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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to a preliminary amendment filed on 9/25/2025. As directed by the preliminary amendment, no claims were canceled, claims 1-18 were amended, and claim 19 was added. Thus, claims 1-19 are pending for this application, with claims 1-2, and 15-19 under examination and claims 3-14 withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species C (Fig. 9) in the reply filed on 9/25/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 3-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species A-B and D-E, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims recite a special technical feature, evidenced by Tsumori not anticipating the amended claim 1 (see page 7 paragraph 11 and page 8 paragraph 1).
This is not found persuasive because Tsumori is no longer used to reject claim 1, necessitated by applicant’s amendment to the claims. Simon (US 7,350,253) anticipates the subject matter of claim 1, and thus is evidence that the technical feature of a linkage is not a special technical feature that makes a contribution over the prior art. See full rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 15-19 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “in which” in each of claims 1-2 and 15-19 should be replaced by the term “wherein” to improve clarity of the claim (in which suggests the feature is located “in” something, which does not appear to be applicant’s intention).
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simon (US 7,350,253).
Regarding claim 1, Simon discloses (Fig. 7-8) an apparatus for rocking a person in a prone position (Col. 5 lines 31-35) comprising
a support stand (base 14) and a platform (plate portion curved support 36 comprising head region 38, stomach region 42 and leg support surface 44) movably mounted to the support stand by a linkage (linkage 102) that is configured to rock the platform relative to the support stand (Col. 5 lines 36-43), in which the platform is movable on the linkage between a first position and a second position (rocks back and forth, therefore first position is furthest forward position and second position is furthest back position when rocking. See Col. 5 lines 36-43), the platform comprises an upper portion in a first plane (see upper portion and plane in Annotated Fig. 7 of Simon below) and a lower portion comprising a concavity relative to the first plane (see lower portion having concavity relative to first portion in Annotated Fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Simon discloses the invention of claim 1 in which the linkage comprises a rotational linkage which supports the platform for rotation about an external axis displaced from the platform (rotation about second axle 100, positioned above the platform as shown in Fig. 7 and 7A, so that user can rock, see Fig. 7 and 7A and Col. 5 lines 36-43).
Regarding claim 19, Simon discloses (Fig. 7-8) an apparatus for supporting a person in a prone position (Col. 5 lines 31-35) comprises
a support stand (base 14) and a platform (plate portion curved support 36 comprising head region 38, stomach region 42 and leg support surface 44) movably mounted to the support stand by a linkage (linkage 102), in which the platform is movable on the linkage between a first position and a second position (rocks back and forth, therefore firs position is furthest forward position and second position is furthest back position when rocking. See Col. 5 lines 36-43), in which the platform comprises an upper portion in a first plane and a lower portion comprising a concavity relative to the first plane (see upper portion and plane in Annotated Fig. 7 of Simon below) and a lower portion comprising a concavity relative to the first plane (see lower portion having concavity relative to first portion in Annotated Fig. 7 below), in which the linkage comprises a rotational linkage which supports the platform for rotation about an external axis located above the platform (rotation about axle 100, positioned above the platform as shown in Fig. 7 and 7A, so that user can rock, see Fig. 7A and Col. 5 lines 36-43).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (US 7,350,253) in view of Jagger (US 2019/0350804).
Regarding claim 15, Simon discloses a platform but does not disclose the platform comprises a face aperture for a user's face to extend through in use.
However, Jagger teaches (Fig. 1-4) a rocking device comprising a platform (support 200) having a face aperture (opening) for a user’s face to extend through in use (paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, 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 platform of Simon to include a face aperture for a user’s face to extend through in use, as taught by Jagger, for the purpose of improving user comfort when using device as well as to provide an opening for a user to expel fluids if user burps or become sick during rocking motion (paragraph [0046] Jagger).
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (US 7,350,253) in view of Hipp (US 2007/0173801).
Regarding claim 16, Simon discloses a platform but does not disclose the platform comprises a pair of arm apertures for a user's arms to extend through in use.
However, Hipp teaches (Fig. 5-6) a platform body support 40) that comprises a pair of arm apertures (includes armpit supports 102, having apertures to receive user’s arms, see Fig. 5-6 and paragraph [0039]-[0040] for a user's arms to extend through in use.
Therefore, 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 platform of Simon to include a pair of arm apertures for a user’s arms to extend through in use, as taught by Hipp, for the purpose of improving user comfort by allowing user’s arms to hang freely during use of device while also providing support to the arms (paragraph [0039]-[0040] Hipp).
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (US 7,350,253) in view of Cormack (US 8,668,268).
Regarding claim 17, Simon discloses a platform, but does not disclose wherein the platform comprises a pair of feet apertures for a user's feet to extend through in use.
However, Cormack teaches (Fig. 1 and 7) a platform (support member 20) for supporting a user comprising a pair of feet apertures (openings 46) for a user’s feet to extend through in use (see Fig. 7 and Col. 2 lines 43-48).
Therefore, 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 platform of Simon to include a pair of feet apertures for a user's feet to extend through in use, as taught by Cormack, for the purpose of improving comfort and sense of safety of user by allowing user’s feet to securely extend through the platform when user is lying prone on device.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (US 7,350,253) in view of Cormack (US 8,668,268), and further in view of Dayal (US 2005/0181917).
Regarding claim 18, modified Simon discloses a pair of feet apertures in the platform, but does not disclose wherein the platform comprises footrest panel extending from an underside thereof adjacent to lower ends of the pair of feet apertures.
However, Dayal teaches (Fig. 1A-2) a therapy platform (comprising torso frame 200 and leg from 600) comprising feet apertures (apertures formed between torso frame 200 and leg frame 600 that allows user to extend feet within) and a footrest panel (foot rest 604) extending from an underside thereof (see extension from underside in Fig. 2) adjacent to lower ends of the pair of feet apertures (extends near bottom end of feet apertures formed between the frames as shown in Fig. 1A).
Therefore, 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 platform of modified Simon to include a footrest panel extending from an underside thereof adjacent to lower ends of the pair of feet apertures, as taught by Dayal, for the purpose of providing support to a user’s feet as well as sense of security so that a user’s feet are supported when in prone position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Shroup (US 10,517,409) discloses a rocker that anticipates claim 1.
Descamps (US 2019/0269258) discloses a rocker that also anticipates claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MOON whose telephone number is (571)272-2554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justine Yu can be reached at 571-272-4835. 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.
/MATTHEW R MOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JUSTINE R YU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights