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 the Application
Claims 1-4 and 6 have been examined in this application. Claim 5 has been canceled.. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Amendments/Remarks” filed 07/12/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3, 4 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to Claim 3, 4 and 6 are objected to for stating ‘large’ but due to the amendments filed on 07/12/2025, the claim(s) should state ‘first’.
In regards to Claim 4 and 6 are objected to for stating ‘small’ but due to the amendments filed on 07/12/2025, the claim(s) should state ‘second’.
In regards to Claim 6, there are two objections:
Claim 6 is dependent upon a canceled claim. Therefore, Claim 6 should be dependent upon Claim 1.
Claim 6 also includes improper antecedent basis for the following limitation: ‘the movable ridge’ how primary antecedent basis should be incorporated ‘a [[the]] movable ridge’
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) 1-3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SidsTips YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdkc7Z4i7dw)
In regards to Claim 1, SidsTips YouTube teaches: A back relief device (PT Lumbar Device: 0:37-1:00 and 1:50-1:58), comprising: a mat base (see annotated Fig. 1 from SidsTips YouTube) to receive at least a portion of a body (see annotated Fig. 1 from SidsTips YouTube)of a user thereon (see annotated Fig. 1 from SidsTips YouTube); a plurality of first pressure ridges (see annotated Fig. 2 from SidsTips YouTube) disposed on the mat base to at least partially protrude away from the mat base with respect to a direction and positioned based on at least one first pressure point of the user (see annotated Fig. 2 from SidsTips YouTube, laterally spaced from spine and spinal region towards the outer sections of the body (i.e. regions of back muscles - Fig. 2)), wherein each of the first pressure ridges spans across over fifty percent of the mat base (see annotated Fig. 2 from SidsTips YouTube); and a plurality of second pressure ridges (see annotated Fig. 3 from SidsTips YouTube) that are smaller in size than the first pressure ridges (annotated Fig. 3 vs. Fig. 2 showing second pressure regions along a smaller total area of the device compared to the first pressure regions) and configured to be disposed between each of the plurality of large pressure ridges (the smaller pressure regions shown in annotated Fig. 3 from SidsTips YouTube is disposed between each of the plurality of large pressure regions shown in annotated Fig. 2 from SidsTips YouTube) on the mat base to at least partially protrude away from the mat base (see annotated Fig. 3 from SidsTips YouTube) with respect to the direction and positioned based on at least one second pressure point of the user (see annotated Fig. 3 from SidsTips YouTube, just outside of the spinal region (i.e. vertebral column - Fig. 3), noting video 2:05-2:10).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 from SidsTips YouTube
PNG
media_image2.png
369
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 from SidsTips YouTube
PNG
media_image3.png
364
552
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 from SidsTips YouTube
In regards to Claim 2, SidsTips YouTube teaches: The back relief device of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of large pressure ridges are more rigid than the mat base (1:54-2:10).
In regards to Claim 3, SidsTips YouTube teaches: The back relief device of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of large pressure ridges are elongate and rounded in shape (see annotated Fig. 4 from SidsTips YouTube).
PNG
media_image4.png
529
771
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 from SidsTips YouTube
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SidsTips YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdkc7Z4i7dw) in view of Kardos (US 8261386 B2).
In regards to Claim 4, SidsTips YouTube teaches: The back relief device of claim 1, however SidsTips YouTube does not explicitly teach, wherein each of the plurality of small pressure ridges are more rigid than each of the plurality of large pressure ridges.
Kardos teaches: wherein each of the plurality of small pressure ridges are more rigid than each of the plurality of large pressure ridges (Col 3 Lines 23-37: While FIG. 2 shows the back support 10 as being composed of four main pieces (a rear support, two arm supports and a lumbar support), it is contemplated that the back support may be comprised of more or fewer than four pieces, including a back support made of a unitary piece of material. In one embodiment, the back support 10 is made out of dense foam; however, the back support 10 can also be constructed of multiple types of materials having different densities, such as layers of fiberfill, plastics, woods, metals, or any other material or combination of materials that can provide adequate spinal support while still being comfortable to use. While the embodiments of back support 10 shown in FIGS. 1-3 have sharp edges, chamfered or rounded edges are also contemplated for comfort and aesthetics.).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SidsTips YouTube directed to a lumbar device by incorporating more rigid ridges on the small pressure ridges than the large pressure ridges as taught in Kardos directed to a back support since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of softening the fibers of the spine and reducing the rigidity of the spine by further increasing the spines curvature through the use applying pressure to the spine (Col 1 Lines 38-51, Kardos).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regards to Claim 6, SidsTips Youtube teaches: The back relief device of claim 5, yet does not explicitly teach, wherein the movable ridge is greater in size than each of the plurality of large pressure ridges and has a different shape than each of the plurality of large pressure ridges. As noted above, Claim 6 should not only be dependent upon Claim 1 but also include primary antecedent basis of ‘the movable ridge’. Yet, with those modifications – the prior art of SidsTips either alone or considered in combination with another prior art reference does not teach or disclose a moveable ridge. Rather the apparatus includes stationary non-movable sections that provide pressure points for a user to lay their body onto. There is no functional design of SidsTips to further include or modify the ridges to be adjustable or movable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Woyg3lB7RBo&t=575s – teaches a back stretch eight step program for a complete bod stretch from head to toe.
https://backballer.com/product/back-stretcher/ - teaches a multi-functional piece of equipment which not only targets abdominal muscle groups for core strength but also works on the obliques and lower back whilst providing effective deep tissue trigger point massage at the same time.
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 MADISON EMANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571)-272-8525. 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.
/MADISON EMANSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673