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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on September 9th, 2025. Claims 8, 17, 18, and 20 have been canceled as such claims 1-7, 9-16, and 19 are pending consideration in this Office Action.
Response to Amendments
The objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15, last line, “the pevelic harness” should read “the pelvic harness”
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talish (US 20080139979) in view of a second embodiment of Talish (US 200801139979) and further in view of Shealy (US 6152950) and Johnson (US 20130184615).
Regarding claim 1, Talish discloses
A method of providing whole-body vibration therapy to a patient comprising the steps of:
standing the patient (Fig. 25, patient P; Paragraph 0129, Lines 1-7) on a vibrational footplate (Fig. 25; vibrational therapy assembly 100 or 1100; Paragraph 0129, Lines 1-7) extending outward from an inclined oriented table (Fig. 25; end 301 of the bed 300; Paragraph 0129, Lines 1-7);
activating the vibrational footplate (Fig. 25; vibrational therapy assembly 100 or 1100; Paragraph 0129, Lines 1-15) and providing whole-body vibration to the patient (Paragraph 0129, Lines 15-17) at a first vibrational frequency (30 Hz; Paragraph 0109, Lines 1-3 and Lines 12-22) and for a first period of time (see Paragraphs 0091, 0100, and 0101 which discusses actuating vibrations during a treatment time)
performing a first whole-body vibration session (Paragraph 0129, Lines 15-17);
resting the patient for a period of time (see Paragraphs 0091, 0100, and 0101 which discusses shutting off the vibrations once treatment time has lapsed and having multiple sessions a day; therefore, it’s inherent that there is a resting time period).
returning the table to the inclined orientation; and
removing the patient from the vibrational footplate.
While Talish is silent to the returning the table to the inclined orientation and removing the patient from the vibrational footplate. It would have been obvious to do the reverse operation of setting the reclined table back to inclined to let the patient off once the therapy session is done.
A first embodiment of Talish does not disclose reclining the table toward a horizontal orientation and stopping the reclining of the table at an angle (a) above horizontal.
However, a second embodiment of Talish discloses
reclining the table (Fig. 21; pallet 1022; Paragraph 0124, Lines 2-7) toward a horizontal orientation and stopping the reclining of the table (Fig. 21; pallet 1022; Paragraph 0124, Lines 2-7; had to stop at a reclining position in order to recline) at an angle (a) above horizontal (Fig. 21; angle α; Paragraph 0117, Lines 5-6);
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 method for providing vibration therapy of Talish to recline the table at angle α as taught by the second embodiment of Talish to distribute weight evenly, encourage relaxation, and reduce pressure on the spine.
The modified method of Talish does not disclose inducing a tensional force on the patient's spine, thereby providing spinal decompression to the patient.
However, Shealy discloses a therapeutic apparatus for the spine
inducing a tensional force on the patient's spine (Figs. 3 and 6; Col. 5, Lines 31-46; induces tensional force on spine 62), thereby providing spinal decompression to the patient (Col. 5, Lines 31-46).
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 vibration therapy system of Talish with the pelvic harness, tension unit, and programable computer of Shealy to provide a pulling force to the spine to treat low back pain (Shealy: Col. 1, Lines 5-7 and Col. 5, Lines 32-46).
The modified method of Talish further does not disclose; activating the vibrational footplate and providing whole-body vibration to the patient at a second vibrational frequency and for a second period of time; performing a second whole-body vibration session; and wherein the second session has a greater intensity or duration of the whole-body vibration, the intensity or duration being increased by performing at least one of a) - e), prior to performing the second session, wherein a) - e) are: a) increasing an angle of the table; b) increasing a tension on a tensioner link; c) moving the vibrational footplate toward the patient; d) increasing the vibrational frequency; and e) increasing the period of time.
However, Johnson discloses a spinal correction device that provides vibrations to the spine
activating the vibrational footplate and providing whole-body vibration to the patient at a second vibrational frequency and for a second period of time (see paragraphs 0032 – 0036; the spinal correction device has a computer with treatment parameters that can be adjusted such as the incline of the table top, force amplitude of the applied vibrations, frequency of the applied vibrations and/or duration of treatment), performing a second whole-body vibration session (see paragraphs 0032 – 0036; the computer adjusts treatment parameters based on previous treatments; in other words having a second session which has adjusted treatment parameters from a prior (first session));
and
wherein the second session has a greater intensity or duration of the whole-body vibration, the intensity or duration being increased (see paragraphs 0032 – 0036; computer can adjust treatment parameters to have a greater intensity based on patient’s need and looking from patient’s previous treatment data; increasing force amplitude of applied vibrations, frequency of applied vibrations, etc.) by performing at least one of a) - e), prior to performing the second session, wherein a) - e) are:
a) increasing an angle of the table (see paragraphs 0032 – 0036; incline of table);
b) increasing a tension on a tensioner link;
c) moving the vibrational footplate toward the patient;
d) increasing the vibrational frequency (see paragraphs 0032 – 0036; frequency of the applied vibrations); and
e) increasing the period of time (see paragraphs 0032 – 0036; duration of treatment).
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 method of for providing vibration therapy of Talish with the computer method of Johnson to provide recommended treatment parameters based on patient data and previous treatment data for the benefit of providing optimized treatment such as increasing table incline, vibrational duration, frequency, and force that is custom to the patient (Johnson: paragraphs 0032-0036).
Regarding claim 2, the modified method of Talish further discloses
the method (Talish: a method for providing vibrational therapy) of claim 1, further comprising
increasing an angle of the table of the table to an angle (b) above horizontal (Johnson: computer software adjusts recommended parameters such as incline of table; see paragraphs 0032 – 0036), upon the resting of the patient, wherein the angle (b) is greater than the angle (a) (Johnson: computer software adjusts recommended parameters from previous treatment (first session) such as incline of table; see paragraphs 0032 – 0036; second embodiment of Talish: Fig. 21; angle α; Paragraph 0117, Lines 5-6), thus increasing the intensity of the whole-body vibration for the second session by increasing the angle of the table.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that angle α of Talish could be increased with the computer software’s recommend treatment parameters as stated in Johnson based on patient’s needs and previous treatment data. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that by increasing the angle, more of the patient’s weight/load plus gravity would be pushing down on the vibrational plate creating an increase of intensity.
Regarding claim 3, the modified method of Talish further discloses
the method (Talish: a method for providing vibrational therapy) of claim 1,
wherein the vibrational frequency for the first session (first embodiment of Talish: 30 Hz; Paragraph 0109, Lines 1-3 and Lines 12-22) is the same (Johnson: see paragraphs 0032 – 0036; the software adjusts all or some of the treatment parameters; in other words, the frequency may be kept the same based on treatment data) as the vibrational frequency for the second session (first embodiment of Talish: 30 Hz; Paragraph 0109, Lines 1-3 and Lines 12-22).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method of Talish further discloses
the method (Talish: a method for providing vibrational therapy) of claim 1,
wherein the period of time for the first session (Johnson: see paragraphs 0032 – 0036; duration of treatment) is the same (Johnson: see paragraphs 0032 – 0036; the software adjusts all or some of the treatment parameters; in other words, the duration of treatment may be kept the same based on treatment data) as the period of time for the second session (Johnson: see paragraphs 0032 – 0036; duration of treatment).
Regarding claim 5, the modified method of Talish further discloses
the method (Talish: a method for providing vibrational therapy) of claim 1,
wherein vibrational frequency for the first session (first embodiment of Talish: 30 Hz; Paragraph 0109, Lines 1-3 and Lines 12-22) is less than the vibrational frequency for the second session (Johnson: see paragraphs 0032 – 0036; the software adjusts all or some of the treatment parameters based on treatment data such as adjusting frequency of applied vibrations; in other words, the vibrational frequency may be less based on patient and treatment data).
Regarding claim 6, the modified method of Talish discloses
the method (Talish: a method for providing vibrational therapy) of claim 1, comprising
extending the vibrational footplate (Talish: Figs. 20-21; vibrational therapy assembly 100 or 1100; Paragraph 0124, Lines 3-5) outwardly from the table (Talish: Figs. 20-21; pallet 1022 (part of patient table 1010); Paragraph 0124, Lines 1-7).
Talish does not disclose extending the vibrational footplate outwardly from the table at an angle greater than 90.
However, Shealy further discloses
extending the vibrational footplate (Figs 3-4; platform 96; Col. 4, Lines 32-37) outwardly from the table (Figs 3-4; end of lower bed portion 26 (part of table 18); Col. 4, Lines 32-37) at an angle greater than 90 degrees (see modified Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
515
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 method of the vibrational therapy assembly of Talish to have a platform at an angle greater than 90 degrees as taught in Shealy to help create a more effective traction force.
Regarding claim 7, the modified method of Talish discloses
the method (Talish: a method for providing vibrational therapy) of claim 6, further comprising
Talish does not disclose raising the knees of the patient on the table by an amount sufficient to provide substantially a 90 degree angle between the patient's lower legs and the vibrational footplate.
However, Shealy further discloses
raising the knees of the patient (Fig. 3; knee support 104; Col. 6, Lines 62-65; knees are bent/raised) on the table (Fig. 3; bed 20 (part of table 18); Col. 6, Lines 62-65) by an amount sufficient to provide substantially a 90 degree angle between the patient's lower legs (see modified Fig. 3 below) and the vibrational footplate (Fig. 3; platform 96, Col. 6, Lines 32-34).
PNG
media_image2.png
515
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 method of the vibration therapy system of Talish with the knee support of Shealy to provide comfort for the person while in the reclined supine position (Shealy: Col. 6, Lines 62-65).
Regarding claim 9, the modified method of Talish discloses
the method (Talish: a method for providing vibrational therapy) of claim 1, further comprising
However, Shealy further discloses a therapeutic apparatus
holding a torso (Fig. 3; upper body anchoring support 34, Col. 4, Lines 51-59) of the patient (Fig. 3, upper body 36, Col. 4, Lines 51-59) to the table (Fig. 3; upper bed portion 24 (is part of table 18), Col. 4, Lines 51-59).
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 vibration therapy system of Talish with the upper body anchoring support of Shealy to have a secure and comfortable way to anchor the upper body and to isolate the pulling force to the lumber spine by anchoring the upper body while applying a pulling force to the lower body (Shealy: Col. 2, Lines 27-30 and Col. 4, Lines 62-64).
Regarding claim 11, the modified method of Talish further discloses
The method (Talish: a method for providing vibrational therapy) of claim 1, further comprising at least one of the limitations of a) through d), wherein a) through d) are:
a) at least one of the first and the second vibrational frequency is between about 25 Hz and about 50Hz (first embodiment of Talish: 30 Hz; Paragraph 0109, Lines 1-3 and Lines 12-22);
b) a step of adjusting a height of the table;
c) at least one of the first period of time and the second period of time is between about 5 minutes and 60 minutes (Johnson: 5-8 minutes; Paragraph 0008, Lines 5-11); and
d) the resting period of time is at least 1 hour.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talish (US 200801139979) in view of a second embodiment of Talish (US 200801139979) and further in view of Shealy (US 6152950), Johnson (US 20130184615), and Murray (US 1936363).
Regarding claim 10, the modified method of Talish discloses
the method (Talish: a method for providing vibrational therapy) of claim 1, further comprising
Talish does not disclose moving the vibrational footplate toward the table, along a longitudinal axis of the table, for the second session, thus increasing the intensity of the whole-body vibration for the second session.
Murray discloses a combination adjusting-stretching table where
moving (Page 3, Lines 36-39 and Lines 42-44; carriage 116 slides; foot plate 118 is connected to the end of carriage 116) the vibrational footplate (Fig. 1; foot plate 118; Page 3, 34-39; foot plate is on the end of carriage) toward (Fig. 1; Page 3, Lines 42-50) the table (Fig. 1; table 15; Page 1, Lines 77-78), along a longitudinal axis of the table (see modified Fig. 1 below), for the second session, thus increasing the intensity of the whole-body vibration for the second session.
PNG
media_image3.png
339
461
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 vibrational assembly platform of Talish to be adjustable as taught in Murray to be able to move the foot plate closer or further from the table to stretch the patient’s body to any desired degree (Murray: Page 3, Lines 48-52) and provide stability to the patient. It directly follows that by modifying the vibrational assembly of Talish to move toward the table, the vibrational assembly would be able to increase the intensity of whole-body vibration by applying more of the patient’s load directly onto the vibrational assembly platform. Based on Johnson, it would have been obvious to increase the force amplitude of the vibrations based on previous treatment data and patient’s needs (see paragraphs 0032-0036).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shealy (US 6152950) in view of Talish (US 200801139979) further in view of Becerra (US 20090299247 ) and Johnson (US 20130184615).
Regarding claim 12, Shealy discloses
A spinal decompression system (Fig. 3; therapeutic apparatus 10; Col. 4, Lines 37-39) comprising:
a table configured to hold a patient (Fig. 3; table 18; Col. 4, Lines 41-50);
a footplate (Figs 3-4; platform 96; Col. 4, Lines 32-37) extending from a foot of the table (Figs 3-4; end of lower bed portion 26; Col. 4, Lines 32-37) and outwardly (Figs 1-3; platform is perpendicular to the table) from a plane of the table (Figs 3-4; table 18; Col. 4, Lines 32-37) at an angle between about 90 degrees and about 170 degrees (see modified Fig. 3 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
515
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an actuator (Fig. 12; tilting mechanism 100; Col. 6, Lines 41-45) configured and disposed to adjust an inclination (Col. 6, Lines 41-45) of the table (Fig. 3; table 18; Col. 6, Lines 41-45);
a belt, upper body harness, or other device (Fig. 3; upper body anchoring support 34, Col. 4, Lines 51-59) configured and disposed to hold a torso of the patient (Fig. 3, upper body 36, Col. 4, Lines 51-59) with respect to the table (Fig. 3; upper bed portion 24 (is part of table 18), Col. 4, Lines 51-59);
a pelvic harness (Fig. 4; lower body harness 50; Col. 5, Lines 17-24) configured and disposed to hold a pelvis of the patient (Fig. 4, lower body pelvic portion 52; Col. 5, Lines 17-24); and
a decompression head (Fig. 3; traction unit 64; Col. 5, Lines 31-32) configured and disposed to apply tension to the pelvic harness (Fig. 3; lower body harness 50; Col. 5, Lines 31-38), and thereby the spine of the patient (Fig. 6; spine 62; Col. 5, Lines 38-42), and decompress the patient's spine (Fig. 6; spine 62; Col. 5, Lines 38-46).
Shealy does not disclose a whole-body vibration system; the vibrational footplate being configured and disposed to vibrate and to provide whole body vibration to the patient upon the patient placing their feet thereon.
Talish discloses a therapeutic device for the spine with
a whole-body vibration system ((Figs. 20-21; vibration therapy system; Paragraph 0021, Lines 1-5);
the vibrational footplate (Figs. 20-21; vibrational therapy assembly 100 or 1100; Paragraph 0124, Lines 3-5) being configured and disposed to vibrate (Paragraph 0127, Lines 15-18) and to provide whole-body vibration to the patient (Paragraph 0127, Lines 15-18) upon the patient placing their feet thereon (Figs. 20-21; Paragraph 0047, Lines 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify therapeutic apparatus of Shealy with the vibrational therapy assembly of Talish to have vibrational treatment that can stimulate tissue and bone growth (Talish: Paragraph 0005, Lines 1-7).
The modified device of Shealy does not disclose wherein the system is configured to maintain the tensile force on the patient's spine during vibration of the vibrational footplate; and wherein the system is configured to increase an intensity or duration of the whole-body vibration by being configured for at least one of a) - e), wherein a) - e) are: a) increasing an angle of the table; b) increasing a tension on a tensioner link; c) moving the vibrational footplate toward the patient; d) increasing the vibrational frequency; and e) increasing the period of time.
Becerra discloses an analogous spinal treatment system
wherein the system is configured to maintain the tensile force on the patient's spine (provide tensile force to patient’s spine; see Paragraph 0017 and 0018) during vibration (Paragraph 0017, Lines 3-8 and Paragraph 0018, Lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify of the therapeutic apparatus and vibrational assembly of the modified device of Shealy with the ability of simultaneously providing both vibrations and tensile force to the spine as taught in the spinal treatment system of Becerra to treat lower back pain, stimulate tissue regeneration, and bone growth (Becerra: Paragraph 0005, Lines 1-11 and Paragraph 0017, Lines 3-8).
The modified device of Shealy further does not disclose wherein the system is configured to increase an intensity or duration of the whole-body vibration by being configured for at least one of a) - e), wherein a) - e) are: a) increasing an angle of the table; b) increasing a tension on a tensioner link; c) moving the vibrational footplate toward the patient; d) increasing the vibrational frequency; and e) increasing the period of time.
However, Johnson discloses a spinal correction device that provides vibrations to the spine
wherein the system is configured to increase an intensity or duration of the whole-body vibration (see paragraphs 0032 – 0036; computer can adjust treatment parameters to have a greater intensity based on patient’s need and looking from patient’s previous treatment data; increasing force amplitude of applied vibrations, frequency of applied vibrations, etc.) by being configured for at least one of a) - e), wherein a) - e) are:
a) increasing an angle of the table (see paragraphs 0032 – 0036; incline of table);
b) increasing a tension on a tensioner link;
c) moving the vibrational footplate toward the patient;
d) increasing the vibrational frequency (see paragraphs 0032 – 0036; frequency of the applied vibrations); and
e) increasing the period of time (see paragraphs 0032 – 0036; duration of treatment).
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 method of for providing vibration therapy of Talish with the computer method of Johnson to provide recommended treatment parameters based on patient data and previous treatment data (Johnson: paragraphs 0032-0036).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shealy (US 6152950) in view of Talish (US 200801139979) further in view of Becerra (US 20090299247), Johnson (US 20130184615), and Dyer (US 4995378).
Regarding claim 13, the modified system of Shealy discloses
the whole-body vibration and spinal decompression system (Shealy: therapeutic apparatus; Talish: vibration therapy system) of claim 12,
wherein the table (Shealy: Fig. 3; table 18; Col. 4, Lines 41-47) comprises a first portion (Shealy: Fig. 3; lower bed portion 26; Col. 4, Lines 41-47) and a second portion (Shealy: Fig. 3; upper bed portion 24; Col. 4, Lines 41-47),
the vibrational footplate (Shealy: Figs 3-4; platform 96; Col. 4, Lines 32-37; Talish: Figs. 20-21; vibrational therapy assembly 100 or 1100; Paragraph 0124, Lines 3-5) extends from the first portion (Shealy: Fig. 4; lower bed portion 26; Col. 6, Lines 32-34) and
the belt, upper body harness, or other device (Shealy: Fig. 3; upper body anchoring support 34; Col. 4, Lines 51-54) is configured and disposed to hold the torso of the patient (Shealy: Fig. 3, upper body 36, Col. 4, Lines 51-59) to the second portion of the table (Fig. 3; upper bed portion 24; Col. 4, Lines 51-59).
The modified device of Shealy does not disclose the system is configured to move the first and the second portion of the table apart and to induce a tensional force on the patient's spine.
Dyer discloses a therapeutic traction table where
the system (therapeutic table for providing traction; Abstract, Lines 1-3) is configured to move the first (Fig. 1; lower-body support section 18; Col. 2, Lines 24-27 and Col. 4, Lines 44-47) and the second portion (Fig. 1; upper body support section 10; Col. 2, Lines 24-27 and Lines 62-64) of the table apart (Fig. 1; table top; Col. 2, Lines 24-27 and Col. 4, Lines 44-47) and to induce a tensional force on the patient's spine (Col. 4, Lines 44-47).
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 bed portion and upper bed portion of Shealy to be able to be separated as taught in Dyer in order to provide traction to the patient’s lumbar region (Dyer: Col. 4, Lines 44-47).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shealy (US 6152950) in view of Talish (US 200801139979) further in view of Becerra (US 20090299247), Johnson (US 20130184615), and Murray (US 1936363).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Shealy discloses
the whole-body vibration and spinal decompression system (Shealy: therapeutic apparatus; Talish: vibration therapy system) of claim 12, further comprising
Sheal does not discloses a footplate adjusting mechanism configured and disposed for adjusting the vibrational footplate toward or away from the table, along a longitudinal axis of the table.
Murray discloses a combination adjusting-stretching table where
a footplate adjusting mechanism (Fig. 1; side plates 28 and adjusting screw 122; Page 3, Lines 42-51) configured and disposed for adjusting the vibrational footplate (Fig. 1; foot plate 118; Page 3, 34-39; foot plate is on the end of carriage) toward or away (Fig. 1; Page 3, Lines 42-50) from the table (Fig. 1; table 15; Page 1, Lines 77-78), along a longitudinal axis of the table (see modified Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
339
461
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 Shealy to be adjustable as taught in Murray to be able to move the foot plate closer or further from the table to stretch the patient’s body to any desired degree (Murray: Page 3, Lines 48-52) and provide stability to the patient.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talish (US 200801139979) in view of Shealy (US 6152950) and further in view of Becerra (US 20090299247).
Regarding claim 15, Talish discloses
A whole-body vibration system (Figs. 20-21; vibration therapy system; Paragraph 0021, Lines 1-5) comprising:
a table (Figs. 20-21; patient table 1010; Paragraph 0115, Lines 1-5) configured to hold a patient (Paragraph 0115, Lines 1-5);
a vibrational footplate (Paragraph 0124, Lines 3-5) extending from a foot of the table (Figs. 20-21; pallet 1022 (part of patient table 1010); Paragraph 0124, Lines 1-7) and outwardly from a plane of the table (Figs. 20-21; pallet 1022 (part of patient table 1010); Paragraph 0124, Lines 1-7) at an angle between about 90 degrees and about 170 degrees (see modified Fig. 20 below; around 90 degrees);
PNG
media_image4.png
423
736
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the vibrational footplate (Figs. 20-21; vibrational therapy assembly 100 or 1100; Paragraph 0124, Lines 3-5) being configured and disposed to vibrate (Paragraph 0127, Lines 15-18) and to provide whole body vibration to the patient (Paragraph 0127, Lines 15-18) upon the patient placing their feet thereon (Figs. 20-21; Paragraph 0047, Lines 5-7);
an actuator (Fig. 21; hydraulic cylinder 1020; Paragraph 0016, Lines 1-8) configured and disposed to adjust an inclination (Paragraph 0016, Lines 1-8) of the table (Fig. 21; upper base 1018 (which is part of pallet 1022/patient table 1010); Paragraph 0016, Lines 1-8).
Talish does not disclose a belt or other device configured and disposed to hold a torso of the patient on the table; a pelvic harness configured and disposed to hold a pelvis of the patient and induce a tensional force on the patient's spine; a decompression head configured and disposed to apply tension to the pelvic harness, and thereby the spine of the patient, and decompress the patient's spine; wherein the system is configured to maintain or increase a tensile force on the patient's spine during vibration of the vibrational footplate; and wherein the decompression head is configured and disposed to increase the tension to the pevelic harness and thereby increase an intensity of the whole-body vibration.
However, Shealy discloses a therapeutic apparatus with
a belt or other device (Fig. 3; upper body anchoring support 34, Col. 4, Lines 51-59) configured and disposed to hold a torso of the patient (Fig. 3, upper body 36, Col. 4, Lines 51-59) on the table (Fig. 3; upper bed portion 24 (is part of table 18), Col. 4, Lines 51-59);
a pelvic harness (Fig. 4; lower body harness 50; Col. 5, Lines 17-24) configured and disposed to hold a pelvis of the patient (Fig. 4, lower body pelvic portion 52; Col. 5, Lines 17-24) and induce a tensional force (Fig. 3; Col. 5, Lines 31-38) on the patient's spine (Fig. 6; spine 62; Col. 5, Lines 38-46)
a decompression head (Fig. 3; traction unit 64; Col. 5, Lines 31-32) configured and disposed to apply tension to the pelvic harness (Fig. 3; lower body harness 50; Col. 5, Lines 31-38), and thereby the spine of the patient (Fig. 6; spine 62; Col. 5, Lines 38-42), and decompress the patient's spine (Fig. 6; spine 62; Col. 5, Lines 38-46);
wherein the decompression head is configured and disposed to increase the tension to the pevelic harness (Figs. 1-3; a programmable computer 84 is operable with the tension unit 64 for controlling the angle 76 and pulling force 70.Col. 5, Lines 63-67 and Col. 6, Lines 1-22).
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 vibration therapy system of Talish with the anchoring support, pelvic harness, traction unit and programmable computer of Shealy to provide a secure anchor that isolates the pulling force to the spine in order to treat low back pain (Shealy: Col. 1, Lines 5-7 and Col. 5, Lines 32-46; Col. 2, Lines 27-30 and Col. 4, Lines 62-64)
It directly follows that the resultant modified system of Talish would have created an increase in the intensity of the whole-body vibration by providing an additional force to the spine.
The modified device of Talish does not disclose wherein the system is configured to maintain or increase a tensile force on the patient's spine during vibration of the vibrational footplate
However, Becerra discloses an analogous spinal treatment system
wherein the system is configured to maintain or increase a tensile force (provide tensile force to patient’s spine; see Paragraph 0017 and 0018) on the patient's spine during vibration (Paragraph 0017, Lines 3-8 and Paragraph 0018, Lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify of the vibrational assembly of the modified device of Talish with the ability of simultaneously providing both vibrations and tensile force to the spine as taught in the spinal treatment system of Becerra to treat lower back pain, stimulate tissue regeneration, and bone growth (Becerra: Paragraph 0005, Lines 1-11 and Paragraph 0017, Lines 3-8).
Regarding claim 16, the modified system of Talish discloses
the whole-body vibration system (vibration therapy system) of claim 15,
Talish does not disclose further comprising a knee support configured and disposed to raise the patient's knees from the table by an amount sufficient to provide substantially a 90 degree angle between the patient's lower legs and the vibrational footplate.
However, Shealy further discloses a therapeutic apparatus with
a knee support (Fig. 3; knee support 104; Col. 6, Lines 62-65) configured and disposed to raise the patient's knees (Fig. 3; knees are bent/raised) from the table (Fig. 3; bed 20 (part of table 18); Col. 6, Lines 62-65) by an amount sufficient to provide substantially a 90 degree angle between the patient's lower legs (see modified Fig. 3 below) and the vibrational footplate (Fig. 3; platform 96, Col. 6, Lines 32-34).
PNG
media_image2.png
515
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 vibration therapy system of Talish with the knee support of Shealy to provide comfort for the person while in the reclined supine position (Shealy: Col. 6, Lines 62-65).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talish (US 200801139979) in view of Shealy (US 6152950) and further in view of Becerra (US 20090299247) and Dyer (US 4995378).
Regarding claim 19, the modified system of Talish discloses
the whole-body vibration system (vibration therapy system) of claim 15,
The modified device of Talish does not disclose wherein the table comprises a first portion and a second portion and the system is configured to move the first and the second portion of the table apart and to induce a tensional force on the patient's spine.
Dyer discloses a therapeutic traction table where
wherein the table (Fig. 1; table top; Col. 2, Lines 24-27 and Col. 4, Lines 44-47) comprises a first portion (Fig. 1; lower-body support section 18; Col. 2, Lines 24-27 and Col. 4, Lines 44-47) and a second portion (Fig. 1; upper body support section 10; Col. 2, Lines 24-27 and Lines 62-64) and
the system (therapeutic table for providing traction; Abstract, Lines 1-3) is configured to move the first (Fig. 1; lower-body support section 18; Col. 2, Lines 24-27 and Col. 4, Lines 44-47) and the second portion (Fig. 1; upper body support section 10; Col. 2, Lines 24-27 and Lines 62-64) of the table apart (Fig. 1; table top; Col. 2, Lines 24-27 and Col. 4, Lines 44-47) and to induce a tensional force on the patient's spine (Col. 4, Lines 44-47).
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 patient table of Talish to have two support sections that are able to be separated as taught in Dyer in order to provide traction to the patient’s lumbar region (Dyer: Col. 4, Lines 44-47).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 9th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12 of the remarks, with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Talish, Shealy, and Becerra (see rejection above).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14 of the remarks, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the two embodiments of Talish, Shealy, and Johnson. While it is acknowledged that Talish is silent to returning the table to inclined and removing the patient from the footplate, Talish is able to move from a horizontal to an inclined or vertical orientation which would allow the patient to be removed from the vibrational assembly. Applicant further states that Talish and Johnson at least fail to teach inducing a tensional force on the patient’s spine, thereby providing spinal decompression as we; as increasing the intensity or duration of whole-body vibration. However, Shealy teaches inducing spinal tension force for spinal decompression and Johnson discloses adjusting force, frequency, and duration of frequency. Therefore, the arguments regarding claim 1 are unpersuasive.
On page 14 of the remarks, Applicant argues Lundblad and Hur fails to cure the deficiencies of Talish and Johnson. However, this argument is moot as the rejection above does not rely on either reference.
On page 15-16 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Liu fails to teach spinal decompression and doesn’t teach the limitation of claim 5 as claimed. This is argument is rendered moot as claim 5 no longer relies on Liu.
On page 16 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Shealy fails to cure the deficiencies of claim 1 as currently amended and the Shealy fails to disclose whole-body vibrations. This argument is unpersuasive in view of new rejections for claim 1. While it is acknowledged that Shealy does not disclose whole-body vibrations, Talish is a table that provides vibrations and Shealy is a similar table that provides spinal decompression. In combination, Talish and Shealy combined discloses the limitations of claims 6, 7, 9, and 11 (see rejections above).
On page 17 of the remarks, Applicant states that claim 8 is cancelled and further argues that Becerra does not cure the deficiencies of newly amended claim 1. This argument is rendered moot in view of new rejection for claim 1 (see rejection above).
On pages 17-18 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Murray fails to cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and for the reasons above of at least claim 1 being allowable, the rejection for claim 10 should be withdrawn. . This argument is rendered moot in view of new rejection for claim 1 (see rejection above).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 18 of the remarks with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Shealy, Talish, Becerra, and Johnson (see rejection above).
On page 19 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Dyer fails to cure the above deficiencies of Shealy and Talish, such as failing to teach whole-body vibration therefore the rejection for claim 13 should be withdrawn. However, a new rejection has been made regarding the newly amended limitations regarding claim 12. Additionally, while it is acknowledged that Dyer does not disclose whole-body vibrations, Talish discloses a table/vibrational assembly that has such vibrations. Dyer discloses a similar therapeutic table that moves the first and second portion for therapeutic purposes. Therefore, in combination, the added reference of Dyer with Talish, Shealy, Becerra, and Johnson teach the limitation of claim 13. Therefore, the arguments regarding claim 13 are unpersuasive.
On page 19 of the remarks, Applicant further argues that Murray fails to cure the above deficiencies of Shealy and Talish of Claim 12, such as failing to teach whole-body vibration therefore the rejection for claim 14 should be withdrawn. However, a new rejection has been made regarding the newly amended limitations regarding claim 12. Additionally, as noted above Talish discloses the vibration. Murray in combination is able to disclose the limitations of claim 14. Therefore, the arguments regarding claim 14 are unpersuasive.
On page 20 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Shealy and Talish does not disclose the newly amended limitations of claim 15. Therefore, the rejection for claim 16, which depends from claim 15, should be withdrawn. This argument is rendered moot in view of new rejection for claim 15 (see rejection above).
On pages 20-21 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Dyer fails to cure the above deficiencies of the combination of Shealy and Talish as shown above with respect to Claim 15 such as not teaching whole-body vibration. For at least these reasons, applicant believes that the rejection of claim 19 should be withdrawn. However, a new rejection has been made regarding the newly amended limitations regarding claim 15. Additionally, while it is acknowledged that Dyer does not disclose whole-body vibrations, Talish discloses a table/vibrational assembly that has such vibrations. Dyer discloses a similar therapeutic table that moves the first and second portion for therapeutic purposes. Therefore, in combination, the added reference of Dyer with Talish, Shealy, and Becerra teach the limitation of claim 15. Therefore, the arguments regarding claim 19 are unpersuasive.
On page 21 of the remarks, Applicant notes that claim 20 is cancelled, making the rejection moot and therefore the rejection should be withdrawn. Due to cancellation of claim 20, the rejection is withdrawn.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zafer (WO 2010120165) – An apparatus and method for treatment of the back (spinal discs) with a moveable foot platform, a tiltable table (horizontal or vertical tilt and any position in between), computer program for calculating settings (time, pulling angle/force, etc.), and an upper and lower bed/table portion that can move independently from each other)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY REYES RUSSELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am -5pm.
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 Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/S.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785