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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: netting 254, paragraph 0033. Specifically, in Figures 3A and 3B, a netting like material is pictured; however, the reference sign is labeled incorrectly.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “260” which appears to be the user in Figure 2D.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, line 3, “platform.;” should read “platform;”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the hole" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes claim 11 will be read as if dependent on claim 10, which recites a hole.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jayne (US 2021/0001078).
Regarding claim 1, Jayne teaches a nesting apparatus (Figure1, sensory chair 10) for supporting a user, the nesting apparatus comprising:
a platform (Figure 4, frame 22 includes a back frame 24, a seat frame 26, a pair of armrest frames 28, and a base frame 30; paragraphs 0025-0026),
a first side support, a second side support, (paragraph 0026; Figure 6, a pair of armrest frames 28) and a headrest (paragraph 0027; Figure 5, headrest portion 57) coupled to the platform;
a base pad (seat frame 26 combined with the back frame 24, covered with a seat cushion 70 and back cushion 60) disposed on the platform between the first and second side supports and the headrest (paragraphs 0028 and 0030; Figures 2 and 7);
first and second side pads (cushion cover 80) respectively coupled to an inside surface of the first and second side supports (armrest frames 28; Figures 1-2; paragraph 0031),
a headrest pad (headrest cushion 68) coupled to an inside surface of the headrest (headrest portion 57, Figures 1-3; paragraph 0029);
wherein the headrest pad, first and second side pads and base pad are configured to apply a compressible pressure on a portion of the user's body (paragraph 0023 and 0028 where the cushioning material that covers each segment of the frame provides the user with a degree of compression).
Regarding claim 6, Jayne teaches wherein the base pad includes a memory foam (paragraph 0032 where the back cushion 60 and seat cushion 70 are made of memory foam).
Regarding claim 7, Jayne teaches wherein the first and second side pads include a memory foam (paragraph 0031, Figures 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 8, Jayne teaches wherein the platform defines one or more slots at an end opposite the headrest (Figure 2 where multiple holes are integrated into the ground-engaging base 12; furthermore, 12 is opposite the headrest portion 57).
Regarding claim 9, Jayne teaches wherein the platform is supported by two or more legs (Figure 6; paragraph 0026, four legs 31 connected to the seat frame 26).
Regarding claim 10, Jayne teaches wherein the platform defines a hole (paragraph 0026, slot 44) in a central portion of the platform (Figure 4, frame 22 includes a back frame 24, a seat frame 26, a pair of armrest frames 28, and a base frame 30).
Regarding claim 12, Jayne teaches a weighted cover where the weighted cover applies a second compressible pressure on a second portion of the user’s body (paragraphs 0033 and 0040; Figures 2-3, weight 20).
Regarding claim 13, Jayne teaches wherein the first and second side pads are configured to form a first and second pocket near the coupling of the first and second side supports respectively, the first and second pockets each configured to receive a portion of the user's arms (see Modified Figure 1 where the pocket may accommodate a user’s arm(s) in a seated position).
PNG
media_image1.png
535
487
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayne, further in view of Bender (US 2011/0054242).
Regarding claim 2, Jayne teaches the nesting apparatus according to claim 1 as stated above. Jayne fails to teach a leg support disposed at an end of the base pad opposite the headrest, the leg support configured to support a user behind the user's knees. Bender teaches an analogous therapeutic device comprising a leg support disposed at an end of the base pad opposite the headrest, the leg support configured to support a user behind the user's knees (Figure 1, leg rest portion 170).
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 combined the nesting apparatus of Jayne with the leg support disposed opposite to the headrest of Bender. Doing so would create a unitary device that is ergonomically predesigned for human use; furthermore, with the added leg rest portion the seating device may be configured differently, such as, to replicate a bed rather than a chair – supplementing full-body support (Bender, paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 19, Jayne teaches a therapeutic device (Figure 1, sensory chair 10) for sensory based interventions, the device comprising:
a platform (Figure 4, frame 22 includes a back frame 24, a seat frame 26, a pair of armrest frames 28, and a base frame 30; paragraphs 0025-0026),
a first side support, a second side support, (paragraph 0026; Figure 6, a pair of armrest frames 28) and a headrest (paragraph 0027; Figure 5, headrest portion 57) coupled to the platform;
a base pad (seat frame 26 combined with the back frame 24, covered with a seat cushion 70 and back cushion 60) disposed on the platform between the first and second side supports and the headrest (paragraphs 0028 and 0030; Figures 2 and 7);
a headrest pad (headrest cushion 68) coupled to an inside surface of the headrest (headrest portion 57, Figures 1-3; paragraph 0029);
wherein the headrest pad, first and second padded side supports, the base pad, and leg support are configured to apply a compressible pressure on a portion of the user's body, thereby altering neural responses in the user (paragraphs 0032, and 0038-0039).
Jayne fails to teach a leg support disposed at a second end of the base pad. Bender teaches an analogous therapeutic device comprising a leg support disposed at a second end of the base pad (as shown in Figure 1 the leg rest portion 170 is coupled to the seating device 100).
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 combined the nesting apparatus of Jayne with a leg support disposed at a second end of the base pad of Bender. Doing so would create a unitary device that is ergonomically predesigned for human use; furthermore, with the added leg rest portion the seating device may be configured differently, such as, to replicate a bed rather than a chair – supplementing full-body support (Bender, paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 20, Jayne in view of Bender teaches the therapeutic device according to claim 19 as stated above further comprising a weighted cover, the weighted cover configured to apply a second compressible pressure on a second portion of the user’s body (Jayne, paragraphs 0033 and 0040; Figures 2-3, weight 20).
Claim(s) 3-5, 14-15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayne, further in view of Smith, Sr. (US 2021/0337991).
Regarding claim 3, Jayne teaches the nesting apparatus according to claim 1 as stated above. Jayne further teaches the base pad (seat frame 26 combined with the back frame 24, covered with a seat cushion 70 and back cushion 60 coupled to the headrest cushion 68) at the headrest (headrest portion 57). Jayne fails to teach a pillow. In the same field of endeavor, Smith teaches a pillow (Abstract, Figure 1, therapeutic pillow assembly 100).
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 combined the nesting apparatus of Jayne with the pillow of Smith. Including a pillow on the headrest would reasonably alleviate neck and upper back strain and discomfort; further, limiting the lateral movement of the user’s head and promoting proper spine alignment (Smith, paragraph 0003, 0011, and 0016).
Regarding claim 4, Jayne in view of Smith teaches the nesting apparatus according to claim 3 as stated above wherein a pillow is contoured to match a user’s head and neck (Smith paragraphs 0006, 0017, and 0029; Figure 3; claim 13).
Regarding claim 5, Jayne in view of Smith teaches the nesting apparatus according to claim 3 as stated above wherein the pillow includes a memory foam (Smith Paragraph 0007; Figure 4, memory foam 456; claim 5).
Regarding claim 14, Jayne teaches a method of sensory intervention, the method (paragraph 0038) comprising:
applying a first compressible pressure on a first portion of a user's body by a base pad, the base pad supported by a platform (Figures 2 and 7; paragraph 0028, 0030, and 0038)
applying a second compressible pressure on a second portion of a user's body by first side pad (paragraph 0038 where the thigh guides 80 may provide the user 100 with compression at the user’s thighs 107);
applying a third compressible pressure on a third portion of a user's body by second side pad (paragraph 0038 where the thigh guides 80 may provide the user 100 with compression at the user’s thighs 107);
wherein the first, second, third, and forth compressible pressures reduce sensory input on the user's body (paragraphs 0032 and 0038 where the compression cushioning may replicate a hug).
Jayne fails to teach applying a fourth compressible pressure on a head and neck of a user's body by pillow. In the same field of endeavor, Smith teaches applying a fourth compressible pressure on a head and neck of a user's body by pillow (paragraphs 0006-0007, 0015, 0017, and 0029; Figures 3-4; memory foam 456).
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 the nesting apparatus of Jayne with the fourth applied compressible pressure on a head and neck of a user’s body by a pillow of Smith. Including a pillow comprised of memory foam would reasonably alleviate neck and upper back strain and discomfort; further, limiting the lateral movement of the user’s head and providing compressible, contoured support (Smith, paragraph 0003, 0011, and 0015-0016, 0029).
Regarding claim 15, Jayne in view of Smith teaches the method according to claim 14 as stated above wherein the reduction of sensory input by the first, second, third, and forth compressible pressures alter neural response in the user (Jayne, paragraphs 0032, and 0038-0039).
Regarding claim 18, Jayne in view of Smith teaches the method according to claim 14 as stated above further comprising applying a weighted cover over the user’s body, the weighted cover applying a covering compressible pressure (Jayne, paragraphs 0033 and 0040; Figures 2-3, weight 20).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayne in view of Smith, Sr. as applied to claim 14 above, and in further view of Bender.
Regarding claim 16, Jayne in view of Smith teaches the nesting apparatus according to claim 14 as stated above. Jayne in view of Smith fails to teach applying a fifth compressible pressure under the user's legs. Bender teaches an analogous therapeutic device wherein a fifth compressible pressure is applied under the user’s legs (Figure 1; paragraph 0045).
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 the nesting apparatus of Jayne in view of Smith with the fifth applied compressible pressure under the user’s legs of Bender. Doing so would create a unitary device that is ergonomically predesigned for human use; furthermore, with the added leg rest portion, that is integrated with a foam material, a compressible effect to the leg portion could be produced (Bender, paragraphs 0041-0042).
Regarding claim 17, Jayne in view of Smith teaches the nesting apparatus according to claim 16 as stated above. Jayne in view of Smith fails to teach wherein the fifth compressible pressure is applied under the user's knees with a leg support. Bender teaches an analogous therapeutic device wherein a fifth compressible pressure is applied under the user’s knees with a leg support (Figure 1; paragraph 0045).
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 the nesting apparatus of Jayne in view of Smith with the fifth applied compressible pressure under the user’s knees with a leg support of Bender. Doing so would create a unitary device that is ergonomically predesigned for human use; furthermore, with the added leg rest portion, that is integrated with a foam material, a compressible effect to the leg portion could be produced (Bender, paragraphs 0041-0042).
Claim(s) 11, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayne, further in view of Benzo et al. (US 7,761, 942).
Regarding claim 11, Jayne teaches the nesting apparatus according to claim 9 as stated above. Jayne fails to teach a netting disposed over the hole in the platform, the netting providing a limited yield under a weight of the user. Benzo et al. teaches an analogous therapeutic device further comprising a netting disposed over the hole in the platform, the netting providing a limited yield under a weight of the user (Col. 9, lines 19-23 and 26-28; see Modified Figure 3, plurality of straps, bands or belts 37).
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 the nesting apparatus of Jayne with the netting, disposed over the hole in the platform, of Benzo et al. Because the netting part is preferably elastic, the flexible structure may substantially reduce pressure on the targeted areas of the resting patient, i.e., the patient’s hips (Benzo et al., Col. 9, lines 19-20; Col. 15, lines 49-50; Modified Figure 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
371
499
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROGAN R LANDEEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/B.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791