DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 line 11 states: “a rest plate disposed within the an opening one of the plurality of channels”, should read “a rest plate disposed within an opening of one of the plurality of channels”.
Claim 8 line 3 should read “further comprises a support post”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neff et al. 2007/0208283, in view of Bailey et al. 2020/0060927 and Brumit et al. 10,426,996
Regarding claim 9, Neff teaches a therapeutic vibrational machine comprising: a platform (Foot plate 3); a post having a first end, a second end (Guide rails 21 and 22 have a bottom and a top as depicted in figure 1b), and a plurality of channels disposed longitudinally on the post (0012 states “wherein the lift may travel on guide rails of the column and is fastened in a lockable manner at different heights”. Since the lift can be placed on different heights, there are multiple channels included within the post.), wherein the first end is affixed to the platform and the second end is a free end (Depicted in figure 1b);
a vibrational assembly (Figure 4, vibrational unit 1) comprising a vibrational motor (Drive shaft 14, 0029), an isolation mounting (coupling rod 142, figure 3), and a surface plate (vibration cushion 11) wherein the isolation mounting is operative to transfer one or more vibrations supplied from the vibrational motor to the surface plate for utilization by a user (0029 states “A coupling rod 142 is articulated on the eccentric 141 and connects the eccentric 141 to the vibration plate or to the vibration cushion 11 where it ends on a pivot joint 111. The rotational movement of the drive shaft is thus converted into a linear movement of the vibration cushion 11 and produces the up- and down vibration of the vibration cushion 11.”);
wherein the vibrational assemble is continuously adjustably affixed to one of the plurality of channels and is adjustable (0026 states “The lift 4 is displaceably fastened on the guide rails by way of rollers or sliding bearings. The rollers or sliding bearings ensure that the lift may be positioned as desired, and may also be firmly held there.”), a rest plate disposed within the an opening one of the plurality of channels (0026 states “At least one of the guide rails may be toothed, and the drive 41 provided with a toothed wheel which engages into the toothing”. The toothed wheel is a surface that is engaging with the channel and could be considered a rest plate as it can also lock in place.),
Neff fails to teach the adjustment taking place by way of an adjustment lever and wherein a pressure plate is releasably engaged with a surface of the post having the one of the plurality of channels, and one or more pressure springs wherein the pressure plate by the one or more pressure springs apply pressure to the one of the plurality of channels and the height adjustment lever adjusts the pressure plate to lock the vibrational assembly onto the one of the plurality of channels.
Bailey discloses an analogous adjustable massager that does teach an adjustment taking place by way of an adjustment lever (Release handles 50, figure 3) and wherein a pressure plate (Primary platform 60) is releasably engaged with a surface of the post having the one of the plurality of channels (figure 2 depicts primary platform 60 in connection with hanger rods 20) and one or more pressure springs (Flat spring 40) wherein the pressure plate by the one or more pressure springs apply pressure to the one of the plurality of channels (“0039 states “In this configuration, the release handles 50 can be pushed toward the primary platform 60, which forces the flat springs 40 away from the primary platform 60, causing the locking pins 42 to move upward in the pin holes in the primary platform 64 and out of the pin holes 22 in the hanger rods 20, freeing the primary platform 60 to slide up or down vertically along the hanger rods 20”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lift system of Neff with the teachings of Bailey and include an adjustment taking place by way of an adjustment lever and wherein a pressure plate is releasably engaged with a surface of the post having the one of the plurality of channels, and one or more pressure springs wherein the pressure plate by the one or more pressure springs apply pressure to the one of the plurality of channels as the lever provides the user with a convenient method of height adjustment, while the support walls and spring allow for a tight and secure fit at the desired height (0039). Once the modification has been made, the height adjustment lever would be able to adjust the pressure plate to lock the vibrational assembly of Neff onto the one of the plurality of channels within the post, as the movement of lift drive 4 would be based on the latch.
Neff still fails to teach a power source supplying power to the vibrational motor through a control box with a power switch and a speed dial. Brumit discloses an analogous rehabilitation apparatus containing a power source supplying power (Electrical cord 102, figure 1) to the vibrating motor (Motor 100 is directly connected to the power source), that does teach a control box with a power switch (Col. 4 line 31 “A power switch or button or control may be provided to turn the apparatus on and off.”) and a speed dial (“a speed control or dial 70 may be located elsewhere on the apparatus”).
It would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Neff with the physical control of Brumit and include a power source supplying power to the vibrational motor through a control box with a power switch and a speed dial as this provides the user with a convenient way to control the operation of the apparatus.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Neff in view of Berg et al. 2014/0187389
Regarding claim 2, modified Neff teaches the therapeutic vibrational machine of claim 9, but fails to teach further comprising an elastic band affixed to the post to leverage the user against the surface plate. Berg teaches an analogous stretching device that does teach an elastic band (handle loops 3 is elastic as it can stretch back and forth when pulled, figure 3) affixed to the post to leverage the user against the surface plate (Figure 4 depicts the user tugging on handle loops 3 to leverage themselves against first frame 11). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Neff with eh teachings of Berg and include an elastic band affixed to the post to leverage the user against the surface plate as this allows for the stretching of multiple different body parts of the user (abstract).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Neff in view of Burton et al. 2016/0324717.
Regarding claim 3, modified Neff teaches the therapeutic vibrational machine of claim 9, but fails to teach further comprising a ball plate accessory, removably attachable to the surface plate. However, Burton discloses an analogous massage apparatus that does teach further comprising a ball plate accessory (Sphere head 18 in figure 3), removably attachable (the abstract defines this member as interchangeable) to the surface plate (slider plate 5). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify modified Neff and attach the sphere accessory of Burton to the surface plate of the vibrational device and include further comprising a ball plate accessory removably attachable to the surface plate as it would serve as a primary massage piece that mimics the feel of the human thumb and allows for the massaging of a wide range of muscle groups (0015).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Neff in view of Beck et al. 2021/0100717.
Regarding claim 4, modified Neff teaches the therapeutic vibrational machine of claim 9, but fails to teach a quad plate accessory, removably attachable to the surface plate. Beck discloses an analogous massage device that does teach further comprising a quad plate accessory (heads 60 and bracket 50), removably attachable to the surface plate (This accessory is removable as depicted in figure 19 with the use of a screw and bolt as the connecting apparatus to connector or hook 58). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify modified Neff and attach the quad plate of Beck on the surface plate of Neff to include further comprising a quad plate accessory, removably attachable to the surface plate as the use of four members to massage a user has been determined to be an optimal massage tool that would allow for the massaging of various parts of the user’s body (0077).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Neff in view of Morin et al. 8,449,438.
Regarding claim 5, modified Neff teaches the therapeutic vibrational machine of claim 9, but fails to teach a roller plate accessory, removably attachable to the surface plate. Morin discloses an analogous stretching device that does teach further comprising a roller plate accessory, removably attachable to the surface plate (Column 1 line 20 states that “adjustable muscular releasing and stretching exercise device that has a roller mechanism that can be removed and attached to an exterior vertical support.”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify modified Neff by adding the roller mechanism of Morin on the surface plate to include further comprising a roller plate accessory, removably attachable to the surface plate, as doing so allows for a mechanism that can be adjusted to provide muscular release along a wide range of positions (Column 1 line 25).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Neff in view of Hunter at al. 2022/0288449
Regarding claim 6, modified Neff teaches the therapeutic vibrational machine of claim 9, but fails to teach further comprising a carrying case wherein the therapeutic vibrational machine is dimensioned and configured to be unassembled and to fit into the carrying case. Hunter discloses an analogous therapy device that does teach a carrying case (abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify modified Neff to include a carrying case to allow for transport of the device (0029).
Although modified Neff fails to explicitly teach wherein the therapeutic vibrational machine is dimensioned and configured to be unassembled and to fit into the carrying case, however the court has held that making components separable may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to disassemble the therapeutic vibrational device of Neff and fit the pieces into a carrying case as taught in Hunter, and make it as to wherein the therapeutic vibrational machine is dimensioned and configured to be unassembled and to fit into the carrying case.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Neff in view of Becker at al. 2010/0312154
Regarding claim 7, modified Neff teaches the therapeutic vibrational machine of claim 9, but fails to teach further comprising a rocker accessory, mountable to the platform, wherein the rocker accessory comprises a vibrational motor. Becker teaches an analogous vibration apparatus that does teach a rocker accessory (Rocker shafts 178, figure 1), mountable to the platform (Base frame 187), wherein the rocker accessory comprises a vibrational motor (motion inducing device 110 may be a motor as stated in 0026). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Neff with the teachings of Becker and include a rocker accessory, mountable to the platform, wherein the rocker accessory comprises a vibrational motor as this allows for a vibrational therapy to be applied to the body of the user, which is beneficial for treating different conditions (0002).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Neff in view of Malone at al. 2016/0367427
Regarding claim 8, modified Neff teaches the therapeutic vibrational machine of claim 9, wherein the platform is dimensioned and configured to be assembled and joined together with the post (figure 1a depicts guide rails 21 and 22 being assembled with footplate 3), but fails to teach a support post and a pivot bracket joining the post to the support post. Malone discloses an analogous rehabilitation device that does teach further comprises support post (strut tube 12) and a pivot bracket joining the post to the support post (Bracket 10 includes pivot pin 16 that helps to join the support post to the main post as seen in figure 1.). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify modified Neff with the support post concept seen in Malone to include further comprises support post and a pivot bracket joining the post to the support post in order to provide a stable and gravity assisted support to the main post (0046).
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 ROHAN DEEP PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 5:30 AM - 3:00 PM PST.
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, Brandy S Lee can be reached at (571) 2707410. 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.
/ROHAN PATEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785