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 Objections
Claims 2, 21 and 23-26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
1) In claim 2, line 5; claim 24, line 8 and in claim 26, line 3: The term --a-- should be inserted before the terms “length” and “width”.
2) Claim 21 should be cancelled since this claim recites the limitations of dependent claim 2 verbatim.
3) In claim 23, line 2: The term --a-- should be inserted before the term “length”.
4) In claim 23, line 3: The term --a-- should be inserted before the term “width”.
5) In claim 25, line 1: The number “8” should be changed to --10-- (in order to provide proper antecedent basis for the limitation of “said head padded section”.)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 7, 14, 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2011/0049822 to Hinman in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6,578,857 to Whiteside et al. and U.S. Design Pat. No. 301,078 to Szpot. With respect to claims 1 and 14, Hinman shows the claimed limitations of a body support board (10) for floor and associate methods and tasks, said body support board comprising: an elongated board member (11) dimensioned and configured for being supported on a planar surface of a work environment and for receiving and providing a work surface for a user positioned thereon, wherein said elongated board member (11) comprises a first end (14), a second end (13), a body, a first side, a second side, a top surface, and a bottom surface, and wherein said body extends from said
first end to said second end (as shown in Figures 1 & 2 and as described on page 3, in paragraph 0036 and on page 4, in paragraph 0036); a body support padded section (i.e., a central portion of element 23 and a portion of element 23 adjacent to foot end 13 as shown in Figure 2) positioned upon said top surface of said elongated board member (11), wherein said body support padded section has a thickness and is dimensioned and configured for providing body support to the user, whereupon a back body portion of the user is capable of receiving back body support when the user is positioned thereon, a head padded section (i.e., a portion of element 23 adjacent to head end 14 also as shown in Figure 2) positioned upon said top surface of said elongated board member (11) at about said first end (14) of said elongated board member, and wherein said head padded section has a thickness and is dimensioned and configured for providing head support to the user, whereupon a head portion of the user is capable of receiving head support when the user is positioned thereon (also as described on page 5, in paragraph 0046). However, Hinman does not specifically disclose wherein said thickness of said head padded section is greater than said thickness of said body support padded section; and an S-shape profile or configuration along said top surface of said elongated board member (11). Whiteside et al. ‘857 provides the basic teaching of a body support board (10) comprising a body support padded section (19) and a head padded section (21), wherein a thickness of said head padded section is greater than a thickness of said body support padded section (19) (see Figures 1 & 3; column 2, lines 48-49 & 63-67 and column 3, lines 1-4), whereas Szpot provides the basic teaching of a body support board comprising an S-shape profile or configuration (see Figures 3 & 7). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the body support board disclosed in Hinman with the body support and head padded sections taught in Whiteside et al. ‘857 with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable result of imparting enhanced user comfort and support; moreover, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the body support board disclosed in Hinman with the S-shape profile or configuration taught in Szpot with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable result of further imparting enhanced user comfort and support.
With respect to claims 2, 21 and 26, Hinman further teaches a condition wherein said body support padded section or said at least one body support padded section extends for most of a length and a width of said elongated board member (11) (as shown in Figure 2 and as described on page 5, in paragraph 0046).
With respect to claim 7 and with further respect to claim 14, Whiteside et al. ‘857 further teaches the use of an adjustable, collapsible, support leg or stand (62) dimensioned and configured for being pivotally adjustable from a collapsed or folded height position to at least one extended height position at which said body support padded section (19) is supported, wherein said adjustable, collapsible, support leg or stand (62) is capable of being pivotally extended downwardly from said collapsed or folded height position to said at least one extended height position with respect to said bottom surface of said body support padded section (19) so that said body support board (10) is able to be adjusted to various heights (via elements 60) for use, and, alternatively, wherein said adjustable, collapsible, support leg or
stand (62) is capable of being pivotally collapsed or folded upwardly from said at least one extended height position to said collapsed or folded height position with respect to said bottom surface of said body support padded section (19) so that said body support board (10) is able to be adjusted to various heights (via elements 60) for use and storage (see Figures 2, 3 & 5; column 4, lines 21-67 and column 5, lines 1-16). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the body support board disclosed in Hinman with the support leg or stand taught in Whiteside et al. ‘857 with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable result of allowing the body support board to be “maintained at multiple positions rendering the [body support board] comfortably usable” as taught by Whiteside et al. ‘857 (column 1, lines 9-11).
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinman ‘822 in view of Whiteside et al. ‘857 and Szpot ‘078 as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 4,986,558 to Morris. Hinman as modified by Whiteside et al. ‘857 and Szpot does not specifically disclose the use of at least one light member positioned about said head padded section for illuminating a sufficient area of a surrounding area for the user to view. Morris provides the basic teaching of a body support board (10) provided with a head padded section (21) and at least one light member (38, 42, 48, 52) positioned about said head padded section for illuminating a sufficient area of a surrounding area for a user to view (see Figures 1-3; column 2, lines 20-29 & 50-68 and column 3, lines 1-33). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
combine the body support board disclosed in Hinman as modified by Whiteside et al. ‘857 and Szpot with the at least one light member taught in Morris with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling a user “to have a clear view…while lying prone on the [body support board]” as taught by Morris (column 1, lines 35-39).
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinman ‘822 in view of Whiteside et al. ‘857 and Szpot ‘078 as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,503,415 to Powell. Hinman as modified by Whiteside et al. ‘857 and Szpot does not specifically disclose the use of at least one removeable or detachable tool case detachably secured at a corresponding side of said first side and said second side of said elongated board member (11), wherein said at least one removeable or detachable tool case is dimensioned and configured to receiving and retaining at least one tool. Powell provides the basic teaching of a body support board (10) comprising an elongated board (12, 14) member having first and second sides (14), and at least one removeable or detachable tool case (22, 22A) detachably secured at a corresponding side of said first side and said second side of said elongated board member (12, 14), wherein said at least one removeable or detachable tool case (22, 22A) is dimensioned and configured to receiving and retaining at least one tool (see Figures 1-4; column 1, lines 65-67 and column 2, lines 1-5 & 14-16). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the body support board disclosed in Hinman as modified by Whiteside et al. ‘857 and
Szpot with the at least one removeable or detachable tool case taught in Powell with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable results of “[enabling a user] to attach more than one [tool case] to either [side of the elongated board member]…and conveniently fill [the at least one tool case] with the required [tools]…prior to attaching the [at least one tool case] to the [sides of the elongated board member]” as taught by Powell (column 2, lines 20-25).
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinman ‘822 in view of Whiteside et al. ‘857, Szpot ‘078 and Powell ‘415 as applied to claims 5 and 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 4,986,558 to Morris. Hinman as modified by Whiteside et al. ‘857 and Szpot and as further modified by Powell does not specifically disclose the use of at least one light switch for illuminating a sufficient area about said at least one removeable or detachable tool case (22, 22A) for the user to view the at least one tool retained within said at least one removeable or detachable tool case. Morris provides the basic teaching of a body support board (10) provided with first (12) and second (14) sides and at least one light switch (38, 42, 48, 52) positioned about the first and second sides for illuminating a sufficient area of a surrounding area for a user to view (see Figures 1-3; column 2, lines 20-29 & 50-68 and column 3, lines 1-33). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the body support board disclosed in Hinman as modified by Whiteside et al. ‘857 and Szpot and as further modified by Powell with the at least one light switch taught in Morris with a reasonable expectation of success because this would
have achieved the desirable result of enabling a user “to have a clear view…while lying prone on the [body support board]” as taught by Morris (column 1, lines 35-39).
Claims 20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinman ‘822 in view of Whiteside et al. ‘857 and Szpot ‘078 as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Morris ‘558 and Powell ‘415. With respect to claims 20 and 22, Hinman as modified by Whiteside et al. ‘857 and Szpot does not specifically disclose the use of at least one light member, at least one removeable or detachable tool case, and at least one light switch. Morris provides the basic teaching of a body support board (10) provided with first (12) and second (14) sides, and at least one light member and at least one switch (38, 42, 48, 52) positioned about the first and second sides for illuminating a sufficient area of a surrounding area for a user to view (see Figures 1-3; column 2, lines 20-29 & 50-68 and column 3, lines 1-33), whereas Powell provides the basic teaching of a body support board (10) comprising an elongated board (12, 14) member having first and second sides (14), and at least one removeable or detachable tool case (22, 22A) detachably secured at a corresponding side of said first side and said second side of said elongated board member (12, 14), wherein said at least one removeable or detachable tool case (22, 22A) is dimensioned and configured to receiving and retaining at least one tool (see Figures 1-4; column 1, lines 65-67 and column 2, lines 1-5 & 14-16). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the body support board disclosed in Hinman as modified by Whiteside et al. ‘857 and Szpot with the at least one light member and the at least
one light switch taught in Morris with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling a user “to have a clear view…while lying prone on the [body support board]” as taught by Morris (column 1, lines 35-39); moreover, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the body support board disclosed in Hinman as modified by Whiteside et al. ‘857 and Szpot with the at least one removeable or detachable tool case taught in Powell with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable results of “[enabling a user] to attach more than one [tool case] to either [side of the elongated board member]…and conveniently fill [the at least one tool case] with the required [tools]…prior to attaching the [at least one tool case] to the [sides of the elongated board member]” as taught by Powell (column 2, lines 20-25).
With further respect to claim 22, Whiteside et al. ‘857 further teaches the use of an adjustable, collapsible, support leg or stand (62) dimensioned and configured for being pivotally adjustable from a collapsed or folded height position to at least one extended height position at which said body support padded section (19) is supported, wherein said adjustable, collapsible, support leg or stand (62) is capable of being pivotally extended downwardly from said collapsed or folded height position to said at least one extended height position with respect to said bottom surface of said body support padded section (19) so that said body support board (10) is able to be adjusted to various heights (via elements 60) for use, and, alternatively, wherein said adjustable, collapsible, support leg or stand (62) is capable of being pivotally collapsed or folded upwardly from said at least one extended height position to said collapsed or folded height position with respect to said bottom surface of said body support padded section (19) so that said body support board (10) is able to be adjusted to various heights (via elements 60) for use and storage (see Figures 2, 3 & 5; column 4, lines 21-67 and column 5, lines 1-16). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the body support board disclosed in Hinman with the support leg or stand taught in Whiteside et al. ‘857 with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable result of allowing the body support board to be “maintained at multiple positions rendering the [body support board] comfortably usable” as taught by Whiteside et al. ‘857 (column 1, lines 9-11).
With respect to claim 23, Hinman further teaches a condition wherein said body support padded section extends for most of a length and a width of said elongated board member (11) (as shown in Figure 2 and as described on page 5, in paragraph 0046).
Claims 8-10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinman ‘822 in view of Whiteside et al. ‘857. Hinman is considered to disclose all of the claimed limitations as recited in claims 8-10 and 24 (as stated above in paragraph 5 of this Office action) except for the use of an adjustable, collapsible, support leg or stand dimensioned and configured for being pivotally adjustable from a collapsed or folded height position to at least one extended height position at which said body support padded section is supported, wherein said adjustable, collapsible, support leg or stand is capable of being pivotally extended downwardly from said collapsed or folded height position to said at least one extended height position with respect to said bottom surface of said body support padded section so that said
body support board (10) is able to be adjusted to various heights for use, and, alternatively, wherein said adjustable, collapsible, support leg or stand is capable of being pivotally collapsed or folded upwardly from said at least one extended height position to said collapsed or folded height position with respect to said bottom surface of said body support padded section so that said body support board (10) is able to be adjusted to various heights for use and storage. Whiteside et al. ‘857 further teaches the use of an adjustable, collapsible, support leg or stand (62) dimensioned and configured for being pivotally adjustable from a collapsed or folded height position to at least one extended height position at which said body support padded section (19) is supported, wherein said adjustable, collapsible, support leg or stand (62) is capable of being pivotally extended downwardly from said collapsed or folded height position to said at least one extended height position with respect to said bottom surface of said body support padded section (19) so that said body support board (10) is able to be adjusted to various heights (via elements 60) for use, and, alternatively, wherein said adjustable, collapsible, support leg or stand (62) is capable of being pivotally collapsed or folded upwardly from said at least one extended height position to said collapsed or folded height position with respect to said bottom surface of said body support padded section (19) so that said body support board (10) is able to be adjusted to various heights (via elements 60) for use and storage (see Figures 2, 3 & 5; column 4, lines 21-67 and column 5, lines 1-16). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the body support board disclosed in Hinman with the support leg or stand taught in Whiteside et al. ‘857 with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have
achieved the desirable result of allowing the body support board to be “maintained at multiple positions rendering the [body support board] comfortably usable” as taught by Whiteside et al. ‘857 (column 1, lines 9-11).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinman ‘822 in view of Whiteside et al. ‘857 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Morris ‘558. Hinman as modified by Whiteside et al. ‘857 does not specifically disclose the use of at least one light member positioned about said head padded section for illuminating a sufficient area of a surrounding area for the user to view. Morris provides the basic teaching of a body support board (10) provided with a head padded section (21) and at least one light member (38, 42, 48, 52) positioned about said head padded section for illuminating a sufficient area of a surrounding area for a user to view (see Figures 1-3; column 2, lines 20-29 & 50-68 and column 3, lines 1-33). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the body support board disclosed in Hinman as modified by Whiteside et al. ‘857 with the at least one light member taught in Morris with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling a user “to have a clear view…while lying prone on the [body support board]” as taught by Morris (column 1, lines 35-39).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinman ‘822 in view of Whiteside et al. ‘857 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Powell ‘415.
Hinman as modified by Whiteside et al. ‘857 does not specifically disclose the use of at least one removeable or detachable tool case detachably secured at a corresponding side of said first side and said second side of said elongated board member (11), wherein said at least one removeable or detachable tool case is dimensioned and configured to receiving and retaining at least one tool. Powell provides the basic teaching of a body support board (10) comprising an elongated board (12, 14) member having first and second sides (14), and at least one removeable or detachable tool case (22, 22A) detachably secured at a corresponding side of said first side and said second side of said elongated board member (12, 14), wherein said at least one removeable or detachable tool case (22, 22A) is dimensioned and configured to receiving and retaining at least one tool (see Figures 1-4; column 1, lines 65-67 and column 2, lines 1-5 & 14-16). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the body support board disclosed in Hinman as modified by Whiteside et al. ‘857 with the at least one removeable or detachable tool case taught in Powell with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable results of “[enabling a user] to attach more than one [tool case] to either [side of the elongated board member]…and conveniently fill [the at least one tool case] with the required [tools]…prior to attaching the [at least one tool case] to the [sides of the elongated board member]” as taught by Powell (column 2, lines 20-25).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinman ‘822 in view of Whiteside et al. ‘857 and Powell ‘415 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view
of Morris ‘558. Hinman as modified by Whiteside et al. ‘857 and as further modified by Powell does not specifically disclose the use of at least one light switch for illuminating a sufficient area about said at least one removeable or detachable tool case (22, 22A) for the user to view the at least one tool retained within said at least one removeable or detachable tool case. Morris provides the basic teaching of a body support board (10) provided with first (12) and second (14) sides and at least one light switch (38, 42, 48, 52) positioned about the first and second sides for illuminating a sufficient area of a surrounding area for a user to view (see Figures 1-3; column 2, lines 20-29 & 50-68 and column 3, lines 1-33). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the body support board disclosed in Hinman as modified by Whiteside et al. ‘857 and as further modified by Powell with the at least one light switch taught in Morris with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling a user “to have a clear view…while lying prone on the [body support board]” as taught by Morris (column 1, lines 35-39).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinman ‘822 in view of Whiteside et al. ‘857 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Morris ‘558 and Powell ‘415. With respect to claims 20 and 22, Hinman as modified by Whiteside et al. ‘857 does not specifically disclose the use of at least one light member, at least one removeable or detachable tool case, and at least one light switch. Morris provides the basic teaching of a body support board (10) provided with first (12) and second (14) sides, and at least one light member
and at least one switch (38, 42, 48, 52) positioned about the first and second sides for illuminating a sufficient area of a surrounding area for a user to view (see Figures 1-3; column 2, lines 20-29 & 50-68 and column 3, lines 1-33), whereas Powell provides the basic teaching of a body support board (10) comprising an elongated board (12, 14) member having first and second sides (14), and at least one removeable or detachable tool case (22, 22A) detachably secured at a corresponding side of said first side and said second side of said elongated board member (12, 14), wherein said at least one removeable or detachable tool case (22, 22A) is dimensioned and configured to receiving and retaining at least one tool (see Figures 1-4; column 1, lines 65-67 and column 2, lines 1-5 & 14-16). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the body support board disclosed in Hinman as modified by Whiteside et al. ‘857 with the at least one light member and the at least one light switch taught in Morris with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling a user “to have a clear view…while lying prone on the [body support board]” as taught by Morris (column 1, lines 35-39); moreover, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the body support board disclosed in Hinman as modified by Whiteside et al. ‘857 with the at least one removeable or detachable tool case taught in Powell with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable results of “[enabling a user] to attach more than one [tool case] to either [side of the elongated board member]…and conveniently fill [the at least one tool case] with the
required [tools]…prior to attaching the [at least one tool case] to the [sides of the elongated board member]” as taught by Powell (column 2, lines 20-25).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments on pages 16-21 of the amendment with respect to the claims have been considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: Gess ‘875, Cook ‘418, Whiteside et al. ‘818, Wu ‘129, Wu ‘181, Whiteside ‘815, Hernandez, Jr. ‘564, Hernandez, Jr. ‘967, Hernandez, Jr. ‘861, Hernandez, Jr. ‘020, Whiteside ‘622, Whiteside et al. ‘590, Whiteside ‘437, Whiteside ‘773, Martin ‘532, Tucker ‘489, Miles et al. ‘062 and Miles et al. ‘552.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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).
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 ROBERT G SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-11:30am and 2pm-7:30pm.
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, Justin C Mikowski can be reached on 571-272-8525. 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.
/ROBERT G SANTOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673