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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitations are “volume variation means” and “control means” recited in claim 1.
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 1, and thus its dependent claims, are 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 1 recites the limitations of “a volume variation means suitable for extracting and/or introducing gas inside said casing” and “a pump adapted exclusively to extract gas from said casing”. As Page 6 of Applicant’s specification describes the “volume variation means” as the pump 40, it is unclear how the pump can both extract and introduce gas inside the casing, while also being exclusively configured to only extract gas. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner has taken these limitations to mean the pump is able to at least extract gas from said casing.
Additionally, claim 9, and thus its dependent claims, are 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 9 recites “A method of deforming of a massage support according to claim 1, wherein: in situations of non-activation of the massage of said massaging support, the non- activity of said pump and the opening of said valve is foreseen”. Therefore, no actual method steps are recited in this claim. In addition, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “opening of said valve is foreseen”, as there is no further description of this limitation provided in Applicant’s speciation. Due to the unclear nature of such limitations, only the device portion of this claim will be rejected with prior art.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "said period" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9, from which claim 12 depends upon, does not recite the term “period”, and claim 1 recites only the term “half-period”. Therefore it is unclear what the term “said period” refers to. Furthermore, claim 12 recites no method steps in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner has considered this limitation to be met as long as the prior art teaches controlling the expansion/contraction of each collapsible member to therefore be controlled over a constants period of time.
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, 3-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sinnhuber (DE 19938698 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sinnhuber discloses a massaging support comprising (seat portion 8 comprising plurality of gas-filled chambers 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 Figure 1 and Abstract); a contact surface for a user (seat surface 22, Figure 1 and Abstract), said contact surface comprising an oscillating zone (seat surface 22 comprising a padded material layer 26, Abstract and Figure 1), and at least one collapsible element inside said massaging support and placed under each said oscillating zone (plurality of gas-filled chambers 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 embedded within padded material layer 26 and configured to have gas pressure variability in order to adjust seat flexibility and/or surface profile of the seat surface 22, Abstract and Figure 1), said collapsible element comprising: an inner portion comprising elastically compressible material (plurality of gas filled chambers 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 are made from an open-pore elastomer foam material, Page 3 paragraph 5), so to allow the geometric variation of said oscillating zone (by changing the air pressure in each chamber, the geometric shape of the chambers and boundary walls 38 of the chambers is varied, changing the overall surface profile of the seat surface 22, Page 4 last paragraph), a casing (boundary walls 38, Figure 1), including said inner portion and comprising a gas-tight membrane (boundary walls 38 include chamber foam material and serve as gas-tight boundary walls 38 for each chamber, Page 4 paragraph 8), and volume variation means suitable for extracting and/or introducing gas inside said casing (the chambers 28, 30, 32, 34 and 35 each have an air connection which is connected by a hose line 40 to a control valve 42 and pump 44 or either releasing to pumping air into each chamber, Figure 1 and Page 5 third paragraph), and including: a pump adapted exclusively to extract gas from said casing (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above; pump 44 capable of releasing air out of each chamber, Page 5), a valve (valve 42, Page 5 and Figure 1), suitable for allowing or blocking the introduction of gas in said casing (control valve 42 may be a two-way valve used for releasing and/or introduction of gas into chambers, Page 5 and Figure 1), said massaging support in addition comprising control means (control unit with pressure sensor, Abstract), configured to repeat several times, on command, the operations of: in a first half-period contracting one of said collapsible elements, putting it in depression, and, in a second half-period of time, opening said valve and expanding said collapsible element (the actuation of the valve 42 and pump 44 may be changed as desired by either pumping air in or out of each chamber, therefore fully capable of repeating periods of opening and closing said valve, Page 7 first paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Sinnhuber further discloses wherein said inner portion comprises elastically compressible material made of a polymeric foam (the plurality of gas filled chambers 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 are made from an open-pore elastomer foam material, an elastomer is a type of polymer material, Page 3 paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 4, Sinnhuber further discloses wherein said inner portion is immersed in a part of said massaging support volume (chambers 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 are embedded in seat portion 8 comprising cushioning 26, Figure 1), in turn made of the same material of said inner portion (cushioning material 26 is also an open-pore breathable cushioning foam material, Page 4 fourth paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Sinnhuber further discloses comprising a sagittal plane (seat portion 8 comprises a sagittal plane, Figures 1-5) and wherein said oscillating zones are arranged with specular symmetry with respect to said sagittal plane (plurality of embedded chambers arranged with symmetry with respect to the middle of the seat portion 8, therefore the sagittal plane, Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 6, Sinnhuber further discloses consists of a seat (seat portion 8, Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 7, Sinnhuber further discloses wherein said seat comprises said oscillating zones in correspondence with said seat (plurality of gas filled chambers embedded within said seat portion 8, Figures 1-5 and Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Sinnhuber further discloses wherein said seat is a seat inside automobiles or motor vehicles (vehicle seat, Page 2 and Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 9, Sinnhuber further discloses a method of deforming of a massage support according to any of the dependent claims claim 1 (boundary walls 38 of each chamber 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 are elastically extensible, Page 4 and Figure 1), wherein: in situations of non-activation of the massage of said massaging support, the non- activity of said pump and the opening of said valve is foreseen (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above for the remaining limitations).
Regarding claim 12, Sinnhuber teaches the method according to claim 9 (see 112 rejection presented above), with Sinnhuber further teaching wherein said period is constant (For the purpose of examination, the examiner has considered this limitation to be met as long as the prior art teaches controlling the expansion/contraction of each collapsible member to therefore be controlled over a constants period of time. As Sinnhuber’s chambers may be controlled as desired, to include over a constant period of time, the Examiner has considered this limitation to be met).
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.
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 2, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinnhuber (DE 19938698 A1) in view of Zwolinski et al. (6,055,473).
Regarding claim 2, Sinnhuber teaches The massaging support of claim 1, with Sinnhuber further teaching an electrically controlled two way valve that may be operated in either the open or closed position closing (Page 5, third paragraph), Sinnhuber doesn’t explicitly state the valve being an solenoid valve.
However, Zwolinksi teaches an adaptive seating system (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising a plurality of inflatable chambers (bladders 24, 26, 28, 30 and 32, Col. 3 lines 35-40 and Figure 1) operatively connected to a pump and a solenoid valve (bladder pressure control includes pumps 78 and 80 and a valve module 74, valves may be of solenoid type, for selectively coupling the supply line to any of the pressure control lines, Col. 4 lines 39-46 and Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sinnhuber’s massaging seat device such that the valve is a solenoid valve, as taught by Zwolinksi, as using solenoid valves are an art-recognized means of selectively controlling pressures in individual chambers/bladders, offering benefits such as a fast response time for rapid on/off control and low energy use.
Regarding claim 13, Sinnhuber in view of Zwolinksi teach the massaging support according to claim 2, with Sinnhuber further teaching wherein said inner portion comprises elastically compressible material made of a polymeric foam (the plurality of gas filled chambers 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 are made from an open-pore elastomer foam material, an elastomer is a type of polymer material, Page 3 paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 14, Sinnhuber further teaches wherein said inner portion is immersed in a part of said massaging support volume (chambers 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 are embedded in seat portion 8 comprising cushioning 26, Figure 1), in turn made of the same material of said inner portion (cushioning material 26 is also an open-pore breathable cushioning foam material, Page 4 fourth paragraph).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinnhuber (DE 19938698 A1).
Regarding claim 10 Sinnhuber discloses the method according to claim 9, further teaching (seat portion 8 comprises a sagittal plane, Figures 1-5) and wherein said oscillating zones are arranged with specular symmetry with respect to said sagittal plane (plurality of embedded chambers arranged with symmetry with respect to the middle of the seat portion 8, therefore the sagittal plane, Figures 1-5), how this particular embodiment of Sinnhuber doesn’t explicitly state wherein said oscillating zones that are specular are activated simultaneously in opposite way.
However, Sinnhuber teaches an alternative embodiment shown in Figure 5 comprising symmetrical oscillating zones (chambers 82, 84, 86, 88 and 90, Figure 5 and Page 6) that are activated simultaneously in an opposite way (the pump 44 is arranged between two communicating groups of chambers 82, 84, 86, 88 and 90 so that air can be moved alternatively, Page 6 last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of Sinnhuber’s device as shown in Figures 1-4 by having the oscillating zones be activated in an alternative manner, as taught by the embodiment as shown in Figure 5, as activating the chambers in such a manner may provide an enhanced massaging effect to the user by changing pressure in adjacent chambers the seat portion by counteracting muscle tension due to a constant sitting position (Page 6 last paragraph of Sinnhuber).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinnhuber (DE 19938698 A1) in view of Weber et al. (US 2018/0125744 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sinnhuber teaches the method according to claim 9 (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above), however is silent wherein the complete expansion or contraction period of one of said collapsible elements is comprised between 2 s and 20 s.
However, Weber teaches a seat assembly comprising multiple inflatable bladders (Abstract and Figure 1) wherein the period of expansion or contraction is between 2 and 20 seconds (bladders 20b, 20c, and 20d are inflated with a fill time of nine seconds, Paragraph 0033 and Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sinnhuber’s massaging seat device such that the expansion or contraction period of the chambers are between 2 and 20 seconds, as taught by Weber, as such a time interval provides a comfortable sequence in inflation and/or deflation to the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lett (US 2019/0283638 A1), Onuma et al. (US 2018/0086238 A1), and Benson et al. (US 9,731,638 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH B LEDERER whose telephone number is 571-272-7274. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Sta.tus information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARAH B LEDERER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/MARGARET M LUARCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785