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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding “coupling mechanism”, applicant now claims the coupling mechanism includes a through hole/aperture 160. Examiner notes that this is inconsistent with applicant’s originally filed scope of [0064] (coupling mechanism has internal and external portions) and original claim 13 (aperture is separate from the coupling mechanism). Applicant’s amendment to claim 12 is indefinite.
Examiner thanks applicant for cancellation of claims 6, 19, and 23.
Regarding the scope of “coupling mechanism”, applicant’s attempt to add the aperture 160 to this scope is not consistent with the original specification, and now has 112a and 112b rejections.
Applicant argues the bell shaped design of the handle is to “increased support for the palm of a user” [0053], but examiner notes that the prior art meets the claim language.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner notes that the term “coupling mechanism for coupling the handle” is considered 112f language. Examiner notes that the “coupling mechanism” is disclosed as the device that is through the central attachment aperture [0064] (“includes internal attachment portion 420 and an external attachment portion 460”). The “coupling mechanism” is not clearly described as the through hole/central aperture 160 as currently claimed in claim 12. The central attachment aperture 160 was previously claimed distinctly from the coupling mechanism, and is not disclosed as part of the “coupling mechanism” in any part of the specification. The scope of “coupling mechanism” is not definite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12, 14-18, 20-22, 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, applicant claims the “coupling mechanism” includes the central aperture 160. The specification [0064] and the previous claim 13 indicated that the “coupling mechanism” is the part that is within the central aperture 160, not in combination with the central aperture 160.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
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 12, 14-18, 20-22, 25-26 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.
Regarding claim 12, applicant claims “coupling mechanism”, which is a 112f term which does not have a definite scope according to the specification. Examiner has assumed that the “coupling mechanism” is the article which extends through the central attachment aperture; the “coupling mechanism” does not include the central aperture. The scope of “coupling mechanism” is not clear.
Examiner assumes that claim 12 is intended to require a central aperture 160 AND a coupling mechanism going through the central aperture 160.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
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, 5, 7-12, 14-18, 20-22, 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 8136208 Borth, in view of 1436703 Fisher.
Regarding claim 27, Borth discloses a handle for exercise equipment (jump rope, figure 1), comprising:- a upper section 17 ;- an elongated middle section 18, wherein the elongated middle section has an increasing external circumference, increasing from a top portion to a bottom portion of the middle section, and lower section 16 (figures 2 and 5 show an increasing diameter from the attachment mechanism to the exterior end of the handle of Borth; see also column 3 lines 1-5).
PNG
media_image1.png
272
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Borth does not disclose that the upper section is “curved”.
Fisher discloses jump rope 7 having two handles 1, each handle having a convex curve at the upper and lower sections, and a concave curve in the middle, the lower curved section is convex (as shown) and “bell shaped” in that the upper convex section has a smaller diameter than the lower convex section, AND that the widest part of the convex lower section is wider in diameter than the opening of the aperture, the aperture which is not claimed in claim 27.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the shape of the exterior surface of the jump rope handle of Borth to the exterior handle surface shape of a similar jump rope handle taught by Fisher. A change of shape is considered a matter of choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (b).Examiner notes that this is done for the purpose of aesthetics. See MPEP 2144.04 (I).Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Regarding claim 1, Borth discloses a handle for coupling to exercise or sports equipment (jump rope, figure 1), the handle comprising:- a upper section 17;- an elongated middle section 18;- a lower section 16; and
wherein the circumference of the lower section 16 is greater than the circumferences of the upper section and middle section (as shown in figures 2 and 5, column 3 lines 1-5).
Borth does not disclose a convex upper section, concave middle section, sloped exterior and gradually increases, and a convex lower section which is “bell shaped”.
Fisher discloses jump rope 7 having two handles 1, each handle having a convex curve at the upper and lower sections, and a concave curve in the middle, the lower curved section is convex (as shown) and “bell shaped” in that the upper convex section has a smaller diameter than the lower convex section, AND that the widest part of the convex lower section is wider in diameter than the opening of the aperture, the aperture which is not claimed in claim 27.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the shape of the exterior surface of the jump rope handle of Borth to the exterior handle surface shape of a similar jump rope handle taught by Fisher. A change of shape is considered a matter of choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (b).Examiner notes that this is done for the purpose of aesthetics. See MPEP 2144.04 (I).Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Regarding claim 2, Borth as modified discloses the handle of claim 1, further comprising a bottom portion (opening to the interior of the handle), wherein the bottom portion is curved or flat (figure 2 shows the bottom portion is flat).
Regarding claim 3, Borth as modified discloses the handle of claim 1, wherein the elongated middle section 18 has an increasing external circumference (“frustoconical”, shown in figures 2 and 5 of Borth; Fisher also discloses the greater diameter of the lower convex section), increasing from a top portion to a bottom portion of the middle section.
Regarding claim 5, Borth as modified discloses the handle of claim 1, wherein the handle is comprised of a material selected from a rubber, a metal, or a composite material (column 3, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 7, Borth as modified discloses the handle of claim 1, further comprising a central attachment aperture (holding shaft 9 and the rest of the handle is also a through hole).
Regarding claim 8, Borth as modified discloses the handle of claim 1, further comprising a grip pattern on an external surface (shown in figure 1), wherein the grip pattern has continuous parallel grooves 20 and discontinuous longitudinal grooves 20.
Regarding claim 9, Borth as modified discloses the handle of claim 1, wherein a cross-sectional shape of the handle is circular, figure 2 of Borth.
Regarding claim 10, Borth as modified discloses the handle of claim 1, wherein the middle section further comprises a plurality of concave grooves 20 (figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, Borth as modified discloses the handle of claim 1, wherein the handle is a cable stop of the exercise equipment (examiner notes that this does not further limit the structure of the handle, but is a function based on the combination of the handle and the exercise equipment. The handle of Borth attached to a jump rope, therefore acts as a “cable stop of the exercise equipment”).
Regarding claim 12, Borth discloses a handle assembly for coupling to exercise equipment (jump rope figure 1), comprising:
(a) a handle 12 comprising (figure 3),- a upper section 17;- an elongated middle section 18; and- a lower section 16; wherein the circumference of the lower section 16 is greater than the circumferences of upper section and middle section (column 3 lines 1-5); and
(b) a coupling mechanism for coupling the handle to said exercise equipment (shaft 9 and everything connected to the shaft 9), and
(c ) a central aperture (through hole for shaft 9 and all the way through handle 12, please see 112b).
Borth does not disclose the upper and lower sections are curved, and that the lower section is “bell shaped”.
Fisher discloses jump rope 7 having two handles 1, each handle having a convex curve at the upper and lower sections, and a concave curve in the middle, the lower curved section is convex (as shown) and “bell shaped” in that the upper convex section has a smaller diameter than the lower convex section, AND that the widest part of the convex lower section is wider in diameter than the opening of the aperture, the aperture which is not claimed in claim 27.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the shape of the exterior surface of the jump rope handle of Borth to the exterior handle surface shape of a similar jump rope handle taught by Fisher. A change of shape is considered a matter of choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (b).Examiner notes that this is done for the purpose of aesthetics. See MPEP 2144.04 (I).Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Regarding claim 14, Borth as modified discloses the handle assembly of claim 12, wherein the coupling mechanism comprises,- an internal attachment portion 59; and- an external attachment portion 34 (figure 5).
Regarding claim 15, Borth as modified discloses the handle assembly of claim 14, wherein the internal attachment portion 59 is affixed within the central attachment aperture of the handle 12 and the external attachment portion 34 is coupled to an exercise machine (jump rope).
Regarding claim 16, Borth as modified discloses the handle assembly of claim 14, wherein the internal attachment portion and the external attachment portion 34 are connected by a shaft 9.
Regarding claim 17, Borth as modified discloses the handle assembly of claim 14, wherein the internal attachment portion 59 comprises threaded nut (“head of a socket head screw” column 7 line 29).
Regarding claim 18, Borth as modified discloses the handle assembly of claim 14, wherein the external attachment portion 34 comprises an eyelet 44.
Regarding claim 20, Borth as modified discloses the handle assembly of claim 12, wherein the elongated middle section has an increasing circumference (frustoconical shape in Borth), increasing from a top portion to a bottom portion of the middle section.
Regarding claim 21, Borth as modified discloses the handle assembly of claim 12, wherein the curved upper portion and curved lower section have convex curvatures (as shown in Denney).
Regarding claim 22, see claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 24, see claims 7. Borth as modified discloses the handle assembly of claim 12, further comprising a central attachment aperture (through hole for shaft and shown in figure 5) which extends through the length of the handle (as shown in figure 5) and wherein the coupling mechanism is present (please see 112b above).
Regarding claim 25, Borth as modified discloses the handle assembly of claim 12, wherein the handle 12 further comprises a grip pattern (figure 3) on an external surface, wherein the grip pattern has continuous parallel grooves 20 and discontinuous longitudinal grooves 20.
Regarding claim 26, Borth as modified discloses the handle assembly of claim 12, wherein a cross-sectional shape of the handle is circular, (figure 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. 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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677