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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Earls et al. (US 10888733).
Earls teaches regarding claim:
1. A foot exercise device, characterized in that it comprises: a column (closed device as seen in FIG 5), which includes multiple detachable exercise components (components 4 and 6) and exercise tools (ma2 22 and bands 24), wherein the exercise components are sequentially assembled to form the column (when packaged together as seen in FIGs 4 and 5, in as much as applicant has shown the same), and the exercise components collectively define an internal chamber (the components fill the majority of the interior of the device in the same manner as applicant); the exercise tools are detachably inserted into the internal chamber (mat 22 and bands 24 can be removed from the chamber for use in exercise).
2. The foot exercise device of claim 1, further comprising a flexible strap (one strap 18) that is movably fitted around the column to restrict movement of the exercise components (to secure the device when it is shut as seen in FIG 5).
3. The foot exercise device of claim 1, wherein, along the central axis of the internal chamber, at least one inner wall defining the internal chamber extends outward until the internal chamber is in communication with the external environment (the internal chamber for containing 22 and 14 extends until to the external environment as seen in FIGs 3 and 4.
4. The foot exercise device of claim 1, wherein, in a direction perpendicular to the central axis of the internal chamber, at least one inner wall defining the internal chamber extends outward until the internal chamber is in communication with the external environment (there are 360 degrees perpendicular to the axis and the inner wall of the internal chamber extends therealong to communicate with the external environment as seen in FIGs 3 and 4).
5. The foot exercise device of claim 1, wherein each exercise component includes a first support surface, which is an inner wall surface defining the internal chamber (inner concave walls of 4 and 6), and the first support surface is configured to abut against a support plane (plane connecting the walls to the exterior environment)
6. The foot exercise device of claim 4, wherein the first support surface is equal in length to the column along the central axis of the internal chamber (the internal concave surface spans the length of the internal chamber that houses mat 22 as seen in FIGs 3 and 4).
7. The foot exercise device of claim 1, wherein each exercise component includes a second support surface and a third support surface, which are configured to abut against a support plane (edge support surfaces that mate with opposing component 4 or 6).
8. The foot exercise device of claim 7, wherein the second support surface and the third support surface are equal in length to the column along the central axis of the internal chamber (the long side of each edge spans the length of the column so as to allow the two halves 4 and 6 to mate together).
9. The foot exercise device of claim 7, wherein the second support surface and the third support surface are located on opposite sides of the symmetry axis of the exercise component (left and right long sides/rims of each half extend as claimed as seen in FIGs 3 and 4).
10. The foot exercise device of claim 1, wherein the central axis of the internal chamber is coaxial with the central axis of the column (as seen in FIGs 3 and 4, the internal chamber is aligned with the column along a common axis).
11. The foot exercise device of claim 1, wherein the exercise tools include a massage ball (not required when there is a massager) and/or a massage rod (massage rod/mat 22, not required when there is a ball).
13. The foot exercise device of claim 11, wherein the diameter of the massage ball is smaller than the diameter of the internal chamber (not required when there is a massage rod).
14. The foot exercise device of claim 11, wherein the diameter of the massage rod (22) is smaller than the diameter of the internal chamber (so as to fit 22 within the chamber as seen in FIG 4).
15. The foot exercise device of claim 11, wherein there are multiple internal chambers (left and right halves 4 and 6 each have an internal chamber as seen in FIGs 3 and 5), and the massage ball and/or the massage rod (22) are located in different internal chambers (22 is located in the chamber of half 6 when configured as seen in FIG 4).
16. The foot exercise device of claim 2, wherein the flexible strap (18) is detachably inserted into the internal chamber (wherein 18 could be inserted into the camber when unattached and in an open configuration since it is a flexible member).
17. The foot exercise device of claim 2, wherein the flexible strap is movably fitted around the column in a ring shape to restrict movement of the exercise components (when assembled as seen in FIG 5).
18. The foot exercise device of claim 2, wherein the flexible strap is movably fitted around the column in a longitudinal direction to restrict movement of the exercise components (to secure the device and keep it closed as seen in FIG 5 – the strap 18 extends around the cylinder and vertically/longitudinally around the column in the amount of the width of the strap as seen in FIG 5).
19. The foot exercise device of claim 1, further comprising a binding strap that is movably fitted around the column to move the column (other strap 18, wherein this 18 permits the column to be moved to the open position when detached and unsecured – see configuration of FIG 4).
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Earls. Earls teaches regarding claim 20: The foot exercise device of claim 1 (which contains the amended language -- Afoot exercise device, characterized in that it comprises: a column (1), which includes multiple detachable exercise components (10) and exercise tools (30), wherein the exercise components (10) are sequentially assembled to form the column (1), and the exercise components (10) collectively define an internal chamber (20); the exercise tools (30) are detachably inserted into the internal chamber (20),) but does not teach the above wherein the column is made of cork. It has long been held as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make various modifications to a base device to make improvement upon the base device to make it stronger, lighter, cheaper, or to provide any number of other advantages. In the instant case, constructing the column of cork as claimed would yield the predictable result of an exercise device constructed in part of cork to provide an inexpensive article capable of comfortably supporting various body parts of a user during the course of normal use; such modification would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Earls teaches regarding claim 21. A foot exercise device, characterized in that it comprises: a column, which includes multiple detachable exercise components and exercise tools, wherein the exercise components are sequentially assembled to form the column, and the exercise components collectively define an internal chamber; the exercise tools are detachably inserted into the internal chamber (all as discussed above). Earls does not teach the above wherein a ratio of length to width of each of the exercise components is greater than 2.5. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Earls to have a length-to-width ratio as claimed since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of the relative dimension 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.” In the instant case, the device of Earls would not operate differently with the claimed diameter. Further, applicant places no criticality on the ratio claimed, indicating only that it is “greater than” an arbitrary number .
Conclusion
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the instant case, applicant has argued more narrowly than claimed several times. The only argument of substance is that Earls does not teach the multiple detachable exercise components and the components are not separable. The Office disagrees. The components are separated from each other when hinged open, and hinges can also be removed to fully separate each. Additionally, Earls includes multiple detachable exercise components (components 4 and 6) and exercise tools (ma2 22 and bands 24); this meets the claimed limitations. The arguments that follow point out alleged differences that applicant has not claimed. These arguments are moot, as only what is claimed need be taught by the prior art – language from the specification is not read into the claims. If applicant intends a more narrow construction, additional limitations should be included.
Regarding the 103 rejection, applicant has argued the instant invention is novel; this argument is moot, as the rejection pertains to obviousness, not novelty. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement has been taken to be admitted prior art because applicant has not traversed the examiner’s assertion of official notice. See MPEP 2144.03 "Reliance on Common Knowledge in the Art or “Well Known” Prior Art"
Conclusion
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 GARRETT K ATKINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8117. The examiner can normally be reached 0800-1800 M-F.
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.
/GARRETT K ATKINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784