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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made to the instant application’s claim for priority to provisional application 63/663,901, and as such the earliest date of priority of 06/25/2024 has been granted to the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/30/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-11 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 1, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “a substantially flat upper side” on lines 3-4, is made unclear by the use of the relative term substantially.
In addition, claim 1 recites the limitation, “the substantially flat upper side horizontal” on line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as a substantially flat upper side horizontal has not yet been claimed. Furthermore for the same reasons noted above, the term substantially in the instant limitation is a relative term that renders the claim undefined.
The term “substantially” in claim 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “substantially flat” on line 2 is made unclear. on lines 3-4, is made unclear by the use of the relative term substantially.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the platform comprises two or more pairs of opposed edges, each pair of opposed edges comprising respectively a corresponding pair of opposed roller assemblies” on lines 2-4. It is unclear if these structures are the same as the “at least one pair of opposed edges,…,each of the opposed edges in a single pair comprising one of a corresponding pair of opposed roller assemblies” claimed previous on lines 3-6, which claim 2 depends on, which claim 7 depends on, which claim 8 depends on, or a new different set of structures separate from those previously claimed.
Dependent claims 3-7, and 9-11 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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 2 is further 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. Claim 2 recites the limitation, “wherein the upper side is substantially flat”, which fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 which it depends upon, as this is the same limitation as “a substantially flat upper side” claimed on lines 3-4 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.
Dependent claims 3-11 are further rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed US 20210346750 A1, and further in view of Kongkham GB 2552203 A.
Regarding claim 1:
Reed teaches, a foot plate for use in resistance training with one or more elastic resistance bands, comprising: a platform (platform 10’) having at least one pair of opposed edges (See annotated figure 6), a substantially flat upper side (surface 110. The examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b), that under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural or functional limitations, the surface 110 of Reed is being considered as substantially flat since it visually appears to be flat in the figures, and is also meant to allow a person to stand upon the platform easily.), and a lower side (surface 120), each of the opposed edges in a single pair comprising one of a corresponding pair of opposed roller assemblies (rollers 600), each roller assembly comprising at least one respective roller (“In addition, the platform 10′ may incorporate one or more rollers 600 positioned proximate to each opening 360 associated with the channel 30, as shown in FIGS. 6-11. In addition, the platform 10′ may incorporate one or more rollers 600 positioned proximate to each opening 360 associated with the channel 30, as shown in FIGS. 6-11.” See paragraph [0037]); a plurality of bases extending downward from the platform (See annotated figure 7), the bases being configured to support the substantially flat upper side horizontal when the foot plate rests on a horizontal surface and to create a sufficient space (channel 30) below the lower side and the horizontal surface to permit the elastic bands to pass freely (“Accordingly, when the legs 300 are placed on the floor or other support surface, the recessed cross configuration 350 is separated or spaced from the floor by a gap, and the ends of each channel 30 and 40 that are proximate to the edges 150A-B and 160A-B are open (i.e. openings 360 between the legs 300 formed on each edge 150A-B and 160A-B; it should be appreciated that these openings may include a curved or radiused edge to reduce the friction generated with the exercise band 20 that is in contact therewith).” See paragraph [0026]).
[AltContent: textbox (Opposing edges)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
444
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Bases)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
420
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reed fails to teach one or more sets of guards, each set comprising a plurality of guards configured to define a respective channel such that an elastic band retained in the channel during performance of a resistance exercise using the foot plate will, for one of the pairs of opposed roller assemblies, contact at least one of the rollers comprised respectively by each roller assembly.
Kongkham, however, teaches a portable resistance exercise device with a body and many extendible members 2 which are attached to and extend from the body and which may be elastic (See abstract), and further teaches, one or more sets of guards (see annotated figure 2), each set comprising a plurality of guards (reels 12) configured to define a respective channel (See figure 2 which depicts the resistance bands members guided through a specific route within via the reels) such that an elastic band retained in the channel during performance of a resistance exercise using the foot plate will, for one of the pairs of opposed roller assemblies contact at least one of the rollers comprised respectively by each roller assembly (See figure 1 which depicts the resistance bands being routed through openings in the platform and guided by horizontal rollers 10 to the users exercise position.).
PNG
media_image3.png
546
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Guide sets)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
718
522
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In addition, Kongkham teaches wherein each guard comprises: an axle (spindle 11) projecting downward from the lower side of the platform (See figure 2 which depicts the spindles vertical and coming downward from the lower side of the upper body parts 15); and a guard roller configured to rotate around the axle (The examiner notes the cylindrical body(s) of the reel(s) are the guard rollers as the act as pulleys/sheaves around the spindle to allow the band(s) to move), and wherein each guard comprises an end cap configured to retain the roller on the axle (“The reels comprise a lock means comprised by a button uppermost on the spindle, colour-coded to the resistance band member” See page 5 of the description, with button 9 depicted in figure 2), wherein each guard roller is cylindrical (See figure 2 where each reel is depicted as a concave cylinder), and wherein each guard is of sufficient length such that the end cap contacts the horizontal surface while the foot plate is in use (The examiner notes that when assembled as shown in figure 1 the end caps abut the top standing surface and the bottoms of the spindles contact the surface of cartridge 13), and the guard supports the platform in conjunction with the bases (The examiner notes that due to the placement of the reels they would inherently support the platform in conjunction with the bases as the entire assembly will fit together and rest on the spindles inside the reels once assembled).
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 platform of Reed to include, at least one set of guards, with axles, and rollers, to guide the resistance bands and support the platform surface, as taught by Kongkham, as this would make sure the bands cannot twist, or bunch, or move in a way that hinders the user’s ability to exercise, and maintain the bands position within the channels of Reed.
Regarding claim 2:
Reed as modified discloses the foot plate of claim 1, wherein the upper side is substantially flat (See the rejection of claim 1 above, as well as the rejection presented under 35 USC 112(d) for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which the instant claim depends.).
Regarding claim 3:
Reed as modified by Kongkham teaches the foot plate of claim 2, wherein each guard comprises: an axle projecting downward from the lower side of the platform (See rejection of claim 1); and a guard roller configured to rotate around the axle(See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4:
Reed as modified by Kongkham teaches the foot plate of claim 3, wherein each guard comprises an end cap configured to retain the roller on the axle (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5:
Reed as modified by Kongkham teaches the foot plate of claim 4, wherein each guard roller is cylindrical (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6:
Reed as modified by Kongkham teaches the foot plate of claim 4, wherein each guard is of sufficient length such that the end cap contacts the horizontal surface while the foot plate is in use, and the guard supports the platform in conjunction with the bases (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7:
Reed as modified by Kongkham teaches the foot plate of claim 2, wherein each set comprises four guards (See rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 8:
Reed as modified teaches the foot plate of claim 7, wherein: the platform comprises two or more pairs of opposed edges (See rejection of claim 1, which claim 2 depends upon, which claim 7 depends upon, which claim 8 depends upon, and the rejection presented under 35 USC 112(b), regarding whether these are a separate set of structures from those already claimed in independent claim 1) each pair of opposed edges comprising respectively a corresponding pair of opposed roller assemblies (See rejection of claim 1, and the rejection presented under 35 USC 112(b), regarding whether these are a separate set of structures from those already claimed in independent claim 1); for each pair of opposed edges, the foot plate comprises exactly one corresponding set of guards defining a corresponding channel underneath the platform running from one of the opposed edges to the other opposed edge.
Regarding claim 9:
Reed as modified discloses the foot plate of claim 2, wherein at least one of the pairs of opposed roller assemblies comprises only cylindrical rollers in each roller assembly (See figure 6 which only depicts cylindrical rollers).
Regarding claim 10:
Reed as modified teaches the foot plate of claim 2, but fails to teach wherein at least one of the pairs of opposed roller assemblies comprises concave rollers in each roller assembly.
The examiner notes however, that this limitation amounts to no more than a change in the shape of the roller, which as discussed in MPEP chapter 2144.04, chapter IV., subsection B, a change in shape does not create a patentably distinct invention. Therefore, 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 rollers of Reed to be concave since it amounts to no more than a change in the shape of the rollers.
Regarding claim 11:
Reed as modified by Kongkham teaches the foot plate of claim 2, wherein each guard is cylindrical and projects downward from the lower side of the platform (See the rejection of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on).
Under a different interpretation than that noted above, claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed US 20210346750 A1, and further in view of Kongkham GB 2552203 A, and in further view of Engle US 20060128540 A1.
The examiner notes that Reed as modified teaches the invention substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 8:
Reed as modified teaches the foot plate of claim 7, but fails to teach wherein: the platform comprises two or more pairs of opposed edges each pair of opposed edges comprising respectively a corresponding pair of opposed roller assemblies; for each pair of opposed edges, the foot plate comprises exactly one corresponding set of guards defining a corresponding channel underneath the platform running from one of the opposed edges to the other opposed edge.
The examiner notes that Reed does teach that the platform comprises two or more pairs of opposed edges, See figure 6 which shows at least 4 opposing edges of the rectangularly shaped platform, but that specifically each pair comprises a corresponding pair of opposed roller assemblies. Furthermore, as modified by Kongkham teaches that the foot plate comprises exactly one corresponding set of guards defining a corresponding channel underneath the platform running from one of the opposed edges to the other opposed edge as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above regarding the guards in the channels under the platform.
Engle, however, teaches, an exercise apparatus that provides easily and quickly adjustable resistive forces during a wide variety of fitness-related activities (See abstract), and further teaches wherein: the platform comprises two or more pairs of opposed edges (“Two openings 40 are provided along each long side of housing 10; one opening 40 is provided on each short side of housing 10.” See paragraph [0054] and figure 2 which depicts the opposing edges and the corresponding openings. The examiner notes that the purpose of this alternative interpretation is due to the unclear nature of the claim language, as noted above in the rejection presented under 35 USC 112(b), that under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural or functional limitations, that the claim language is being interpreted to mean that there are at least four opposing edges each with a respective roller.) each pair of opposed edges comprising respectively a corresponding pair of opposed roller assemblies (“Each opening 40 also includes, in its top portion, a roller 110 that is fixedly attached to top portion 50, but that is able to rotate freely about its horizontal axis” See paragraph [0055]).
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 platform of Reed to include rollers on all four opposing edges of the platform as taught by Engle, as this would allow the user to route the elastic resistance band in a wider variety of directions, thereby increasing the configurable nature of the exercise device to tailor the device to their needs.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of the record has not been relied upon but has been found to be pertinent to the content of the applicant’s disclosure:
Wisniewski US 20220054882 A1: Resistance Band Exercise Scale Platform, which teaches an apparatus in which resistance bands, an electric digital scale (with wireless data transmission), and platform (designed for resistance band exercises) are used to provide a method of exercise for all areas of a person's body (See paragraph [0005]).
Randleman US 20200179745 A1: Mobile Exercise Platform, which teaches a mobile exercise platform system having one or more top plates lengthwise oriented in a first longitudinal direction or a second longitudinal direction, and two or more spring bars directly fastened to the top plates and being lengthwise oriented in a transverse direction, with a coupling mechanism which joins two individual exercise platforms together to increase the modes of exercise that may be performed, and openings in the top plates and support rods fastened to the underside of top plates further increase the versatility of exercise modes.
Best US 7608025 B1: Compact Exercise And Strength Measuring Device, which teaches an exercise device including a scale with a base plate positioned on a bottom side of the scale and a contact plate positioned on a top side of the scale. Bands may be attached to and extend from the base plate. The exercise device may be placed on a support floor with the user on the contact plate and the scale and the base plate underneath.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN ANGELO DICUIA whose telephone number is (703)756-4713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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.
/JONATHAN A DICUIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights