which is provided with this office action).
Regarding claim 1, Gaynor teaches an upright impact bag assembly (Fig. 1), comprising:
a stem (central post section 30); and
at least one striking-pad unit (top section 53) defining an opening sized and shaped to receive the stem such that the stem supports the at least one striking-pad unit (Fig. 3 shows the post 30 received within a center opening of each of the sections 51, 52, 53.), wherein the at least one striking-pad unit is configured to have a periphery comprising a series of angled sides such that an outer lateral-cross-sectional shape of a striking-pad assembly is a polygon (Fig. 3 shows a vertical lateral cross section of the top section 53 being a polygon with angled sides.), wherein the striking-pad assembly is suitable for receiving and absorbing striking by physical blows without undue cause for injury or pain that would hinder training (Col. 5, lines 1-3: “It should be understood that the freestanding athletic training apparatus 10 may be used to provide users with a means of improving aerobic endurance and stamina and many other different types of combat strikes.” The bag assembly is configured for training combat strikes.).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gaynor does not expressly teach wherein the at least one striking-pad unit is removable from a first position on the stem and repositionable to a second position on the stem to permit formation of different striking-pad column configurations.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Soubis teaches an upright impact bag assembly, comprising: a stem (tube 2); and at least one striking-pad unit (striking elements 1) defining an opening to receive the stem (Fig. 2), wherein the at least one striking-pad unit is removable from a first position on the stem and repositionable to a second position on the stem to permit formation of different striking-pad column configurations (Page 8, lines 19-27 of the translation provided: “The presence of a removable upper stop in the form of the screwed plug (7) in the tube (2) makes the striking elements (1, 25) and the intermediate elements (3) [demountable]. The user can thus modify the configuration of the striking system by acting on the following 3 criteria: - choice of the number of striking elements - choice of the shape of the striking elements - choice of the size of the striking elements. The user can for example transform his striking system from the 1st embodiment (with 3 flattened balls, Fig. 2) into that of the 3rd embodiment (with a flattened ball and a cylinder, Fig. 18) and vice versa.” Soubis teaches wherein the striking elements 1 can be removed and reconfigured on the tube 2 in a number of different configurations.).
PNG
media_image2.png
460
243
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the striking-pad units of Gaynor by making them removable and reconfigurable, as taught by Soubis, with the predicted result of providing a modular bag assembly that can be reconfigured to accommodate different users and different types of exercises (see MPEP 2141(III)).
Regarding claim 2, Gaynor in view of Soubis teaches the upright impact bag assembly of claim 1, wherein the polygon has 6 or more sides, or optionally from 6 to 24 sides, or optionally from 6 to 16 sides, or optionally 8 sides (Gaynor: Fig. 3 shows the polygonal cross section of section 53 having 8 sides. It is noted that the “optional” limitations are not required by the claim.).
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaynor (US 7,938,759) in view of Soubis (FR282744) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Laudenslager et al. (US 2004/0097348, hereinafter Laudenslager).
Regarding claim 3, Gaynor in view of Soubis teaches the upright impact bag assembly of claim 1, wherein the striking-pad unit comprises foam padding (Gaynor: Col. 5, lines 16-17: “Such a multi-section body 50 may be formed from foam.”).
Gaynor does not teach wherein the striking- pad unit comprises a cover, a first foam padding having a first exterior and a first density, a second foam padding having a second exterior and a second density with the first density being higher than the second density, and wherein the cover is over the first exterior of the first foam padding and the second exterior of the second foam padding so as to form the series of angled sides around the periphery, and the first foam padding is located adjacent to a first contiguous portion of the series of angled sides, and the second foam padding is located adjacent to a second contiguous portion of the series of angled sides.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Laudenslager teaches a modular upright impact bag assembly comprising a striking-pad unit (heavy bag 219), wherein the striking-pad unit comprises a cover (cover 21), a first padding (first canister 225) having a first exterior and a first density, a second padding (second canister 225) having a second exterior and a second density with the first density being higher than the second density (Fig. 10. Para. [0025]: “Using different stuffing materials in one or more canisters 25 creates variety in the hardness, density, weight, or other characteristics among the canisters of the set of canisters 25, and thus in heavy bag 19.”), and wherein the cover is over the first exterior of the first foam padding and the second exterior of the second foam padding so as to form the periphery (Figs. 9, 10: The cover 21 goes over the canisters 225 to form the outer periphery of the heavy bag 219.), and the first padding is located adjacent to a first contiguous portion of the side, and the second foam padding is located adjacent to a second contiguous portion of the side (Fig. 9 shows the canisters 225 located along the sides of the heavy bag 219.).
PNG
media_image3.png
633
455
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bag sections of Gaynor by including areas of various density, as taught by Laudenslager. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “creat[e] zones of different hardnesses within the bag” and provide a heavy bag that “can be customized to specific users or uses,” as suggested by Laudenslager (Abstract, Para. [0025]).
The combination of Gaynor and Laudenslager teaches wherein the first foam padding has a first density, the second foam padding has a second density, and wherein the cover is over the first exterior of the first foam padding and the second exterior of the second foam padding so as to form the angled sides around the periphery, and the first foam padding is located adjacent to at a first contiguous portion of the angled sides, and the second foam padding is located adjacent to a second contiguous portion of the angled sides. That is, by modifying the foam of Gaynor to have varying densities on different sides, as taught by Laudenslager, the striking pad unit would be caused to have foam with different densities and the cover over the foam would be over the angled sides of the sections 51, 52, 53 of Gaynor, such that the first foam padding is located adjacent a first contiguous portion of the angled sides and the second foam padding is located adjacent a second contiguous portion of the angled sides.
Regarding claim 4, Gaynor in view of Soubis further in view of Laudenslager teaches the upright impact bag assembly of claim 3, wherein the at least one striking-pad unit has a shape selected from Octagon, Octacone, Wrecking Ball, Hammer, Torso, Hourglass, or Morningstar (Gaynor: Fig. 3 shows section 53 having the cross sectional shape of an octagon with eight sides.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gaynor and Soubis as discussed above with regards to claim 1 teaches the upright impact bag assembly of claim 1, further comprising:
a base (base section 20), wherein the stem extends substantially vertically upward from the base, and wherein the base and the stem are configured such that the upright impact bag assembly is freestanding (Gaynor: Figs. 1-3 show the bag assembly freestanding on the base section 20.); and
a plurality of the at least one striking-pad units (sections 51, 52, 53), wherein each of the respective striking-pad units comprise at least one foam padding (Gaynor: Col. 5, lines 14-19: “Such a multi-section body 50 may be formed from foam and may include vertically stacked bottom section 51, a middle section 52, and a top section 53 respectively.”), each striking-pad unit defining an associated opening sized and shaped to receive the stem such that the base and stem support the striking-pad unit for being struck (Gaynor: Fig. 3 shows the post 30 received within a center opening of each of the sections 51, 52, 53.), and wherein the striking-pad units are modular so as to be received on the stem in different configurations (Soubis teaches wherein the plurality of striking-pad units are modular and reconfigurable.).
Gaynor in view of Soubis does not teach the striking-pad units comprising a cover.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Laudenslager teaches a modular upright impact bag assembly comprising a cover (21) (Fig. 9.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bag assembly of Gaynor by including the cover of Laudenslager with the predicted result of providing a durable material that can withstand heavy impact and can be easily replaced when damaged (see MPEP 2141(III)).
Regarding claim 6, Gaynor in view of Soubis further in view of Laudenslager teaches the upright impact bag assembly of claim 5, wherein the polygon has 6 or more sides, or optionally from 6 to 24 sides, or optionally from 6 to 16 sides, or optionally 8 sides (Gaynor: Fig. 3 shows the polygonal cross section of section 53 having 8 sides. It is noted that the “optional” limitations are not required by the claim.).
Regarding claim 7, Gaynor in view of Soubis further in view of Laudenslager teaches the upright impact bag assembly of claim 5.
Gaynor does not teach wherein the at least one foam padding comprises a first foam padding having a first exterior and a first density and a second foam padding having a second exterior and a second density with the first density being higher than the second density, and wherein the cover is over the first exterior of the first foam padding and the second exterior of the second foam padding so as to form the series of angled sides around the periphery, and the first foam padding is located adjacent to a first contiguous portion of the series of angled sides, and the second foam padding is located adjacent to a second contiguous portion of the series of angled sides.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Laudenslager teaches a modular upright impact bag assembly comprising a striking-pad unit (heavy bag 219) comprising a first padding (first canister 225) having an first exterior and a first density, a second padding (second canister 225) having a second exterior and a second density with the first density being higher than the second density (Fig. 10. Para. [0025]: “Using different stuffing materials in one or more canisters 25 creates variety in the hardness, density, weight, or other characteristics among the canisters of the set of canisters 25, and thus in heavy bag 19.”), and wherein the cover is over the first exterior of the first padding and the second exterior of the second padding so as to form the periphery (Figs. 9, 10: The cover 21 goes over the canisters 225 to form the outer periphery of the heavy bag 219.), and the first padding is located adjacent to at a first contiguous portion of the side, and the second padding is located adjacent to a second contiguous portion of the side (Fig. 9 shows the canisters 225 being located along the sides of the heavy bag 219.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bag sections of Gaynor by including areas of various density, as taught by Laudenslager. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “creat[e] zones of different hardnesses within the bag” and provide a heavy bag that “can be customized to specific users or uses,” as suggested by Laudenslager (Abstract, Para. [0025]).
The combination of Gaynor and Laudenslager teaches wherein the first foam padding has a first density, the second foam padding has a second density, and wherein the cover is over the first exterior of the first foam padding and the second exterior of the second foam padding so as to form the angled sides around the periphery, and the first foam padding is located adjacent to at a first contiguous portion of the angled sides, and the second foam padding is located adjacent to a second contiguous portion of the angled sides. That is, by modifying the foam of Gaynor to have varying densities on different sides, as taught by Laudenslager, the striking pad unit would be caused to have foam with different densities and the cover over the foam would be over the angled sides of the sections 51, 52, 53 of Gaynor, such that the first foam padding is located adjacent a first contiguous portion of the angled sides and the second foam padding is located adjacent a second contiguous portion of the angled sides.
Regarding claim 8, Gaynor in view of Soubis further in view of Laudenslager teaches the upright impact bag assembly of claim 7, wherein at least one of the striking-pad unit has a shape selected from Octagon, Octacone, Wrecking Ball, Hammer, Torso, Hourglass, or Morningstar (Gaynor: Fig. 3 shows the section 53 having a cross sectional shape of an octagon.).
Claims 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaynor (US 7,938,759) in view of Soubis (FR282744) further in view of Laudenslager (US 2004/0097348).
Regarding claim 9, Gaynor teaches an upright impact bag assembly (Fig. 1), comprising:
a stem (central post section 30) extending substantially vertically from a base (Fig. 3); and
a plurality of the at least one striking-pad units (sections 51, 52, 53), wherein each of the respective striking-pad unit of the plurality of striking-pad units defines an associated opening sized and shaped to receive the stem such that the stem supports the respective striking-pad unit for being struck (Fig. 3 shows the post 30 received within a center opening of each of the sections 51, 52, 53), and wherein each striking-pad unit of the plurality of striking-pad units comprises:
at least one foam padding (Col. 5, lines 16-19: “Such a multi-section body 50 may be formed from foam.”) , wherein the foam padding is configured to define a shape for the striking-pad unit, and wherein the striking-pad unit is suitable for receiving and absorbing striking by physical blows without undue cause for injury or pain that would hinder training (Col. 5, lines 1-3: “It should be understood that the freestanding athletic training apparatus 10 may be used to provide users with a means of improving aerobic endurance and stamina and many other different types of combat strikes.” The bag assembly is configured for training combat strikes.).
Gaynor does not teach wherein each striking-pad unit of the plurality of striking-pad units is removable from a first position on the stem and repositionable to a second position on the stem to permit formation of different striking-pad column configurations, and wherein the plurality of striking- pad units are modular so as to be received on the stem in different configurations.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Soubis teaches an upright impact bag assembly, comprising: a stem (tube 2); and at least one striking-pad unit (striking elements 1) defining an opening to receive the stem (Fig. 2), wherein the at least one striking-pad unit is removable from a first position on the stem and repositionable to a second position on the stem to permit formation of different striking-pad column configurations, and wherein the plurality of striking- pad units are modular so as to be received on the stem in different configurations (Page 8, lines 19-27 of the translation provided: “The presence of a removable upper stop in the form of the screwed plug (7) in the tube (2) makes the striking elements (1, 25) and the intermediate elements (3) [demountable]. The user can thus modify the configuration of the striking system by acting on the following 3 criteria: - choice of the number of striking elements - choice of the shape of the striking elements - choice of the size of the striking elements. The user can for example transform his striking system from the 1st embodiment (with 3 flattened balls, Fig. 2) into that of the 3rd embodiment (with a flattened ball and a cylinder, Fig. 18) and vice versa.” Soubis teaches wherein the striking elements 1 can be removed and reconfigured on the tube 2 in a number of different configurations.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the striking-pad units of Gaynor by making them removable and reconfigurable, as taught by Soubis, with the predicted result of providing a modular bag assembly that can be reconfigured to accommodate different users and different types of exercises (see MPEP 2141(III)).
Gaynor in view of Soubis still does not teach a cover forming an outer surface of the striking-pad unit.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Laudenslager teaches a modular upright impact bag assembly comprising a cover (21) (Fig. 9.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bag assembly of Gaynor by including the cover of Laudenslager with the predicted result of providing a durable material that can withstand heavy impact that can be easily replaced when damaged (see MPEP 2141(III)).
The combination of Gaynor and Laudenslager teaches wherein the cover and foam padding are configured to define a shape for the striking-pad unit. That is, by modifying the foam padding of Gaynor by including the cover of Laudenslager, the cover would conform to the shape of the foam padding in order to define the shape of the striking-pad unit.
Regarding claim 10, Gaynor in view of Soubis further in view of Laudenslager teaches the upright impact bag assembly of claim 9, wherein the shape of a first one of the plurality of striking-pad units is different from the shape of a second one of the plurality of striking-pad units (Gaynor: Figs. 1-3 show each of the sections 51, 52, 53 having a different shape.).
Regarding claim 11, Gaynor in view of Soubis further in view of Laudenslager teaches the upright impact bag assembly of claim 10, wherein the at least one foam padding has an exterior and the cover is over the exterior of the at least one foam padding so as to form a periphery comprised of a series of angled sides such that an outer lateral- cross-sectional shape of each striking-pad unit of the plurality of striking-pad units is a polygon (Gaynor: Fig. 3 shows the vertical lateral cross section of each of the sections 51, 52, 53 having angled sides that for a polygon.).
Regarding claim 12, Gaynor in view of Soubis further in view of Laudenslager teaches the upright impact bag assembly of claim 11, wherein at least one of the striking-pad units has a shape selected from Octagon, Octacone, Wrecking Ball, Hammer, Torso, Hourglass, or Morningstar (Gaynor: Fig. 3 shows the section 53 having the shape of an octagon with eight sides.).
Regarding claim 13, Gaynor in view of Soubis further in view of Laudenslager teaches the upright impact bag assembly of claim 11.
Gaynor does not teach wherein the at least one foam padding comprises a first foam padding having a first density, a second foam padding having a second density with the first density being higher than the second density, and wherein the first foam padding is located adjacent to a first contiguous portion of the series of angled sides, and the second foam padding is located adjacent to a second contiguous portion of the series of angled sides.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Laudenslager teaches a modular upright impact bag assembly comprising a striking-pad unit (heavy bag 219) comprising a first padding (first canister 225) having a first density, a second padding (second canister 225) having a second density with the first density being higher than the second density (Fig. 10. Para. [0025]: “Using different stuffing materials in one or more canisters 25 creates variety in the hardness, density, weight, or other characteristics among the canisters of the set of canisters 25, and thus in heavy bag 19.”), and wherein the first padding is located adjacent to at a first contiguous portion of the side, and the second padding is located adjacent to a second contiguous portion of the side (Fig. 9 shows the canisters 225 being located along the sides of the heavy bag 219.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bag sections of Gaynor by including areas of various density, as taught by Laudenslager. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “creat[e] zones of different hardnesses within the bag” and provide a heavy bag that “can be customized to specific users or uses,” as suggested by Laudenslager (Abstract, Para. [0025]).
The combination of Gaynor and Laudenslager teaches wherein the first foam padding has a first density, the second foam padding has a second density, and wherein the first foam padding is located adjacent to at a first contiguous portion of the angled sides, and the second foam padding is located adjacent to a second contiguous portion of the angled sides. That is, by modifying the foam of Gaynor to have varying densities on different sides, as taught by Laudenslager, the striking pad unit would be caused to have foam with different densities, such that the first foam padding is located adjacent a first contiguous portion of the angled sides and the second foam padding is located adjacent a second contiguous portion of the angled sides.
Regarding claim 14, Gaynor in view of Soubis further in view of Laudenslager teaches the upright impact bag assembly of claim 11, wherein the polygon has 6 or more sides, optionally from 6 to 24 sides, or optionally from 6 to 16 sides, or optionally 8 sides (Gaynor: Fig. 3 shows the polygonal cross section of section 53 having 8 sides. It is noted that the “optional” limitations are not required by the claim.).
Regarding claim 15, Gaynor in view of Soubis further in view of Laudenslager teaches the upright impact bag assembly of claims 9, further comprising a base (base section 20), wherein the stem extends substantially vertically upward from the base, and wherein the base and the stem are configured such that the upright impact bag assembly is freestanding (Gaynor: Figs. 1-3 show the bag assembly freestanding on the base section 20.).
Regarding claim 16, Gaynor teaches an upright impact bag assembly (Fig. 1), comprising:
a stem (central post section 30); and
at least one striking-pad unit (top section 53), wherein the at least one striking-pad unit defines an opening sized and shaped to receive the stem such that the stem supports the at least one striking-pad unit for being struck (Fig. 3 shows the post 30 received within a center opening of each of the sections 51, 52, 53.) and wherein the at least one striking-pad unit has a periphery suitable for receiving and absorbing striking by physical blows without undue cause for injury or pain that would hinder training (Col. 5, lines 1-3: “It should be understood that the freestanding athletic training apparatus 10 may be used to provide users with a means of improving aerobic endurance and stamina and many other different types of combat strikes.” The bag assembly is configured for training combat strikes.), wherein the at least one striking-pad unit has:
a first foam padding located at a first contiguous portion of the periphery, the first foam padding having a first density (Col. 5, lines 14-19: “Such a multi-section body 50 may be formed from foam and may include vertically stacked bottom section 51, a middle section 52, and a top section 53 respectively.” Fig. 3 shows the foam padding of the sections 51, 52, 53 being at the periphery of the respective section).
Gaynor does not teach wherein the at least one striking-pad unit is removable from a first position on the stem and repositionable to a second position on the stem to permit formation of different striking-pad column configurations.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Soubis teaches an upright impact bag assembly, comprising: a stem (tube 2); and at least one striking-pad unit (striking elements 1) defining an opening to receive the stem (Fig. 2), wherein the at least one striking-pad unit is removable from a first position on the stem and repositionable to a second position on the stem to permit formation of different striking-pad column configurations (Page 8, lines 19-27 of the translation provided: “The presence of a removable upper stop in the form of the screwed plug (7) in the tube (2) makes the striking elements (1, 25) and the intermediate elements (3) [demountable]. The user can thus modify the configuration of the striking system by acting on the following 3 criteria: - choice of the number of striking elements - choice of the shape of the striking elements - choice of the size of the striking elements. The user can for example transform his striking system from the 1st embodiment (with 3 flattened balls, Fig. 2) into that of the 3rd embodiment (with a flattened ball and a cylinder, Fig. 18) and vice versa.” Soubis teaches wherein the striking elements 1 can be removed and reconfigured on the tube 2 in a number of different configurations.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the striking-pad units of Gaynor by making them removable and reconfigurable, as taught by Soubis, with the predicted result of providing a modular bag assembly that can be reconfigured to accommodate different users and different types of exercises (see MPEP 2141(III)).
Gaynor in view of Soubis still does not teach a second foam padding located at a second contiguous portion of the periphery, the second foam padding having a second density, and wherein the first density is higher than the second density.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Laudenslager teaches a modular upright impact bag assembly comprising a striking-pad unit (heavy bag 219), wherein the striking-pad unit comprises a first padding (first canister 225) having an first exterior and a first density and a second padding (second canister 225) having a second exterior and a second density with the first density being higher than the second density (Fig. 10. Para. [0025]: “Using different stuffing materials in one or more canisters 25 creates variety in the hardness, density, weight, or other characteristics among the canisters of the set of canisters 25, and thus in heavy bag 19.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bag sections of Gaynor by including areas of various density, as taught by Laudenslager. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “creat[e] zones of different hardnesses within the bag” and provide a heavy bag that “can be customized to specific users or uses,” as suggested by Laudenslager (Abstract, Para. [0025]).
The combination of Gaynor and Laudenslager teaches wherein the first foam padding is located at a first contiguous portion of the periphery and the second foam padding is located at a second contiguous portion of the periphery. That is, by modifying the foam of Gaynor to have varying densities on different sides, as taught by Laudenslager, the striking pad unit would be caused to have foam with different densities, such that the first foam padding is located adjacent a first contiguous portion of the angled sides and the second foam padding is located adjacent a second contiguous portion of the angled sides.
Regarding claim 17, Gaynor in view of Soubis further in view of Laudenslager teaches the upright impact bag assembly of claim 16, further comprising:
a plurality of the at least one striking-pad units (sections 51, 52, 53), wherein each of the respective striking-pad unit of the striking pad units defines an associated opening sized and shaped to receive the stem such that the stem supports the plurality of the at least one striking-pad units for being struck (Gaynor: Fig. 3 shows the post 30 received within a center opening of each of the sections 51, 52, 53), and wherein the plurality of the at least one striking-pad units are modular so as to be received on the stem in different configurations (Soubis teaches wherein the plurality of striking-pad units are modular and reconfigurable.).
Regarding claim 18, Gaynor in view of Soubis further in view of Laudenslager teaches the upright impact bag assembly of claim 17, wherein the first foam padding and the second foam padding define a shape for the at least one striking-pad unit so that the periphery is configured to have a series of angled sides such that the outer lateral-cross-sectional shape of a striking-pad assembly is a polygon (Gaynor: Fig. 3 shows each of the sections 51, 52, 53 having a vertical cross sectional shape of a polygon with angled sides.).
Gaynor does not teach wherein each striking-pad unit comprises a cover.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Laudenslager teaches a modular upright impact bag assembly comprising a cover (21) (Fig. 9.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bag assembly of Gaynor by including the cover of Laudenslager with the predicted result of providing a durable material that can withstand heavy impact that can be easily replaced when damaged (see MPEP 2141(III)).
Regarding claim 19, Gaynor in view of Soubis further in view of Laudenslager teaches the upright impact bag assembly of claim 18, wherein the polygon has 6 or more sides, or optionally from 6 to 24 sides, or optionally from 6 to 16 sides, or optionally 8 sides (Gaynor: Fig. 3 shows the polygonal cross section of section 53 having 8 sides. It is noted that the “optional” limitations are not required by the claim.).
Regarding claim 20, Gaynor in view of Soubis further in view of Laudenslager teaches the upright impact bag assembly of claim 18, wherein the at least one striking-pad unit has a shape selected from Octagon, Octacone, Wrecking Ball, Hammer, Torso, Hourglass, or Morningstar (Gaynor: Fig. 3 shows the section 53 having the shape of an octagon with eight sides.).
Regarding claim 21, Gaynor in view of Soubis further in view of Laudenslager teaches the upright impact bag assembly of claim 20, further comprising a base (base section 20), wherein the stem extends substantially vertically upward from the base, and wherein the base and the stem are configured such that the upright impact bag assembly is freestanding (Gaynor: Figs. 1-3 show the bag assembly freestanding on the base section 20.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of the term “substantially” has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1 in view of Gaynor and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 9 and 16 in view of Gaynor and Laudenslager, Applicant argues that Gaynor does not teach the newly added limitation of “wherein the at least one striking-pad unit is removable from a first position on the stem and repositionable to a second position on the stem to permit formation of different striking-pad column configurations.” The Office agrees; however, Applicant’s amendment has resulted in the new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Gaynor and Soubis. The mating features of Gaynor do not prevent the body sections 51, 52, 53 from being removed from the central post and rearranged, as taught by Soubis.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in view of Gaynor and Laudenslager, Applicant argues that Laudenslager does not disclose the canisters configured as striking pad units received on and supported by a stem and are thus not repositionable on a stem. The Office agrees; however, Laudenslager is not relied upon to teach these limitations. Laudenslager is relied on to teach the foam padding having different densities and a cover for the striking pad assembly. Applicant’s amendments have resulted in the new rejection in view of Soubis.
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 Catrina Letterman whose telephone number is (303)297-4297. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday, 8am - 5pm MT.
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.
/C.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights