DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits responsive to applicant’s original disclosure filed on 1/13/2025. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 1/13/2025 is being considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figures 5, 9, 11, 13-14, 16, 24 and 29, the poor line quality renders part or all of the drawings illegible when reproduced. 37 CFR 1.84(l) (m) and (p)(1). 37 CFR 1.84(l) recites, “[a]ll drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.” Applicant is requested to submit replacement drawing sheets with black lines that are not faded.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-20, “A functional training rig” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited functional training rig and thus lacks antecedent basis. This objection can be overcome by replacing “A” with “The” by reciting, “The functional training rig”.
Claim 1, “the components” (recited twice) is objected to because the claim previously recites a plurality of components and thus the limitation lacks antecedent basis. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the plurality of components”
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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 1-20 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, “the risk” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claim does not previously define a risk. This rejection can be overcome by deleting “the” and reciting “a risk”.
Claim 2, “the legs”, “the side wall”, “the base” and “the U” are indefinite because the limitations each lack antecedent basis. Note that none of these terms are previously recited. With respect to “the U”, the claim previously recites “a U-shaped cross-section”, but not a U. Applicant is requested to clarify the claim language.
Claim 7, “the arrangement” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. The claims previously recite “arranged” in claim 6 (note that claim 7 depends from claim 1) but do not recite an arrangement. Applicant is requested to clarify.
Claim 7, “the need” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that a need is not previously recited.
Claim 7, “wherein the arrangement of the bracket reduces the need for apertures in the box which improves weatherproofing of the box” is indefinite because it is unclear what the claim requires. The limitation lacks a point of reference with respect to a “need for apertures” as claimed. It is unclear what the claimed configuration is being compared to as claimed. As such, the metes and bounds are not clear so as to define what is required or not required to meet the claimed reduction of need for apertures. Applicant is requested to clarify the claim language.
Claim 8, “a permeant arrangement” is indefinite because it is unclear what the limitation requires. Does applicant intend to recite a “permanent” arrangement?
Claim 9, “the or each functional training rig” is indefinite because the claims previously require one functional training rig (claim 1). The term “each” implies that there is more than one. This rejection can be overcome by deleting “or each”. See also claims 10-12 and 19-20.
Claim 10, the phrase "and/or" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. The Office’s preferred verbiage of elements A and B is “at least one of A and B” and not “A and/or B”. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal No. 2011-004811 at Footnote 1 (PTAB 2014). See also claim 13.
Claim 11, “threaded or other suitable fasteners” is indefinite because it is unclear what “other suitable fasteners” require. It is unclear what “suitable” requires, thus rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. MPEP 2173.03.
Claim 14, “the region” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the term, “region” in the phrase “region of the doors” was treated as being broad, but not indefinite.
Claim 14, “the doors” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the previously recited hinged upright doors?
Claim 19, “components” is indefinite because the claims previously define a plurality of components. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the same or different components as the previously recited plurality of components?
The remaining claims in this section are rejected by virtue of dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1, 7-11, 13, 17 and 20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,525,306 (‘reference patent’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference patent and the claims of the instant application are drawn to substantially the same invention, with minor differences in wording/phraseology, with the claims of the reference patent being narrower than the claims of the instant application. Thus, the claims of the reference patent encompass the scope of or render obvious the claims of the instant application.
Claim(s) 1, 7-11, 13, 17 and 20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,967,224 (‘reference patent’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference patent and the claims of the instant application are drawn to substantially the same invention, with minor differences in wording/phraseology, with the claims of the reference patent being narrower than the claims of the instant application. Thus, the claims of the reference patent encompass the scope of or render obvious the claims of the instant application.
Claim(s) 1, 7-11, 13, 17 and 20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,701,549 (‘reference patent’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference patent and the claims of the instant application are drawn to substantially the same invention, with minor differences in wording/phraseology, with the claims of the reference patent being narrower than the claims of the instant application. Thus, the claims of the reference patent encompass the scope of or render obvious the claims of the instant application.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1-13, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jenkins et al. (US 20070232461) (‘Jenkins’) in view of Hoffman (US 3207511) and further in view of Haddock et al. (WO 2012129039) (‘Haddock’).
Claim 1, Jenkins teaches a functional training rig kit comprising a box (600; Figs. 6A-7) and a plurality of components adapted to fit within the box (the interior space 602 is suitable to hold a plurality of components, including exercise-related or fitness-related components therein; Figs. 6A-7).
Regarding the box wall being corrugated, Jenkins further teaches box being a standard ISO shipping container (Jenkins [0032]). Such shipping containers are known to have corrugated walls.
Jenkins does not teach the components being adapted to be attached to the outside of the box to provide a functional training rig attached to the outside of the box with a bracket on a corrugated wall of the box.
Hoffman teaches a functional training rig comprising a plurality of components (see various components of the functional training rig generically shown in Figs. 1-2), at least some of the components including means by which the components are adapted to be attached to a wall to provide at least one functional training rig attached to the wall (Figs. 1-2), wherein the functional training rig is attached to the wall by means of a bracket (26, 28; Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to attach at least some components to the outside of the box by means of a bracket, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known functional training rig with a known box, which allows for portability for training groups of people (Jenkins [0010], [0031]-[0032]).
Haddock teaches a corrugated wall (202; Figs. 12D-12E), in which is attached a bracket 210 provided in a recessed wall portion 208 of the corrugated wall such to reduce the risk of the bracket becoming damaged or interfering with adjoining equipment (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the bracket is positioned in recessed wall portion 208, and such arrangement is suitable to reduce risk of the bracket becoming damaged or interfering with adjoining equipment, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 12D-12E). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the walls of the box such that the walls are corrugated, and the bracket is provided in a recessed wall portion of the corrugated wall such to reduce the risk of the bracket becoming damaged or interfering with adjoining equipment, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means to secure objected to corrugated walls.
Claim 2, as modified above, the combination of Jenkins, Hoffman and Haddock teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the bracket is substantially U-shaped in cross-section (Haddock bracket 210 has left and right portions with a web therebetween, defining a U-shaped cross-section; Figs. 12D-12E), with free ends of the legs of the U adjacent to the side wall and with securing means for the functional training rig provided in the base of the U (Haddock Figs. 12D-12E free ends of legs of the U-shaped cross section of the bracket adjacent to the side wall with securing means passing through 218 to secure the functional training rig in the base of the U at web portion 216, as exceedingly broadly claimed).
Claim 3, as modified above, the combination of Jenkins, Hoffman and Haddock teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the securing means for the functional training rig comprises an aperture (Haddock aperture at 218 in 216; Figs. 12D-12E) provided through the base of the U and a captive nut 128 secured inside the base of the U (Haddock as generically shown in Figs. 12D-13).
Claim 4, as modified above, the combination of Jenkins, Hoffman and Haddock teaches all the limitations of claim 3, and further teaches wherein securing means (Haddock 244a) are provided in end regions of the bracket (Haddock Figs. 12D-12E).
Claim 5, as modified above, the combination of Jenkins, Hoffman and Haddock teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the bracket is secured to the wall of the box by means of an attaching bracket provided internally of the box (Haddock under the broadest reasonable interpretation, element 246 “deck or other substrate” constitutes an anchoring bracket on an interior side, as exceedingly broadly claimed).
Claim 6, as modified above, the combination of Jenkins, Hoffman and Haddock teaches all the limitations of claim 5, and further teaches wherein the attaching bracket is arranged to support the plurality of components within the box (Jenkins components are shown as being stored on an inside wall in Figs. 6A-6D; Haddock it is understood that the interior portion is suitable to support a plurality of components thereon).
Claim 7, as modified above, the combination of Jenkins, Hoffman and Haddock teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the arrangement of the bracket reduces the need for apertures in the box which improves weatherproofing of the box (Haddock it is understood that an arrangement of the bracket reduces a need for apertures in the box which improves weatherproofing of the box, compared to a fictional or hypothetical bracket comprising more holes, or a fictional or hypothetical connection of the functional training rig directly to the box with relatively more fasteners and no bracket, as exceedingly broadly claimed).
Claim 8, as modified above, the combination of Jenkins, Hoffman and Haddock teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the mounting bracket arrangement is a permeant arrangement (note that permanent was treated as a relative term of degree) of the side of box which does not need to be removed from the box during transportation (Haddock it is understood that the mounting bracket could be arranged as a permanent arrangement of the side of box which does not need to be removed from the box during transportation). In the event that applicant disagrees, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to make the mounting bracket arrangement a permanent arrangement of the side of box which does not need to be removed from the box during transportation, with the reasonable expectation of success of simplifying assembly of the functional training rig kit, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Claim 9, as modified above, the combination of Jenkins, Hoffman and Haddock teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein components of the or each functional training rig are assembled onto pre-positioned plates provided on the outside of the box (Hoffman 18, 22). The claim is a product by process claim and the functional training rig kit does not depend on the process of making it. The product-by-process limitation pre-positioned" would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the functional training rig kit. Therefore, the claimed functional training rig kit is not a different and unobvious functional training rig kit from the combination of Jenkins, Hoffman and Haddock.
Claim 10, as modified above, the combination of Jenkins, Hoffman and Haddock teaches all the limitations of claim 9, and further teaches wherein the or each functional training rig is attached to the outside of the box in such a way that vertical and/or horizontal movement between the functional training rig and the box is permitted (Hoffman several components such as 44, 45 are permitted to move as desired).
Claim 11, as modified above, the combination of Jenkins, Hoffman and Haddock teaches all the limitations of claim 9, and further teaches wherein the or each functional training rig is secured to the box by way of threaded or other suitable fasteners (Hoffman “anchor bolts or the like” col. 3, lines 35-46; Haddock 244).
Claim 12, as modified above, the combination of Jenkins, Hoffman and Haddock teaches all the limitations of claim 11, and further teaches wherein the fasteners pass through slots formed in at least one of the functional training rig and the pre-positioned plates to allow vertical and horizontal adjustment of the or each functional training rig relative to the box (Hoffman slots in 30; Figs. 1-2; Haddock slots in the brackets and/or slots in 18, 22; note that the claim does not require the kit to be in an installed condition, and that the position of the fasteners would be at the installer’s discretion to adjust the position of the fasteners extending through the slots as desired in a vertical and horizontal manner, as exceedingly broadly claimed).
Claim 13, as modified above, the combination of Jenkins, Hoffman and Haddock teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the box is provided with hinged upright doors and/or with side walls which open or fold away (Jenkins 650, 672).
Claim 17, as modified above, the combination of Jenkins, Hoffman and Haddock teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the box comprises an ISO shipping container, such as a 3m, 6.1m or 12.2m ISO shipping container (Jenkins 6.1m [0032]).
Claim 19, as modified above, the combination of Jenkins, Hoffman and Haddock teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein components of the or each functional training rig are stored on storage racks within the box for transportation (Jenkins components can be stored inside the box [0028]-[0031]).
Claim 14 and 16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jenkins et al. (US 20070232461) (‘Jenkins’) in view of Hoffman (US 3207511) and further in view of Haddock et al. (WO 2012129039) (‘Haddock’) and further yet in view of Josephs (US 4854460).
Claim 14 and 16, Jenkins, Hoffman and Haddock teach all the limitations of claim 13 as above. Jenkins does not teach a ramp provided in the region of the doors. However, Josephs teaches a box comprising a ramp 30 provided in a region of doors 27 (Fig. 1), wherein the ramp is hinged so as to hinge back into the box when not in use (col. 3, lines 43-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the functional training rig kit by incorporating a ramp in the region of the doors, wherein the ramp is hinged so as to hinge back into the box when not in use, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to facilitate entering and exiting the box.
Claim 14-15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jenkins et al. (US 20070232461) (‘Jenkins’) in view of Hoffman (US 3207511) and further in view of Haddock et al. (WO 2012129039) (‘Haddock’) and further yet in view of Paulyson (US 4343401).
Claims 14-15, Jenkins, Hoffman and Haddock teach all the limitations of claim 13 as above. Jenkins does not teach a removable ramp provided in the region of the doors. However, Paulyson teaches a box comprising a removable ramp (80 col. 2, lines 50-65; col. 9, line 6) provided in a region of doors 21 (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the functional training rig kit by incorporating a removable ramp in the region of the doors, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to facilitate entering and exiting the box.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jenkins et al. (US 20070232461) (‘Jenkins’) in view of Hoffman (US 3207511) and further in view of Haddock et al. (WO 2012129039) (‘Haddock’) and further yet in view of Noiseux et al. (US 20110094167) (‘Noiseux’).
Claim 18, Jenkins, Hoffman and Haddock teach all the limitation of claim 1 as above. Jenkins does not teach a canopy. However, Noiseux teaches a box provided with a canopy 34. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to incorporate a canopy, with the reasonable expectation of success of incorporating a highly flexible, cost-effective way to boost utility, for example by shielding users from UV rays and rain.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jenkins et al. (US 20070232461) (‘Jenkins’) in view of Hoffman (US 3207511) and further in view of Haddock et al. (WO 2012129039) (‘Haddock’) and further yet in view of Rochford (US 20110152046).
Claim 20, Jenkins, Hoffman and Haddock teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Jenkins does not teach wherein, in use, the or each functional training rig is supported on one or more ground-engaging plates. However, Rochford teach a functional training rig, wherein, in use, the functional training rig 40 is supported on one or more ground-engaging plates (31; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the functional training rig kit such that in use, the or each functional training rig is supported on one or more ground-engaging plates, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means of ground-engaging plates to provide stability to the functional training rig and to permit flexible movement and placement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights