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
Claims 2-13,16-21 are pending. Applicant’s arguments (Remarks dated August 18th, 2025) with respect to claim(s) 11 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 3-5, 11-13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (US 9,919,162 B2) in view of Klein (US 7,578,783 B2).
Regarding Claim 11, Knight discloses a sensory stimulation booth comprising (100; Col. 8, Lines 1-25; Fig. 1A-C):
an enclosure comprising a floor (106), a hexagonal dome-shaped vaulted ceiling (104), and a plurality of walls (102) positioned around the periphery of the floor and the vaulted ceiling in a regular hexagonal arrangement, with the floor, vaulted ceiling, and walls defining an interior space therebetween (Ceiling 104 domed or vaulted; Col. 11, Lines 20-30. Enclosure in shape of hexagon; Col. 10; Lines 20-40);
a plurality of speakers within the interior space (Audio source 110; Fig. 1B; Col. 7, Lines 5-20; Col. 13, Lines 20-51; Fig. 1B);
a plurality of light fixtures within the interior space, each light fixture positioned along a wall of the enclosure (Lights 126 on walls 102; Col. 16, Lines 55-67; Fig. 1B-C); and
wherein each speaker and each light fixture is oriented towards a focal point located in the center of the interior space (Speaker 110 pointed downwards to user 124 in Fig. 1B. Lights 126 directed towards user 124 at center; Col. 16, Lines 55-67; Fig. 1C).
Knight fails to explicitly disclose each speaker (110; Fig. 1B) positioned in a corner of the enclosure defined by two walls thereof, each speaker further being oriented towards a diametrically opposed corner of the enclosure. However, Klein teaches each speaker positioned in a corner of the enclosure defined by two walls thereof, each speaker further being oriented towards a diametrically opposed corner of the enclosure (See Klein Fig. 1: Speakers 14 in each corner and as diametrically opposed; Col. 5, Lines 20-25; Col. 2, Lines 55-67) Klein and Knight are in similar fields comprising sensory enclosures. Modifying Knight with teachings of Klein would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein each speaker positioned in a corner of the enclosure defined by two walls thereof, each speaker further being oriented towards a diametrically opposed corner of the enclosure, for the purpose of directing sound to a user to hear (Col. 2, Lines 65-67).
Regarding Claim 3, Knight as modified by Klein discloses the booth of claim 11. Knight as modified by Klein fail to explicitly disclose wherein the light (126; Fig. 1B) fixtures comprise lights having a brightness ranging from about 8,000 lux to about 12,000 lux. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of optimizing brightness based a user’s light therapy session (Col. 12, Lines 20-30; Col. 18, Lines 15-25) since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 4, Knight as modified by Klein discloses the booth of claim 11. Knight as modified by Klein fail to explicitly disclose wherein the speakers (110; Fig. 1B) comprise speakers having a sensitivity rating of less than 100 decibels. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of optimizing sensitivity rating based on types of sound used, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 5, Knight as modified by Klein discloses the booth of claim 11. Knight as modified by Klein fail to explicitly disclose wherein the speakers comprise speakers having a frequency range of about 1 hertz to about 20,000 hertz. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of optimizing frequency based on types of sound used: musical, aural , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 12, Knight as modified by Klein discloses the booth of claim 11, wherein the plurality of speakers is arranged within the interior space such that the plurality of speakers surrounds the focal point of a plurality of different directions (See Klein Fig. 1: Speakers 14 in each corner and as diametrically opposed; Col. 5, Lines 20-25; Col. 2, Lines 55-67).
Regarding Claim 13, Knight as modified by Klein discloses the booth of claim 11, wherein the plurality of light fixtures is arranged within the interior space such that the plurality of light fixtures surrounds the focal point of a plurality of different directions (See lights 126 directed towards user 124 at center; Col. 16, Lines 55-67; Fig. 1C)
Regarding Claim 16, Knight as modified by Klein discloses the booth of claim 11. Knight as modified by Klein fail to explicitly disclose wherein the vaulted ceiling (Ceiling 104 domed or vaulted; Col. 11, Lines 20-30) comprises a plurality of sloping sides oriented at a slope angle ranging from 3° - 20°. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of optimizing the enclosure’s height and volume for sound diffusion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 7-9, 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (US 9,919,162 B2) in view of Klein (US 7,578,783 B2) and Adams (US 3,826,250).
Regarding Claim 7, Knight as modified by Klein discloses the booth of claim 11, further comprising a seat within the interior space positioned at the focal point (See 122 at focal point user 124; Col. 11, Lines 35-45; Fig. 1B). Knight as modified by Klein fail to explicitly disclose wherein the seat comprises at least one tactile transducer. However, Adams teaches wherein the seat comprises at least one tactile transducer (Adams: Focal point/seat 42 with massagers and vibrators/transducers 48/52; Col. 2, Lines 40-60). Adams, Klein, and Knight are in similar fields comprising sensory enclosures with seating. Modifying Knight as modified by Klein with teachings of Adams would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the seat comprises at least one tactile transducer for the purpose of providing a relaxing massaging effect (Adams: Col. 2, Lines 45-50).
Regarding Claim 8, Knight as modified by Klein and Adams disclose the booth of claim 7, wherein the tactile transducer is positioned beneath the seat and is oriented upwards (Adams: Vibrators 52 under seat 42; Fig. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 9, Knight as modified by Klein and Adams disclose the booth of claim 7, wherein:
the seat is a chair having a backrest (122 as a reclining chair; Col. 11, Lines 35-45; Fig. 1B); and
the seat comprises a plurality of tactile transducers aligned in a vertical row along the backrest of the chair (Adams: 42 with massagers/transducers 48 along backrest 44; Col. 2, Lines 40-50; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 17, Knight as modified by Klein discloses the booth of claim 11. Knight as modified by Klein fail to explicitly disclose further comprising a plurality of isolation feet beneath the floor of the enclosure. However, Adams teaches a plurality of isolation feet beneath the floor of the enclosure (Adams: Feet 82/84 beneath floor 14; Col. 3, Lines 25-30; Fig. 1-3. 82 separating booth 12 from being directly on the ground). Adams, Klein, and Knight are in similar fields comprising sensory enclosures. Modifying Knight as modified by Klein with teachings of Adams would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention further comprising a plurality of isolation feet beneath the floor of the enclosure for the purpose of providing motion for relaxation (Adams: Col. 3, Lines 25-35).
Regarding Claim 18, Knight as modified by Klein and Adams disclose the booth of claim 17, wherein the isolation feet comprise a layered configuration (Adams: 82/84; Fig. 1-2). Knight as modified by Klein and Adams fail to explicitly disclose a layered configuration comprising at least one layer of rubber and at least one layer of ceramic. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of absorbing vibration and being a widely available strong material, respectively, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 19, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claims 11 and 17. Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as claims 11 and 17; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding Claim 20, Knight as modified by Klein and Adams disclose the sensory stimulation booth of claim 19. Knight as modified by Klein and Adams fail to explicitly disclose wherein the interior space of the enclosure has a long diameter about 68 inches and a height of about 81 inches (Diameter of substantially less than nine feet; Col 16. Lines 35-45. Height according to user; Col. 10, Lines 9-15). However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of optimizing the diameter and height according to a desired user (Col 16. Lines 35-45; Col. 10, Lines 9-15), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 21, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claims 3-4. Claim 21 is rejected for similar reasons as claims 3-4; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (US 9,919,162 B2) in view of Klein (US 7,578,783 B2) and Attia et al. (US 2016/0008568).
Regarding Claim 2, Knight as modified by Klein discloses the booth of claim 11. Knight as modified by Klein fail to explicitly disclose wherein the light fixtures (126; Fig. 1B) comprise RGBW LED lights. However, Attia et al. teaches wherein the light fixtures comprise RGBW LED lights (Attia: LEDs within enclosure’s dome lid/ceiling- RGB red, green, blue; Para. 0030,0033. LEDs in Fig. 7. Color range in Fig. 11 with white led in center) Attia et al., Klein and Knight are in similar fields comprising sensory booths. Modifying Knight as modified by Klein with teachings of Attia et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the light fixtures comprise RGBW LED lights for the purpose of light therapy (Attia et al.: See Tables 2-3 for corresponding color and health benefits).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (US 9,919,162 B2) in view of Klein (US 7,578,783 B2) and Ando et al. (US 6,701,682 B2).
Regarding Claim 6, Knight as modified by Klein discloses the booth of claim 11. Knight as modified by Klein fail to explicitly disclose further comprising carpeting within the interior space, the carpeting being positioned on at least one of the floor and the ceiling. However, Ando et al. teaches further comprising carpeting within the interior space, the carpeting being positioned on at least one of the floor and the ceiling (Ando: Floor covered with carpet; Col. 6, Lines 53-60). Ando et al., Klein, and Knight are in similar fields comprising sensory booths. Modifying Knight as modified by Klein with teachings of Ando et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention further comprising carpeting within the interior space, the carpeting being positioned on at least one of the floor and the ceiling for the purpose of reducing external disturbing noises (Ando: Col. 6, Lines 53-60).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (US 9,919,162 B2) in view of Klein (US 7,578,783 B2), Adams (US 3,826,250), and Hagiwara et al. (US 5,024,650).
Regarding Claim 10, Knight as modified by Klein and Adams disclose the booth of claim 7. Knight as modified by Klein and Adams fail to explicitly disclose wherein the tactile transducer (Adams: 48; Fig. 1) is configured to produce vibrations having a frequency ranging from about 5 hertz to about 200 hertz. However, Hagiwara et al. teaches wherein the tactile transducer is configured to produce vibrations having a frequency ranging from about 5 hertz to about 200 hertz (Hagiwara: Frequency 32 for Vibrator driving means 33 and vibrator 12 mounted on chair 11 with frequency 20-40Hz; Col. 6 Lines 50-68; Fig. 1,5). Hagiwara et al. and Adam both comprise massage chair devices. Modifying Knight as modified by Klein and Adams with teachings of Hagiwara et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the tactile transducer is configured to produce vibrations having a frequency ranging from about 5 hertz to about 200 hertz for the purpose of relaxation (Hagiwara: Col. 7, Lines 8-12), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-20070287881-A1, US-6141034-A, US-10737054-B1, US-10732493-B2, US-9409101-B1, EP-1547502-A1, EP-0422253-A1, IT-BO20100534-A1, and WO-2015022697-A1 teach an enclosure with acoustic and light features.US-9188850-B2 teaches an hexagonal shaped enclosure with light projectors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER B OLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3041. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am -4:00pm.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571)270-7938. 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.
/JENNIFER B OLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/FORREST M PHILLIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837