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 an amendment filed on 3/27/2026. As directed by the amendment, no claims were canceled, claims 1-19 were amended, and claim 20 was added. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending for this application, with claims 1-2 and 15-20 under examination and claims 3-14 withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the angle of the platform" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simon (US 7,350,253).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, 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 without the angle of the platform changing relative to the external axis (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. Angle of platform does not change relative to external axis because platform rotates about external axis).
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) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (US 7,350,253) in view of Fermaglich (US 4,873,735).
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 (see lower portion having concavity in Annotated Fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Simon does not disclose the lower portion having a concavity that extends downwardly relative to the first plane.
However, Fermaglich teaches (Fig. 1-4) a patient support apparatus comprising an upper portion (ledge 28, see Annotated Fig. 1 below) and a lower portion (saddle 36, see Annotated Fig. 1 below) having a concavity that extends downwardly relative to the first plane (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
360
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 lower portion of Simon to include a concavity that extends downwardly relative to the first plane, as taught by Fermaglich, for the purpose of providing improved support of user’s buttocks (Col. 3 lines 55-58 Fermaglich), thereby improving user comfort.
Regarding claim 2, modified 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).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (US 7,350,253) in view of Fermaglich (US 4,873,735), and further in view of Jagger (US 2019/0350804).
Regarding claim 15, modified 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 modified 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 Fermaglich (US 4,873,735), and further in view of Hipp (US 2007/0173801).
Regarding claim 16, modified 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 modified 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 Fermaglich (US 4,873,735), and further in view of Cormack (US 8,668,268).
Regarding claim 17, modified 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 Fermaglich (US 4,873,735) and 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.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (US 7,350,253) in view of Fermaglich (US 4,873,735) and further in view of Regev (US 2008/0029103).
Regarding claim 20, modified Simon discloses the platform is configured to support an infant, but does not disclose the platform is configured to support an adult.
However, Regev further teaches (Fig. 1-2) a pivotable support device having a platform ( (comprising mattress 40 and harness 80) configured to support infants or adults (paragraph [0023]).
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 be configured to support an adult, as taught by Regev, for the purpose of increasing the amount of users able to use device effectively so that adults will also be able to receive the benefits of the therapy (paragraph [0023] Regev).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on one or more new references not applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 19, applicant argued (page 9 paragraph 4 Remarks) the Simon discloses the linkage allows the whole platform to swing back and forth along an arc, with the angle of the platform relative to the support stand varying during the rocking motion of the platform, and thus does not disclose the platform rotates about an external axis and certainly does not disclose the platform is configured to rotate about an external axis located above the platform without the angle of the platform changing relative to the external axis.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
First, it should be noted that claim 19 is currently rendered unclear because applicant has not provided a reference point for the “angle” (and the term angle lacks antecedent basis).
Regarding Simon not disclosing the platform rotating about an external axis, applicant is directed to Col. 5 lines 36-43 (which examiner recited in previous office action) which clearly recites this limitation.
Regarding Simon not disclosing the platform is configured to rotate about an external axis located above the platform without the angle of the platform changing relative to the external axis, because the platform rotates about the external axis, the angle of the platform relative to the axis does not change, and thus the claim limitation is comprehended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding allowability of the dependent claims have been considered but are moot due to rejection of all independent claims.
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 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, 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.
/MATTHEW R MOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights