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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments stating Chia does not disclose the two side members connected by a first and a second line member, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The module of Chia includes the two base portions 55, 57 on either side of the module that work with the linking means 61 and reads on the claim as presented. Applicant argues Chia does not disclose two longitudinal line members that extend through, or are affixed to, the side members of each section to interconnect the sections in parallel. Examiner notes this argument is more limiting than the claim language and finds the prior art to read on the claims as presented.
Regarding applicant’s arguments stating Chia does not disclose a bracket in each section that carries a plurality of stones arguing the multiple stones are distributed across different modules, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Chia explicitly discloses the module 53 as being “dual segmented” and comprising a pair of decorative inserts 63 with the two base portions 55, 57. Chia goes on further to describe the dual module can be cast as a single dual base piece. Chia also discloses wherein multiple segment modules may be designed, not just one or two segments.
Regarding applicant’s arguments stating Sudak does not disclose multi-section, dual-line wearable architecture, Examiner notes one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding applicant’s arguments stating Chia does not disclose a chain with a clasp, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Chia’s latch 5 is attached to the last module of the bracelet.
Regarding applicant’s arguments stating Chakras.info supplies only generalized, alternative stone suggestions, not the precise structural and quantitative allocations, Examiner notes that Chakras.info is being used as a teaching reference to show alternative stones and not the structural and quantitative allocations. Examiner notes one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding applicant’s arguments stating it would not have been obvious to duplicate stones or sections to supply each missing count because the quantitative allocations are not arbitrary duplications of identical working parts but are purposeful design constraints integral to the claimed structural sequence, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s own disclosure fails to show criticality to the number of sections, the type of stone in each section, and the order of sections. In contract the specification teaches “some sections can be eliminated” and “the arrangement of the sections can be altered.” Chia also discloses wherein the modules can have multiple decorative elements, not just one or two.
Examiner holes rejection over the prior art.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "bracket of the first section" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "bracket of the section" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "bracket of the third" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "bracket of the fourth section" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "bracket of the fifth section" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "bracket of the first sixth section" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "bracket of the second sixth section" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "bracket of the seventh section" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chia US 6629434
in view of Sudak US 20150189958.
Regarding claim 1, Chia discloses a wearable wellness device comprising:
a plurality of sections including:
a bracket (modules 53, Fig 15) spanning between and secured in each of the plurality of sections;
two side members (55, 57) secured in each of the plurality of sections;
a first line member (61, left) connected to the side members;
a second line member (61, right) connected to the side members; and
a plurality of stones (63) mechanically attached to the bracket (module) of each respective section;
wherein the plurality of sections are connected by the first line member and the second line member;
having a chain with a clasp (5) (Figure 2).
Chia does not disclose wherein the plurality of sections comprising a first section (1) having one or more add-ons physically attached on one end of the first section; a second section (2), the second section being connected to the first section; a third section (3), the third section being connected to the second section; a fourth section (4), the fourth section being connected to the third section; a fifth section (5), the fifth section being connected to the fourth section; a first sixth section (6), the first sixth section being connected to the fifth section; a second sixth section, the second sixth section being connected to the first sixth section; and a seventh section (7) having a chain with a clasp, the seventh section being connected to the second sixth section.
Sudak teaches wherein the plurality of sections comprising
a first section (8) having one or more add-ons attached on one end;
a second section (7), the second section being connected to the first section;
a third section (6), the third section being connected to the second section;
a fourth section (5), the fourth section being connected to the third section;
a fifth section (4), the fifth section being connected to the fourth section;
a sixth section (3), the sixth section being connected to the fifth section;
a seventh section (2), the seventh section being connected to the sixth section.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wearable item of Chia to include the sections of Sudak to allow for separated sections for the purposes of chakra healing.
Chia in view of Sudak discloses the claimed invention except for a second sixth section between the first sixth section and the seventh section. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second sixth section, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.05)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chia US 6629434 in view of Sudak US 20150189958 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chakras.info/chakra-stones/ (Chakras.info).
Regarding claim 2, Chia in view of Sudak discloses wherein
the second section (Sudak, 7) includes a carnelian stone attached to the bracket of the second section (Sudak, para 5, “sixth stone bead is orange, such as tiger's eye or carnelian”);
the third section (Sudak, 6) includes at least one citrine stone attached to the bracket of the third section (Sudak, para 5, “fifth stone bead is yellow, such as amber or citrine”);
the fourth section (Sudak, 5) includes at least one rose quartz stone (Sudak, para 5, “fourth stone bead is pink or green, such as rose quartz or peridot);
the fifth section (Sudak, 4) includes at least one blue lace agate stone attached to the bracket of the fifth section (Sudak, para 5, “third stone bead is bright blue, such as turquoise or blue agate);
the seventh section (Sudak, 2) include at least one Iolite stone attached to the bracket of the seventh section (Sudak, para 5, “first stone bead is violet, such as amethyst,” Iolite is a violet stone.).
Chia in view of Sudak does not teach wherein the first section includes at least one black tourmaline stone attached to the bracket of the first section,
Chakras.info teaches black tourmaline can be used in place of hematite for the root chakra.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the red stone of Sudak used for the root chakra to be black tourmaline as taught by Chakras.info in order to yield the predictable result of having the alternate root chakra healing stone of black tourmaline.
The combination as modified above does not explicitly disclose wherein the second section includes two carnelian stones. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had two carnelian stones, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.05)
The combination as modified above does not explicitly disclose wherein the third section also includes one tiger’s eye stone.
Chakras.info teaches that tiger’s eye stones can be used for the solar plexus chakra.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the third section of Chia in view of Sudak to include a tiger’s eye stone for additional solar plexus chakra properties.
The combination as modified above does not explicitly disclose wherein the fourth section includes four rose quartz stones. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had four rose quartz stones since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.05)
The combination as modified above discloses the claimed invention except wherein the fifth section includes five blue lace agate stones. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had five blue lace agate stones since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.05)
The combination as modified above does not explicitly disclose the first and second sixth section includes selenite stones attached to the bracket of the first sixth section and the bracket of the second sixth section.
Chakras.info teaches selenite stones can be used in place of indigo stones for the brow or third eye chakra.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the indigo stone of Chia in view of Sudak used for the brow chakra to be selenite as taught by Chakras.info in order to yield the predictable result of having the alternate root chakra healing stone of selenite.
The combination as modified above discloses the claimed invention except the first and second sixth sections each having three selenite stones. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had three selenite stones in the first and second sixth sections since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.05)
The combination as modified above discloses the claimed invention except wherein the seventh section includes seven iolite stones. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had seven iolite stones since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.05)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA SALEM RASHID whose telephone number is (703)756-1113. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/ANNA S RASHID/ Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677