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 responsive to the amendment filed on 11/25/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-3 have been amended, claims 4-10 have been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-3 are presently pending in the application.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Drive means” in claim 1.
“Oscillation control means” in claim 1.
“Restraint means” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sackner (EP1006845B1).
Regarding claim 1, Sackner discloses a body balance correcting apparatus used for beds (FIG. 1 and 2a-c Platform Assembly 10 as set forth in [0001] and [0023] in the form of a bed as seen in FIG. 1) comprising an oscillation panel (FIG. 1 and 2a-c Platform 11 as set forth in [0023]) for supporting a user in a recumbent position (FIG. 1 Subject 30 in recumbent position on platform 11 as seen in the figure), a support device for supporting said oscillation panel (FIG. 2c Frame 17 having stepped supports 15 and a fulcrum support 16 as set forth in [0029]) so as to enable said oscillation panel to oscillate in an in-plane direction (Fig. 2a shows the maximum displacement of platform 11 to the right with respect to the displacement modules 12, and Fig. 2b shows the maximum displacement of the platform 11 to the left as set forth in [0028], showing that movement enabled in the in-plane direction), a drive means for oscillating said oscillation panel with respect to said support device (FIG. 1 and 2a-c Displacement modules 12 connected to platform 11 and generate linear oscillatory motion of the platform 11 in the headward and footward directions depicted by double arrow A as set forth in [0023] and [0025]), and an oscillation control means for controlling oscillation caused by said drive means (FIG. 1 Processor 20 which transmits control signals to the displacement modules 12 to produce a specific platform motion as set forth in [0026]),
wherein said oscillation control means comprises a controller equipped with a microcomputer that is configured to adjust an amplitude A of the oscillation of said oscillation panel (FIG. 4 Processor 20 connected with input device 21 for altering the amplitude of the oscillatory motion as set forth in [0031]-[0032]; the processor having the input device for a desired output, and a memory device 25, and a microprocessor system as set forth in [0026], all components which are ordinarily understood as a microcomputer to one of ordinary skill in the art) in a horizontal direction with respect to said support device at least in a range of 0 to 15 cm (In this case, the reciprocating platform of the invention is also operable for oscillating at an amplitude of approximately 1.5 - 2.5 cm as set forth in [0017] and [0041], which is within the claimed range), wherein the controller is further configured to adjust a cycle T of the oscillation of said oscillation panel (FIG. 4 Processor 20 connected with input device 21 for altering the frequency of the oscillatory motion as set forth in [0031]-[0032]) at least in a range of 0.5 to 2.0 seconds (In this case, the reciprocating platform of the invention is also operable for oscillating at a frequency of approximately 0.3 - 1.5 Hz cm as set forth in [0033] and [0041], 0.3 – 1.5 Hz corresponding with approximately 0.6667 – 3.3334 seconds, which overlaps the claimed range and contains exemplary values within the claimed range given that the platform can also be operable at higher frequencies like 2-4 Hz which corresponds with 0.25 to 0.5 seconds as set forth in [0037]), and wherein the controller is further configured to adjust acceleration and deceleration of the oscillation of said oscillation panel (FIG. 4 Processor 20 connected with input device 21 for altering the acceleration of the oscillatory motion as set forth in [0031]-[0032], acceleration being the rate of velocity change in one direction of oscillation, the deceleration being the rate of velocity change in the opposite direction of oscillation, accounting for the movement in the headward and footward directions),
wherein the amplitude, cycle and repetition between acceleration and deceleration of the oscillation of said oscillation panel are controlled by the controller of said oscillation control means (FIG. 1 The oscillatory movement of the platform 11 in the headward and footward directions, such as the amplitude, frequency, and acceleration of motion, are controlled by a processor 20 which transmits control signals to the displacement modules 12 to produce a specific platform motion as set forth in [0026], acceleration being the rate of velocity change in one direction of oscillation, the deceleration being the rate of velocity change in the opposite direction of oscillation, accounting for the movement in the headward and footward directions), thereby allowing a force equivalent to the acceleration from said drive means to act on the whole body of the user including one's skeletal, muscular and blood circulatory systems (It is an object of the present invention to provide a reciprocating movement platform that is operable for rocking a subject in a headwards and footwards direction as set forth in [0013], inherently including the user’s skeletal, muscular and blood circulatory systems).
While Sackner discloses wherein the controller is further configured to adjust acceleration and deceleration of the oscillation of said oscillation panel (FIG. 4 Processor 20 connected with input device 21 for altering the acceleration of the oscillatory motion as set forth in [0031]-[0032], acceleration being the rate of velocity change in one direction of oscillation, the deceleration being the rate of velocity change in the opposite direction of oscillation, accounting for the movement in the headward and footward directions) it fails to explicitly disclose that the adjustment is to ensure that an instantaneous impact shall be imparted in a pulse form at intervals by a combination of the rapid acceleration and the rapid deceleration in a range of 0.1 to 0.4G
However, given that the apparatus of Sackner discloses the ability to adjust acceleration and deceleration of the oscillation of said oscillation panel (FIG. 4 Processor 20 connected with input device 21 for altering the acceleration of the oscillatory motion as set forth in [0031]-[0032], acceleration being the rate of velocity change in one direction of oscillation, the deceleration being the rate of velocity change in the opposite direction of oscillation, accounting for the movement in the headward and footward directions), and operate at an oscillation amplitude of approximately 1.5 - 2.5cm as set forth in [0017] and [0041], as well as at a frequency of approximately 0.3 - 1.5Hz cm as set forth in [0033] and [0041] or 2-4 Hz as set forth in [0037], that would mean that the apparatus is able to impart the pulses of rapid acceleration and the rapid deceleration in a range of 0.1 to 0.4G. The G-forces present in Sackner can be determined based on the given frequency/amplitude ranges and the equation for determining G-Force (G = (2πf)² × A / 9.81). At the smallest amplitude and lowest frequency, the G-force would be 0.005G, and at the largest amplitude and highest frequency, the G-force would be 1.61G. The claimed range of 0.1 to 0.4G lie within the given range. For example, a 1.41 Hz at an amplitude of 2.5cm would be about 0.2G. Given the ability of the device of Sackner to operate within the claimed ranges, it would be obvious that the adjustment of the device by the controller could ensure that an instantaneous impact could be imparted in a pulse form at intervals by a combination of the rapid acceleration and the rapid deceleration in a range of 0.1 to 0.4G, in order to achieve a desired oscillation for treatment/therapy.
Sackner does not explicitly disclose wherein the wherein the amplitude, cycle and repetition between acceleration and deceleration including rapid acceleration and rapid deceleration of the oscillation of said oscillation panel results in enabling amelioration of blood circulation, correction of skeleton and joint positions, and consequently, correction of body balance over a wide range of the body of the user to be achieved by an interaction caused by a difference in constitution and/or form of the body tissues between the internal tissues of the whole body of the user including one's skeletal, muscular and blood circulatory systems.
However, the body balance correcting apparatus or “platform assembly” of Sackner is described as supporting a user in a recumbent position, operable in a way wherein the amplitude, cycle and repetition between acceleration and deceleration of the oscillation of said oscillation panel are controlled by a control means, and given the capability to oscillate within the claimed ranges (0 to 15 cm and 0.5 to 2.0 seconds), the totality of the claimed elements are present, and thus the magnet system is understood to achieve the function of enabling amelioration of blood circulation, correction of skeleton and joint positions, and consequently, correction of body balance over a wide range of the body of the user to be achieved by an interaction caused by a difference in constitution and/or form of the body tissues between the internal tissues of the whole body of the user including one's skeletal, muscular and blood circulatory systems; see MPEP 2112.01.1., where when the claimed product and the prior art product are identical or substantially identical, a prima facie case of anticipation for the claimed properties or functions is established).
Regarding claim 2, Sackner discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Sackner further discloses the body balance correcting apparatus used for beds, wherein a restraint means for suppressing the movement of the body of said user is provided on the upper surface side of said oscillation panel (FIG. 1 The subject 30 may be held onto the platform 11 with a harness (unlabeled in the figure), or with supports 35 shown on the upper surface side of the platform 11 as set forth in [0027] and shown in the figure).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sackner (EP1006845B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rawls-Meehan (US 9737155 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Sackner discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Sackner fails to explicitly disclose the body balance correcting apparatus used for beds, wherein said support device is provided with an upper load measurement sensor configured to measure an upper load inclusive of a weight of the user and a mass of said oscillation panel.
However, Rawls-Meehan teaches wherein a body balance correcting apparatus (Rawls-Meehan: FIG. 1A-B adjustable bed facility 102) is provided with an upper load measurement sensor configured to measure an upper load inclusive of a weight of a user (Rawls-Meehan: Weight sensors may be used to sense a condition of a user of the control facility as set forth in column 69 lines 4 -36).
Sackner and Rawls-Meehan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of adjustable bed facilities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sackner to incorporate the teaching of Rawls-Meehan and include an upper load measurement sensor configured to measure an upper load inclusive of a weight of a user (Rawls-Meehan: Weight sensors may be used to sense a condition of a user of the control facility as set forth in column 69 lines 4 -36) on the support device. Doing so would allow the sensor update the control facilities as components or systems are controlled to arrive at an optimal control state for the adjustable bed and the control facilities may use the obtained information about the state of a user to control or actuate a component of the adjustable bed based on the user (Rawls-Meehan: As set forth in column 69 lines 4 -36). The upper load measurement means being inclusive of a mass of the oscillation panel would be obvious to accurately determine the mass of the user for proper control of the drive devices.
Response to Arguments
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding claims 1 and 3, and the
use of the limitations “Amplitude adjustment means”, “Cycle adjustment means”, “Acceleration adjustment means”, and “Upper load measurement means”, have been withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection have been made above to address the amendments to claims 1-3.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Sackner device vibrates at 3-12 Hz, corresponding to a period of 0.08-0.33 seconds, which is much faster than the 0.5-2.0 seconds of the present application and would have different effects.
However, as stated in the office action above, the reciprocating platform of the invention is also operable for oscillating at a frequency of approximately 0.3 - 1.5 Hz cm as set forth in [0033] and [0041], 0.3 – 1.5 Hz corresponding with approximately 0.6667 – 3.3334 seconds, which is substantially the same as the claimed range given that the platform can also be operable at higher frequencies like 2-4 Hz which corresponds with 0.25 to 0.5 seconds as set forth in [0037]. Examiner notes that the body balance correcting apparatus or “platform assembly” of Sackner is described as supporting a user in a recumbent position, operable in a way wherein the amplitude, cycle and repetition between acceleration and deceleration of the oscillation of said oscillation panel are controlled by a control means, and given the capability to oscillate within the claimed ranges (0 to 15 cm and 0.5 to 2.0 seconds), the totality of the claimed elements are present, and thus the magnet system is understood to achieve the function of enabling amelioration of blood circulation, correction of skeleton and joint positions, and consequently, correction of body balance over a wide range of the body of the user to be achieved by an interaction caused by a difference in constitution and/or form of the body tissues between the internal tissues of the whole body of the user including one's skeletal, muscular and blood circulatory systems; see MPEP 2112.01.1., where when the claimed product and the prior art product are identical or substantially identical, a prima facie case of anticipation for the claimed properties or functions is established).
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 KEIRA EILEEN CALLISON whose telephone number is (571)272-0745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/KEIRA EILEEN CALLISON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785