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 § 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 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US Pat. No. 4,198,045, April 15, 19080) in view of Hayes et al. (US Pat. No. 8,075,464, Dec. 13, 2011) (herein “Hayes”)
Regarding claim 1, as broadly interpreted, Miller teaches a multimodal fitness bar, comprising: a bar 14 (see Figs. 1 and 3 below); a sheet 10 coupled with the bar 14; and a loop 30 disposed at a second end of the sheet 10 (see Miller, Figs. 1 and 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
356
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
238
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Miller is silent in explicitly teaching at least one bar coupling disposed at a first end of the sheet 10.
Hayes, however, in an analogous art of exercise devices teaches a bar 30 coupled to a sheet 22 at one end of the sheet 22, the sheet 22 having a bar coupling 28 disposed at the end of the sheet (i.e., loop for receiving the bar 30, see Hayes, Fig. 3 below and col. 5, lines 16-21)
PNG
media_image3.png
370
688
media_image3.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 Miller such that the sheet 10 at least one bar coupling 28 (i.e., loop) disposed at a first end of the sheet 10 as taught by Hayes in order to connect to the bar 14 to the sheet 10.
Regarding claim 2, as broadly interpreted, Miller teaches the multimodal fitness bar of claim 1, wherein the loop 30 is a fabric strap 30 affixed to the sheet 10 (see Miller, col. 6, lines 22-32).
Regarding claim 3, as broadly interpreted, Miller teaches the multimodal fitness bar of claim 1, wherein the bar 14 comprises a first handle (i.e., the exposed portion of bar 14 that ends beyond the edge of sheet 10) and a second handle (i.e., the exposed portion of bar 14 that ends beyond the edge of sheet 10) on opposite ends of the bar 14.
Regarding claim 4, Miller as modified by Hayes teaches wherein the sheet further comprises an alignment stitch (i.e., the stitching to form loop 28, see Hayes, col. 5, lines 16-21).
Regarding claim 6, as broadly interpreted, Miller as modified by Hayes teaches the multimodal fitness bar of claim 1, wherein the bar 14 comprises a first handle, a second handle (i.e., the first and second handles being the exposed portion of bar 14 that ends beyond the edge of sheet 10, see Miller, Fig. 1 above), and a middle portion, wherein the at least one bar coupling (28, see Hayes, Fig. 3 above) couples the first end of the sheet 10 to the middle portion.
Regarding claim 7, as broadly interpreted, Miller teaches a multimodal fitness bar, comprising: a bar 14 (see Miller, Figs. 1 and 3 above) comprising a first handle, a second handle (i.e., the first and second handles being the exposed portion of bar 14 that ends beyond the edge of sheet 10, see Miller, Fig. 1 above), and a middle portion disposed therebetween (see Miller, Fig. 1 above); a sheet 10 coupled with the bar 14 with the middle portion; and a loop 30 disposed at a second end of the sheet 10 (see Miller, Figs. 1 and 3 above).
Miller is silent in explicitly teaching at least one bar coupling disposed at a first end of the sheet 10.
Hayes, however, in an analogous art of exercise devices teaches a bar 30 coupled to a sheet 22 at one end of the sheet 22, the sheet 22 having a bar coupling 28 disposed at the end of the sheet (i.e., loop for receiving the bar 30, see Hayes, Fig. 3 above)
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 Miller such that the sheet 10 includes at least one bar coupling 28 (i.e., loop) disposed at a first end of the sheet 10 as taught by Hayes in order to connect to the bar 14 to the sheet 10.
Regarding claim 8, as broadly interpreted, Miller teaches the multimodal fitness bar of claim 7, wherein the loop 7 is a fabric strap 30 affixed to the sheet 10 (see Miller, col. 6, lines 22-32).
Regarding claim 9, Miller as modified by Hayes teaches wherein the sheet further comprises an alignment stitch (i.e., the stitching to form loop 28, see Hayes, col. 5, lines 16-21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 10 are 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 5, none of the prior art teach or suggest the multimodal fitness bar of claim 1, wherein the sheet further comprises a furling member and a toggle sized and dimensioned to interact with the furling member.
Regarding claim 10, none of the prior art teach or suggest the multimodal fitness bar of claim 7, wherein the sheet further comprises a furling member and a toggle sized and dimensioned to interact with the furling member.
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 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 S LO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights