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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 11/19/25. As directed by the amendment: claims 15, 18, and 55 have been amended, claims 44 and 61 have been cancelled, and claims 62-63 have been added. As such, claims 15-16, 18, 20-22, 43, 45-60, and 62-63 are pending in the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "16" and "18" have both been used to designate the radiation therapy unit; and reference characters “90” and “94” have both been used to designate the fill layer. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 15, the language “a user” (line 14) is objected to for not maintaining consistency in claim terminology; Examiner suggests amending to read –the person--.
Regarding claim 18, the language “a user” (line 15) is objected to for not maintaining consistency in claim terminology; Examiner suggests amending to read –the person--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “acoustic therapy unit” in claims 15 and 18 (as well as the language noted in the previous office action of 5/19/25). Structure described in the specification representing this language is found in para. 0035 of the publication of the instant application.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 22, the language “further comprising … an acoustic therapy unit” appears to introduce new matter not supported in the disclosure as originally filed in light of the amendments to claim 18. Claim 18 has been amended to set forth an acoustic therapy unit and thus the language of claim 22 noted above appears to introduce a second acoustic therapy unit which is not supported in the disclosure as originally filed.
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 62-63 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.
Regarding claim 62, the language “mediation instructions” (line 2) is unclear in the context of the claimed/disclosed invention as it is not known what are ‘mediation’ (i.e. intervention between conflicting parties to promote reconciliation, settlement, or compromise per ordinary definition of the term per Merriam-Webster) instructions or how these impact a psycho-behavioral state and a nervous system state of a user required by claim 15. It appears this limitation is intended to be a ‘meditation instructions’.
Regarding claim 63, the language “mediation instructions” (line 2) is unclear in the context of the claimed/disclosed invention as it is not known what are ‘mediation’ (i.e. intervention between conflicting parties to promote reconciliation, settlement, or compromise per ordinary definition of the term per Merriam-Webster) instructions or how these impact a psycho-behavioral state and a nervous system state of a user required by claim 18. It appears this limitation is intended to be a ‘meditation instructions’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 15-16, 50-51, 45, 62, 18, 20-22, and 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daffer et al. (6,497,717) in view of Youngblood et al. (2018/0110960) and Lunter et al. (2022/0125674).
Regarding claim 15, discloses a multi-functional therapeutic system (see Fig. 1-8, abstract, col. 1 ln. 33-49 for example) including a top portion having a first radiation therapy unit mounted therein for generating and applying radiation energy to a person (see Fig. 4, first radiation therapy unit 46A-D, col. 2 ln. 62 through col. 3 ln. 2 or Fig. 8A first radiation therapy unit 99, col. 3 ln. 53-65; top portion 28, col. 2 ln. 32); a bottom portion having a second radiation therapy unit for generating and applying radiation energy to the person (see Fig. 3-4 bottom portion 12 & 14, second radiation therapy unit 35, see col. 2 ln. 35-45, which is heater assembly and radiates heat, which is energy, to a person and thus is a radiation therapy unit), a bed portion disposed between the top portion and the bottom portion (see Fig. 4, bed portion 18 defined by 20A-C, see col. 2 ln. 28-33), a vibration therapy unit coupled to the bed portion or the bottom portion for generating and applying vibrational energy to the person (see Fig. 4, vibration therapy unit 76, 78, col. 5 ln. 15-34), and a controller for controlling one or more of the first radiation therapy unit, the second radiation therapy unit, and the vibration therapy unit (see Fig. 3-4, control unit 52/53, see col. 2 ln. 62 through col. 3 ln. 2, col. 5 ln. 15-43). Daffer is silent as to one or more of the bottom portion, bed portion and top portion includes an acoustic therapy unit configured for generating voice guided instruction and music; however, Youngblood teaches a similar therapeutic system which includes a bed unit and includes an acoustic therapy unit configured for generating voice guided instructions (see Youngblood para. 0249, sound generator for guided meditation for a user, includes breathing exercise instructions and physical directions for a user), and Lunter discloses a similar therapeutic system which includes a bed unit and includes an acoustic therapy unit configured for generating music (see Lunter para. 0033, speakers 87 which allow user to listen to music, and also provide guided meditation). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Daffer system to include an acoustic therapy unit configured for generating voice guided instruction and music, as taught by Youngblood and Lunter, in order to provide an additional modality of treatment thus enhancing overall therapeutic benefit to the user. The modification of Daffer in view of Youngblood and Lunter to include the acoustic therapy unit would also provide for the controller to control operation thereof and additionally as the modified Daffer system is providing a combination of vibration therapy, and acoustic therapy it would also serve to impact a psycho-behavioral state and a nervous system state of a user (Daffer col. 5 ln. 15-34, Youngblood para. 0249, Lunter para. 0033).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Daffer system is silent as to the bed portion including an electromagnetic therapy unit for generating and applying electromagnetic energy to the person; however, Youngblood teaches a similar therapeutic system which includes a bed unit including an electromagnetic therapy unit for generating and applying electromagnetic energy to the person (see Youngblood Fig. 27 showing bed unit, Fig. 23-24 showing electromagnetic therapy unit in the form of pulsed electromagnetic field device PEMF, see abstract, para. 0042, 0105, 0146, 0220-0226). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Daffer system’s bed portion to include an electromagnetic therapy unit, as taught by Youngblood, in order to provide a different modality of treatment thus enhancing overall therapeutic benefit for the user (provide stress reduction, Youngblood para. 0042).
Regarding claim 50, the modified Daffer system’s electromagnetic therapy unit generates the electromagnetic energy in a continuous or a non-continuous manner (see Youngblood abstract and para. 0042, 0105, 0146, 0220-0226).
Regarding claim 51, the modified Daffer system’s electromagnetic therapy unit includes one or more pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) coils for generating the electromagnetic energy (see Youngblood Fig. 23-24 and para. 0042, 0105, 0146, 0220-0226).
Regarding claim 45, the modified Daffer device’s vibration therapy unit includes a first vibration generating subsystem coupled to the bottom portion for generating a first vibrational energy (see Daffer Fig. 4, first vibration generating subsystem 76, col. 5 ln. 15-34, coupled to bottom portion 12 & 14 as shown), and a second vibration generating subsystem coupled to the bed portion for generating a second vibrational energy (see Daffer Fig. 4, second vibration generating subsystem 78, col. 5 ln. 15-34, coupled to 20B of bed portion).
Regarding claim 62, the modified Daffer system’s guided instruction includes one or more of breathing exercise instructions and guided mediation instructions (see Youngblood para. 0249).
Regarding claim 18, the use of the Daffer device includes a method of applying one or more therapeutic techniques to a person (see Fig. 1-8, abstract, col. 1 ln. 33-49 for example) which includes providing a housing having a bottom portion, a top portion, and a bed portion disposed between the bottom portion and the top portion (see Fig. 1-5, housing 10 with top portion 28, bottom portion 12 & 14, and bed portion 18 defined by 20A-C, see col. 2 ln. 23-45), providing a first radiation therapy unit mounted in the top portion for generating and applying radiation energy to a person (see Fig. 4, first radiation therapy unit 46A-D, col. 2 ln. 62 through col. 3 ln. 2 or Fig. 8A first radiation therapy unit 99, col. 3 ln. 53-65), providing a second radiation therapy unit in the bottom portion for generating and applying radiation energy to the person (second radiation therapy unit 35, see col. 2 ln. 35-45, which is heater assembly and radiates heat, which is energy, to a person and thus is a radiation therapy unit), generating and applying vibrational energy to the person with a vibration therapy unit (see Fig. 4, vibration therapy unit 76, 78, col. 5 ln. 15-34), and controlling one or more of the first radiation therapy unit, the second radiation therapy unit, and the vibration therapy unit (see Fig. 3-4, control of first/second radiation units and vibration unit via control unit 52/53, see col. 2 ln. 62 through col. 3 ln. 2, col. 5 ln. 15-43). Daffer is silent as generating voice guided instruction and music with an acoustic therapy unit coupled to one or more of the bottom portion, the bed portion, and the top portion; however, Youngblood teaches a similar therapeutic system which includes a bed unit and includes an acoustic therapy unit configured for generating voice guided instructions (see Youngblood para. 0249, sound generator for guided meditation for a user, includes breathing exercise instructions and physical directions for a user), and Lunter discloses a similar therapeutic system which includes a bed unit and includes an acoustic therapy unit configured for generating music (see Lunter para. 0033, speakers 87 which allow user to listen to music, and also provide guided meditation). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Daffer method to include an acoustic therapy unit to generate voice guided instruction and music, as taught by Youngblood and Lunter, in order to provide an additional modality of treatment thus enhancing overall therapeutic benefit to the user. The modification of Daffer in view of Youngblood and Lunter to include the acoustic therapy unit would also provide for the controller to control operation thereof and additionally as the modified Daffer method is providing a combination of vibration therapy, and acoustic therapy it would also serve to impact a psycho-behavioral state and a nervous system state of a user (Daffer col. 5 ln. 15-34, Youngblood para. 0249, Lunter para. 0033).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Daffer method further includes generating with one or more of the first and second radiation therapy units light energy in a visible light wavelength range or a non-visible light wavelength range (see Daffer col. 3 ln. 53-65).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Daffer method includes controlling movement of the top portion relative to the bottom portion between an open and closed position (see Daffer Fig. 5 showing the top portion 28 in an open position, Fig. 1-2 in the closed position, col. 2 ln. 57-61).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Daffer method further includes providing in one or more of the bottom portion, the bed portion and the top portion an acoustic therapy unit for generating an audio output (see Youngblood Fig. 27, para. 0245-0263; see Lunter para. 0033). Furthermore, the number and location of the acoustic therapy units would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to provide desired location and number of audio output elements. See MPEP 2144.04 VI B, C.
Regarding claim 63, the modified Daffer method’s guided instruction includes one or more of breathing exercise instructions and guided mediation instructions (see Youngblood para. 0249).
Claim(s) 43, 55-56, and 59-60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daffer, Youngblood, and Lunter as applied to claims 15 and 18 above, and further in view of Lin (2021/0402211).
Regarding claim 43, the modified Daffer system is silent as to the bottom portion including a hydrogen therapy unit for supplying hydrogen to the person and the control unit further configured to control the hydrogen therapy unit; however, Lin teaches multi-functional therapy unit incorporated into an article of furniture which includes therein a controlled hydrogen therapy unit (see Lin Fig. 5, abstract, para. 0003, 0005, 0017, 0071, 0077, 0079, 0081). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Daffer system to further include a controlled hydrogen therapy unit, as taught by Lin, in order to provide a different modality of treatment thus enhancing overall therapeutic benefit for the user (see Lin para. 0005 which discloses hydrogen therapy providing beneficial antioxidant).
Regarding claim 55, the modified Daffer method includes providing in the bottom portion a vibration therapy unit (see Daffer Fig. 4, vibration therapy units 76, 78, col. 5 ln. 15-34), but is silent as to providing in the bottom portion a hydrogen therapy unit for supplying hydrogen to the person; however, Lin teaches multi-functional therapy unit incorporated into an article of furniture which includes therein a controlled hydrogen therapy unit (see Lin Fig. 5, abstract, para. 0003, 0005, 0017, 0071, 0077, 0079, 0081). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Daffer method to further include a controlled hydrogen therapy unit, as taught by Lin, in order to provide a different modality of treatment thus enhancing overall therapeutic benefit for the user (see Lin para. 0005 which discloses hydrogen therapy providing beneficial antioxidant). The now modified Daffer method is silent as to providing in the bed portion an electromagnetic therapy unit for generating and applying electromagnetic energy to the person; however, Youngblood teaches a similar therapeutic system which includes a bed unit including an electromagnetic therapy unit for generating and applying electromagnetic energy to the person (see Youngblood Fig. 27 showing bed unit, Fig. 23-24 showing electromagnetic therapy unit in the form of pulsed electromagnetic field device PEMF, see abstract, para. 0042, 0105, 0146, 0220-0226). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Daffer method’s bed portion to include an electromagnetic therapy unit, as taught by Youngblood, in order to provide a different modality of treatment thus enhancing overall therapeutic benefit for the user (provide stress reduction, Youngblood para. 0042).
Regarding claim 56, the modified Daffer method’s vibration therapy unit includes a first vibration generating subsystem coupled to the bottom portion for generating a first vibrational energy (see Daffer Fig. 4, first vibration generating subsystem 76, col. 5 ln. 15-34, coupled to bottom portion 12 & 14 as shown), and a second vibration generating subsystem coupled to the bed portion for generating a second vibrational energy (see Daffer Fig. 4, second vibration generating subsystem 78, col. 5 ln. 15-34, coupled to 20B of bed portion).
Regarding claim 59, the modified Daffer method further includes generating with the electromagnetic therapy unit the electromagnetic energy in a continuous or a non-continuous manner (see Youngblood abstract and para. 0042, 0105, 0146, 0220-0226).
Regarding claim 60, the modified Daffer method’s electromagnetic therapy unit includes one or more pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) coils for generating the electromagnetic energy (see Youngblood Fig. 23-24 and para. 0042, 0105, 0146, 0220-0226).
Claim(s) 46-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daffer, Youngblood, and Lunter as applied to claims 45 and 15 above, and further in view of Oser et al. (2007/0025575).
Regarding claim 46, the modified Daffer system’s second vibration generating subsystem includes one or more transducers (see Daffer Fig. 4, second vibration generating subsystem 78, col. 5 ln. 15-34, which is one or more transducers), but is silent as to the first vibration generating subsystem including a sub-woofer; however, Oser teaches a similar therapeutic system which includes vibration subsystems in the form of a sub-woofer (see Oser Fig. 15, subwoofer 1530, see para. 0009-0010, 0060). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Daffer system’s first vibration subsystem to be/include a sub-woofer, as taught by Oser, as such a vibration delivery mechanism (sub-woofer) is known to induce relaxation and reduce stress (Oser para. 0003-0004) and would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Daffer system to perform at least equally as well.
Regarding claim 47, the modified Daffer system is silent as to the vibration therapy unit being configured to operate as an acoustic therapy unit to generate an audio output; however, Oser teaches a similar therapeutic system which includes vibration therapy unit configured to generate audio output (see Oser Fig. 15 and para. 0009-0010). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Daffer system’s vibration therapy unit to be configured to generate an audio output, as taught by Oser, as such a vibration delivery mechanism is known to induce relaxation and reduce stress (Oser para. 0003-0004) and would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Daffer system to perform at least equally as well.
Claim(s) 48-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daffer, Youngblood, and Lunter as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Daffer (2018/0360649) (hereinafter Daffer ‘649).
Regarding claim 48, the modified Daffer system’s first radiation therapy unit generates light energy in a visible or non-visible light wavelength range (first radiation therapy unit 99, col. 3 ln. 53-65), but is silent as to the other, second radiation therapy unit generating light energy in a visible or non-visible light wavelength range; however, Daffer ‘649 discloses a similar therapeutic system which includes plural radiation therapy units which generate light energy in a visible or non-visible light wavelength range (see Daffer ‘649 para. 0053, LED lights and infrared light sources on light support panel 26, para. 0043, 0059). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Daffer system’s second radiation therapy unit to generate light energy in a visible or non-visible wavelength range, as taught by Daffer ‘649, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Daffer system to perform at least equally as well.
Regarding claim 49, the modified Daffer system is such that each of the first and second radiation therapy units generates light energy in one or more of a near-infrared, mid-infrared, and far infrared wavelength range (see Daffer ‘649 para. 0029, 0043-0044, 0048, 0051 for example, it being obvious to also modify the first radiation therapy unit to be an infrared light emitter as taught by Daffer ‘649 as this would also be obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Daffer system to perform at least equally as well).
Claim(s) 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daffer, Youngblood, and Lunter as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kramer (4,881,548).
Regarding claim 52, the modified Daffer system is silent as to the top portion being controlled/automated to move between an open and closed position via the control unit; however, Kramer teaches a similar therapeutic system which includes a top portion automatically movable between an open and closed position via a controller (see Kramer Fig. 1 and 3, col. 2 ln. 36-60 and col. 3 ln. 25-34). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Daffer system’s top portion to be automatically controlled via the control unit to be moved between an open and closed position, as taught by Kramer, in order to automate a manual process. See MPEP 2144.04 III.
Claim(s) 53-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daffer, Youngblood, Lunter, and Kramer as applied to claim 52 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (2012/0010542).
Regarding claim 53, the modified Daffer system is silent as to the top portion being coupled to the bottom portion via a support stanchion; however, Yu teaches a similar therapeutic system which controls movement of a top portion via connection to bottom portion with a support stanchion (see Yu Fig. 1-2 and 10-11, para. 0039 and 0044, stanchion 4 with outer element and inner element/rod 28 therein with bracket 27 attached thereto which moves vertically via a motor). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Daffer system’s connection between the top portion and bottom portion to be a support stanchion, as taught by Yu, as this is a well-known movable structural element which would provide movable support to the top portion and would have been obvious to try and obvious substitution of one known element for another.
Regarding claim 54, the modified Daffer system’s support stanchion includes an outer support element and an inner support element disposed therein and configured for vertical movement within the outer support element (see Yu Fig. 1-2 and 10-11, para. 0039 and 0044, stanchion 4 with outer element and inner element/rod 28 therein with bracket 27 attached thereto which moves vertically via a motor).
Claim(s) 57-58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daffer, Youngblood, Lunter, and Lin as applied to claim 56 and 55 above, and further in view of Oser.
Regarding claim 57, the modified Daffer method’s second vibration generating subsystem includes one or more transducers (see Daffer Fig. 4, second vibration generating subsystem 78, col. 5 ln. 15-34, which is one or more transducers), but is silent as to the first vibration generating subsystem including a sub-woofer; however, Oser teaches a similar therapeutic system which includes vibration subsystems in the form of a sub-woofer (see Oser Fig. 15, subwoofer 1530, see para. 0009-0010, 0060). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Daffer method’s first vibration subsystem to be/include a sub-woofer, as taught by Oser, as such a vibration delivery mechanism (sub-woofer) is known to induce relaxation and reduce stress (Oser para. 0003-0004) and would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Daffer method to perform at least equally as well.
Regarding claim 58, the modified Daffer method is silent as to the vibration therapy unit being configured to operate as an acoustic therapy unit to generate an audio output; however, Oser teaches a similar therapeutic system which includes vibration therapy unit configured to generate audio output (see Oser Fig. 15 and para. 0009-0010). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Daffer method’s vibration therapy unit to be configured to generate an audio output, as taught by Oser, as such a vibration delivery mechanism is known to induce relaxation and reduce stress (Oser para. 0003-0004) and would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Daffer system to perform at least equally as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the objection to the drawings that reference numerals 90 and 94 both referring to the fill layer is incorrect (see pg. 10 of the response). This is not well-taken as para. 0047 (see publication of the instant application) refers to the fill layer as reference numeral 90.
Applicant’s argument that reference numerals 16 and 18 properly refer to the correct therapy units (see pg. 10 of the response) is not well-taken. Para. 0032 and 0045 (see publication of the instant application) refer to a radiation/additional radiation therapy unit with reference numeral 18.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is (571)270-7490. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785