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 Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, third last line recites the phrase “being suited to place the weight in a bar” which should recite “configured to place the weight on a bar” or “configured to receive a bar.”
Claim 1, second to last line recites the phrase “being suited to be gripped by way of” which should recite “configured to be gripped like.”
Claim 13, lines 4-5 recite phrase “suited for being be gripped” which should recite “configured to be gripped.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16 is 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 16 recites the limitation "the slots of the strip" in. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 depends from claim 13. No where in claim 13 are “slots” recited. Suggested correction is to amend claim 16 to depend from claim 15.
Claim 16 further recites the slots of the strip of the bar “exhibit longitudinal segments at their ends.” It is unclear what “their” refers to, whether the slots, the strip, or the bar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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 the hole 37 being suited to place the weight 21 in a bar 25 (see Fig. 2, 4, and 10 below), the body further comprises including a central handle 33 (see Figs. 7 and 8 below) exhibiting a cylindrical portion that the hole 37 (see Fig. 7 and 8 below) passes through, the cylindrical portion being suited to be gripped by way of 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
[AltContent: textbox (perimeter grips)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 13-15, and 17-27 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.
Regarding claim 7, none of the prior art either alone or in combination teach or suggested the weight claim 6, including at least one joining ring for joining the cylindrical portion and the coating.
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 according to claim 1, the equipment including a bar suited for being gripped and lifted with at least one hand, the bar having 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 windows 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.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights