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 .
Rejections Maintained
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wright (US Pat. No. 4,029,312, June 14, 1977).
Regarding claim 1, as broadly interpreted, Wright teaches a weight 21 (see Figs. 1 and 8 below) for weightlifting exercise, the weight 21 comprising a body with a through hole 37 (see Figs. 1 and 8 below) arranged in its centre of mass, said through hole 37 configured to place the weight 21 on a bar 25 (see Fig. 2, 4, and 10 below), wherein the body includes a central handle 33 (see Figs. 7 and 8 below) exhibiting a cylindrical portion (i.e., where the cylindrical portion of the central handle 33 extends longitudinally from end-to-end of the body) with the through hole 37 (see Fig. 7 and 8 below), such that the through hole 37 passes through the cylindrical portion, the cylindrical portion being configured to be gripped like a dumbbell (see Fig. 3 below) with a single hand.
PNG
media_image1.png
118
181
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
160
190
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
169
308
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
176
328
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
145
244
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
172
506
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Wright teaches the weight according to claim 1, wherein the weight 21 includes a symmetry axis 29 (see Fig. 7 above), and the handle 33 follows along said the symmetry axis 29 (see Fig. 7 above).
Regarding claim 9, Wright teaches the weight according to claim 1, including at least a perimeter grip (see annotated Fig. 10 above).
Regarding claim 10, Wright teaches the weight according to claim 1, including a passage (i.e., space 31, see Fig. 7 and 10 above) between the handle 33 and the grip (see annotated Fig. 10 above).
Regarding claim 11, Wright teaches the weight according to claim 1, including at least two perimeter grips (see annotated Fig. 10 above).
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.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US Pat. No. 4,029,312, June 14, 1977), as applied to claim 1 above.
Wright teaches the invention as substantially claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Wright is silent in explicitly teaching the weight according to claim 1, wherein the cylindrical portion has a diameter between 25 and 36 millimetres.
Wright, however, generally teaches the cylindrical portion of the handle 33 having a general diameter to fit a bar 25 (see Figs. 2 and 8 above) and where conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. (See MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Wright such that the cylindrical portion has a diameter between 25 and 36 millimetres in order to fit a bar having appropriately sized diameter. Furthermore, a diameter between 25 and 36 millimetres lacks criticality because applicant discloses that other diameters can be used including between diameters between 15 and 26 millimetres (see page 9, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Wright is silent in explicitly teaching the weight according to claim 1, wherein the thickness of the cylindrical portion around the hole 37 is less than 10 millimetres.
Wright, however, generally teaches the cylindrical portion of the handle 33 around the hole 37 has a thickness (i.e., see cross-sectional thickness of channel 35, in Fig. 8) in order to support a bar 25 in the hole 37 and where conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. (See MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Wright such that thickness of the cylindrical portion around the hole 37 is less than 10 millimetres in order to support a bar 25 in the hole 37 therein. Furthermore, a diameter less than 10 millimetres lacks criticality because applicant discloses that other thicknesses can be used including (see page 9, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Wright is silent in explicitly teaching the weight according to claim 1, wherein the hole 37 has a diameter between 15 and 26 millimetres.
Wright, however, generally teaches the cylindrical portion of the handle 33 having a general diameter to fit a bar 25 (see Figs. 2 and 8 above) and where conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. (See MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Wright such that the cylindrical portion has a diameter between 15 and 26 millimetres in order to fit a bar having appropriately sized diameter. Furthermore, a diameter between 15 and 26 millimetres lacks criticality because applicant discloses that other diameters can be used including between diameters between 25 and 36 millimetres (see page 9, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, Wright teaches the weight according to claim 1, wherein the central handle 33 is a single part (see Fig. 8 above, where the handle 33 has a cross-sectional profile which is integral with the body), and that the handle 33 is made from an inherent material, but is silent in explicitly teaching wherein the central handle 33 is formed from a machined metal part.
However, it has been held in In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) that selection of a known material having art recognized suitable for an intended purpose supported a prima facie case of obviousness. See in MPEP 2144.07. 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 formulate Wright’s handle 33 and weight 21 to be made of a single machined metal as metal is a material suitable for providing rigidity for weight lifting exercises.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US Pat. No. 4,029,312, June 14, 1977), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Anastasi (US Pat. No. 5,137,502, Aug. 11, 1992).
Wright teaches the invention as substantially claimed.
Regarding claim 6, as broadly interpreted, Wright teaches the weight according to claim 1, wherein the body includes a core (i.e., spheroid section surrounding the handle 33, see Figs. 7-8 above) and the handle 33 being formed in the core (see Figs. 7-8 above).
Wright is silent in explicitly teaching a coating.
Anastasi, however, in an analogous art of exercise devices teaches a weight for receiving a bar, the weight having a coating (see Anastasi, col. 2, lines 60-63).
PNG
media_image7.png
417
368
media_image7.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 device of Wright such that the body includes a coating as taught by Anastasi in order to provide comfort when gripping the weight (see Anastasi, col. 2, lines 60-63).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7-8 of the response that Wright fails to teach a central handle exhibiting a cylindrical portion with the through hole. This is not persuasive because as shown in Fig. 8 of Wright, the cylindrical portion of the central handle extends longitudinally from end-to-end of the body such that the through hole 37 is exhibited on the ends of cylindrical portion of the central handle and a middle of the cylindrical portion is configured to be gripped like a dumbbell.
Amended claim 1, as broadly interpreted, still reads on Wright. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive and the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-12 are maintained
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, none of the prior art either alone or in combination teach or suggested the weight according to claim 6, including at least one joining ring for joining the cylindrical portion and the coating.
Claim 13-15, and 17-27 are allowed.
Regarding claim 13, none of the prior art either alone or in combination teach or suggest equipment for weightlifting exercise, the equipment comprising one or more weights; and a bar configured to be gripped and lifted with at least one hand, wherein respective ones of the one or more weights include a body with a through hole arranged in its center of mass, the through hole configured to place the weight on the bar, the body including a central handle exhibiting a cylindrical portion that the through hole passes through, the cylindrical portion configured to be gripped like a dumbbell with a single hand, and wherein the bar includes at least one end with a stop, the end to receive and support the one or more weights, the end of the bar is hollow and includes a set of openings longitudinally arranged which connect the inside and the outside of the end, and which determine spaces for supporting weights therebetween, the end including teeth, the teeth to simultaneously adopt a retracted position in which the teeth are inside the bar allowing the weight plates to pass, and an extended position in which the teeth protrude from the bar through respective openings thereby preventing the passage of the weights, a sliding pushbutton adjacent to the stop and separated from the end, the sliding pushbutton to arrange the teeth between the retracted position and the extended position.
Claims 14-15 and 17-27 depend directly or indirectly from claim 13.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S LO whose telephone number is (571)270-1702. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. (9:30 am - 5:30 pm 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 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.
/ANDREW S LO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
