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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/28/2022 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 22, 33, and 44 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 22, line 8, “wirelessly connected, device” should be –wirelessly connected device--.
In claim 22, line 10, “field;” should be –field; and --.
In claim 33, line 11, “field;” should be –field; and --.
In claim 44, line 12, “field;” should be –field; and --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 22-44 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 22 recites the limitation “a user’s body” in line 2. It is not clear if this refers to the user in line 1 or a different user.
Regarding claim 22, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the movement" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “movement of the magnetic field” in line 11. It is not clear if this is a new instance or refers to the movement mentioned in line 9.
Claims 23-32 inherit the deficiencies of claim 22 and are likewise rejected.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the base" and “the spine” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the feet" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 contains the trademark/trade name Bluetooth. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a short-range wireless technology standard and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the frequencies" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “a user’s body” in line 2. It is not clear if this refers to the user in line 1 or a different user.
Regarding claim 33, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the movement" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “movement of the magnetic field” in line 12. It is not clear if this is a new instance or refers to the movement mentioned in line 10.
Claims 34-43 inherit the deficiencies of claim 33 and are likewise rejected.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the base" and “the spine” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the feet" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 contains the trademark/trade name Bluetooth. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a short-range wireless technology standard and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 41 recites the limitation "the frequencies" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 44 recites the limitation “a user’s body” in line 2. It is not clear if this refers to the user in line 1 or a different user.
Claim 44 recites the limitation "the movement" and “the interaction” in lines 12 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 22-27, 29-38, 40-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0010387 (Cohen) in view of US 2003/0171790 (Nelson et al., hereinafter Nelson).
In regards to claims 22 and 33, Cohen discloses a sound and vibration transmission device (see title and abstract; paragraphs 7-122) comprising:
a support structure configured that supports at least part of a user’s body, wherein the support structure comprises a frame (paragraphs 9 and 38-41; figures 2-6; support structure 22 includes a chair frame 26);
a transducer (transducer 42 is part of a speaker system; figures 2-7) comprising a magnetic field generated by a magnet, wherein the magnetic field is at least one of a static magnetic field and an oscillating magnetic field, and wherein the transducer is at least one of proximate to and coupled to the frame of the support structure (paragraphs 13, 42-53; speaker has magnets configured in a manner to generated static and oscillating magnetic fields);
a processor configured for regulating at least one of amplitude and frequency of a vibration, wherein the adjustable signal is configured to control the movement of the oscillating magnetic field (paragraph 12);
an electromotive force generated from movement of the magnetic field within the user's body, wherein the electromotive force facilitates a preferential chemical reaction within the user’s body (paragraphs 11, 13, 34, and 55-122).
However, Cohen does not state the processor uses an adjustable signal from a wirelessly connected device. In a related area, Nelson describes control system of tissue stimulators (title and abstract). Of particular note are paragraphs 30-32 which discloses remote control of device operations via wireless networks. Nelson shows that this allows for an expansion of device capabilities such as real-time tasking (control, modification, and application of stimulation based on monitored parameters) by a patient or clinician.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cohen to make the processor use an adjustable signal from a wirelessly connected device, as taught by Nelson, in order to expand the capabilities of the device of Cohen such as the allowance of real-time tasking by a patient or clinician.
Note that the structure as noted in the paragraphs above perform the steps disclosed in claim 33.
In regards to claims 23-25 and 34-36, Cohen and Nelson disclose the limitations of claims 22 and 33. In addition, Cohen states in paragraphs 8, 36, and 88 that the electromotive force generated occurs at a chakra at the base of the spine or under the feet.
In regards to claims 26 and 37, Cohen and Nelson disclose the limitations of claim 22 and 33. In addition Cohen states that the oscillating magnetic field is a dynamically fluctuating magnetic field generated by flowing current through a coil (paragraph 43 – voice coil of transducer requires the flowing of current through the coil to generate the magnetic field).
In regards to claims 27 and 38, Cohen and Nelson disclose the limitations of claims 22 and 33. Claims 27 and 38 state that the wirelessly connected device is portable. However, portability is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results (See MPEP 214.04 (V)(A) Making portable).
In regards to claims 29 and 40, Cohen and Nelson disclose the limitations of claims 22 and 3. In addition control of and adjustment of frequencies via the processor as noted in paragraph 12 of Cohen would include increasing or decreasing movement of an oscillating magnetic field as the vibrations are part of the oscillating magnetic field.
In regards to claims 30 and 41, Cohen and Nelson disclose the limitations of claims 26 and 33. In addition, Cohen states in paragraph 42 that the oscillating magnetic field produces frequencies from 0.5 Hz to 1000 Hz (paragraphs 42 and 51).
In regards to claims 31 and 42, Cohen and Nelson disclose the limitations of claims 22 and 33. In addition, it can be seen in figures 2-6 of Cohen that the support structure is a chair.
In regards to claims 32 and 43, Cohen and Nelson disclose the limitations of claims 22 and 33. In addition, Cohen states that the preferential chemical reactions are related to glucose metabolism (paragraphs 91-98), combating pharmaceutical-related side effects (paragraphs 116-117), and combating chemotherapy related side effects (paragraphs 116-117).
In regards to claim 44, Cohen discloses a sound and vibration transmission device (see title and abstract; paragraphs 7-122) comprising:
a support structure configured that supports at least part of a user’s body, wherein the support structure comprises a frame (paragraphs 9 and 38-41; figures 2-6; support structure 22 includes a chair frame 26);
a transducer (transducer 42 is part of a speaker system; figures 2-7) comprising a magnetic field generated by a magnet, wherein the magnetic field is at least one of a static magnetic field and an oscillating magnetic field, and wherein the transducer is at least one of proximate to and coupled to the frame of the support structure (paragraphs 13, 42-53; speaker has magnets configured in a manner to generated static and oscillating magnetic fields);
the transducer placed in such a manner that at least one or more chakra points in at least one of on the user’s body are proximate to the user’s body are stimulated (Cohen states in paragraphs 8, 36, and 88 that the electromotive force generated occurs at a chakra at the base of the spine or under the feet.);
a processor configured for regulating at least one of amplitude and frequency of a vibration, wherein the adjustable signal is configured to control the movement of the oscillating magnetic field (paragraph 12);
an electromotive force generated from the interaction of the magnetic field with the user's chakras, wherein the electromotive force facilitates a preferential chemical reaction within the user’s body (paragraphs 11, 13, 34, 55-122).
However, Cohen does not state the processor uses an adjustable signal from a wirelessly connected device. In a related area, Nelson describes control system of tissue stimulators (title and abstract). Of particular note are paragraphs 30-32 which discloses remote control of device operations via wireless networks. Nelson shows that this allows for an expansion of device capabilities such as real-time tasking (control, modification, and application of stimulation based on monitored parameters) by a patient or clinician.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cohen to make the processor use an adjustable signal from a wirelessly connected device, as taught by Nelson, in order to expand the capabilities of the device of Cohen such as the allowance of real-time tasking by a patient or clinician.
Claim(s) 28 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0010387 (Cohen) in view of US 2003/0171790 (Nelson et al., hereinafter Nelson) as applied to claim25 and 38 above, and further in view of US 2010/0152811 (Flaherty).
In regards to claims 28 and 39, Cohen and Nelson disclose the limitations of claims 25 and 38 but do not state that the wireless connection is Bluetooth. In a related area, Flaherty discloses systems and devices that communicate remotely. Of particular interest is paragraph 74 which discloses Bluetooth as one of several known wireless communication protocols. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cohen and Nelson o use Bluetooth as its wireless connection as taught by Flaherty because it is one of several known wireless communication protocols used in wireless communication.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DARYL DEANON LANNU whose telephone number is (571)270-1986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 AM - 5 PM, Friday 8 AM -12 PM.
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, Charles Marmor can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/JOSHUA DARYL D LANNU/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791