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 .
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.
Claim(s) 14, 17-19 is/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 14 recites the limitation "first panel" in line 2f. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear whether the “center” refers to a single point, an area, a line, or other geometric property.
Claims 18-19 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, 15-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Monaco (US Pub. 2016/0059104 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Monaco discloses a workout station comprising:
an exercise structure (Abstract, lines 1-2: “The present application is directed to a mobile fitness unit in an automatically folding shipping container”);
a platform configured to support said exercise structure thereon (Pg. 2, [0027], lines 1-7: “Illustrated in FIG. 1A is a perspective view of an embodiment of an unfolded mobile fitness unit 100. The mobile fitness unit may comprise a central floor 102, side panels 104, a rear panel 106, each joined to the central floor by hinges, pins, or similar fasteners allowing one degree of freedom or rotation of side panels 104 and rear panel 106 while restricting translation of the panels”);
and a canopy assembly including a frame coupled to said platform and a cover supported over said platform by said frame (Fig. 1A, roof 110);
and wherein said platform includes a frame (Fig. 1A, each panel 102, 104 is surrounded by a frame), and a plurality of legs coupled to said frame of said platform (Fig. 1A, supports 108), each of said legs including a bottom portion and an opposite top portion, each said bottom portion being configured to rest on an underlying supporting surface, and each said top portion being adjustably coupled to said frame of said platform to facilitate the leveling of said platform by raising and lowering each said leg with respect to said platform (Pg. 2, [0028], lines 7-11: “Because embodiments with axels may raise the floor 102 to at least the height of the axe!, the mobile fitness unit 100 may include one or more supports or jacks 108 that may be extended to support panels 104 when unfolded, as well as level the mobile fitness unit 100”).
Regarding claim 2, Monaco discloses wherein said frame of said platform includes a first beam extending along a first direction and a second beam extending along a second direction parallel to said first direction (Fig. 1A, at least a pair of parallel beams are located on either side of the platform).
Regarding claim 3, Monaco discloses said exercise structure includes a first bottom portion configured to support at least a portion of the weight of said exercise structure; said first bottom portion is disposed over said first beam (Fig. 1A, the various exercise equipment is located at least partially over a beam);
said exercise structure includes a second bottom portion configured to support at least a portion of the weight of said exercise structure; and said second bottom portion is disposed over said second beam (See id).
Regarding claim 4, Monaco discloses said first bottom portion of said exercise structure is fixed to said first beam; and said second bottom portion of said exercise structure is fixed to said second beam (Pg. 1, [0007]: “In one aspect, the present disclosure is directed to a folding mobile fitness unit. The mobile fitness unit includes a floor; a plurality of beams attached to the floor; and a roof supported by the plurality of beams. The mobile fitness unit also includes at least one panel attached to an edge of the floor at a corresponding edge of said panel by a joint having one degree of freedom, the panel configured to rotate between a position parallel to the floor and a position orthogonal to the floor. The mobile fitness unit further includes at least one collapsible frame attached to an upper portion of one or more of the plurality of beams by a joint having one degree of freedom, the collapsible frame configured to extend outward laterally from the one or more beams when the panel is rotated to the position parallel to the floor”).
Regarding claim 6, Monaco discloses wherein said frame of said platform includes a third beam extending along a third direction that is perpendicular to said first direction, said third beam of said frame of said platform including a first end and an opposite second end (Fig. 1A, at least a pair of parallel beams are located on either side of the platform);
said frame of said platform includes a fourth beam extending along a fourth direction that is parallel to said third direction, said fourth beam of said frame of said platform including a first end and an opposite second end; said first beam of said frame of said platform includes a first end and an opposite second end (See id);
said second beam of said frame of said platform includes a first end and an opposite second end (Each beam comprises two ends);
said first end of said first beam of said frame of said platform is coupled to said first end of said third beam of said frame of said platform; said second end of said first beam of said frame of said platform is coupled to said first end of said fourth beam of said frame of said platform; said first end of said second beam of said frame of said platform is coupled to said second end of said third beam of said frame of said platform; and said second end of said second beam of said frame of said platform is coupled to said second end of said fourth beam of said frame of said platform (A plurality of beams interconnect to form a frame around the structure).
Regarding claim 7, Monaco discloses wherein: said plurality of legs includes a first leg disposed proximate said first end of said first beam of said frame of said platform and proximate said first end of said third beam of said frame of said platform; said plurality of legs includes a second leg disposed proximate said second end of said first beam of said frame of said platform and proximate said first end of said fourth beam of said frame of said platform; said plurality of legs includes a third leg disposed proximate said first end of said second beam of said frame of said platform and proximate said second end of said third beam of said frame of said platform; and said plurality of legs includes a fourth leg disposed proximate said second end of said second beam of said frame of said platform and proximate said second end of said fourth beam of said frame of said platform (Fig. 1A, at least four legs are shown).
Regarding claim 8, Monaco discloses a first panel supported by and between said first beam of said frame of said platform, said second beam of said frame of said platform, said third beam of said frame of said platform, and said fourth beam of said frame of said platform (Fig. 1A, central floor 102, panels 104, 106).
Regarding claim 9, Monaco discloses wherein: said frame of said platform further includes a fifth beam extending along a direction that is parallel to said first direction; said fifth beam includes a first end and an opposite second end; said frame of said platform further includes a sixth beam extending along said third direction; said sixth beam includes a first end and an opposite second end; said frame of said platform further includes a seventh beam extending along said fourth direction; said seventh beam includes a first end and an opposite second end; said frame of said platform further includes an eighth beam extending along a direction that is parallel to said first direction; said eighth beam includes a first end and an opposite second end; said frame of said platform further includes a ninth beam extending along said third direction; said ninth beam includes a first end and an opposite second end; said frame of said platform further includes a tenth beam extending along said fourth direction; said tenth beam includes a first end and an opposite second end; said first end of said fifth beam of said frame of said platform is coupled to said second end of said sixth beam of said frame of said platform; said second end of said fifth beam of said frame of said platform is coupled to said second end of said seventh beam of said frame of said platform; said first end of said sixth beam is coupled to at least one of said first end of said second beam of said frame of said platform and said second end of said third beam of said frame of said platform; said first end of said seventh beam is coupled to at least one of said second end of said second beam of said frame of said platform and said second end of said fourth beam of said frame of said platform; said first end of said eighth beam of said frame of said platform is coupled to said first end of said ninth beam of said frame of said platform; said second end of said eighth beam of said frame of said platform is coupled to said first end of said tenth beam of said frame of said platform; said second end of said ninth beam is coupled to at least one of said first end of said first beam of said frame of said platform and said first end of said third beam of said frame of said platform; said second end of said tenth beam is coupled to at least one of said second end of said first beam of said frame of said platform and said first end of said fourth beam of said frame of said platform (Fig. 1A, the platform comprises four beams running along the length of the platform as well as three beams along each of the adjoining edges of the four beams).
Regarding claim 10, Monaco discloses wherein said plurality of legs includes a first leg disposed proximate said first end of said first beam of said frame of said platform; said plurality of legs includes a second leg disposed proximate said second end of said first beam of said frame of said platform; said plurality of legs includes a third leg disposed proximate said first end of said second beam of said frame of said platform; said plurality of legs includes a fourth leg disposed proximate said second end of said second beam of said frame of said platform; said plurality of legs includes a fifth leg disposed proximate said first end of said fifth beam of said frame of said platform; said plurality of legs includes a sixth leg disposed proximate said second end of said fifth beam of said frame of said platform; said plurality of legs includes a seventh leg disposed proximate said first end of said eighth beam of said frame of said platform; and said plurality of legs includes an eighth leg disposed proximate said second end of said eighth beam of said frame of said platform (Fig. 1A, the beams comprise supports 108 located particularly at the extents of said beams).
Regarding claim 11, Monaco discloses a first floor panel, a second floor panel, and a third floor panel, and wherein: said first floor panel is supported by and between said first beam, said second beam, said third beam, and said fourth beam of said frame of said platform; said second floor panel is supported by and between said second beam, said fifth beam, said sixth beam, and said seventh beam of said frame of said platform; and said third floor panel is supported by and between said first beam, said eighth beam ,said ninth beam, and said tenth beam of said frame of said platform (Fig. 1A, at least three panels are shown each supported by a different configuration of beams).
Regarding claim 12, Monaco discloses a first floor panel, a second floor panel, and a third floor panel, and wherein: said first floor panel is supported by and between said first beam, said second beam, said third beam, and said fourth beam of said frame of said platform; said second floor panel is supported by and between said second beam, said fifth beam, said sixth beam, and said seventh beam of said frame of said platform; and said third floor panel is supported by and between said first beam, said eighth beam, said ninth beam, and said tenth beam of said frame of said platform (See id).
Regarding claim 15, Monaco discloses said frame of said platform is supported by said plurality of legs (Fig. 1A, the frame is supported by supports 108);
said exercise structure is supported by said platform (Fig. 1A, exercise equipment is disposed on top of the platform);
and said frame of said canopy is supported by said platform (Fig. 1A, roof 110 is supported by the platform).
Regarding claim 16, Monaco discloses said platform includes a first support beam and a second support beam (A plurality of beams support the panels of the platform);
said exercise structure defines a footprint on said platform (Fig. 1, the exercise equipment exists over the platform);
said footprint including a first portion disposed over said first support beam (Fig. 1, the equipment is above at least two beams);
and said footprint includes a second portion disposed over said second support beam (See id).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood by the Examiner, Monaco discloses said first portion of said footprint has a center; said center of said first portion of said footprint is disposed over said first support beam; said second portion of said footprint has a center; said center of said second portion of said footprint is disposed over said second beam (Fig. 1A, if the center is defined as a line bisecting the panel, the beams can be said to be under the center of the footprint).
Regarding claim 20, Monaco discloses a workout station (Abstract, lines 1-2: “The present application is directed to a mobile fitness unit in an automatically folding shipping container”) comprising:
a weight rack (Abstract, lines 4-8: “Frames may be extended out from the roof of the unfolded shipping container to form pull up bars and squat racks, or provide stable mounts for equipment such as lateral pull-down cables, punching bags, or other apparatuses”) including a tubular frame, said tubular frame including a plurality of bottom tubes arranged together to rest on a flat surface (Fig. 1A, equipment rests on a flat surface);
a platform configured to support said weight rack thereon (Pg. 2, [0027], lines 1-7: “Illustrated in FIG. 1A is a perspective view of an embodiment of an unfolded mobile fitness unit 100. The mobile fitness unit may comprise a central floor 102, side panels 104, a rear panel 106, each joined to the central floor by hinges, pins, or similar fasteners allowing one degree of freedom or rotation of side panels 104 and rear panel 106 while restricting translation of the panels”), said platform including a plurality of support beams arranged to correspond to said bottom tubes of said weight rack, said platform additionally including a plurality of leveling legs (Pg. 2, [0028], lines 7-11: “Because embodiments with axels may raise the floor 102 to at least the height of the axe!, the mobile fitness unit 100 may include one or more supports or jacks 108 that may be extended to support panels 104, 106 when unfolded, as well as level the mobile fitness unit 100”), said bottom tubes of said weight rack being mechanically fastened to said support beams of said platform (A plurality of beams support the panels of the platform);
and a canopy disposed to shade at least a portion of said platform (Fig. 1A, roof 110).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monaco (US Pub. 2016/0059104 A1) in view of Rivera (US Pub. 2022/0370878 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Monaco discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Rivera, similarly drawn to an outdoor fitness pavilion, said exercise structure includes a first beam extending along a third direction that is parallel to said first direction; said first beam of said exercise structure forms said first bottom portion of said exercise structure and is disposed over said first beam of said frame of said platform; said exercise structure includes a first column extending upward from said first beam of said exercise structure; said exercise structure includes a second beam extending along a fourth direction that is parallel to said second direction; said second beam of said exercise structure forms said second bottom portion of said exercise structure and is disposed over said second beam of said frame of said platform; and said exercise structure includes a second column extending upward from said second beam of said exercise structure (Fig. 10, fitness rack 22 comprises two floor beams lying across the platform with a four beams extending vertically from each of the two ends of the floor beams).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exercise structure of Monaco to include the rack with the configuration of Rivera as the floor beams provide improved structural integrity.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monaco (US Pub. 2016/0059104 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Monaco discloses the claimed invention except for a fourth floor panel supported on said first floor panel; a fifth floor panel supported on said second floor panel; and a sixth floor panel supported on said third floor panel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include an additional panel located on top each of the initial three panels for improved structural integrity, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood by the Examiner, Monaco discloses the claimed invention except for a second panel supported on said first panel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include an additional panel located on top of the first panel for improved structural integrity, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monaco (US Pub. 2016/0059104 A1) in view of Lewis-Dove (US Pub. 2021/0170218 A1).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood by the Examiner, Monaco discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Lewis-Dove, similarly drawn to a universal gym, wherein: said exercise structure is a weight rack having a first side frame, a second side frame, and one or more transverse members coupling said first side frame to said second side frame; said first support beam extends along a first direction; said second support beam extends along a second direction; said first side frame has an elongated bottom member extending along said first direction and defining said first portion of said footprint; said second side frame has an elongated bottom member extending along said second direction and defining said second portion of said footprint (Fig. 1, apparatus 100 comprises horizontal members 136 extending across a floor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exercise structure of Monaco to include the rack with the configuration of Lewis-Dove as the floor beams provide improved structural integrity.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood by the Examiner, Monaco as modified by Lewis-Dove discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Lewis-Dove, said first support beam is substantially parallel to said second support beam; said first support beam defines a plurality of attachment apertures; said second support beam defines a second plurality of attachment apertures; said elongated bottom member of said first side frame is substantially parallel to said elongated bottom member of said second side frame; said elongated bottom member of said first side frame defines a third plurality of attachment apertures; and said elongated bottom member of said second side frame defines a fourth plurality of attachment apertures; and wherein said first plurality of attachment apertures includes a greater number of attachment apertures than said third plurality of attachment apertures; said second plurality of attachment apertures includes a greater number of apertures than said fourth plurality of attachment apertures; said apertures of said third plurality of attachment apertures are arranged to align with different subsets of attachment apertures of said first plurality of attachment apertures; and said apertures of said fourth plurality of attachment apertures are arranged to align with different subsets of attachment apertures of said second set of attachment apertures; and whereby a position of said weight rack on said platform can be adjusted by selectively aligning said third plurality of attachment apertures with a particular one of said subsets of attachment apertures of said first set of attachment apertures, and selectively aligning said fourth plurality of attachment apertures with a particular one of said subsets of attachment apertures of said second set of attachment apertures (Pg. 11, [0191], lines 1-8: “FIG. 1 depicts one embodiment of the invention, apparatus 100. Apparatus 100 has a frame comprising a plurality of vertical members 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, and 118 mutually supporting a plurality of horizontal members 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 136, and 137”. The plurality of members each comprise a plurality of apertures for attaching accessories with the vertical members having more apertures than the horizontal members).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights