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 responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 12/1/2022. As directed by the Amendment, claims 4, 7-9, 11, 16-22 were amended, no claim was added nor cancelled. Thus, claims 1-22 are presently pending in this Application.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in BELGIUM on 2020-05-26. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a complete certified copy of the 2020/5365 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Only a portion of the document was received.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Legal phrases “comprising” and “said” are found in lines 1 and 7 of the abstract, respectively.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the second set of drawings filed on 11/25/2022 is not the same as in the first set filed on the same day. For example, the second set has page number such as “1” while the first set has “1/5”. In addition, reference numerals, i.e., “(1)”, “(2)”….”(16)” In Figures 1 and 2 shouldn’t include parentheses. See PCT Rule 11.13(e). It is suggested to delete the parentheses and either move the reference numerals to outside of the boxes and use lead lines, or place underline under the numerals.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification refers to claims, i.e., “claim 1” is found page 2, line 15; “claims 2 and 14” on page 2, line 35. Each sheet of the specification shouldn’t include other parts of the application. See 37CFR1.71(f). Applicant is suggested to check the rest of the disclosure and delete all unrelated materials from the specification.
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: “a wireless communication module” in line 8 of claim 1 and line 2 of claim 13, “configured for recording usage data by means of the controller” in claim 10, “configured for collecting biophysical measurement data by means of one or more sensors in claim 11, “means of the controller” in claim 18, “means of one or more sensors” in claim 19, and “measuring means” in claim 20
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because there is no method steps associated with the “use of the mattress system”.
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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 22 is non-enabling because it is written as a single means claim. As such, the claim covers every conceivable means for achieving the claimed functions while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art could not make or use the invention from the disclosure coupled with information known in the art to arrive at every conceivable way of achieving the claimed results without undue experimentation. See In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-715, 218 USPQ 195, 197.
Claims 2-3 and 14-16 are 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 claims 2 and 14, claim 1 in line 3 states “at least one motor”. In claims 2 and 14, the claims imply that either one or more than one motor is able to be controlled in sequences. However, on page 8, lines 11-18 and page 11, lines 25-26, the specification states sequences correspond to successive parts in the time-varying course of the motor control signal. A single motor doesn’t have successive parts. Thus, the disclosure lacks an adequate written description for a single motor to be controlled to have two or more consecutive control sequences as set forth in claims 2 and 14. The claim fails to have possession of the claimed invention.
The remaining claims are rejected due to their dependency from a rejected base claim.
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 1- 22 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.
In claim 1, line 3, the term “a massage module contained in the mattress, with at least one motor….” Is unclear as whether or not the at least one motor is the structure of the massage module. In line 6 the term “the basis of motor control signals” lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, in lines 12-13 the term characterized in that said instructions…” is confusing as which part has the instructions, the electric power supply or something else? In addition, lines 13-16 the term “the controller being configured for uploading the motor control signal ….. into the data storage of the controller” is confusing because the data storage is in the control, it is not clear how the controller be able to “upload” into the controller.
In claim 2, lines 2, the term “two or more consecutive control sequences for the motor control signal” is confusing as how one motor is able to produce two or more consecutive control sequences.
Regarding claim 5, it is not clear which disclosed structure is being used to load the control signals into the data storage.
Claim 8 is a use claim but lacks method steps.
In claim 9, line 5 it is not clear which structure that “both” is being referred to.
In claim 10, lines 1-2 it is not clear what structure is being suggested by “means of the controller”.
In claim 11, line 2 it is not clear what structure is being suggested by “means of one or more sensors”.
In claim 13, line 5 the term “characterized in that” is confusing as to which structure/step is being referred, the method, the motor control signal, or something else?
In claim 14, line 1 the term “the user previously generates the motor control signal” is confusing as which is the reference point that the “previously” is being referred to, before sending instructions as stated in claim 13? Also, it lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 15, line 2 it is not clear what is the structural relationship between “a library” and the claimed mattress system.
In claim 16, line 2 the term “themselves” is unclear as to which disclosed part is being referred.
In regard to claim 20, the term “the user carries measuring means on them” is confusing as how many users is being claimed.
Regarding claim 22, the claim refers to a method claim, which makes the scope unclear as whether an apparatus or a method is being claimed. In addition, structure of the mobile application or web application is missing.
The rest of the claims are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-11, 13-17, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huynh et al (11,938,337).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Huynh discloses a light and vibration therapy system 100 having a mattress 250 (col. 3, lines 19-20) including a massage module (vibration module 210, 200) with at least one motor 216 (col. 2, line 55-60) contained in the mattress (vibration modules 200 may be embedded within the relaxation substrate 250, col. 3, lines 31-33), an electronic controller 400 maybe attached wirelessly to a control interface of the system 100 and operatively connected to the massage module (col. 6, lines 20-30) to control the motor (see col. 6, lines 6-19). Huynh in col. 5, lines 63- col. 6, line 15 further discloses that the controller 400 having stored thereon instructions for the control of the system 100, the instruction may constitute at least part of an application stored on a mobile device, and the instructions for the control of the system maybe downloadable (to control the motor on the basis of motor control signals loaded into a data storage of the controller). Huynh’s electronic controller 400 or 652 is a cell phone (col. 6, lines 16-19), which is inherently be able to be located on the mattress.
Huynh in col. 6, lines 44-50 discloses the controller 400 has wireless communication with the massage/vibration modules 210 within the mattress. Thus, Huynh’s massage module includes a wireless communication module in the mattress for connecting to the controller and to wirelessly receive instruction for massaging the user.
Huynh’s controller 400 is a cell phone for controlling the massaging module; it is inherent to have a power supply source to supply power to the controller. The power source is operably connected to the controller 400, the massage module, and the wireless communication module of the massage module in order to control the system 100, see fig. 1. Huynh’s stored instructions (see col. 5, line 65) comprise a time-varying course of a motor control signal (col. 8, lines 12-17), the controller being configured for uploading the motor control signal according to the time-varying course into the data storage of the controller (col. 5 lines 63-col. 6 line 2 Huynh discloses the controller 400 have stored thereon instructions for controlling the system 100, the instructions constitute at least part of an application stored on a mobile device, and the instructions for the control the system 100 may be downloaded). Thus, the stored instructions or downloaded instructions read on uploading the motor control signal into the data storage of the controller 400.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, col. 2, lines 22-31 of Huynh discloses the instructions specify two or more consecutive control sequences such as applying light and vibration to each of nine areas in a sequence moving from one therapeutic area to the next, each vibrating for 3 seconds, 30 seconds or 60 seconds, the sequence may repeat of a present time, such as 5 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 45 minutes, 1 hour, 3 hours, 5 hours, or 8 hours. Thus, each set period of vibration time on one body area can be considered as a sequence, and the repeated sequences could also be read as two or more consecutive control sequences. Each of the sequences has time point (the set seconds), a signal value (vibration to areas), and fading factor (a fading factor reads on when the vibration is completely faded out after the set time). The repeating vibration on different time/days also reads on more sequences.
Regarding claim 7, Huynh in col. 7, lines 1-13 discloses one or more sensors embedded in the mattress 250 for collecting biophysical measurement data relative to the user.
Regarding claim 8, figures 1 and 6 of Huynh show the use of the mattress system.
Regarding claim 9, Huynh in figures 6 and 7 shows a computer-implemented system further comprising a mobile user device (one of the controllers 400) with a mobile user application (col. 5, line 66 to col. 6, line 2), a server 720. The server is able to communicate with the controller 400 so it has a backend software, and both configured to exchange data with the controller of the mattress system via the wireless communication module, see figures 6 and 7 of Huynh.
Regarding claim 10, Huynh discloses recording usage data by the controller (controller 400 is configured to keep record of use, see col. 7, the last 8 lines). The usage data is sent to the computer server 720, see col. 7, the last 7 lines.
Regarding claim 11, Huynh discloses one or more sensors 450 to be disposed in body-attached device such as a wrist watch type device, ear-lobe connection (on the mattress) or embedded in the mattress (col. 7, lines 9- 12) for collecting biophysical measurement data, and the measurement data is stored on the server (the controller 400 collects data from the sensors 450 and send it to the computer server 720, see col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 7).
Regarding claim 13, figure 7 of Huynh shows a network comprising two portable controllers 400, a computer 730, and all of them are interchangeable with the server 720. The cell phone 400/652 reads on the controller. The instructions comprising the motor control signal are received wirelessly via the communication module, from a mobile user application on a mobile user device (the tablet 400 in figure 7), from a web application on a user device with internet connection 730 or from backend software on a server.
Regarding claim 14, figure 6 of Huynh shows that the user is able to set different vibration sequences (610), see also col. 2, lines 23-31 of Huynh. In col. 8, lines 18-25 Huynh further discloses that the controller may default to the default parameters, and a user may save parameters for re-use at a later time (sequences in succession). Thus, Huynh has the step of the user previously generates the motor control signal by combining two or more control sequences in succession.
Regarding claim 15, col. 6, lines 1-6, Huynh discloses that instructions for the control of the system 100 may be downloadable. Thus, it is clear that a user is able to request a control instruction from a library. Thus, the downloaded instruction reads on the standard preprogrammed control sequence.
Regarding claim 16, figure 6 of Huynh shows that the user is able to select/modify at least one control sequence specifying at least one time point 614, a signal value 612, and a fading factor 614 (stop or completed fading out).
Regarding claim 17, the user is able to make selection of either direct mode of immediate control based on the instructions (col 5 line 63 to col. 6 lines 2). In addition, Huynh in col. 8, line 22 states a user may save parameters for re-use at a later time (wake-up mode with user specification of a delayed start time). In addition, Huynh in col. 2, line 28-31 states that the sequence may repeat for a present time, such as 5 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 45 minutes, 1 hour, 3 hours, 5 hours, or 8 hours. Thus, Huynh discloses the repetition rate.
Regarding claim 20, Huynh discloses that the sensors 450 (measuring means) may be disposed within a body attached devices such as a wrist-watch-type device, see col. 7, lines 1-11. The collected data includes heart rate, blood pressure, sleep pattern. The heart rate is considered as relative to stress, and sleep pattern reads on activity.
Regarding claim 22, Huynh has a mobile application or web application for controlling the mattress system, see col.5, line 63 to col. 6, line 6.
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huynh et al in view of Wheat (2019/0247262).
Regarding claim 4, Huynh in figure 1 shows a light module 300 for illuminating an environment of the user, see col. 4, lines 41-48 of Huynh, and operably connected to the controller 400. Huynh lacks a light module contained in the mattress. However, Wheat in [0009] lines 6-10 teaches a massaging apparatus (10, 100) to be positioned on a planar surface such as a bed or floor (a mattress, see figs 7A, 7B) including a light module having a plurality of LEDs 30 within the mattress (fig. 14B). 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 Huynh’s light module to arrange the light source within the mattress as taught by Wheat in order to improve portability such as to be able to use in different locations.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Huynh’s controller configured to vary a light intensity based on light control signals loaded into the data storage, see col. 6, lines 31-50 of Huynh and [0035] of Wheat.
Regarding claim 6, Huynh discloses a time-varying course of a light control signal (a period of light production 634, a duration 636, a pattern 638 for each light-providing module 310, see col. 6, lines 31- 43 of Huynh), and the controller is further configured for uploading the light control signal according to the time-varying course into the data storage for controlling the light source (instructions for the control of the system 100 may be downloadable so there is a storage in the control 400, see in col. 5, line 63 to col. 6, line 15 of Huynh, and user can save parameters for re-use at a later time, or may have different sets of parameters for use in different settings or for different purpose, see col. 8, lines 17-25 of Huynh).
Claims 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huynh et al in view of Epureanu et al (2018/0243153).
Huynh has everything as claimed including one or more sensors 450 for detecting and/or measuring one or more characteristic of the user such as heart rate, blood pressure, sleep pattern, etc., see col. 7, lines 8-13. Huynh in col. 6, lines 2-6 discloses that the controller 400 may include or configured to use communication circuitry configured to receive and transmit data, including the instructions, measurements, user-entered data, sensor data, and the like.
Huynh lacks a detail description of modified instructions for massaging the user, based on the measurement data. However, Epureanu teaches a controller configured to automatically control the actuators based on the signal from the sensors, see [0031] lines 1-4 of Epureanu. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sensed information to automatically adjust the vibration as taught by Epureanu for optimization of therapy, see [0031] lines 9-10 of Epureanu.
Since Huynh’s controller 400 is able to receive and send instructions to the server, see also fig. 7 of Huynh, the modified Huynh’s modified instructions is able to be sent to the communication module for massaging the user.
Regarding claim 21, the modified Huynh’s server is able to send modified instructions to the communication module via the controller 400. See figure 7 of Huynh.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huynh et al in view of Kraayenbruink (2021/0065261).
Regarding claim 18, Figure 7 of Huynh shows a network connection circuitry provides data communication between the controller 400 and a local area network 710 and the internet 712, i.e., data communication between the controller 400 (652) and at least one of a local area network 710 and the internet 712. See col. 6, lines 56-65. The controller 400 may receive data from the computer server 720 (stored on the server linked to the user account of the user), such as a goal progress (usage date is registered by the controller), see col. 7, lines 4-7. Huynh has everything as claimed but is silent on the user is logged into a corresponding user account via the mobile application or web application. However, user logs in to his/her account with personal data stored in the server or web site is a common practice and well-known procedure in the art. Thus, the step of the user is logged in to a corresponding user account via the mobile application or web application fails to patentably define over the prior art. In addition, Kraayenbrink teaches a user 12 can establish a consumer account 64 (see [0111] line 1 to [0112] line 6). 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 Huynh’s controller application with account setting and login requirement as taught by Kraayenbrink so that the user is able to access to his stored information in the controller or the server and maintain security protection.
Regarding claim 19, see rejection to claim 11 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Niederkofler et al (2019/0269570), Chung (6,077,238) is cited to show different massaging mattresses. Krampe et al (9,471,918), Allibhoy et al (10,521,988) and taylor (2010/0230488) are cited to show different vending devices with computer connections. Evans et al (2015/0005608) is cited to show stress sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTINE ROMANG YU whose telephone number is (571)272-4835. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:30 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, Kiesha Bryant can be reached at 571-272-3606. 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.
/JUSTINE R YU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785