DETAILED ACTION – Final Refusal
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 .
Examiner’s Comment
Acknowledgment of Applicant’s Response
The merits of this case have been carefully reviewed in light of applicant's response filed 10/24/2025. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the objections to the title, figure descriptions, and portions of the refusal under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b). Applicant amending the title for accuracy, fixing the figure descriptions for proper form, and providing a 3D model of the claimed design overcomes the objections and portions of the refusals of the previous office action.
However, the amended 3D model / reproduction is of poor quality, and there are still non-enabled areas which were pointed out in the Non-Final Office Action dated 05/29/2025, and there are new matter issues which have resulted in a final refusal under 35 USC § 112(a) and (b) and 35 USC § 112(a) set forth below.
As applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Claim Refusal – 35 USC § 112 (a) and (b)
The claim is FINALLY refused under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) 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 regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling for the following reason(s):
The visual disclosure of the claimed design is of such poor quality that its overall shape and appearance cannot be understood (MPEP § 1504.04). Specifically, the 3D model contains poor image quality, and areas in the drawing disclosure appear to be washed out, grainy, blurry and with details of the design that cannot be properly discerned. For example, in FIGS. 1.1 and 1.2, several features of the Handle for Exercise Device are washed out, grainy and blurry, which is confusing and therefore, it is impossible to understand exactly what is being claimed. This is not an exhaustive list, as all FIGS. 1.1 – 1.6 have these issues. See annotations below.
Because of the poor drawings and inadequate visual disclosure, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled. In attempt to overcome the rejection, it is suggested that applicant provide clear, crisp model images.
PNG
media_image1.png
587
1202
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the visual disclosure is inadequate such that the appearance and shape or configuration of the design for which protection is sought cannot be determined or understood (MPEP § 1504.04). Specifically, there are features shown in the FIGS. 1.2 and 1.4 reproductions that are not completely understood, despite multiple views. For instance, the depth of the interior of the rectangular and semi-circle features, annotated below, is not understood. How far into the interior do these features recede? It is impossible to understand the transitions between the surfaces that are shown, which creates confusion and makes it difficult to reconcile the details among the views. In attempt to overcome the rejection, it is suggested that applicant clarify the surfaces or place the features into broken line. See drawing annotations below.
PNG
media_image2.png
370
933
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further, there are features shown in the FIGS. 1.3 and 1.6 reproductions that are not completely understood, despite multiple views. For instance, the depth of the interior of the oval feature, annotated below, is not understood. How far into the interior does this feature recede? It is impossible to understand the transitions between the surfaces that are shown, which creates confusion and makes it difficult to reconcile the details among the views. In attempt to overcome the rejection, it is suggested that applicant clarify the surfaces or place the features into broken line. See drawing annotations below.
PNG
media_image3.png
326
921
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Refusal - 35 USC § 112(a) - New Matter
The claim is FINALLY refused under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement thereof since the drawings introduce new matter not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclo-sure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant's amendment introduces the following new matter: Specifically, in FIGS. 1.1 – 1.6 there is no support in the original disclosure for the following. This is not an exhaustive list. See annotations below.
1: The change in appearance of feature “A” in FIG. 1.5.
2: The change in the appearance of feature “B” in FIG. 1.5.
3: The change in appearance of the handle feature “C” in FIG. 1.5.
4: The removal of solid line “D” in FIG. 1.5.
5: The change in the appearance of edge features “F” and “E” in FIG. 1.6.
6: The removal of solid line “G” in FIG. 1.6.
PNG
media_image4.png
512
1388
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
514
1262
media_image5.png
Greyscale
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the original disclosure establishes that they were in possession of the of the amended subject matter or amend these areas to be consistent with the original disclosure.
Replacement Reproductions
Any amended replacement drawing reproduction 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 reproduction should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing reproduction is to be canceled, the appropriate reproduction must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining reproductions 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 reproductions. If all the figures on a drawing reproduction sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing reproduction sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the reproductions. Each drawing reproduction 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.
When preparing new or replacement reproductions, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Notes on Correspondence
Reply Reminder
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this communication must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b).
Discussion of the Merits of the Application
All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant’s representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below.
Telephonic or in person interviews
A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner”) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner). The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below.
If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to
communicate by telephone, it is suggested that such person email the examiner at Emily.Saunders@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please include proposed days and times for the proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the interview, please take into account the examiner’s work schedule indicated in the last paragraph of this communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone call.
Email Communications
The merits of the application will not be discussed via email {or other electronic medium) unless
appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. See MPEP 502.03 II for further information.
Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
The USPTO transacts business in writing. All replies must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3), a reply submitted on behalf of a juristic applicant must be signed by an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by:
[Symbol font/0xB7] Online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System‐Web (EFS‐Web) (Registered eFilers only) https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply
[Symbol font/0xB7] Mail: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313‐1450
[Symbol font/0xB7] Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571‐273‐8300)
[Symbol font/0xB7] Hand‐carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Conclusion and Contact Information
The claim is refused under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b) and under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), and MADE FINAL.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY A SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6356. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 8AM-6PM PST.
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, George Ulsh can be reached on (571) 270-1433. 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.
/E.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2925 /GEORGE J ULSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2925