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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20, as filed on 03/06/2025, are currently pending and considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (Paragraph 2) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities (appropriate correction is required):
Claim 2 amend: “the maximum height” to ---a maximum height---.
Claim 2 amend: “the height” to ---a height---.
Claim 2 amend: “the bottom surface” to ---a bottom surface---.
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.
Claims 14-16 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 base of a first base” and “the rear cross member of a second base”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for the base and the rear cross member and it is unclear the metes and bounds of the first and second base and their complete structures. Applicant is suggested to include ---wherein the base is two bases, wherein the two bases are a first base and a second base---.
Claim 15 recites: “the front portion of the base of a first base” and “the rear cross member of a second base”. It is unclear if the front portion is part of the base or a first base, there is a lack of antecedent basis for rear cross member. It is unclear the metes and bounds of the first and second base and if they include all the structural limitations of the base. Applicant is suggested to include --- wherein the base is two bases, wherein the two bases are a first base and a second base---.
Claim 16 recites: : “the front portion of the base of a first base” and “the first and second side members of a second base”. It is unclear if the front portion is part of the base or a first base, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the side members. It is unclear the metes and bounds of the first and second base and if they include all the structural limitations of the base. Applicant is suggested to include --- wherein the base is two bases, wherein the two bases are a first base and a second base---.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9, 11-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11382815 B2 (Ravari et al.) in view of US 2666212 A (Flanders).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Ravari discloses a base (transport device 200) for fitness equipment (capable of being used for fitness equipment), the base including:
a first side member and a second side member (left and right anti-tip frame 104), the first and second side members joined at a first position (central) to form a V shape at a front portion (considered outwards from vertex of V shape) of the base (see Figure 1A wherein the frame 104 forms a V shaped structure);
a first side arm joined to the first side member (left leg 106 at lock 164A); a second side arm joined to the second side member (right left 106 at lock 164B);
a rear cross-member positioned at a third position (brace 102); and
an equipment mount (support frame 101 with seat extensions 108), the equipment mount in contact with the front cross-member and the rear cross-member (via brace 102), the equipment mount including a vertical support (support frame 101 is vertical).
Ravari discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Ravari does not disclose a front cross-member joining the first and second side members at a second position.
Flanders teaches an analogous transport frame device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
a first side member and a second side member (rails 4 and 5), the first and second side members joined at a first position (cross bar 83) to form a U shape at a front portion (considered outwards from vertex of U shape) of the base (see Figure 2 wherein the rails 4,5 and bar 83 forms a U shaped structure);
a front cross-member (cross rail 16) joining the first and second side members at a second position (within the U-shape forward the first position).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the frame with a front cross-member joining the first and second side members at a second position forward the first positions as taught by Flanders, in order to provide structural reinforcement to the frame to prevent tipping and bending.
Regarding Claim 4, Ravari as modified discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Ravari further discloses wherein the first and second members are orientated at an angle relative to one another (see Figure 1A wherein the frames form a V shape with an angle therein). Ravari does not disclose what said angle is and therefore does not disclose wherein the first and second side members are oriented at an angle of 20 degrees to one another. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Ravari to have an angle of 20 degrees as it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of the relative dimension of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distant from the prior art device.” In the instant case, the device of Ravari would not operate differently with the claimed angle. Further, applicant places no criticality on the angle claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the angle to be 20 degrees in order to allow the device to have a narrower profile.
Regarding Claim 9, Ravari as modified discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Ravari further discloses wherein the first and second side arms have an angle of 180 degrees from one another. Ravari does not disclose wherein the first side arm and the second side arm are oriented 120 degrees from one another.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Ravari to have an angle of 120 degrees as it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of the relative dimension of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distant from the prior art device.” In the instant case, the device of Ravari would not operate differently with the claimed angle. Further, applicant places no criticality on the angle claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the angle to be 120 degrees in order to allow expand the footprint of the device to provide less tipping risk of the device.
Regarding Claim 11, Ravari as modified further discloses the base of claim 1, wherein the first side arm and first side member are joined at the rear cross-member (left leg 106 and left frame 104 are joined together via brace 102) and second side arm and second side member are joined at the rear cross-member (right leg 106 and right frame 106 are joined together via the brace 102).
Regarding Claim 12, Ravari as modified further discloses the base of claim 1, wherein a height of the first side arm is greater at the front portion of the base than at the second position height of the legs 106 are greater at the front portion located at the attachment of support frame 101 in the form of triangular support portion of the legs 106, see Figure 1A which is greater in height than the rest of the legs 106).
Regarding Claim 13, Ravari as modified discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Ravari further discloses wherein a majority of the structure is located around the third position. Ravari is silent regarding the location of the center of gravity and does not disclose wherein the center of gravity of the assembled combination is located between the second and third position. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Ravari to have a center of gravity located between the second and third position as it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of the relative dimension of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distant from the prior art device.” In the instant case, the device of Ravari would not operate differently with the claimed center of gravity. Further, applicant places no criticality on the center of gravity claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the center of gravity to be located between the second and third positions in order prevent tipping of the device while a user is sitting on the device by having the center of gravity behind the user.
Regarding Independent Claim 19, Ravari discloses a base (transport device 200) for fitness equipment (capable of being used for fitness equipment), the base including:
a first side member and a second side member (left and right anti-tip frame 104), the first and second side members joined at a first position (central) to form a V shape at a front portion (considered outwards from vertex of V shape) of the base (see Figure 1A wherein the frame 104 forms a V shaped structure);
a first side arm joined to the first side member (left leg 106 at lock 164A); a second side arm joined to the second side member (right left 106 at lock 164B);
a rear cross-member positioned at a third position (brace 102); and
an equipment mount (support frame 101 with seat extensions 108), the equipment mount in contact with the front cross-member and the rear cross-member (via brace 102), the equipment mount including a vertical support (support frame 101 is vertical), the vertical support including a ridge flange (Figure 1A Annotated);
PNG
media_image1.png
716
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1A: Annotated
And a vertical climbing fitness machine mounted to the ridge flange (elevated seat 107; see Figures 1B and 1D wherein the user is above the ground, the seat is considered a vertical climbing fitness machine as the user must climb up onto the seat to be elevated), the center of gravity being located below the ridge flange (center of gravity is located below the ridge flange) and between the front cross-member and the rear cross-member.
Ravari discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Ravari does not disclose a front cross-member joining the first and second side members at a second position; the center of gravity being located between the front cross-member and the rear cross-member.
Flanders teaches an analogous transport frame device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
a first side member and a second side member (rails 4 and 5), the first and second side members joined at a first position (cross bar 83) to form a U shape at a front portion (considered outwards from vertex of U shape) of the base (see Figure 2 wherein the rails 4,5 and bar 83 forms a U shaped structure);
a front cross-member (cross rail 16) joining the first and second side members at a second position (within the U-shape forward the first position).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the frame with a front cross-member joining the first and second side members at a second position forward the first positions as taught by Flanders, in order to provide structural reinforcement to the frame to prevent tipping and bending.
Ravari as modified discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Ravari does not disclose the center of gravity being located between the front cross-member and the rear cross-member.
Ravari as modified discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Ravari further discloses wherein a majority of the structure is located around the third position. Ravari is silent regarding the location of the center of gravity and does not disclose wherein the center of gravity of the assembled combination is located between the front and rear cross-members. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Ravari to have a center of gravity located between the cross-members as it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of the relative dimension of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distant from the prior art device.” In the instant case, the device of Ravari would not operate differently with the claimed center of gravity. Further, applicant places no criticality on the center of gravity claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the center of gravity to be located between the cross-members in order prevent tipping of the device while a user is sitting on the device by having the center of gravity behind the user.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11382815 B2 (Ravari et al.) in view of US 2666212 A (Flanders) in further view of US 4226413 A (Daugherty).
Regarding Claim 3, Ravari as modified discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Ravari further discloses a second wheel located at an end of the first side arm (wheel 103 with wheel lock 160A), and a third wheel located at an end of the second side arm (wheel 103 with wheel lock 160B), and the second or third wheel being a lockable wheel (via wheel locks 160A, 160B).
Ravari does not include a first wheel located at an apex of the front portion of the base, the first wheel being a swivel wheel.
Daugherty teaches an analogous transport device in the same field of endeavor comprising a first wheel (lead pivot wheel 20) located at an apex of the front portion of the base (located at the meeting point of left and right frames 24), the first wheel being a swivel wheel (rotatable via socket 68).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the frame to include an additional wheel located at the apex of the front portion of the base, the wheel being a swivel wheel, in order to allow a user to rotate the device on the wheel and turn the structure about.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 are allowed.
Claims 2, 5-8, 10, 14-16, and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record (Ravari et al.) in view of US 2666212 A (Flanders) fails to teach or render obvious the base for fitness equipment in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
wherein a maximum height of the front portion above a ground surface under the front portion is less than the height above the ground surface of a bottom surface of the rear cross member.
The prior art of record teaches the heights being the same, which are not considered equivalent to applicant’s invention. It would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the front portion to have a height less than that of the rear cross member without modifying a teaching reference.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record (Ravari et al.) in view of US 2666212 A (Flanders) fails to teach or render obvious the base for fitness equipment in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
further including a flange extending upwards from the front cross-member.
The prior art of record teaches the front cross member as a teaching reference modification with no flange, which are not considered equivalent to applicant’s invention. It would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the front cross-member without improperly modifying a teaching reference.
Regarding Claims 14-16, the prior art of record (Ravari et al.) in view of US 2666212 A (Flanders) fails to teach or render obvious the base for fitness equipment in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
a nested arrangement.
The prior art of record teaches singular structure configured to stay on the floor and not stack with a second identical structure. It would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the device with a second identical structure stackable with the first structure without improper hindsight.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record (Ravari et al.) in view of US 2666212 A (Flanders) fails to teach or render obvious the method of storing fitness equipment in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
an equipment mount, the equipment mount in contact with the front cross- member and the rear cross-member,
The prior art of record teaches an equipment mount in contact with the rear cross member, which are not considered equivalent to applicant’s invention as it is not in contact with the front cross member. It would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the equipment mount to also be in contact with the front cross member without modifying a teaching reference.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art of record (Ravari et al.) in view of US 2666212 A (Flanders) fails to teach or render obvious the device in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
the ridge flange supported towards the front of the base by the vertical support extending between a surface of the ridge flange and the front cross-member.
The prior art of record teaches the ridge flange extending between the vertical support and the side arm, which are not considered equivalent to applicant’s invention. It would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the ridge flange to extend to a surface of the front cross member without modifying a teaching reference based on improper hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-0063. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00am - 4:00pm EST.
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 on (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.
/ZACHARY T MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3784
