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 9/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner thanks applicant for clarification regarding “coupling mechanism” being different from the central attachment aperture in claim 12. Previous indefiniteness rejection is moot.
Applicant does not argue 112f interpretation of “coupling mechanism”.
A: “Specific combination of curvature features not disclosed”. Borth discloses a handle with varying external diameter, but does not disclose the particular curvature features; curvature features are shown in Fisher. Borth is the primary reference of the combination first due to the structure of the coupling mechanism; however, since applicant’s intended patentable subject matter is the shape of the handle, rather than the coupling mechanism, examiner now rejects all claims twice. Once with Borth as the primary reference, once with Fisher as the primary reference.
B: “Fisher does not remedy deficiencies of Borth”. Applicant asserts Borth teaches “circumference should increase as one moves away from the point of attachment”, which meets applicant’s requirement of “circumference of the lower section is greater than the circumferences of the upper and middle section”. This is not persuasive for patentability. Applicant states that Fisher has the “greater diameter section…at or nearest the attachment”. First, there is no definition of the “upper section” in any of applicant’s independent claims; none of the claim language requires that the “upper section” be adjacent the coupling mechanism; in fact, netiher claim 1 or 27 requires the combination of the coupling mechanism. Further, a conflict in the location of the widest circumference of the handle between Borth and Fisher does not make it impossible to have a curved handle like shown in Fisher with the widest circumference in the location of Borth. Curvature is an old and well known shape for handles in general, including handles used for similar purposes (both Borth and Fisher are jump rope handles). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant asserts that the combination of Borth and Fisher necessarily conflicts where the largest circumference to be located along the length of the handle. Since both are known locations for the largest circumference for similar handles of an identical device, either location of the largest circumference is an obvious choice. Applicant argues the location of the secondary reference Fisher (with largest circumference near the coupling mechanism) must override the location of the primary reference Borth’s location (largest circumference farthest from coupling mechanism). Applicant does not indicate why secondary reference Fisher’s location overrides primary reference Borth’s location, nor does applicant assert there is any particular purpose for the location of the widest circumference. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
C: “Fisher does not disclose a bell-shaped base”. Applicant asserts “bell shaped” means “characterized by a continuous, monotonic flare”, which is not claimed. Examiner notes that a ringing bell, like a cowbell or a round bell on a desk, do not require such a shape. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation does not require the shape argued by applicant. Examiner also notes that the “bell shape” that applicant refers to does not engage a user’s hand at all, and is not relevant to the rounded shape that engages the user’s body.
D: “Shape is tied to a specific functional advantage”. Applicant asserts their shape is tied to the function of “afford various gripping configurations” and “to minimize slippage and offer increased support for the palm”. Examiner notes that Borth discloses the circumference to be greatest at a distance from the connecting mechanism, and Fisher indicates it is old and well known to have two convex curves with a concave curve between them in similar handles. Therefore, the obviousness of changing the shape of Borth, OR changing the location of the greatest circumference of Borth, is considered an obvious change of shape. Borth in particular discloses “the handle means can provide any of a numerous and wide variety of external handle surface configurations” (column 3 line 17), and therefore, the shape is already known to be variable for any purpose, including aesthetics, grip comfort, or grip security.
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” 400 is disclosed as the device that is through the central attachment aperture [0064] (“includes internal attachment portion 420 and an external attachment portion 460”). [0064] describes the coupling mechanism having an internal attachment portion and an external attachment portion (claim 14) and also includes the optional material/structures for the internal attachment portion (claim 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 3: Examiner notes that the entirety of claim 3 is already included in claim 1. The record is not clear how claim 3 further limits the structure of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 27, 1-3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14-18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by 1436703 Fisher.
Regarding claim 27, Fisher discloses jump rope 7 (exercise equipment) having two handles 1, each handle comprising, a curved upper section with a convex curve; an elongated (having a length) middle section with a concave curve, wherein the elongated middle section has an increasing external circumference (until reaching the greatest circumference in the lower section) increasing from a top
PNG
media_image1.png
272
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
portion to a bottom portion of the middle section (top portion of the middle is adjacent the “upper” section, so the increasing circumference of the middle section is identical to that claimed by applicant); and a curved lower section comprising a convex curvature and a “bell shaped” base (bell-shape is vague, Fisher is “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).
Applicant does not define what section of the handle must be the “upper” or “lower” section. Since applicant does not claim an aperture NOR a coupling mechanism, the “upper” section cannot be that which is adjacent either. Therefore, either end of Fisher can be considered “upper” or “lower” sections.
Regarding claim 1, Fisher discloses a handle for coupling to exercise or sports equipment (jump rope 7), the handle comprising:
a curved upper section comprising a convex curvature (as annotated above);
an elongated middle section which has a concave shape toward its bottom end (bottom end being adjacent the lower section, see annotated figure 2 above);
wherein the elongated middle section has a sloped exterior and gradually increases (since the lower section has the greatest circumference, examiner contends that the middle section is “gradually increasing”) in circumference from a top (top of middle section is adjacent upper section) to the bottom end of the elongated middle section (bottom middle section is adjacent lower section);
a curved lower section (as annotated) comprising a convex curvature and a bell-shaped base (bell-shape is vague, Fisher is “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 1); and
wherein the circumference of the lower section is greater than the circumferences of the upper section and middle section (as indicated by the dotted lines in annotated figure 2).
Applicant does not define what section of the handle must be the “upper” or “lower” section. Since applicant does not claim an aperture NOR a coupling mechanism, the “upper” section cannot be that which is adjacent either. Therefore, either end of Fisher can be considered “upper” or “lower” sections.
Regarding claim 2, Fisher discloses the handle of claim 1, further comprising a bottom portion (adjacent the greatest diameter away from the middle section) which is curved (figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 3, Fisher discloses the handle of claim 1, wherein the elongated middle section has an increasing external circumference (as previously claimed in claim 1), increasing from a top portion to a bottom portion of the middle section (as previously claimed).
Regarding claim 7, Fisher discloses the handle of claim 1, further comprising a central attachment aperture 3 (holding knot) shown in figure 2.
Regarding claim 9, Fisher discloses the handle of claim 1, wherein a cross-sectional shape of the handle is circular and/or oval.
Regarding claim 11, Fisher discloses the handle of claim 1, wherein the handle is a cable stop of the exercise equipment (end of the cable of the jump rope, and therefore is a “cable stop of the exercise equipment”).
Regarding claim 12, Fisher discloses a handle assembly for coupling to exercise equipment (coupled to a jump rope), comprising: a handle 1 comprising, a curved upper section (as annotated in fig 2 above); an elongated middle section (annotated in fig 2 above); a curved lower section (as annotated above in fig 2) comprising a convex curvature (as shown in fig 2) and a bell-shaped base (see discussion in claims 1 and 27 above); and a central attachment aperture 3; wherein the circumference of the lower section is greater than the circumferences of upper section and middle section (as indicated by the dotted lines in annotated figure 2); and
(b) a coupling mechanism (knot and/ or rope) for coupling the handle to said exercise equipment (retaining handle 1 onto the rope).
Applicant does not define what section of the handle must be the “upper” or “lower” section. Since applicant does not claim an aperture in a particular location, or the location of the coupling mechanism, the “upper” section cannot be that which is adjacent either. Therefore, either end of Fisher can be considered “upper” or “lower” sections.
Regarding claim 14, Fisher discloses the handle of claim 12, wherein the coupling mechanism comprises an internal attachment portion (knot) and an external attachment portion (rope).
Regarding claim 15, Fisher discloses the handle of claim 14, wherein the internal attachment portion (knot) is affixed within the central attachment aperture 3 of the handle (as shown in figure 2) and the external attachment portion is coupled (unitary with) an exercise machine (jump rope).
Regarding claim 16, Fisher discloses the handle of claim 14, wherein the internal attachment portion (knot) and the external attachment portion (rope) are connected by a rope (since both are made of a unitary piece of rope, both are connected by rope).
Regarding claim 17, Fisher discloses the handle of claim 14, wherein the internal attachment portion (knot) comprises a knotted end (as shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 18, Fisher discloses the handle of claim 14, wherein the external attachment portion comprises a knotted end (because it is unitary with the knotted end).
Regarding claim 20, Fisher discloses the handle of claim 12, wherein the elongated middle section has an increasing circumference (because the lower section has the greatest circumference, as discussed in claims 1 and 27).
Regarding claim 21, Fisher discloses the handle of claim 12, wherein the curved upper portion (assumed to be upper section) and curved lower section have convex curvatures (as shown in figure 2).
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) 5, 8, 10, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in further view of 8136208 Borth.
Regarding claims 5 and 22, Fisher discloses the handle of claims 1 and 12 respectively, wherein the handle is comprised of a material (disclosed as wood).
Borth discloses a jump rope handle comprised of a material selected from a rubber, a metal, or a composite material (column 3, lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the material of the jump rope handle of Fisher to the material of the jump rope handle of Borth, as Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. Examiner notes that a change of material can be made for ease and cost of manufacturing the handle of Fisher.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Fisher discloses the handle of claim 1, further comprising a grip pattern (veins/grain of the wood of Fisher) on an external surface, but no detail of the grip pattern.
Borth discloses 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a similar grip pattern disclosed inherently in the texture of the wood material of Fisher, to intentionally add a similar grip pattern in any material chosen by the handle of Fisher. Examiner notes that this is done for the purpose of aesthetics. See MPEP 2144.04 (I).
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 (see figure 5), increasing from a top portion (assumed to be upper section 17) to a bottom portion of the middle section 18, 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). Borth discloses “handle means can provide any of a numerous and wide variety of external handle surface configurations… grippable by the hand of the jumper” (column 3 line 17) and that external surface “can further provide… elements… which can function to increase grippable engagement with the external handle surface” (column 3 lines 22-27).
PNG
media_image1.png
272
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Borth does not disclose that the upper and lower sections are “curved”, or that the lower section has “convex curvature and a bell-shaped base”.
Fisher discloses jump rope 7 (exercise equipment) having two handles 1, each handle comprising, a curved upper section with a convex curve; an elongated (having a length) middle section with a concave curve, wherein the elongated middle section has an increasing external circumference (until reaching the greatest circumference in the lower section) increasing from a top portion to a bottom portion of the middle section (top portion of the middle is adjacent the “upper” section, so the increasing circumference of the middle section is identical to that claimed by applicant); and a curved lower section comprising a convex curvature and a “bell shaped” base (bell-shape is vague, Fisher is “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. Borth discloses “handle means can provide any of a numerous and wide variety of external handle surface configurations… grippable by the hand of the jumper” (column 3 line 17) and that external surface “can further provide… elements… which can function to increase grippable engagement with the external handle surface” (column 3 lines 22-27). 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:- an 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
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
Prosecution Insights