DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action on the merits based on the 19/247,751 application filed on 06/24/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-9, as originally filed, are currently pending and considered below.
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.
Claims 3-9 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first angled foot holder" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first angled foot holder" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first angled foot holder" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first and second angled foot holder" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first and second angled foot holder" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first and second angled foot holder" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first angled foot holder" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mason (US Patent No. 7,104,901; DP: 09/12/2006).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
400
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Mason discloses a foot positioning device (hockey training system 10; Figure 4; i.e., a user is positioning their feet on the hockey device) for sports players, comprising: a frame (Base 20; Figure 4) comprising a first end (i.e., the left end of the base 20) and a second end (i.e., the right end of the base 20); a second angled foot holder (Right platform 30; Figure 4) coupled to the second end of the frame.
Regarding claim 2, Mason discloses the frame is rectangular (i.e., the base 20 is a rectangular as seen above).
Regarding claim 3, Mason disclose a distance between the first angled foot holder (Left platform 30; Figure 4) and the second angled foot holder is adjustable (i.e., the left ends of each of the angled foot holders 30 are adjusted to be closer to each other as seen in Figure 2) .
Regarding claim 4, Mason disclose at least one of the first angled foot holder and second angled foot holder is adjustable between a plurality of angles (i.e., the first angle is seen in Figure 2 and the second angle is seen in Figure 4 of each of the angled foot holders/platforms 30).
Regarding claim 5, Mason disclose both of the first angled foot holder and the second angled foot holder is adjustable between a plurality of angles (i.e., the first angle is seen in Figure 2 and the second angle is seen in Figure 4 of each of the angled foot holders/platforms 30).
Regarding claim 6, Mason disclose each of the first and second angled foot holders may be secured to the frame at a fixed angle (i.e., the first fixed angle is seen in Figure 2 and the second fixed angle is seen in Figure 4 of each of the angled foot holders/platforms 30).
PNG
media_image3.png
434
689
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Mason disclose each of the first and second angled foot holders comprises two angled plates coupled to a foot holder (i.e., see the annotated structures seen in Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 8, Mason disclose each of the first and second angled foot holders is coupled to the frame by a plurality of pins (Pins 34; Figure 2; i.e., the pins couple the frame 20 to the foot holders/platforms 30 as seen in Figures 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 9, Mason disclose a first pin assembly (Pins 34; Figures 2 and 4) coupled to the first end of the frame (i.e., the left end of the frame 30); and a second pin assembly (Pins 34; Figures 2 and 4) coupled to the second end of the frame (i.e., the right end of the frame 30), wherein the first angled foot holder is coupled to the first pin assembly and the second angled foot holder is coupled to the second pin assembly (i.e., the left platform and right platform 30 are connected to the respective pin assemblies 34 as seen in Figures 2 and 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M KOBYLARZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8096. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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 M KOBYLARZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights