DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 03/19/2026. Claims 1-20 are acknowledged as pending with claims 1, 11, and 14 being currently amended.
The drawing objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 102(a)(1), and 103 are withdrawn as having been overcome by the amendment. The objection directed to claim 14 is maintained. New rejections necessitated by the amendment are presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 9, para. 4 that the reference (Jayne (US 2021/0001078)) does not teach a singular base pad but instead teaches two distinct assemblies, the argument is found persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 10, para. 2 that Jayne's frame 22 cannot satisfy two mutually exclusive structures, specifically, a platform and a plurality of side supports coupled to the platform. After further consideration, the argument is found persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 14, para. 1 that the combination of references used to reject claims 16-17 would create a structurally incompatible design. After further consideration, the argument is found persuasive.
Applicant's arguments, filed 03/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly found prior art references.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, line 3, “platform.;” should read “platform;”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Long et al. (US 7,784,123).
Regarding claim 1, Long et al. teaches a nesting apparatus (Abstract) for supporting a user in a reclining position (Fig. 6, wherein the bed 200 is in a reclined position), the nesting apparatus comprising:
a platform (Fig. 6, frame 235; Col. 4, lines 26-29),
a first side support (Fig. 6, right side upper side rail 215), a second side support (Fig. 6, left side upper side rail 205), and a headrest (Fig. 6, head board 225) coupled to the platform (Col. 4, lines 26-29);
a base pad disposed on the platform between the first and second side supports and the headrest (Col. 2, lines 57-59; Col. 4, lines 24-28, wherein a mattress 237 is being construed as a base pad), the base pad configured to support a back and torso of the user in the reclining position (Fig. 6, wherein the mattress disposed on the frame 235 is in a reclined position; Col. 2, lines 40-45);
first and second side pads (Col. 3, lines 62-67, wherein upper pad 164 is the first side pad and upper pad 124 is the second side pad; Fig. 4) respectively coupled to an inside surface of the first and second side supports (Col. 2, lines 57-58),
a headrest pad (Col. 3, lines 54-57; Fig. 1, head-end assembly 115; Fig. 2, pad 114) coupled to an inside surface of the headrest (Col. 2, lines 57-59; Col. 4, lines 54-56);
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 (Col. 3, lines 54-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-15 ; Fig. 1, wherein the pad system is made from antimicrobial foam, foam is naturally compressible).
Regarding claim 9, Long et al. teaches the nesting apparatus according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the platform is supported by two or more legs (see Annotated Figure 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., in view of Lovechio (US 2014/0259425).
Regarding claim 2, Long et al. teaches the nesting apparatus according to claim 1 as stated above. Long et al. fails to teach a leg support disposed at the end of the base pad opposite the headrest, the leg support configured to support a user behind the user’s knees.
In the same field of endeavor, Lovechio teaches a leg support (Abstract; Figs. 1-7; paras. 0077-0080) disposed at the end of the base pad opposite the headrest (Fig. 7, the pillow is disposed on a mattress opposite to the user’s head), the leg support configured to support a user behind the user’s knees (Fig. 6; paras. 0063 and 0070).
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 Long et al. with the leg support configured to support a user behind a user’s knees of Lovechio. Doing so would provide the nesting apparatus with a leg support configured to elevate the user’s heels and knees, thereby preventing hyperextension of the knees, minimizing knee contracture, and offering the legs sufficient support in a flat position (Lovechio, para. 0008).
Regarding claim 19, Long et al. teaches a therapeutic device for sensory based interventions (Abstract; Col. 4, lines 45-56, wherein the pad system 100 provide a tactile sensation for the user), the device comprising:
a platform (Fig. 6, frame 235; Col. 4, lines 26-29),
a first padded side support, a second padded side support (Col. 3, lines 62-67, wherein upper pad 164 is the first side pad and upper pad 124 is the second side pad; Fig. 4), and a padded headrest (Col. 3, lines 54-57; Fig. 1, head-end assembly 115; Fig. 2, pad 114) slidably coupled to the platform (Col. 5, lines 28-30; Col. 4, lines 24-29, where the pad system 100 is configured to slidably fit between the mattress 237, disposed on the frame 235, and the side rails 205 and 215);
a base pad disposed on the platform between the first and second padded side supports and the headrest (Col. 2, lines 57-59; Col. 4, lines 24-28, wherein a mattress 237 is being construed as a base pad);
a headrest pad disposed at a first end of the base pad (Col. 2, lines 57-59; Col. 3, lines 54-57; Fig. 1, head-end assembly 115; Fig. 2, pad 114; Col. 4, lines 54-56).
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 (Col. 3, lines 54-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-15 ; Fig. 1, wherein the pad system is made from antimicrobial foam, foam is naturally compressible).
Long et al. fails to teach a leg support disposed at a second end of the base pad.
In the same field of endeavor, Lovechio teaches a leg support (Abstract; Figs. 1-7; paras. 0077-0080) disposed at the second end of the base pad (Fig. 7, the pillow is disposed on a mattress opposite to the user’s head; Fig. 6; paras. 0063 and 0070).
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 therapeutic device for sensory based interventions of Long et al. with the leg support of Lovechio. Doing so would provide the therapeutic device with a leg support configured to elevate the user’s heels and knees, thereby preventing hyperextension of the knees, minimizing knee contracture, and offering the legs sufficient support in a flat position (Lovechio, para. 0008).
Claim(s) 3-5 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., in view of Smith, Sr. (US 2021/0337991).
Regarding claim 3, Long et al. teaches the nesting apparatus according to claim 1 as stated above. Long et al. fails to teach a pillow disposed on the base pad at the headrest.
In the same field of endeavor, Smith, Sr. 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 Long et al. with the pillow of Smith, Sr. Including a pillow on the headrest would reasonably alleviate discomfort arising from neck and upper back strain; further, by limiting the lateral movement of the user’s head, proper spine alignment may be maintained (Smith, Sr., paras. 0003, 0011, and 0016).
Regarding claim 4, Long et al., in view of Smith, Sr., 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, Sr., paras. 0006, 0017, and 0029; Figure 3; claim 13).
Regarding claim 5, Long et al., in view of Smith, Sr., teaches the nesting apparatus according to claim 3 as stated above wherein the pillow includes a memory foam (Smith, Sr., para. 0007; Figure 4, memory foam 456; claim 5).
Regarding claim 14, Long et al. teaches a method of sensory intervention (Abstract; wherein the padded system, comprising a foam material, may provide a tactile sensation; Col. 4, lines 14-22; Col. 1, lines 39-41) the method 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 (Fig. 6; frame 235 supports the mattress 237; Col. 2, lines 18-20 and lines 33-38; Col. 4, lines 37-56, where the mattress provides support to the user’s body);
applying a second compressible pressure on a second portion of a user's body by first side pad (Col. 2, lines 23-27; Col. 3, lines 62-67; Col. 4, lines 51-56, wherein the upper pad 164 may provide a cushioning effect to a patient’s body);
applying a third compressible pressure on a third portion of a user's body by second side pad (Col. 2, lines 23-27; Col. 3, lines 62-67; Col. 4, lines 51-56, wherein upper pad 124 may provide a cushioning effect to a patient’s body);
wherein the first, second, and third compressible pressures reduce sensory input on the user's body (Col. 1, lines 26-35; Col. 2, lines 18-59, wherein the pad system 100 is configured to surround a patient within a foam enclosure).
Long et al. 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, Sr. teaches applying a fourth compressible pressure on a head and neck of a user's body by pillow (paras. 0006-0007, 0015, 0017, and 0029; Figs. 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 combined the method of sensory intervention of Long et al. with the fourth applied compressible pressure on a head and neck of a user’s body by a pillow of Smith, Sr. Including a pillow on the headrest would reasonably alleviate discomfort arising from neck and upper back strain; further, by limiting the lateral movement of the user’s head, proper spine alignment may be maintained (Smith, Sr., paras. 0003, 0011, and 0016).
Regarding claim 15, Long et al., in view of Smith, Sr., teaches the method according to claim 14 as stated above wherein the reduction of sensory input by the first, second, third (Long et al., Col. 1, lines 26-35; Col. 2, lines 18-59, wherein the pad system 100 is configured to surround a patient within a foam enclosure), and forth compressible pressures (Smith, Sr., paras. 0006-0007, 0015, 0017, and 0029; Figures 3-4; memory foam 456) alter neural response in the user.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., in view of Krim et al. (US 2015/0296995).
Regarding claim 6, Long et al. teaches the nesting apparatus according to claim 1 as stated above. Long et al. fails to specifically disclose wherein the base pad includes a memory foam.
In the same field of endeavor, Krim et al. teaches wherein the base pad includes a memory foam (paras. 0030 and 0034).
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 Long et al. with the memory foam base pad of Krim et al. Doing so provides a patient with a body contouring, pressure relief surface (Krim et al., para. 0007). Such a modification involves the mere selection of a known material based on its suitability for an intended use, and therefore fails to distinguish the invention over the prior art (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., in view of Heavrin (US 6,347,422).
Regarding claim 7, Long et al. teaches the nesting apparatus according to claim 1 as stated above. Long et al. further teaches wherein the first and second side pads include a foam material (claim 8; Col. 2, lines 7-16); however, Long et al. fails to specifically disclose wherein the first and second side pads include a memory foam.
In the same field of endeavor, Heavrin teaches wherein the first and second side pads include a memory foam (Col. 2, lines 63-67 and Col. 3, lines 1-53, wherein the foam comprises polyurethane and various additives analogous to the composition of memory foam).
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 Long et al. with the memory foam side pads of Heavrin. Modifying the side pads with memory foam allows them to stay in continuous compression with the base pad, delivering a soft, comfortable sensation to the user’s sides (Heavrin, Abstract; Col. 1, lines 14-20; Fig. 3). Such a modification involves the mere selection of a known material based on its suitability for an intended use, and therefore fails to distinguish the invention over the prior art (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., in view of Iida et al. (US 2014/0310875).
Regarding claim 8, Long et al. teaches the nesting apparatus according to claim 1 as stated above. Long et al. fails to teach wherein the platform defines one or more slots at an end opposite the headrest.
Iida et al. teaches an analogous treatment apparatus wherein the platform defines one or more slots at an end opposite the headrest (Fig. 6C, frame for the leg part 33c; para. 0140).
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 Long et al. with the slots disposed within the platform of Iida et al. Doing so provides a latticed frame segment designed to support the weight of a patient and assist them as they enter and exit the apparatus (Iida et al., para. 0141).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., in view of Benzo et al. (US 7,761,942).
Regarding claim 10, Long et al. teaches the nesting apparatus according to claim 1 as stated above. Long et al. fails to teach wherein the platform defines a hole in a central portion of the platform.
Benzo et al. teaches an analogous therapeutic device wherein the platform defines a hole in a central portion of the platform (see Annotated Figure 3).
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 Long et al. with the hole in a central portion of the platform of Benzo et al. Structurally, the addition of a hole in the middle of the platform, creates an articulatable, multi-sectioned platform that may accommodate a particular body part, i.e., hips, necessitating additional support (Benzo et al., Abstract; Col. 7, lines 27-37).
PNG
media_image2.png
371
499
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding claim 11, Long et al. teaches the nesting apparatus according to claim 10 as stated above. Long et al. 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; Fig. 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 Long et al. 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).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., in view of Collier (WO 2012/009739).
Regarding claim 12, Long et al. teaches the nesting apparatus according to claim 1 as stated above. Long et al. fails to teach a weighted cover, the weighted cover applying a second compressible pressure on a second portion of a user’s body.
In the same field of endeavor, Collier teaches a weighted cover (Fig. 1, weighted blanket 10), the weighted cover applying a second compressible pressure on a second portion of a user’s body (page 6, lines 16-25).
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 Long et al. with the weighted blanket of Collier. The pressure provided by the weighted blanket may promote a feeling of security and calmness in patients experiencing heightened levels of anxiety, stress, and/or agitation (Collier, page 1, lines 6-15).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., in view of Hunsinger et al. (US 5,044,025).
Regarding claim 13, Long et al. teaches the nesting apparatus according to claim 1 as stated above. Long et al. fails to teach 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.
Hunsinger et al. teaches an analogous treatment apparatus 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 (see Annotated Figure 4; Col. 3, lines 19-25), the first and second pockets each configured to receive a portion of the user's arms (as depicted in Figure 1, an elongated sheet of material 42 is detachably coupled to the safety device 10, a person laying in a supine position with their head orientated proximal to the safety device 10 could realistically insert their arms between the elongated sheet of material 42 and the safety device 10).
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 Long et al. with the pocket configured to receive a portion of the user’s arms of Hunsinger et al. A pocket disposed adjacent to the side pads may provide additional skin contacting padding for the patient laying with the apparatus, thereby protecting the patient from injurious contact with the side rails (Hunsinger et al., Abstract; Col. 3, lines 18-25).
PNG
media_image3.png
362
425
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., in view of Smith, Sr. as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Lovechio.
Regarding claim 16, Long et al., in view of Smith, Sr., teaches the method according to claim 14 as stated above. Long et al., in view of Smith, Sr., fails to teach applying a fifth compressible pressure under the user’s legs.
In the same field of endeavor, Lovechio teaches applying a fifth compressible pressure under the user’s legs (Abstract; Figs. 1-7; paras. 0008, 0036, and 0077-0080, wherein the memory foam pillow provides a compressible surface for the user’s legs).
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 method of sensory intervention of Long et al., in view of Smith, Sr., with the fifth compressible pressure under the user’s legs of Lovechio. Doing so would provide the method with a fifth compressible pressure in the form of a pillow configured to elevate the user’s heels and knees, thereby preventing hyperextension of the knees, minimizing knee contracture, and offering the legs sufficient support in a flat position (Lovechio, para. 0008).
Regarding claim 17, Long et al., in view of Smith, Sr., further in view of Lovechio teaches the method according to claim 16 as stated above wherein the fifth compressible pressure is applied under the user’s knees with a leg support (Lovechio, para. 0070; Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., in view of Smith, Sr. as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Collier.
Regarding claim 18, Long et al., in view of Smith, Sr., teaches the method according to claim 14 as stated above. Long et al., in view of Smith, Sr., fails to teach applying a weighted cover over the user’s body, the weighted cover applying a covering compressible pressure.
In the same field of endeavor, Collier teaches applying a weighted cover over the user’s body (page 2, lines 21-23), the weighted cover applying a covering compressible pressure (page 6, lines 16-25).
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 method Long et al., in view of Smith, Sr., with the weighted blanket of Collier. The pressure provided by the weighted blanket may promote a feeling of security and calmness in patients experiencing heightened levels of anxiety, stress, and/or agitation (Collier, page 1, lines 6-15).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., in view of Lovechio as applied to claim 19, and further in view of Collier.
Regarding claim 20, Long et al., in view of Lovechio, teaches the therapeutic device according to claim 19 as stated above. Long et al., in view of Lovechio, fails to teach a weighted cover, the weighted cover configured to apply a second compressible pressure on a second portion of the user’s body.
In the same field of endeavor, Collier teaches a weighted cover (Fig. 1, weighted blanket 10), the weighted cover configured to apply a second compressible pressure on a second portion of a user’s body (page 6, lines 16-25).
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 therapeutic device of Long et al. with the weighted blanket of Collier. The pressure provided by the weighted blanket may promote a feeling of security and calmness in patients experiencing heightened levels of anxiety, stress, and/or agitation (Collier, page 1, lines 6-15).
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 8:30am - 6:00pm.
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
Prosecution Insights