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 to the instant application’s claim for priority to provisional application 63/626,410, and as such the earliest date of priority of 01/29/2024 is granted to the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/11/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Photographs, color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one photograph. Figs. 1-18 must be replaced with line drawings. In addition, the labels for each reference number included in each figure, namely figures 12 and 13 must be clear. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Furthermore, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “shock plate frame positioned between the shock plate and the plurality of isolators” as claimed in independent claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the plurality of isolators” on lines 14-15. It is unclear if these isolators are the same as the plurality of energy attenuating isolators claimed previously on line 11, or if these are a second set of isolators. If they are the same structure, the examiner suggests amending the claim to –the plurality of energy attenuating isolators--.
The term “sufficiently” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the applicant considers as “sufficiently abrasion resistant” when referring to the rubber material the shock rubber layer is comprised of.
Claim 6 contains the trademark/trade name “sorbothane”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the material the isolators are comprised of and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
The term “about” in claims 8-10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In regards to claim 8, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are in regards to the weight of the barbell necessary for the invention, and the height at which the barbell can be dropped from.
With respect to claim 9, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are in regards to the hardness of the sorbothane material, the energy associated with the impact to maximum gravitational forces, the weight of the mass dropped, and the height at which it is dropped.
In regards to claim 10, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are in regards to the hardness of the sorbothane material, the energy associated with the impact to maximum gravitational forces, the weight of the mass dropped, and the height at which it is dropped.
Dependent claims 2,4-7, and 11-12 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1,3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaBar et al. US 9555309 B1, and further in view of Login US 5853352 A.
Regarding claim 1:
LaBar teaches a weightlifting system, comprising: first and second elevating platforms (jerk blocks 10 and 100), each being configured to support first and second opposing ends of a barbell (barbell 101), respectively (“The lifting jerk blocks are placed adjacent to each other in a spaced apart position wherein the weights located on each end of the barbell are centrally located over each of the upper surfaces 50 of the lifting jerk blocks 10.” See col. 5 lines 34-37 and figure 3) and first and second hydraulic mechanisms (hydraulic jack 36) coupled to the first and second elevating platforms (See figure 4), respectively, and configured to move the elevating platforms in a vertical direction between a first position and a second position to raise and lower the barbell (“Pushing of the cross-support 32 by extending the push rod 41 from the actuator 36 raises the support member 22 above the base, and retraction of the push rod 41 into the actuator 36 causes the support member to be lowered.” See col. 5 lines 24-27).
[AltContent: textbox (a pictorial view of a barbell placed upon the jerk blocks in a lowered position)]
PNG
media_image1.png
478
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (a pictorial view of a barbell placed upon the jerk blocks in a raised position)]
PNG
media_image2.png
448
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
LaBar fails to teach wherein each of the first and second elevating platforms comprises: a shock rubber layer, one or more plywood layers positioned below the shock rubber layer, a shock plate positioned below the one or more plywood layers, the shock plate configured to distribute, equally to a plurality of energy attenuating isolators arranged below the shock plate, forces applied to the elevating platform when contacted by the barbell, and a shock plate frame positioned between the shock plate and the plurality of isolators, the shock plate frame configured to support and prevent deformation of the shock plate.
The examiner notes that LaBar does teach a multi-layer support base 22 as shown in the figures, with an upper surface 50 constructed from a steel plate with a rubber pad 52 which is about 3 inches thick (See col.7 lines 10-11), but fails to teach the layers and isolators claimed above.
Login, however, teaches a reduced vertical impact exercise platform is provided having a frame structure which, at least in part, encloses a platform assembly comprised of a plurality of distinct layers (See abstract), and further teaches wherein the platform comprises: a shock rubber layer (contact layer 34, “The outermost layer, contact layer 34, is formed of a durable, non-skid, impact absorbing, resilient material. Non-limiting examples of material which are suitable for use as the contact layer include, for example, rubber-based compositions, plastics, blends thereof and the like.” See col. 3 lines 58-63), one or more plywood layers (stiffening layer 44), “Examples of materials suitable for use as stiffening layer 44 include, for example, wood, plywood, masonite, plastic, metal, combinations thereof or the like.” See col.5 lines 12-14) positioned below the shock rubber layer (See figure 2) a shock plate (padding layer 40) positioned below the one or more plywood layers (The examiner notes that moving the padding layer to be under the plywood layer would amount to no more than a rearrangement of parts.), the shock plate configured to distribute, equally to a plurality of energy attenuating isolators (resilient cushioning members 46) arranged below the shock plate (See figure 2), forces applied to the elevating platform when contacted by the barbell(The examiner notes that col. 4 lines 21-27 discuss the material the padding layer/shock plate is comprised of which are chosen for their impact absorption properties, and that col. 4 line 67- col. 5 line 8 discuss how the layers distribute forces evenly over the cushioning members), and a shock plate frame positioned between the shock plate and the plurality of isolators (The examiner notes that due to the lack of direction from the figures, particularly figures 12 and 13, which as noted above fail to show this particular arrangement of the shock plate frame between the shock plate and the plurality of isolators, but instead depict it as shown in figure 12 below the isolators, that for the purpose of examination, the bottom most foundation layer 52 will be considered with no further structural or functional limitations as the shock plate frame in the same arrangement as shown in figure 12. Furthermore, the examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, the instant plurality of isolators are being considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural or functional limitations as the same structure as the plurality of energy attenuating isolators previously claimed above.), the shock plate frame configured to support and prevent deformation of the shock plate (“A foundation or bottom layer in the platform assembly 32 is a foundation layer 52 which provides foundational support to the upper four layers of the platform assembly 32 and acts as a base for contacting the floor surface upon which the exercise platform 10 is placed during use.” See col. 6 lines 1-5).
[AltContent: textbox (an exploded perspective view of the reduced impact exercise platform)]
PNG
media_image3.png
598
470
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support bases of LaBar to have the multilayer energy absorbing platform as taught by Login, as this would allow the user to drop the barbell, or place it on the platforms, without fear of breaking the supports, as the multilayer energy absorbing materials would dissipate the force from the barbell falling.
Regarding claim 3:
LaBar as modified by Login teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the shock rubber layer comprises a recycled rubber material having an upper surface that is sufficiently abrasion resistant to withstand impacts from the barbell and a high coefficient of friction for deterring movement of the barbell on the upper surface (“As shown in FIGS. 3-4, a preferred material for contact layer 34 is a fused, bi-layer rubber-based compound having a durable, non-skid, impact absorbent upper portion 36 and an impact absorbent lower portion 38.” See col.3 lines 63-67.” The examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language regarding what the applicant considers sufficiently abrasion resistant, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, the fact that the rubber material Login uses for the contact layer is choses for its durable, non-skid properties is being considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural or functional limitations as sufficiently abrasion resistant with a high coefficient of friction for deterring movement. In addition, the examiner notes that choosing a rubber with sufficient abrasion resistance properties and a high enough coefficient of friction would require no more than optimization through routine experimentation which as discussed in MPEP chapter 2144.05, section II, subsection A does not create a patentably distinct invention.)
Regarding claim 12:
LaBar as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first position is even with a surface on which a user is supported when using the system (“Referring to FIG. 3, illustrated is the jerk block 10 & 100 with the support member 22 placed in a lowered or storage position.” See col.6 lines 32-34 and figure 3 where the platforms are depicted on the floor) and the second position is above the first position (“Referring now to FIG. 4, illustrated is the jerk block 10 with the support member 22 placed in a raised position.” See col. 6 lines 60-61 and figure 4).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaBar et al. US 9555309 B1, in view of Login US 5853352 A, and further in view of Downey et al. US 20180202150 A1.
LaBar teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 2:
LaBar as modified teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach a static platform positioned between the first and second elevating platforms and configured to support a user of the barbell.
Downey, however, teaches an impact damping mat comprising a plurality of layers arranged in a stacked formation, and further teaches a static platform (less damped zone 156) positioned between the first and second elevating platforms (See figure 4 which depicts the less damped zone 156 between two impact damping platforms 152) and configured to support a user of the barbell (“Overall, the intent is that a person lifting a weight (such as a barbell with a weight plate on either end from the adjacent power rack) would stand on the less damped zone 156 during lifting and drop their weight on the impact damping zones 152 when done lifting, i.e. a weight plate would land on each impact damping zone 152” See paragraph [0047]).
[AltContent: textbox (an axonometric view of an equipment accessory for use with adjacent equipment)]
PNG
media_image4.png
508
390
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of LaBar to include a static platform positioned between the first and second elevating platforms and configured to support a user of the barbell as taught by Downey, as it is a common practice in the field of exercise platforms top have center area for the user to stand while deadlifting, squatting etc. in order for them to apply even forces to the floor without the damping effect of the side platforms meant to absorb the impact of the weights.
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaBar et al. US 9555309 B1, in view of Login US 5853352 A, and further in view of Tarkington et al. US 20260131188 A1.
LaBar as modified teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 6:
LaBar as modified by Login the system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein at least one of the plurality of energy attenuating isolators comprises a sorbothane material. The examiner notes that Login does state, “The cushioning members 46 can be formed of any resilient material and preferably comprise open or closed-cell poly foam blocks” in col. 3 lines 30-33, but does not specifically state sorbothane.
Tarkington, however, teaches an exercise and stimulation device including an exercise apparatus including a resistive member resisting a motion of a part of a user's body; and a stimulation device removably engaging both the resistive member and the part of the user's body for providing at least two different stimulations to the user's body, where the at least two different stimulations are different than one another (See abstract), and further teaches that the stimulation device which engages with the user’s body can include a sorbothane material (“Portions of the exercise system 230, e.g., the stimulation device 220, that come in contact with user's body may be constructed of any of a variety of materials including but not limited to polyester, nylon, neoprene, sorbothane, poron, plastazzote, spenco, viscolas, lycra/spandex, foam, spacer mesh, antimicrobial mesh, and memory form. When fabric or form is used, superior durability, breathable, antimicrobial, comfort and water repellent may be preferred.” See paragraph [0067].The examiner notes that due to the indefinite nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above regarding use of the trademark name “sorbothane”, the specific mention of sorbothane by Tarkington is being considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation as the material being a synthetic viscoelastic urethane polymer which is the material sorbothane comprises.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the isolators, to comprise a sorbothane like material as taught by Tarkington, as the isolators of Login are specifically used for shock absorption when the platform is affected by an impact, so using a material like sorbothane would have greater shock absorption properties and allow the platforms to execute their intended function to a better degree.
Regarding claim 7:
LaBar as modified by Tarkington teaches the system of claim 6, but fails to teach wherein the at least one energy attenuating isolator comprising the sorbothane material has a cylindrical shape.
The examiner notes that while the isolators of Login are depicted as non-cylindrical, altering the shape of the structure to be cylindrical amounts to no more than a change in shape, which as stated in MPEP 2144.04, section IV, subsection B., does not create a patentably distinct invention as one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to alter the shape of a known structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the isolators to be cylindrical.
Regarding claim 8:
LaBar as modified by Tarkington teaches the system of claim 7, but fails to teach wherein the at least one energy attenuating isolator comprising the sorbothane material is configured to maintain a consistent shape factor, material mass, and predictable displacement in response to an impact of the barbell with the elevating platforms, wherein the barbell weighs between about 35 pounds and about 1000 pounds and is dropped from heights ranging between about 0 inches above the elevating platforms to about 80 inches above the elevating platforms.
The examiner notes however, that as admitted by the applicant throughout the specification of the instant application, namely paragraphs [0060]-[0071], the claimed configuration of the sorbothane containing energy attenuating isolator is optimization through routine experimentation, which as stated in MPEP chapter 2144.05, section II, subsection A does not create a patentably distinct invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the isolators which as discussed in the rejection of claim 6, which claim 7 depends on, which claim 8 depends on, to have the necessary configuration of the claimed limitation since the sorbothane material is included in the isolators and by the applicant’s own admission would have the necessary properties claimed.
Regarding claim 9:
LaBar as modified teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the at least one energy attenuating isolator comprising the sorbothane material has a hardness of about 70 duro, and wherein the elevating platforms attenuate energy associated with the impact to maximum gravitational forces equivalent of about 2.5 Gs and about 6 Gs for impacts consistent with a mass being dropped from about 60 inches and weighing about 170 pounds and about 80 pounds, respectively.
The examiner that as discussed above in the rejection of claim 8, which claim 9 depends on, as admitted by the applicant throughout the specification of the instant application, namely paragraphs [0060]-[0071], the claimed configuration of the sorbothane containing energy attenuating isolator is optimization through routine experimentation, which as stated in MPEP chapter 2144.05, section II, subsection A does not create a patentably distinct invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the isolators which as discussed in the rejection of claim 6, which claim 7 depends on, which claim 8 depends on, to have the necessary configuration of the claimed limitation since the sorbothane material is included in the isolators and by the applicant’s own admission would have the necessary properties claimed.
Regarding claim 10:
LaBar as modified teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the at least one energy attenuating isolator comprising the sorbothane material has a hardness of about 50 duro, and wherein the elevating platforms attenuate energy associated with the impact to maximum gravitational forces equivalent of about 2 Gs and about 1.2 Gs for impacts consistent with a mass being dropped from about 60 inches and weighing about 170 pounds and about 80 pounds, respectively.
The examiner that as discussed above in the rejection of claim 8, which claim 10 depends on, as admitted by the applicant throughout the specification of the instant application, namely paragraphs [0060]-[0071], the claimed configuration of the sorbothane containing energy attenuating isolator is optimization through routine experimentation, which as stated in MPEP chapter 2144.05, section II, subsection A does not create a patentably distinct invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the isolators which as discussed in the rejection of claim 6, which claim 7 depends on, which claim 8 depends on, to have the necessary configuration of the claimed limitation since the sorbothane material is included in the isolators and by the applicant’s own admission would have the necessary properties claimed.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaBar et al. US 9555309 B1, in view of Login US 5853352 A, and further in view of Cone et al. US 5151072 A.
LaBar as modified teaches the invention as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 11:
LaBar as modified teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the first and second hydraulic mechanisms each comprise one or more direct drive hydraulic cylinders capable of automatically raising or lowering the elevating platforms between the first position and the second position.
Cone, however, teaches a free weight lifting apparatus adapted for to return of a Free Weight Barbell to a stationary barbell support rack, without other ancillary assistance, for a lone exerciser participating in a variety of free weight lifting exercises, including negative lift exercises (See abstract), and further teaches wherein the hydraulic mechanisms each comprise one or more direct drive hydraulic cylinders capable of automatically raising or lowering the elevating platforms between the first position and the second position (“When barbell (6) of a commonly known type is allowed to depress the pivoting sleeves (5), the normally open electrical switches (11) are closed, the electric motor (23) powers the hydraulic pump (24) causing fluid to flow from the reservoir (25) to the hydraulic cylinder and ram assembly (8) thereby raising the sliding frame (2) within the fixed frame (1).” See col.3 line 66-col. 4 line 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic actuator(s) of LaBar to be direct drive cylinders which can automatically raise and lower the platforms as taught by Cone, as LaBar teaches using lasers to verify that the platforms are even when the user raises them one at a time, so having an automatic control over them would make setting the system at a desired height easier each time, and would allow for quicker adjustments during the workout, or to accommodate a wider variety of users of different heights.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to teach or disclose the system of dependent claim 4, including specifically wherein the one or more plywood layers comprise an upper layer and a lower level of urethane-coated plywood material. Furthermore, the closest prior art of record fails to teach or disclose the system of dependent claim 5, including specifically wherein the shock plate is made of a metal material.
The closest prior art of record includes, Valentine US 20150059276 A1, Moller et al. US 20150075092 A1, and Tarkington et al. US 20260131188 A1.
Valentine US 20150059276 A1: Shock Absorber for Sports Floor, which teaches a floor assembly 10 having a floor surface 11 made out of a plurality of strips of material, such as strips of wood 12, is illustrated. The floor assembly 10 illustrated is the type that would be suitable for playing basketball or other sports. The strips of material are typically manufactured from maple or other suitable wood, but could be manufactured from other suitable materials. Resting directly under and in contact with the underside of the floor surface 11 is a sub-flooring 14. The sub-flooring 14 supports the strips of wood 12. The sub-flooring 14 typically includes a first layer of plywood 16 and a second layer of plywood 18. The first layer of plywood 16 is often oriented in one direction while the second layer of plywood 18 is oriented in a second direction which is often 45.degree. (not shown) or 90.degree. (FIG. 1) relative to the first direction. A cement slab is generally provided as a rigid support base 20 for the floor surface 11 and the sub-flooring 14 (See paragraph [0014]). Furthermore, Valentine teaches a plurality of shock absorbers 22 supporting he sub-flooring 14 in a spaced apart relation with respect to the support base 20 (See paragraph [0015]). With paragraph [0020] discussing various materials the shock absorbers can be made from, including specific duro levels preferred for different activities depending on the user’s needs.
[AltContent: textbox (exploded, perspective view of a sports floor utilizing a shock absorber constructed in accordance with the inventive concepts disclosed herein)]
PNG
media_image5.png
458
606
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It fails to teach any hydraulic cylinders, or moving capabilities, the other layers included in each platform including the shock rubber layer, shock plate and shock plate frame, the functionality of being able to support a barbell, and further doesn’t teach that the shock plate is metal.
Moller et al. US 20150075092 A1: Multi-Stage Shock Absorbing Modular Floor Tile Apparatus, which teaches a floor tile system 10, having a modular floor tile 12, and a single piece resilient insert member 14. Modular floor tile 12 includes a closed top surface with a top surface layer 20, a plurality of first rigid support members 22 (see FIG. 2), a plurality of second rigid support members 24 (see FIG. 2), side edges 26, 28, 30, 32 (see FIG. 1), a plurality of loops 34 (see FIG. 1), and a plurality of locking tab assemblies 36 (see FIG. 2). Top surface layer 20 includes top and bottom surfaces 44, 46 (See paragraph [0057]).
[AltContent: textbox (a perspective view of an example floor tile system in accordance with the present disclosure)]
PNG
media_image6.png
296
460
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (a bottom perspective view of a portion of the floor tile system of FIG. 1)]
PNG
media_image7.png
338
410
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It fails to teach any hydraulic cylinders, or moving capabilities, the other layers included in each platform including the shock rubber layer, plywood, and shock plate in general, the functionality of being able to support a barbell, and further doesn’t any metal materials in the tile system.
Tarkington et al. US 20260131188 A1: Exercise Apparatus Including Stimulation and Methods of Use, which teaches an exercise and stimulation device may include an exercise apparatus including a resistive member resisting a motion of a part of a user's body; and a stimulation device removably engaging both the resistive member and the part of the user's body for providing at least two different stimulations to the user's body, where the at least two different stimulations are different than one another (See abstract), and further teaches that the stimulation device 220, that come in contact with user's body may be constructed of any of a variety of materials including but not limited to polyester, nylon, neoprene, sorbothane, poron, plastazzote, spenco, viscolas, lycra/spandex, foam, spacer mesh, antimicrobial mesh, and memory form (See paragraph [0067]).
[AltContent: textbox (a perspective view of an exercise device and stimulation device according to an embodiment)]
PNG
media_image8.png
428
700
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, Tarkington fails to teach any hydraulic platforms, the other layers included in each platform including the shock rubber layer, plywood, and shock plate in general, , and further doesn’t any metal materials in the tile system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN ANGELO DICUIA whose telephone number is (703)756-4713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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.
/JONATHAN A DICUIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights