DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits based on the 19/311,907 application filed on 08/27/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The effective filing date of the present application is 09/12/2024. Claims 1-10, as originally filed, are currently pending and considered below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/27/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1). If the invention can be drawn or illustrated then a drawing is required in lieu of black and white photorealistic images. All details in the black and white photorealistic images are not clear. Therefore, black and white line drawings are required in place of the black and white photorealistic images in Figures 7 and 8. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 1-2, “The present disclosure discloses a Pilates ring, which relates to the technical field of Pilates rings. The Pilates ring includes” should be --- A Pilates ring includes ---.
In line 4, “means of the engagement between buckles and buckle bases” should be --- means of an engagement between buckles and buckle bases ---.
In lines 6-7, “sweat-resistant, corrosion-resistant and easy to clean” should be --- sweat-resistant, corrosion-resistant, and easy to clean ---.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 1, “the elastic rod” should be --- each elastic rod ---. Refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claim 1, see below.
In claim 3, line 1, “the grip” should be --- each grip ---. Refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claim 1, see below.
In claim 3, line 2, “an opening for the installation of the buckle base and the insertion of the buckle” should be --- an opening for an installation of the corresponding buckle base and an insertion of the corresponding buckle ---. Refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claim 1, see below.
In claim 5, line 2, “and the number of the elastic rods is the same as the number of the grips” should be --- and a number of the plurality of elastic rods equals a number of the plurality of grips ---. Refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claim 1, see below.
In claim 7, line 1, “the buckle” should be --- each buckle ---. Refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claim 1, see below.
In claim 8, line 1, “the buckle” should be --- each buckle ---. Refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claim 1, see below.
In claim 8, line 2, “for connecting the elastic rod and a locking notch for locking the elastic rod” should be --- for connecting the corresponding elastic rod and a locking notch for locking the corresponding elastic rod ---. Refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claim 1, see below.
In claim 9, line 1, “the buckle base” should be --- each buckle base ---. Refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claim 1, see below.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are recited in lines 1-4:
“A Pilates ring, comprising an elastic rod, a buckle, a buckle base, and a grip, wherein each end of the elastic rod is connected to a buckle, the buckle base is nested in the grip, several elastic rods are connected by means of the engagement between buckles and buckle bases to form an elastic ring, and the buckle and the buckle base are a detachable connection structure.”
The limitations render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether or not: “a buckle” on the Pilates ring is the same as, different from, in addition to, and/or part of “a buckle” connected to “each end of the elastic rod”; and “an elastic ring” is the same as, different from, in addition to, and/or part of “A Pilates ring.” In addition, it is unclear how many elastic rods, buckles, and buckle bases are included in “A Pilates ring” and/or “an elastic ring.” Further, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “each end of the elastic rod” and “the engagement between buckles and buckle bases” in these limitations in the claim.
Applicant is suggested to amend the limitations to:
--- A Pilates ring, comprising:
a plurality of elastic rods;
a plurality of buckles;
a plurality of buckle bases; and
a plurality of grips;
wherein opposing ends of each of the plurality of elastic rods are respectively connected to a buckle of the plurality of buckles;
wherein the plurality of buckle bases are respectively nested in the plurality of grips;
wherein the Pilates ring is an elastic ring formed by an engagement between the plurality of buckles and the plurality of buckle bases to connect the plurality of elastic rods; and
wherein each buckle and corresponding buckle base is a detachable connection structure. ---. Refer to Figures 1-8.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency on claim 1, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, see above.
Claim 8, which depends from claim 1, recites the limitation “wherein the buckle is further provided with a connecting slot for connecting the elastic rod and a locking notch for locking the elastic rod” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the buckle further providing in this limitation in the claim because the buckle was not previously provided with any structure in any of the claims from which claim 8 depends. Applicant is therefore suggested to amend claim 8 such that it instead depends from claim 7.
Claim 9, which depends from claim 1, recites the limitation “wherein the buckle base is provided with latch slots that match the latch heads” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the latch heads” in this limitation in the claim. Applicant is therefore suggested to amend claim 9 such that it instead depends from claim 8. Refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 8, see above. In addition, applicant is suggested to amend “the latch heads” in claim 9, line 2, to --- the elastic latch heads ---.
Claim 10, which depends from claims 1 and 3, recites the limitation “wherein the silicone sleeve is squeezed to move the latch heads into the buckle base, such that the latch heads and the buckle base are in a separable state” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the latch heads” in this limitation in the claim because the latch heads were not previously recited in any of the claims from which claim 10 depends. Applicant is therefore suggested to amend claim 10 such that it instead depends from claim 9. Refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claims 8 and 9, see above. In addition, applicant is suggested to amend the limitation in claim 10 to --- wherein the silicone sleeve is configured to be squeezed to move the elastic latch heads into the corresponding buckle base, such that the elastic latch heads and the corresponding buckle base are in a separable state ---.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record (Thomas (US 2026/0069956) in view of Tamura (JP 2021000421 A)) fails to teach or render obvious a Pilates ring in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
a grip, the buckle base is nested in the grip (claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY D URBIEL GOLDNER whose telephone number is (313)446-6554. The examiner can normally be reached between 9AM and 5PM, Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
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 B 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. Visit https://patentcenter.uspto.gov to file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. For information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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.
/GARY D URBIEL GOLDNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
