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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 52-55 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 52-55 comprise a method which can be implemented using a materially different device and does not require the structural limitations specified in Claims 8 & 25. A search burden is present in that the broad limitations of the method encompass a vast spectrum of classifications, requiring different fields of search, the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention. Even if an invention is classified in the same classification as another, it does not mean that a prior art found in that classification would be applicable to both inventions, as classifications encompass a wide variety in terms of scope. The classifications applied to each of the groups are inclusionary of supplemental requirements of search based on claim limitations, some limitations require searching in areas that the Applicant would not expect given the details of the specification, but the claims themselves dictate the search requirements overall. Due to the distinct features in the inventions, a prior art search for each group would involve distinct additional CPC areas as well as distinct text searches and searching methods, thus presenting a search burden due to the varying characteristics required to be searched.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 52-55 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 19th September 2025 have been entered. Claims 8-26, 35-55 are pending. Claims 52-55 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention by original presentation. Applicants amendments to the claims have overcome all objections all rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) that were previously applied in the office action dated 19th May 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of the citations mapping two structural elements to a single structural element citation with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for these claims in view of US 20170172308 A1 to North, as mapped below.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the position control device being rotationally supported by the stiffening member, such that the position control device is operable to freely rotate and fall between a first blocking position and a second blocking position in response to gravity in claims 8 & 25.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 8-26, and 35-51 are 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 8 recites ‘an individual user’ and further recites ‘a user’, it is unclear if these limitations are meant to be the same or a different user, rendering Claim 8 indefinite. Examiner interprets the indefinite limitation to intend a singular user limitation, as best understood by the disclosure.
Claim 25 recites ‘an individual’ and further recites ‘a user’, it is unclear if these two limitations are meant to be the same or a different user, rendering Claim 25 indefinite. Examiner interprets the indefinite limitation to intend a singular user limitation, as best understood by the disclosure.
Claim 39 recites ‘a user’, it is unclear if this limitation is a new user limitation or if it is intended to refer to ‘and individual user’ or ‘a user’ as previously recited in Claim 8, rendering Claim 39 indefinite. The indefinite limitation is interpreted to intend reference to the user limitation of Claim 8, as best understood by the disclosure.
Claims 12 and 39 recites ‘the waist attachment member’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claim.
Claims 35-39 recite ‘the elongate stiffening member’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claims 36-37 recite ‘a direction along its longitudinal axis’, it is unclear what ‘its’ is referring to, rendering claims 36 & 37 indefinite.
Claim 39 recites ‘the shoulder attachment member’ and ‘the body of the user’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in these claims.
Claim 45 recites ‘wherein the stiffening rod comprises a curvature formed at least partially along its length’, it is unclear what ‘its’ is referring to, rendering claim 45 indefinite. Examiner interprets the indefinite limitation to be referring to the length of the stiffening rod.
Claim 46 recites ‘the stiffening rod comprises a curvature formed at least partially along its length’, it is unclear what ‘its’ is referring to, rendering claim 46 indefinite. Examiner interprets the indefinite limitation to be referring to the length of the stiffening rod.
Claims 10 and 51 recite ‘upper and lower attachment systems coupling the position control device to the stiffening member at an offset distance.’, it is unclear what is meant by an offset distance in the context of the claim, rendering Claims 10 and 51 indefinite. Para. [0078] recites ‘the importance of adjustability of the upper and lower pillow attachment systems 140, 148 in achieving a proper offset position and rotational radius of the back pillow 130 relative to the stiffening member 50’. As such, the indefinite limitation is interpreted to read ‘upper and lower attachment systems coupling the position control device to the stiffening member to enable an offset position’, as best understood by the disclosure.
Claims 9-24, 26, 35-51 are rejected for their dependence on a rejected base Claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112b.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 39 appears to positively claim a human organism by reciting ‘at a location rearward of a mid-coronal plane transecting the body of the user’. Examiner recommends amending the claim to read ‘wherein the shoulder attachment member comprises a distal end configured to be attached to at least one of the elongate stiffening member or the waist attachment member at a location rearward of a mid-coronal plane transecting a body of the user with the back-mounted support device donned by a user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8, 10-11, 17, 25-26, 35-38, 40-41, 48, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170172308 A1 to North.
Regarding Claim 8, North discloses a device for enabling an individual user to sustain a preferential side-sleeping orientation (North: Abstract), the device comprising:
a wearable device operable to be donned by a user (North: Fig. 15; Para. [0085]);
a stiffening member supported by the wearable device so as to be positioned along the back of the user upon donning the wearable device (North: Fig. 15, items 611, 614, and the portion of item 625 spanning between items 611 and 614; See Annotated Figure 15 below, 611, 614, and spanning portion 625a combined is interpreted as the stiffening member.),
PNG
media_image1.png
337
407
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the stiffening member comprising: an upper portion operable to be positioned about an upper back of the user (North: Fig. 15, item 611),
a lower portion operable to be positioned about a back portion of the user below the upper back (North: Fig. 15, item 614), and
a spanning portion extending between the upper and lower portions such that the stiffening member is operable to be positioned along the spine of the user (North: Fig. 15, the portion of item 625 spanning between items 611 and 614); and
a position control device in the form of a back pillow (North: Para. [0085] ‘a vest-type embodiment which offers greater stability in positioning the back pillow on a stable platform at the user's back. The pillow 600 is similar in construction to the previous pillows illustrated and includes s cylindrical body 601 and fill valve 605.’; Fig. 15),
the back pillow being rotationally supported by the stiffening member, such that the back pillow is operable to freely rotate and fall between first and second blocking positions along the user's back in response to gravity (North: Para. [0051] ‘With the pillow attached near the spine in a central location 62, the individual may shift from one side to another and the pillow will automatically gravitate to the appropriate right or left side, laterally offset location. Specifically, under force of gravity the pillow will fall between alternating and opposing laterally offset contact positions at the individual's back based on the side sleeping position selected—whether on the right or left side.’; Note: The stiffening member supports the back pillow via its attachment to the mounting loops 611 & 614).
Regarding Claim 10, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 8. North further discloses further comprising upper and lower pillow attachment systems coupling the back pillow to the stiffening member at an offset distance (North: Fig. 15 items 607 & 620; Para. [0085] ‘Straps 607 and 620 will be used to attach the pillow to mounting loops 611 and 614 on the back of the vest.’).
Regarding Claim 11, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 8. North further discloses wherein the stiffening member comprises a compliant, elastically deformable material having an element of stiffness that facilitates at least some amount of twisting within the stiffening member along a longitudinal axis and at least some rotation along an orthogonal lateral axis extending between opposing sides of the stiffening member (North: Fig. 15; Para. [0085]; Note: the textile material of the spanning section of the stiffening member, item 625, would be capable of this limitation and thus reads on this claim.).
Regarding Claim 17, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 10. North further discloses wherein the upper and lower pillow attachment systems are adjustable in length, thus facilitating an adjustable offset distance of the back pillow relative to the wearable device (North: Para. [0085] ‘The same positioning steps can be applied as described above, with the straps 607 and 620 being adjusted in length by fastening the loose end through loop opening 612 and attaching it to the interior section of the strap 616 with Velcro or other fastening means. The user then tests the positioning of the pillow in the side position on the bed, snaking further adjustments in the length to optimize the position.’).
Regarding Claim 25, North discloses a back-mounted support device for enabling an individual located on a bed to sustain a preferential side-sleeping orientation (North: Abstract),
the device comprising: a wearable device operable to be worn by a user (North: Fig. 15; Para. [0085] );
a stiffening member supported by the wearable device (North: Fig. 15, items 611, 614, and the portion of item 625 spanning between items 611 and 614; See Annotated Figure 15 below, 611, 614, and spanning portion 625a combined is interpreted as the stiffening member.),
PNG
media_image1.png
337
407
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the stiffening member comprising: an upper portion (North: Fig. 15, item 611), a lower portion (North: Fig. 15 item 614), and a spanning portion extending between the upper and lower portions (North: Fig. 15, the portion of item 625 spanning between items 611 and 614); and
a position control device comprising at least one surface (North: Para. [0085] ‘a vest-type embodiment which offers greater stability in positioning the back pillow on a stable platform at the user's back. The pillow 600 is similar in construction to the previous pillows illustrated and includes s cylindrical body 601 and fill valve 605.’; Fig. 15),
the position control device being rotationally supported by the stiffening member, such that the position control device is operable to freely rotate and fall between a first blocking position and a second blocking position in response to gravity (North: Para. [0051] ‘With the pillow attached near the spine in a central location 62, the individual may shift from one side to another and the pillow will automatically gravitate to the appropriate right or left side, laterally offset location. Specifically, under force of gravity the pillow will fall between alternating and opposing laterally offset contact positions at the individual's back based on the side sleeping position selected—whether on the right or left side.’; Note: The stiffening member supports the back pillow via its attachment to the mounting loops 611 & 614. Further, the first and second blocking positions are interpreted to be left and right sides as disclosed in the citation.).
Regarding Claim 26, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 25. North further discloses wherein the stiffening member is flexible in at least one degree of freedom (North: Fig. 15; Para. [0085]; Note: the textile material of the spanning section of the stiffening member, item 625, would be capable of this limitation and thus reads on this claim.).
Regarding Claim 35, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 8. North further discloses wherein the elongate stiffening member comprises a flat upper surface (Fig. 15, item 611; Note: stiffening member 611, 614, and spanning portion 625. item 611 is the upper portion and comprises a flat surface).
Regarding Claim 36, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 8. North further discloses wherein the elongate stiffening member comprises a constant width in a direction along its longitudinal axis (North: Fig. 15, items 611, 614, and the portion of item 625 spanning between items 611 and 614; See Annotated Figure 15 in the rejection of Claim 8, 611, 614, and spanning portion 625a combined is interpreted as the stiffening member.),
PNG
media_image1.png
337
407
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 37, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 8. North further discloses wherein the elongate stiffening member comprises a variable width in a direction along its longitudinal axis (North: Fig. 15, items 611, 614, and the portion of item 625 spanning between items 611 and 614; See Annotated Figure 15 below, 611, 614, and spanning portion 625a combined is interpreted as the stiffening member.),
PNG
media_image2.png
337
407
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 38, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 8. North further discloses wherein the elongate stiffening member comprises a plurality of segments (North: Fig. 15, items 611, 614, and the portion of item 625 spanning between items 611 and 614; See Annotated Figure 15 below, 611, 614, and spanning portion 625a combined is interpreted as the stiffening member.),
PNG
media_image3.png
336
408
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 40, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 8. North does not explicitly disclose comprising a body position sensor mounted to the stiffening member (North: Para. [0108] ‘In addition to use of the POSA system for inhibiting supine sleep, the present invention is well suited for adjunct use with various sleep monitoring devices. Referring again to FIG. 16 for example, a warning device 1200 can be attached to the individual for detecting the supine position of the body.’; Para. [0109] ‘Similarly, the use of a remote orientation monitor 1220 coupled to the warning device 1200 which is capable of maintaining an ongoing record of sleeping positions would allow the user to track the effectiveness of the POSA pillow system.… numerous orientation measuring devices are well know (sic) (should read ‘known’) and could be readily adapted to use with the present pillow system’),
the body position sensor being configured to monitor body movement and orientation with respect to various side-versus-supine positions of the user's body during sleep (North: Para. [0109] ‘Similarly, the use of a remote orientation monitor 1220 coupled to the warning device 1200 which is capable of maintaining an ongoing record of sleeping positions would allow the user to track the effectiveness of the POSA pillow system’).
Regarding Claim 41, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 10. North further discloses wherein the back pillow is removably coupled to the stiffening member via the upper and lower pillow attachment systems (North: Fig. 15 items 607 & 620; Para. [0085] ‘Straps 607 and 620 will be used to attach the pillow to mounting loops 611 and 614 on the back of the vest.’).
Regarding Claim 48, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 25. North further discloses wherein the position control device comprises a back pillow (North: Para. [0085] ‘a vest-type embodiment which offers greater stability in positioning the back pillow on a stable platform at the user's back. The pillow 600 is similar in construction to the previous pillows illustrated and includes s cylindrical body 601 and fill valve 605.’; Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 51, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 25. North further discloses further comprising upper and lower attachment systems coupling the position control device to the stiffening member at an offset distance (North: Fig. 15, items 607, 620; Para. [0085] ‘Straps 607 and 620 will be used to attach the pillow to mounting loops 611 and 614 on the back of the vest.’; Para. [0051] ‘With the pillow attached near the spine in a central location 62, the individual may shift from one side to another and the pillow will automatically gravitate to the appropriate right or left side, laterally offset location. Specifically, under force of gravity the pillow will fall between alternating and opposing laterally offset contact positions at the individual's back based on the side sleeping position selected—whether on the right or left side.’.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170172308 A1 to North.
Regarding Claim 49, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 48.
The current embodiment of North does not explicitly disclose wherein the back pillow comprises a sleeve, and an inflatable insert disposed within the sleeve.
However, another embodiment of North discloses wherein the back pillow comprises a sleeve, and an inflatable insert disposed within the sleeve (North: Para. [0063] & [0064]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the back pillow of North to comprise a sleeve and an inflatable insert disposed within the sleeve because North cites that as a known alternative with predictable results, in this case, the advantage of the inflated pillow is dissipation of body heat captured at the contact point of the pillow with the user’s back (North: Para. [0039]).
Regarding Claim 50, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 49. North further discloses wherein the sleeve comprises the surface in the form of a friction surface (North: Para. [0058] ‘The pillow can be pushed away by the user's hand or by rotating the trunk, thereby leaving the pillow in a rest position on the bed surface (sustained in the rest position by a frictional exterior surface on the sleeve).’).
Claim(s) 9, 12, 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170172308 A1 to North in view of US 20120284925 A1 to Bennett.
Regarding Claim 9, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 8. North further discloses wherein the wearable device comprises a harness-type of device (North: Fig. 15)
North does not explicitly disclose a shoulder attachment system secured to the upper portion of the stiffening member, and a waist attachment system secured to the lower portion of the stiffening member.
However, Bennett teaches a shoulder attachment system secured to the upper portion of the stiffening member, and a waist attachment system secured to the lower portion of the stiffening member (Bennett: Para. [0035] ‘A plurality of straps including a pair of shoulder straps 21, a waist strap 22, and a crotch strap 23, extending from the rigid panel 20 around the infant and secured together in the front of the infant preferably by mating hook and look fasteners, for attaching the rigid panel to the back of an infant’).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the device of North to include shoulder and waist straps as a known alternative means to secure the stiffening member to the back of the user which does not move around on the body as taught by Bennett (Bennett: Para. [0035] ‘for attaching the rigid panel to the back… to create a vest-like garment which does not move around on the body of the infant’).
Regarding Claim 12, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 9. North does not explicitly disclose wherein the shoulder attachment system comprises a pair of shoulder straps, each coupled at one end to the upper portion of the stiffening member and at a distal end to at least one of the stiffening member or the waist attachment member.
However, Bennett teaches wherein the shoulder attachment system comprises a pair of shoulder straps, each coupled at one end to the upper portion of the stiffening member and at a distal end to at least one of the stiffening member or the waist attachment member (Bennett: Para. [0035] ‘A plurality of straps including a pair of shoulder straps 21, a waist strap 22, and a crotch strap 23, extending from the rigid panel 20 around the infant and secured together in the front of the infant preferably by mating hook and look fasteners, for attaching the rigid panel to the back of an infant’).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the device of North to substitute shoulder and waist straps as taught by Bennett, this substitution involves adopting a known alternative means to achieve predictable results of securing the stiffening member to the back of the user which does not move around on the body (Bennett: Para. [0035] ‘for attaching the rigid panel to the back… to create a vest-like garment which does not move around on the body of the infant’).
Regarding Claim 15, North in view of Bennett discloses the invention as discussed in claim 9. North does not explicitly disclose wherein the waist attachment system comprises a pair of waist straps, each coupled at one end to the lower portion of the stiffening member.
However, Bennett further teaches wherein the waist attachment system comprises a pair of waist straps, each coupled at one end to the lower portion of the stiffening member (Bennett: Para. [0035] ‘A plurality of straps including a pair of shoulder straps 21, a waist strap 22, and a crotch strap 23, extending from the rigid panel 20 around the infant and secured together in the front of the infant preferably by mating hook and look fasteners, for attaching the rigid panel to the back of an infant’).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the device of North to substitute shoulder and waist straps as taught by Bennett, this substitution involves adopting a known alternative means to achieve predictable results of securing the stiffening member to the back of the user which does not move around on the body (Bennett: Para. [0035] ‘for attaching the rigid panel to the back… to create a vest-like garment which does not move around on the body of the infant’).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over North in view of EP 0692206 A1 to McMaster et al (hereinafter, McMaster).
Regarding Claim 13, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 8. North does not explicitly disclose further comprising at least two spacer elements positioned at separated locations on the stiffening member, the spacer elements being operable to locate the stiffening member at an offset position relative to the user's back
However, McMaster teaches comprising at least two spacer elements positioned at separated locations on the stiffening member, the spacer elements being operable to locate the stiffening member at an offset position relative to the user's back (McMaster: Col. 7, lines 21-26).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the stiffening member of North to incorporate the spacer elements taught by McMaster to prevent contact with the body and provide a narrow boundary through which air can flow to reduce perspiration (McMaster: Col. 7, lines 17-21).
Claim(s) 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over North in view of Bennett in further view of McMaster et al (hereinafter, McMaster).
Regarding Claim 14, North in view of Bennett discloses the invention as discussed in claim 12. North does not explicitly disclose wherein the shoulder attachment system further comprises a shoulder platform supported between the pair of shoulder straps, and wherein the upper portion of the stiffening member is directly coupled to the shoulder platform and indirectly coupled to the pair of shoulder straps.
However, McMaster teaches wherein the shoulder attachment system further comprises a shoulder platform supported between the pair of shoulder straps, and wherein the upper portion of the stiffening member is directly coupled to the shoulder platform and indirectly coupled to the pair of shoulder straps (McMaster: Col. 5, lines 9-11 slots in the panel directly coupled to the frame, and indirectly coupling the frame to the shoulder straps.).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the shoulder attachments of North to include a platform supported between the straps to directly couple the shoulder platform to the stiffening member, and indirectly couple the stiffening member to the shoulder straps as taught by McMaster to enable further adjustability to accommodate various torso shapes (McMaster: Col. 1, lines 25-35)
Regarding Claim 16, North in view of Bennett discloses the invention as discussed in claim 15. North does not explicitly disclose wherein the waist attachment system further comprises a waist platform supported between the pair of waist straps, and wherein the lower portion of the stiffening member is directly coupled to the waist platform and indirectly coupled to the pair of waist straps.
However, McMaster teaches wherein the waist attachment system further comprises a waist platform supported between the pair of waist straps (McMaster: Fig. 1 item 36 waist belt coupled to frame and indirectly coupling the frame to the waist strap), and
wherein the lower portion of the stiffening member is directly coupled to the waist platform and indirectly coupled to the pair of waist straps (McMaster: Fig. 1 item 114).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the waist attachments of North to include the waist belt taught by McMaster coupled to the stiffening member and indirectly coupling the stiffening member to the waist straps to enable further adjustability to accommodate various torso shapes (McMaster: Col. 1, lines 25-35).
Claim(s) 18-20, 22-23, 39, 44-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over North in view of US 5950628 A to Dunfee.
Regarding Claim 18, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 8. North does not explicitly disclose wherein the stiffening member comprises a stiffening rod, the stiffening rod comprising a degree of flex in at least one degree of freedom along a lateral axis.
However, Dunfee teaches a stiffening rod, the stiffening rod comprising a degree of flex in at least one degree of freedom along a lateral axis (Dunfee: Col. 16, line 66-Col. 17, line 15; Col. 17, lines 23-58).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the spanning portion of the stiffening member of North by substituting the stiffening rod comprising a degree of flex in at least one degree of freedom along a lateral axis as taught by Dunfee. This substitution would involve adopting the support rod design of Dunfee in place of the current spanning portion, connecting the two ends of the support rod to the mounting loops, requiring nothing more than the application of known techniques using known methods to achieve predictable results, in this case, to provide the desired support. (Dunfee: Col. 17, lines 23-58).
Regarding Claim 19, North in view of Dunfee discloses the invention as discussed in claim 18. North does not explicitly disclose wherein the stiffening rod comprises a material makeup selected from the group consisting of a fiber composite composition, a polymer, a metal, a metal alloy, and any combination of these.
However, Dunfee teaches wherein the stiffening rod comprises a material makeup selected from the group consisting of a fiber composite composition, a polymer, a metal, a metal alloy, and any combination of these (Dunfee: Col. 17, lines 23-58; Note: Latex is a natural polymer.).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the spanning portion of the stiffening member of North by substituting the stiffening rod comprising a degree of flex in at least one degree of freedom along a lateral axis as taught by Dunfee. This substitution would involve adopting the support rod design of Dunfee in place of the current spanning portion, connecting the two ends of the support rod to the mounting loops, requiring nothing more than the application of known techniques using known methods to achieve predictable results, in this case, to provide the desired support. (Dunfee: Col. 17, lines 23-58).
Regarding Claim 20, North in view of Dunfee discloses the invention as discussed in claim 18. North does not explicitly disclose wherein the stiffening rod comprises a width greater than a thickness, and wherein the flexibility of the stiffening rod is greater along a first lateral axis extending in the direction of a thickness measurement than along an orthogonal second lateral axis.
However, Dunfee teaches wherein the stiffening rod comprises a width greater than a thickness (Dunfee: Fig. 13b item 130 shows a posterior extender set, with two or more bladders for a large width extending outward on the posterior, the width being greater than the thickness. Note: The thickness of the posterior is the diameter of a single bladder of 1 inch according to Col. 17, lines 23-58), and
wherein the flexibility of the stiffening rod is greater along a first lateral axis extending in the direction of a thickness measurement than along an orthogonal second lateral axis (Note: One of ordinary skill would understand that the flexibility of the stiffening rod would naturally be greater along a first lateral axis extending in the direction of a thickness measurement than along an orthogonal second lateral axis if the width is greater than its thickness.)
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the spanning portion of the stiffening member of North by substituting the stiffening rod comprising a degree of flex in at least one degree of freedom along a lateral axis as taught by Dunfee. This substitution would involve adopting the support rod design of Dunfee in place of the current spanning portion, connecting the two ends of the support rod to the mounting loops, requiring nothing more than the application of known techniques using known methods to achieve predictable results, in this case, to provide the desired support. (Dunfee: Col. 17, lines 23-58).
Regarding Claim 22, North in view of Dunfee discloses the invention as discussed in claim 18. North does not explicitly disclose wherein the stiffening rod further comprises: an upper transverse member operable with a shoulder attachment system, and extending laterally about an upper portion of the stiffening rod; and a lower transverse member operable with a waist attachment system, and extending laterally about a lower portion of the stiffening rod, wherein the stiffening rod is rotationally stabilized along a longitudinal axis by the upper and lower transverse members.
However, Dunfee teaches wherein the stiffening rod further comprises: an upper transverse member operable with a shoulder attachment system, and extending laterally about an upper portion of the stiffening rod (Dunfee: Col. 23, lines 31-44; Fig. 13, shows a shoulder attachment system, the upper transverse member interpreted as the upper anchor item 120); and
a lower transverse member operable with a waist attachment system, and extending laterally about a lower portion of the stiffening rod (Dunfee: Col. 23, lines 31-44; Fig. 13, shows a waist attachment system, the lower transverse member interpreted as the lower anchor item 122),
wherein the stiffening rod is rotationally stabilized along a longitudinal axis by the upper and lower transverse members (Dunfee: Col. 23, lines 41-44).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the spanning portion of the stiffening member and the garment of North by substituting the stiffening rod and vest as taught by Dunfee. This substitution would involve adopting the support rod design of Dunfee in place of the current spanning portion, connecting the two ends of the support rod to the mounting loops, requiring nothing more than the application of known techniques using known methods to achieve predictable results, in this case, to provide the desired support and to accommodate different sized wearers. (Dunfee: Col. 17, lines 23-58; Col. 22, lines 41-42).
Regarding Claim 23, North in view of Dunfee discloses the invention as discussed in claim 18. North does not explicitly disclose wherein the stiffening rod further comprises a mounting platform operable to facilitate mounting of an object thereon.
However, Dunfee teaches wherein the stiffening rod further comprises a mounting platform operable to facilitate mounting of an object thereon (Dunfee: Col. 10, lines 65-67).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the shoulder system of North to include a mounting platform operable to facilitate mounting of an object thereon as taught by Dunfee, as Dunfee teaches that coupling means are obvious to one skilled in the art, and include advantages for integral affixation, but ultimately mechanical coupling is necessary for vertical forces generated to be transmitted to the support device. (Dunfee: Col. 18, line 57-Col. 19, line 13).
Regarding Claim 39, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 8. North does not explicitly disclose wherein the shoulder attachment member comprises a distal end attached to at least one of the elongate stiffening member or the waist attachment member at a location rearward of a mid-coronal plane transecting the body of the user with the back-mounted support device donned by a user.
However, Dunfee teaches wherein the shoulder attachment member comprises a distal end attached to at least one of the elongate stiffening member or the waist attachment member at a location rearward of a mid-coronal plane transecting the body of the user with the back-mounted support device donned by a user (Dunfee: See Fig. 11, item 136 at the shoulder attachment section and the waist attachment member; Col. 22, lines 18-24).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the shoulder system of North wherein the shoulder attachment member comprises a distal end attached to at least one of the elongate stiffening member or the waist attachment member at a location rearward of a mid-coronal plane transecting the body of the user with the back-mounted support device donned by a user because Dunfee teaches various ways of coupling are obvious in the art for adjustability and thus comfortability for the user (Dunfee: Col. 22, lines 54-57).
Regarding Claim 44, North in view of Dunfee discloses the invention as discussed in claim 18. North does not explicitly disclose a stiffening rod comprises an upper portion, a lower portion, and a spanning portion extending between the upper and lower portions.
However, Dunfee teaches wherein the stiffening rod comprises an upper portion, a lower portion, and a spanning portion extending between the upper and lower portions (Dunfee: Col. 23, lines 41-44).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the spanning portion of the stiffening member and the garment of North by substituting the stiffening rod and vest as taught by Dunfee. This substitution would involve adopting the support rod design of Dunfee in place of the current spanning portion, connecting the two ends of the support rod to the mounting loops, requiring nothing more than the application of known techniques using known methods to achieve predictable results, in this case, to provide the desired support and to accommodate different sized wearers. (Dunfee: Col. 17, lines 23-58; Col. 22, lines 41-42).
Regarding Claim 45, North in view of Dunfee discloses the invention as discussed in claim 18. North does not explicitly disclose wherein the stiffening rod comprises a curvature formed at least partially along its length.
However, Dunfee teaches wherein the stiffening rod comprises a curvature formed at least partially along its length (Dunfee: Col. 10, lines 27-29).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the spanning portion of the stiffening member of North by substituting the stiffening rod comprising a degree of flex in at least one degree of freedom along a lateral axis as taught by Dunfee. This substitution would involve adopting the support rod design of Dunfee in place of the current spanning portion, connecting the two ends of the support rod to the mounting loops, requiring nothing more than the application of known techniques using known methods to achieve predictable results, in this case, to provide the desired support. (Dunfee: Col. 17, lines 23-58; Col. 10, lines 27-29).
Regarding Claim 46, North in view of Dunfee discloses the invention as discussed in claim 18. North does not explicitly disclose wherein the stiffening rod comprises a tapering formed at least partially along its length.
However, Dunfee teaches wherein the stiffening rod comprises a tapering formed at least partially along its length (Dunfee: Col. 26, lines 12-19; Fig. 23 shows the bladder 250 tapering formed at least partially along its length).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the spanning portion of the stiffening member of North by substituting the stiffening rod comprising a degree of flex in at least one degree of freedom along a lateral axis as taught by Dunfee. This substitution would involve adopting the support rod design of Dunfee in place of the current spanning portion, connecting the two ends of the support rod to the mounting loops, requiring nothing more than the application of known techniques using known methods to achieve predictable results, in this case, to provide the desired support. (Dunfee: Col. 17, lines 23-58; Col. 10, lines 27-29; Col. 26, lines 12-19).
Regarding Claim 47, North in view of Dunfee discloses the invention as discussed in claim 18. North does not explicitly disclose wherein the stiffening rod comprises first and second segments that are removably coupled together.
The first embodiment of Dunfee is silent on the stiffening rod comprising first and second segments that are removably coupled together.
However, a second embodiment of Dunfee teaches wherein the stiffening rod comprises first and second segments that are removably coupled together (Dunfee: Col. 26, lines 12-19).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the spanning portion of the stiffening member of North by substituting the stiffening rod comprising a degree of flex in at least one degree of freedom along a lateral axis as taught by Dunfee. This substitution would involve adopting the support rod design of Dunfee in place of the current spanning portion, connecting the two ends of the support rod to the mounting loops, requiring nothing more than the application of known techniques using known methods to achieve predictable results, in this case, to provide the desired support. (Dunfee: Col. 17, lines 23-58; Col. 10, lines 27-29; Col. 26, lines 12-19).
Claim(s) 21, 24 & 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over North in view of DeWitt.
Regarding Claim 21, North in view of Dewitt discloses the invention as discussed in claim 18. North does not explicitly disclose further comprising at least two spacer elements positioned at separated locations on the stiffening rod and oriented for contact at the user's back to thereby space the stiffening rod out of direct contact with the user's back along a substantial length of the stiffening rod to reduce potential discomfort from contact of the stiffening rod with the user's back.
However, Dewitt teaches further comprising at least two spacer elements positioned at separated locations on the stiffening rod and oriented for contact at the user's back to thereby space the stiffening rod out of direct contact with the user's back along a substantial length of the stiffening rod to reduce potential discomfort from contact of the stiffening rod with the user's back (DeWitt: Para. [0059] ‘the sleeve 108 … may have an internal fastener such as a hooks and loops fastener that allows variable-length or fixed-length coupling of opposing internal sides of the sleeve 108 together so that the member 106 is held in a desired vertical position in the sleeve 108. Also, multiple members 106 of varying length and/or shape can be provided so as to allow selection of a member 106 or members 106 that will work best’; Fig. 14; Note: internal fasteners that enable the members to be held within a specific position within the sleeve is interpreted to create spacer elements in separate locations as desired, allowing the member to be positioned offset relative to the user’s back).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the stiffening member of North to include spacers as taught by DeWitt to provide the desired support. (Para. [0051])
Regarding Claim 24, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 8. North does not explicitly disclose wherein the stiffening member is removably supported by the wearable device.
However, DeWitt teaches a removably supported sleeve by the wearable device (DeWitt: Para. [0012] ; Para. [0055] ‘the member 106 is detachable so as to allow washing and drying of the garment 102 without any deleterious effects on the member 106. For example, the member 106 may have a coupling mechanism thereon for direct attachment to the garment 102.’; Note The mounting platform is interpreted to be the section of the device where the attachment between the garment and the member takes place).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the stiffening member of North by including removability of the stiffening member supported by the wearable device as taught by DeWitt to provide easy removal of the member. (Para. [0061])
Regarding Claim 43, North discloses the invention as discussed in claim 11. North does not explicitly disclose wherein the compliant, elastically deformable material comprises at least one of a foam or a foam-like material.
However, DeWitt teaches wherein the compliant, elastically deformable material comprises at least one of a foam or a foam-like material (DeWitt: Para. [0051] ‘The member 106 is preferably resiliently deformable so that it is comfortable yet provides the desired support. Illustrative materials from which the member 106 may be constructed include plastics, polymeric foams such as memory foams, sponges, Styrofoam, cotton, balls as in a bean bag, etc.’).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the stiffening member of North by substituting the stiffening rod comprising a degree of flex in at least one degree of freedom along a lateral axis as taught by DeWitt. This substitution would involve nothing more than the application of known techniques using known methods to achieve predictable results, in this case, to provide the desired support. (Para. [0051]).
Claim(s) 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over North in view of Bennett in further view of Dunfee.
Regarding Claim 42, North in view of Bennett discloses the invention as discussed in claim 9. North does not explicitly disclose wherein the shoulder attachment system is slidably coupled to the stiffening member, such that at least a portion of the shoulder attachment system is adjustable relative to the stiffening member.
However, Dunfee teaches wherein the shoulder attachment system is slidably coupled to the stiffening member, such that at least a portion of the shoulder attachment system is adjustable relative to the stiffening member (Dunfee: Col. 22, lines 51-57)
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the shoulder system of North to be slidably coupled to the stiffening member as taught by Dunfee for adjustability and thus comfortability for the user (Dunfee: Col. 22, lines 54-57).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-4pm EST..
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 571-272-4233. 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.
/SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791