DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Restriction not Required
This application contains the following embodiments:
Embodiment 1— Figures 1-14
Embodiment 2— Figures 15-28
Multiple embodiments of a single inventive concept may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. See In re Rubinfield, 270 F.2d 391, 123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959). Embodiments that are patentably distinct from one another do not constitute a single inventive concept and thus may not be included in the same design application. See In re Platner, 155 USPQ 222 (Comm Pat. 1967).
The above-identified embodiments are considered by the examiner to present overall appearances that are basically the same. The differences between embodiments are related to proportions. Specifically, Embodiments 1 and 2 show the same shapes and components either thickened or compressed widthwise. These modifications are found in the prior art and are therefore considered obvious. Presence of invention is as essential to granting of design patent as to granting of mechanical patent; obvious changes in arrangement and proportioning are no more patentable in one case than in the other. See In re Stevens 624 O.G. 366; 81 USPQ.
The differences between the appearances of the embodiments are considered minor and patentably indistinct, or are shown to be obvious in view of analogous prior art cited. Accordingly, they are deemed to be obvious variations and are being retained and examined in the same application.
Specification
While descriptions of the figures are not required to be written in any particular format, they must describe the views of the drawing clearly and accurately (MPEP 1503.01(Il)). The specification is objected to because the Figure 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 21, 22, and 28 descriptions should be amended for clarity and consistency. It is recommended the views be described as follows:
--FIG. 1 is a top perspective view of a reconfigurable exercise device in accordance with a first embodiment of my new design, with the hand grips in a first position of use;--
--FIG. 7 is a perspective view of the reconfigurable exercise device of FIGS. 1-6 shown in an environment of use;--
--FIG. 8 is a top perspective view of the reconfigurable exercise device of FIG. 1, with the hand grips in a second position of use;--
--FIG. 14 is a perspective view of the reconfigurable exercise device of FIGS. 8-13 shown in an environment of use;--
--FIG. 15 is a top perspective view of the reconfigurable exercise device in accordance with a second embodiment, with the hand grips in a first position of use;--
--FIG. 21 is a perspective view of the reconfigurable exercise device of FIGS. 15-20 shown in an environment of use;--
--FIG. 22 is a top perspective view of the reconfigurable exercise device of FIG. 15, with the hand grips in a second position of use;--
--FIG. 28 is a perspective view of the reconfigurable exercise device of FIGS. 22-27 shown in an environment of use.--
Likewise, the broken line statement does not clearly describe the multiple uses of broken lines shown in the drawings. The broken line description should expressly identify what is represented by the broken lines in addition to defining their relationship to the claimed design (MPEP 1503.02(IIl)). For clarity, the broken line statement should be amended to read:
-- The broken lines shown in the drawings depict portions of the reconfigurable exercise device that form no part of the claimed design. The additional broken lines showing the athlete in FIGS. 7, 14, 21 and 28 depict environmental subject matter that also forms no part of the claimed design.--
Claim
For proper form (37 CFR 1.153 or 37 CFR 1.1025), the claim should be amended to read: “I claim: The ornamental design for a RECONFIGURABLE EXERCISE DEVICE as shown and described.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a) and (b)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails 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 claim is considered indefinite and nonenabling because Figures 9 and 11 contain additional lines on the padded segment that are not shown in the other views for this configuration nor when the exercise device hand grips are in the first position of use. See Figure 10 annotated in the illustration below, for example, where the lines of Figures 9 and 11 have been omitted.
PNG
media_image1.png
924
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is recommended that the additional lines shown in Figures 9 and 11 be removed so that the padded segment is shown consistently among all views.
When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Rejection — 35 U.S.C. § 171 (Non-Statutory Double Patenting)
The claim is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 171 on the ground of double patenting since it is claiming the same design as that claimed in copending Application No. 29/889,586. This is a provisional double patenting rejection since the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. See images below.
PNG
media_image2.png
1212
1215
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant is advised that a terminal disclaimer may not be used to overcome a "same invention" type double patenting rejection. See In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 804.02.
Conclusion
The claimed design is rejected under 35 USC § 112 (a) and (b) and 35 U.S.C. § 171, as set forth above.
The references are cited as pertinent prior art. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the cited references by visiting http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and pressing the “Basic Search” or “Advanced Search” button.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH L WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9AM-5PM, 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, Michael Stout can be reached at (408)918-7558. 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.
/T.L.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2924
/GEORGE J ULSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2925
Prosecution Insights