Geoffrey Kwong

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 3, 2021

2020005947 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/408,181 01/17/2017 Geoffrey Erik Kwong GEOFF 1003
23857 7590 05/03/2021
MARC BOBYS
PO Box 492194
Los Angeles, CA 90049
EXAMINER
MOON, MATTHEW RYAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3785
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipdude@hotmail.com
marc.bobys@gmail.com
mbobys@alumni.ucla.edu
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEOFFREY ERIK KWONG
Appeal 2020-005947
Application 15/408,181
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision in the Final Office Action rejecting claims 1 and 3–9.
Claims 2 and 10–16 are canceled.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a combined massage roller
and exercise mat carrier that includes a hollow tube and a desiccant

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Geoffrey Erik
Kwong. Appeal Br. 2.
2 See Appellant’s After Final Amendment (dated Dec. 13, 2019), at 7.
Appeal 2020-005947
Application 15/408,181

2
compartment for drying a rolled-up wet exercise mat carried inside the tube.
Spec. ¶ 4. Claim 1, the only independent claim, recites:
1. An exercise mat carrier comprising:
a) a rigid hollow tube enclosing a space for storing an
exercise mat;
b) a pair of containers for holding desiccant within the
containers and fluidly connected with the space in the rigid
hollow tube for drying the exercise mat;
c) a pair of ring-shaped rolling supports encircling the
rigid hollow tube for engaging in rolling contact with a surface
when using the rigid hollow tube as a massage roller; and
d) a flexible and removable cover placed around the
outside of the rigid hollow tube and extending between the pair
of ring-shaped rolling supports; and
e) wherein both the flexible cover and the pair of
containers for holding desiccant within the containers are
removably attached to the pair of ring-shaped rolling supports
and thereby secured to the exercise mat carrier.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS
1. Claim 1, 3, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sanchez (US 2017/0071817 A1., pub. Mar. 16, 2017),
Townsend (US 2016/0008692 A1, pub. Jan. 14, 2016), and Steinberg (US
2016/0304264 A1, pub. Oct. 20, 2016). Final Act. 3–7.
2. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Sanchez, Townsend, Steinberg, and Babiarz (US 2015/0313789 A1,
pub. Nov. 5, 2015). Id. at 8–9.
3. Claims 5, 6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sanchez, Townsend, Steinberg, and Severa (US
2003/0192789 A1, pub. Oct. 16, 2003). Id. at 9–11.
Appeal 2020-005947
Application 15/408,181

3
4. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over
Sanchez, Townsend, Steinberg, and Chen (GB 2523606 A, pub. Sept. 2,
2015). Id. at 11–12.
ANALYSIS
A. Claims 1 and 33
Beginning with claim 1, the Examiner finds that Sanchez discloses a
massage roller comprising hollow tube carrier 212 for storing sundry items
such as exercise clothing, and, thus, “would be capable of storing an exercise
mat.” Final Act. 3 (citing Sanchez ¶¶ 15, 83, 105, Figs. 30–36). As the
Examiner also finds, Sanchez’s massage roller includes: (1) ring-shaped
roller supports 222, 223 at each end of the tube for smoothly rolling on a
surface; and (2) flexible and removable cover 210 that mates with each of
the roller supports via a tongue and groove connection. See id. at 5–6
(annotating Sanchez Fig. 33 to show connection between pad 210 and
rolling support 223).
In the event the hollow tube of Sanchez’s massage roller “is not large
enough to store a large exercise mat,” the Examiner finds that Townsend
teaches making a massage roller with a hollow tube long enough to hold an
exercise mat. Id. at 4 (citing Townsend ¶ 19, Fig. 1). According to the
Examiner, a skilled artisan would have known from Townsend to make
Sanchez’s hollow tube of a length that would hold an exercise mat rather
than carrying it separately. Id. Indeed, Sanchez itself discloses that massage
rollers may be “up to approximately 36 inches in length.” Sanchez ¶ 4.

3 Although the Examiner rejects claim 9 along with claims 1 and 3, we
address the rejection of claim 9 in conjunction with claim 8 below, as
claim 8 is the claim from which claim 9 depends directly.
Appeal 2020-005947
Application 15/408,181

4
While acknowledging that Sanchez does not disclose “containers for
holding desiccant,” as called for by claim 1, the Examiner notes Sanchez’s
disclosure of cup-shaped containers 236 (and associated cover plates 226)
for holding personal items within the rolling support. Id. at 4 (citing
Sanchez ¶ 108, Figs. 30, 34, 35); see also Ans. 12 (citing Sanchez ¶ 83).
More specifically, Sanchez discloses that the cup-shaped container and end
plate “might be provided and attached to, or be carried by, one of the end
caps 18/20, as depicted in Fig. 14 and . . . the container would be press-fit
into the cap and be removably retained therein.” Sanchez ¶ 83, Figs. 14, 15.
Pointing to Steinberg’s teaching of providing storage containers with
slotted sub-containers for the purpose of holding desiccant to keep stored
items dry, the Examiner reasons that a skilled artisan would have been led to
replace Sanchez’s removable cup-shaped containers with the desiccant-
holding sub-containers taught by Steinberg “for the purpose of allowing a
user to keep the mat and/or other items within the rigid hollow tube in a dry
state and thereby prevent water damage.” Id. at 4 (citing Steinberg ¶¶ 12,
14, Figs. 1–3). This would have been an obvious modification, according to
the Examiner, because the skilled artisan would have understood that
“desiccants are a conventional feature for drying clothing and personal
items, and . . . the desiccant of Steinberg would be capable of drying an
exercise mat to some degree and therefore would achieve the predictable
result of drying an exercise mat.” Id. at 4–5.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Sanchez and Townsend discloses a massage roller capable of
carrying a rolled-up exercise mat. See Appeal Br. 8. Noting that neither
Sanchez nor Townsend “suggests using desiccant to dry a rolled-up exercise
Appeal 2020-005947
Application 15/408,181

5
mat” and that Steinberg “shows little more than a container for holding
desiccant,” Appellant instead disputes the Examiner’s finding that a skilled
artisan would have had a reason to incorporate Steinberg’s desiccant
container within the modified Sanchez massage roller. Id. at 8. Appellant
explains that, “[b]ased on the prior art of record, desiccant has never been
used to dry an exercise mat in an exercise mat carrier or even to dry an
exercise mat at all,” and, “[i]n fact, exercise mats have always been dried by
unrolling them and hanging them to dry.” Id. According to Appellant, then,
“[t]here is no teaching or suggestion anywhere to use desiccant to dry an
exercise mat or even that such a combination would work at all.” Id. at 8–9.
In our view, the evidence of record more persuasively supports the
Examiner’s position. That the prior art may not explicitly disclose the use of
desiccant for drying an exercise mat per se does not foreclose the likelihood
that a skilled artisan would have found such a use obvious. Here, both
Sanchez and Townsend are directed to tubular storage containers for holding
exercise materials, which necessarily means they will be wet with sweat.
And though Sanchez and Townsend are silent regarding the use of desiccant
for drying the stored exercise materials, the record evidence supports that a
skilled artisan would recognize that a desiccant is often used to keep
materials dry within a storage container without the desiccant being in
physical contact with the stored materials. See Steinberg ¶¶ 1–3. Indeed,
Appellant concedes that is well-known to use a desiccant to dry materials
such as clothing. See Appeal Br. 9.
Those prior art disclosures, along with Appellant’s view of the prior
art, support the Examiner’s reasoning that “because the use of desiccants is a
conventional means for drying items within storage containers and/or
Appeal 2020-005947
Application 15/408,181

6
maintaining a dry environment for items within the storage container, the
use of a desiccant for drying an exercise mat within a space would be
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art . . . and would yield a predictable
result of drying, in at least some degree, an exercise mat or other accessories
within the storage container.” Ans. 12–13. And because Sanchez discloses
that its massage roller includes “easily interchangeable parts and feature that
can be mixed and matched to accommodate the particular needs and
convenience of a wide range of users,” (Sanchez ¶ 13), we agree with the
Examiner that a skilled artisan would have been led to replace Sanchez’s
removable cup-shaped compartment with the desiccant-containing
compartment taught by Steinberg “for the purpose of allowing a user to keep
the mat and/or other items within the rigid hollow tube in a dry state and
thereby prevent water damage.” Ans. 4.
Appellant also disputes the Examiner’s finding that Sanchez discloses
the roller cover being “removably attached” to the roller supports, as called
for by claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9–10; According to Appellant, Sanchez’s
roller pad 210 and roller supports 223 “are actually only touching each
other” and “are not attached to each other.” Id. at 10. We disagree. As the
Examiner notes, “attached” means “connected or joined to something.”
Ans. 14 (citing “Merriam-Webster”). Given that definition, we agree with
the Examiner that the tongue and groove connection between the roller pad
and roller support of Sanchez amounts to more than simply a “touching”
there between. See Ans. 15 (annotating Figure 33 of Sanchez to highlight
tongue and groove connection). Thus, Appellant does not persuade us that
Sanchez lacks disclosure of its roller cover being “removably attached” to its
roller supports.
Appeal 2020-005947
Application 15/408,181

7
In sum, we discern no error in the Examiner’s reasoning for
combining the teachings of Sanchez, Townsend, and Steinberg. Rather,
because the Examiner articulates sufficient reasoning with rational
underpinning for (1) making Sanchez’s hollow tube of a length to
accommodate an exercise mat, as taught by Townsend, and (2) using a
slotted desiccant compartment, as taught by Steinberg, in place of the cup-
shaped compartments in Sanchez’s tubular storage container, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings of
Sanchez, Townsend, and Steinberg. And because Appellant does not argue
claim 3 separately from claim 1, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of that dependent claim. See Appeal Br. 10–11.
B. Claim 4
Claim 4 recites that the flexible cover around the hollow tube is
“microwaveable.” Pointing to Babiarz’s teaching of providing a massage
roller with a microwavable, removable cover, the Examiner finds that a
skilled artisan would have been led to modify the removable cover of
Sanchez’s massage roller “to be made of a microwaveable material as taught
by Babiarz in order to allow a user to receive heat therapy when using the
device, which is known to provide positive results during massaging such as
vasoconstriction, anti-inflammation, pain reduction, etc.” Final Act. 9
(citing Babiarz ¶¶ 53, 55, 62, Fig. 8). In turn, Appellant responds that
Babiarz’s microwaveable cover “is in no way attached to the [e]nds 16, 18
of Babiarz,” and instead “is attached to the roller 10 . . . and therefore cannot
satisfy the claimed limitation of ‘removably attached to the pair of ring-
shaped rolling supports’.” Appeal Br. 11–12.
Appeal 2020-005947
Application 15/408,181

8
Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 4. That is because Appellants appears to disregard the rejection as
articulated by the Examiner. To be clear, the Examiner relies on Babiarz
solely for teaching that Sanchez’s flexible cover may be made of a
microwaveable material. See Ans. 9. Nowhere does the Examiner rely on
Babiarz for its attachment means, as Appellant mistakenly believes. Instead,
as discussed above, the Examiner relies on Sanchez for disclosing the
manner of attaching its removable cover to the ends of its massage roller.
Having focused on an irrelevant aspect of Babiarz, Appellant does not
persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable over Sanchez, Townsend,
Steinberg, and Babiarz.
C. Claims 5–9
Appellant argues that dependent claims 5–8 “should be allowed for
the reasons explained with respect to Claim 1.” Appeal Br. 12–13. Because,
as discussed above, Appellant’s reasons with respect to claim 1 are
unpersuasive, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 5–8.4

4 Despite failing to present substantive argument for claims 8 and 9 in its
opening brief, Appellant argues them at length in its reply brief. Compare
Appeal Br. 10–11, with Reply Br. 3–7. Because Appellant fails to show
good cause for raising these arguments anew in its reply brief, we do not
consider them. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Appeal 2020-005947
Application 15/408,181

9
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3 103 Sanchez, Townsend,
Steinberg
1, 3
4 103 Sanchez, Townsend,
Steinberg, Babiarz
4
5, 6, 8, 9 103 Sanchez, Townsend,
Steinberg, Severa
5, 6, 8, 9
7 103 Sanchez, Townsend,
Steinberg, Chen
7
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–9

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED