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
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18, lines 1-2 recites the phrase “wherein wherein.” One instance of the word “wherein” should be deleted.
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 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by An (US PG Pub. No. 2004/0003687, Jan. 8, 2004).
Regarding claim 1, An teaches an ergonomic hand grip strengthener (see Figs. 1-2 below) for being gripped by a holding hand of a user, comprising: a front operation handle 20 for placement of an index finger, a middle finger, a ring finger and a pinky finger of the holding hand of the user (see para. [0022], and Figs. 1-2 below); a rear operation handle 20’ for abutting against a thumb and a palm of the holding hand of the user; and a strength adjustment assembly 50 (see Fig. 2 below and paras. [0025]-[00226]) for adjusting a resistance applied to approaching movement between said front operation handle 20 and said rear operation handle 20’.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (thumb abutting surface )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (top abutting surface )][AltContent: textbox (palm abutting surface )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (arm body)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (rear surface)][AltContent: textbox (thumb concave groove)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd groove)][AltContent: textbox (1st groove)][AltContent: textbox (4th groove)][AltContent: textbox (3rd groove)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (upper surface section)][AltContent: textbox (lower surface section)]
PNG
media_image1.png
538
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
700
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, An teaches the ergonomic hand grip strengthener according to claim 1, wherein said rear operation handle 20’ comprises a rear abutment surface which comprises a top abutting surface section (see annotated Fig. 2 above), a thumb abutting surface section (see annotated Fig. 2 above) extended from said top abutting surface section to define a concave groove for placing the thumb, and a palm abutting surface section (see annotated Fig. 2 above) extended from said thumb abutting surface section for abutting against the palm of the holding hand of the user.
Regarding claim 16, An teaches the ergonomic hand grip strengthener according to claim 15, wherein said palm abutting surface section comprises a first abutting surface portion and a second abutting surface portion extended from said first abutting surface portion, wherein from top to bottom, said thumb abutting surface section is gradually protruding backward (i.e., backward to the thumb abutting surface), said first abutting surface portion is gradually protruding backward (i.e., sloping backward into the thumb abutting surface/groove),while said second abutting surface portion is gradually receding frontward (i.e., sloping forward into a peak), wherein said first abutting surface portion and said second abutting surface portion are converged at a backward protruding peak position (see Fig. 2 above, the palm abutting section formed of first and second abutting halves forming a peak curve).
Regarding claim 17, An teaches the ergonomic hand grip strengthener according to claim 1, wherein said rear operation handle 20’ comprises a rear abutment surface which comprises a top abutting surface section (see annotated Fig. 2 above), a thumb abutting surface section (see annotated Fig. 2 above) extended from said top abutting surface section to define a concave groove for placing the thumb, and a palm abutting surface section (see annotated Fig. 2 above) extended from said thumb abutting surface section for abutting against the palm of the holding hand of the user, wherein said palm abutting surface section comprises a first abutting surface portion and a second abutting surface portion extended from said first abutting surface portion, wherein from top to bottom, said thumb abutting surface section is gradually protruding backward (i.e., sloping backward into the thumb abutting surface/groove), said first abutting surface portion is gradually protruding backward (i.e., backward to the thumb abutting surface),while said second abutting surface portion is gradually receding frontward (i.e., forward to a lower curved surface), wherein said first abutting surface portion and said second abutting surface portion are converged at a backward protruding peak position (i.e., the first and second abutting surface portions forming a peak curve portion for the palm).
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 2-5, 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, as broadly interpreted, An teaches wherein said front operation handle comprises a first groove profile surface defining a first holding groove for holding the index finger (see annotated Fig. 1 above), a second groove profile surface defining a second holding groove for holding the middle finger (see annotated Fig. 1 above), a third groove profile surface defining a third holding groove for holding the ringer finger (see annotated Fig. 1 above), and a fourth groove profile surface defining a fourth holding groove for holding the pinky finger (see annotated Fig. 1 above). An teaches wherein each of said first holding groove, said second holding groove, said third holding groove and said fourth holding groove is extended along a circumferential direction (see Fig. 1 above, where the four holding grooves extend circumferentially to form curved portions for fingers of the hand)
An, however, is silent in explicitly teaching the grooves occupies a quarter to three quarters of a circumference of said front operation handle 20 (i.e., circumference of the front operation handle 20 as defined by the “widest” part from a peak around a groove).
However, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions 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 distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Furthermore, it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In this case, An generally teaches the front operation handle 20 having a general circumference and the groove portions of the handle 20 having circumferences. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the circumference of the grooves of An to occupy a quarter to three quarters of a circumference of said front operation handle 20 as a matter of design choice and routine optimization in order to provide a desired circumference sufficient to be gripped by the hand/fingers of a user. Further, applicant places no criticality on the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, An teaches the ergonomic hand grip strengthener according to claim 2, wherein said first groove profile surface comprises a first middle line (i.e., imaginary line through trough of the first groove, see Fig. 1 above), said second groove profile surface comprises a second middle line (i.e., imaginary line through trough of the second groove, see Fig. 1 above), said third groove profile surface comprises a third middle line (i.e., imaginary line through trough of the third groove, see Fig. 1 above), said fourth groove profile surface comprises a fourth middle line (i.e., imaginary line through trough of the fourth groove, see Fig. 1 above), wherein said first middle line has a first central contact position, said second middle line has a second central contact position, said third middle line has a third central contact position, said fourth middle line has a fourth central contact position, wherein said first central contact position is positioned backward compared with said second central contact position, wherein said fourth central position is positioned backward compared with said third central contact position (i.e., as shown in Fig. 1 above, the first groove and fourth groove are both position rearward of respective second and third grooves).
Regarding claim 4, An teaches the ergonomic hand grip strengthener according to claim 3, wherein said first groove profile surface is configured to be symmetrical with respect to said first middle line, said second groove profile surface is configured to be symmetrical with respect to said second middle line, said third groove profile surface is configured to be symmetrical with respect to said third middle line, said fourth groove profile surface is configured to be symmetrical with respect to said fourth middle line (i.e., as shown in Fig. 1 above, the imaginary lines through the troughs of the first, second, third, and fourth grooves are parallel and symmetrical).
Regarding claim 5, An teaches the ergonomic hand grip strengthener according to claim 2, wherein said first holding groove is positioned further back than said second holding groove (i.e., as shown in Fig. 1 above, the first groove is rearward of the second groove), wherein said fourth holding groove is positioned further back than said third holding groove (i.e., as shown in Fig. 1 above, the fourth groove is rearward of the third groove).
Regarding claim 9, An teaches wherein said front operation handle 20 comprises a rear extension surface (see annotated Fig. 2 above), wherein from top to bottom, said rear extension surface is gradually protruding frontward first (see Fig. 2 above, frontward oriented towards rear handle 20), and then gradually receding backward (i.e., backward oriented in direction towards the left).
Regarding claims 11, 12, and 13, An teaches wherein said rear operation handle 20’ has a concave groove for placement of the thumb, wherein said concave groove is positioned circumferentially around said rear operation handle (see Fig. 1 above, where the thumb groove extends circumferentially for the thumb), but is silent in explicitly teaching occupying a quarter to three quarters of a circumference of said rear operation handle 20’ (i.e., circumference of the rear operation handle 20’ as defined by the “widest” part of the rear operation handle 20’).
However, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions 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 distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Furthermore, it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In this case, An generally teaches the rear operation handle 20’ having a general circumference and the thumb groove portion of the rear handle 20’ having a circumference. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the circumference of the concave thumb groove of An to occupy a quarter to three quarters of a circumference of said rear operation handle 20’ as a matter of design choice and routine optimization in order to provide a desired circumference sufficient to be gripped by the hand/thumb of a user. Further, applicant places no criticality on the claimed range.
Claims 6-8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An, as applied to claims 1, 2, and 4 above, in view of Wiseman (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0387849, Dec. 8, 2022).
An teaches the invention as substantially claimed.
Regarding claim 6, An teaches wherein said rear operation handle 20’ comprises an arm body, but is silent in explicitly teaching a protrusion part extended from said arm body at a side of said rear abutment surface for conforming to a groove of the palm of the holding hand of the use.
Wiseman, however, in an analogous art of hand grip exercise devices teaches a handle having a body a rear abutment surface with and a protrusion part extended from said body at a side of said rear abutment surface for conforming to a groove of the palm of the holding hand of the use. (See Wiseman, annotated Figs. 1, 5-6 below, Abstract and para. [0003])
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (rear surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (side protrusion)]
PNG
media_image3.png
570
658
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
750
468
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
662
422
media_image5.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 An such that the rear handle 20’ includes a protrusion part extended from said body at a side of said rear abutment surface as taught by Wisemen in order for conforming to fit the user’s palm for comfortable grip. (See Wiseman, Abstract and para. [0003])
Regarding claim 7, An as modified by Wisemen teaches the ergonomic hand grip strengthener according to claim 2, wherein said rear operation handle 20’ comprises an arm body and a protrusion part extended from a side of arm body for conforming to a groove of the palm of the holding hand of the user (see Wiseman, annotated Figs. 1, 5-6 above, Abstract and para. [0003])
Regarding claim 8, An as modified by Wisemen teaches the ergonomic hand grip strengthener according to claim 4, wherein said rear operation handle 20’ comprises an arm body and a protrusion part extended from a side of said arm body for conforming to a groove of the palm of the holding hand of the user (see Wiseman, annotated Figs. 1, 5-6 above, Abstract and para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 14, An teaches wherein said rear operation handle 20’ has a concave groove for placement of the thumb, wherein said concave groove is positioned circumferentially around said rear operation handle (see Fig. 1 above, where the thumb groove extends circumferentially for the thumb), but is silent in explicitly teaching occupying a quarter to three quarters of a circumference of said rear operation handle 20’ (i.e., circumference of the rear operation handle 20’ as defined by the “widest” part of the rear operation handle 20’).
However, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions 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 distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Furthermore, it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In this case, An generally teaches the rear operation handle 20’ having a general circumference and the thumb groove portion of the rear handle 20’ having a circumference. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the circumference of the concave thumb groove of An to occupy a quarter to three quarters of a circumference of said rear operation handle 20’ as a matter of design choice and routine optimization in order to provide a desired circumference sufficient to be gripped by the hand/thumb of a user. Further, applicant places no criticality on the claimed range.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Barajas (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0413928, Dec. 28, 2023).
An teaches the invention as substantially claimed.
Regarding claim 18, An teaches wherein said front operation handle 20 comprises a first groove profile surface defining a first holding groove for holding the index finger, a second groove profile surface defining a second holding groove for holding the middle finger, a third groove profile surface defining a third holding groove for holding the ringer finger, and a fourth groove profile surface defining a fourth holding groove for holding the pinky finger (see annotated Fig. 1 above), but is silent in explicitly teaching wherein said first holding groove, said second holding groove, said third holding groove and said fourth holding groove are differed in widths for conforming to the index finger, the middle finger, the ring finger and the pinky finger.
Barajas, however, in an analogous art pertinent to the problem to be solved teaches an ergonomic grip device having grooves for the index, middle, ring, and pinky fingers, where each of the grooves can have different dimensions to accommodate the specific finger (see Figs.2 and 5 below and para. [0079])
PNG
media_image6.png
420
482
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
662
422
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 modify the device of An such that the grooves are differed in widths as taught by Barajas for the same purpose of conforming to the index finger, the middle finger, the ring finger and the pinky finger for better fit of the fingers (see para. [0079]).
Regarding claim 19, An as modified by Barajas teaches or reasonably suggests that wherein a fourth width of said fourth holding groove is smaller than a third width of said third holding groove because the grooves may comprise different dimensions and the general width of the pinky is less than the general width of the ring finger to accommodate the specific size of each finger (see Barajas, para. [0079]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An, as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Hsu (US Pat. No. 7,824,311, Nov. 2, 2010)
An teaches the invention as substantially claimed.
Regarding claim 11, An is silent in explicitly teaching the ergonomic hand grip strengthener according to claim 11, wherein the rear operation handle further has a lower concave groove
Hsu, however, in an analogous art teaches a hand exerciser having multiple thumb concave grooves 11 indented on a rear operation handle at an upper end portion and lower end portion thereof (see Fig. 1 below) configured to place the groove of the thumb when gripped in either an upright position or upside down position.
[AltContent: textbox (rear operation handle)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image8.png
622
446
media_image8.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 modify the rear operation handle 20’ to further include a lower concave groove 11 as taught by Hsu in order to provide better grip to the hands of a user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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 10, none of the prior art teach or suggest all the limitations of claim and further reciting wherein said front operation handle comprises a front abutting surface which comprises an upper surface section and a lower surface section which is integrally extended from said upper surface section, wherein along a direction from top to bottom, said upper surface section is gradually protruding frontward while said lower surface section is gradually receding backward, wherein the front abutting surface is an integral continual surface without holding grooves.
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 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.
/ANDREW S LO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights