March 26, 2026
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species II (Figures 3-1 to 3-8) in the reply filed on 03/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Species II, III, IV, and V are all directed to a single general inventive concept; the disclosed embodiments differ only in minor aspects directed to differences in size, and minor differences in the relationship of regions for comfort and applicability to different users, but retain the same technical features that define the posture device.” This is not found persuasive. Applicant’s election of Species II with traverse is acknowledged. Applicant contends that Species II, III, IV, and V are directed to a single general inventive concept. However, after careful review, the election of a single species is maintained.
Although the elected claims may be generic to the identified species, the record demonstrates that these species do not share the same or corresponding special technical features required for unity of invention. Specifically, each species is distinguished by a unique arrangement of shapes and configurations in the posture device, which constitutes a distinct feature for each species.
Accordingly, there is a serious search and/or examination burden associated with searching for the distinct features of each species because the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 17 and 32-54 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/18/2026.
Drawings
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: Fig. 3-2 includes reference number 107. However, reference number 107 does not appear in the specification at all. Should reference number “107” in Fig. 3-2 be - -307 - - instead? 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.
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: On page 18, line 10 of the specification, Applicant describes “a back end 106” and “an upper surface 107”. However, neither reference number appears in the drawings. It appears reference number “106” should be - - 306 - - since the specification identifies the back end with reference number “306” elsewhere in the specification. However, “107” should not be - -307 - - because reference number “307” has been used to identify the “rear face 307”. ”. There is a reference number 107” in Fig. 6-4. But 107 and 107” are different reference numbers. On page 20, lines 15, 21-22, 24.and 26 and on page 21, line 7, Applicant describes “rim region 319” and “rim region 119”. However, neither reference number appears in the drawings. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ‘base surface” in Claims 10-11 and 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Noting in the specification has been identified as the “base surface”. Should the “base surface” in Claim 18 be changed to - - “the base - -? No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: There is no description of Fig. 3-9 under the “BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS”. In response to the Election/Restriction requirement, Applicant attempts to correct the error. However, Applicant instructed the office to make the correction in the U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0341482 A1. That is not how corrections to the specification are made. Applicant needs to amend the original specification that was filed 01/25/2024 by providing the office with the page number and line number in which the amendment needs to be made. In this instance Applicant needs to amend the specification with the instructions of:
AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFICATION
- Please amend the specification on page 10, lines 13-14, as follows:
- - Figure [[3-9 shows a cross section of the posture device of Figure 3-7, taken
through axis C-C - -
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.
Claims 3, 5, 12-14, 21, 40-41, and 50 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.
In claims 3 and 5, the language “in registry” is unclear and confusing. What does Applicant mean by the term “in registry”? Also, are the limitations “the vertical front-to-back plane is generally in registry with a sagittal plane of the user” and “the vertical side-to-side plane is generally in registry with a coronal plane of the user” true for all users since people using the device are different sizes, heights, and body types?
In claim 10, “the base surface” lacks antecedent basis.
In claims 12-14, 21, 40-41, and 50, applicant uses the word “its”, which is improper. The use of pronouns in claim language is not permitted. Applicant needs to replace each instance of the word “its” or amend the claims so that the limitation has the same meaning as originally intended.
In claim 18, “the base surface” lacks antecedent basis. Should Claim 18 depend from Claim 16 instead since Applicant does define “a base surface” in Claim 16? However, as noted above, nothing in the specification has been identified as a “base surface”.
Regarding claim 25, the phrase "shaped like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "shaped like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Perhaps - -quadrilateral shaped - - or - -triangular shaped - - is better.
The aforementioned problems render the claims vague and indefinite. Clarification and/or correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Willingham (U.S. Patent No. 5,887,951).
PNG
media_image1.png
188
212
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
194
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for Claim 1, Willingham teaches a posture device configured to provide a support surface for a user, the user having a weight, left and right sides, a pelvis, and a spine including a lumbar spine and a thoracic spine, comprising: a body, the body having a front end and a rear end, an upper surface, and a base, wherein the base is contoured so that the body has at least one direction of instability (See figures 3d and 4d).
As for Claim 2, Willingham teaches that the at least one direction of instability includes a direction which is generally in vertical front-to-back plane which includes a longitudinal axis extending between said front and rear ends (see Fig. 4d).
As for Claim 3, so far as understood, Willingham teaches that in use, the vertical front-to-back plane is generally in registry with a sagittal plane of the user.
As for Claim 4, Willingham teaches that the at least one direction of instability includes a direction which is generally in vertical side-to- side plane, the vertical side-to-side plane being generally transverse to a central longitudinal axis extending between the front and rear ends (see Fig. 3d).
As for Claim 5, so far as understood, Willingham teaches that the vertical side-to-side plane is generally in registry with a coronal plane of the user.
As for Claim 6, Willingham teaches that the device supports the user's pelvis and spine such that when application of the user's weight causes a pressure to be applied by the device to the spine, the user's lumbar spine at least in part is biased to assume a neutral curve which is balanced between left and right sides of the user, and the user's thoracic spine is relaxed.
As for Claim 7, Willingham teaches that the device supports the user's pelvis and spine such that when application of the user's weight causes a pressure to be applied by the device to the spine, the user's lumbar spine at least in part is biased to assume a neutral curve which is balanced between left and right sides of the user, and the user's thoracic spine is relaxed.
As for Claim 8, Willingham teaches that body having a front end and a rear end, and an upper surface between the front and rear ends, at least a portion of the upper surface providing the support surface, the body being constructed from a resilient material (see the specification at column 4, lines 6-8, where it reads “The foundation member utilizes a specific memory retentive flexible material, and I prefer the use of 130,000 PSI block co-polymer polypropylene.”), such that in use, the material generates a return force in response to the user's weight, said return force having a component in a forward direction.
As for Claim 9, Willingham teaches that said return force encourages a posture in which the user's pelvis is neutral or slightly tilted.
As for Claims 10-11, so far as understood, Willingham teaches that the upper surface and the base surface have different surface profiles.
As for Claims 12-14, Willingham teaches that the base has a longitudinal profile along a longitudinal axis extending between the front end and the rear end of the body which is outwardly curved, such that the longitudinal profile is at its lowest in a middle portion thereof; wherein the base further has a transverse profile along a transverse axis which is transverse to the longitudinal axis, wherein the transverse profile is outwardly curved, such that the longitudinal profile is at its lowest in a middle portion thereof.
As for Claims 15-16, Willingham teaches that the body is shaped such that it has a height which is higher at the rear end than at the front end, wherein the body is of a greatest height at a location between the front and rear ends, but closer to the rear end (see Fig. 4d).
As for Claim 18, so far as understood, Willingham teaches that the upper surface and the base surface meet at the front end of the body.
As for Claim 19, Willingham teaches that the body has a rear surface, located between the upper surface and the base, at the rear end of the body, the rear surface having a different curvature than a curvature of the base (see Fig. 4D above).
As for Claim 20, Willingham teaches that the support surface has a contour shaped and oriented to in use encourage a neutral pelvis or slight anterior tilt in the user's pelvis.
As for Claim 21, Willingham teaches that the contour is oriented so that, in use, when the device is positioned at its longitudinal balance point, the neutral or slight anterior tilt in the user's pelvis encourages a posture where the user's lumbar spine is in a neutral position.
As for Claim 22, Willingham teaches that the upper surface includes a rear section extending from the rear end, and the support surface is located forward of the rear section.
Claims 1-16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Willingham (U.S. Patent No. 8,671,482 B2).
PNG
media_image3.png
342
208
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
264
218
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As for Claim 1, Willingham teaches a posture device configured to provide a support surface for a user, the user having a weight, left and right sides, a pelvis, and a spine including a lumbar spine and a thoracic spine, comprising: a body, the body having a front end and a rear end, an upper surface, and a base, wherein the base is contoured so that the body has at least one direction of instability (See figures 1b and 2b).
As for Claim 2, Willingham teaches that the at least one direction of instability includes a direction which is generally in vertical front-to-back plane which includes a longitudinal axis extending between said front and rear ends (see Fig. 1b).
As for Claim 3, so far as understood, Willingham teaches that in use, the vertical front-to-back plane is generally in registry with a sagittal plane of the user.
As for Claim 4, Willingham teaches that the at least one direction of instability includes a direction which is generally in vertical side-to- side plane, the vertical side-to-side plane being generally transverse to a central longitudinal axis extending between the front and rear ends (see Fig. 2b).
As for Claim 5, so far as understood, Willingham teaches that the vertical side-to-side plane is generally in registry with a coronal plane of the user.
As for Claim 6, Willingham teaches that the device supports the user's pelvis and spine such that when application of the user's weight causes a pressure to be applied by the device to the spine, the user's lumbar spine at least in part is biased to assume a neutral curve which is balanced between left and right sides of the user, and the user's thoracic spine is relaxed.
As for Claim 7, Willingham teaches that the device supports the user's pelvis and spine such that when application of the user's weight causes a pressure to be applied by the device to the spine, the user's lumbar spine at least in part is biased to assume a neutral curve which is balanced between left and right sides of the user, and the user's thoracic spine is relaxed.
As for Claim 8, Willingham teaches that body having a front end and a rear end, and an upper surface between the front and rear ends, at least a portion of the upper surface providing the support surface, the body being constructed from a resilient material (see the Abstract where it reads “The central portion has regions of varying flexibility and the lateral portion has regions of varying flexibility. ”), such that in use, the material generates a return force in response to the user's weight, said return force having a component in a forward direction.
As for Claim 9, Willingham teaches that said return force encourages a posture in which the user's pelvis is neutral or slightly tilted.
As for Claims 10-11, so far as understood, Willingham teaches that the upper surface and the base surface have different surface profiles.
As for Claims 12-14, Willingham teaches that the base has a longitudinal profile along a longitudinal axis extending between the front end and the rear end of the body which is outwardly curved, such that the longitudinal profile is at its lowest in a middle portion thereof; wherein the base further has a transverse profile along a transverse axis which is transverse to the longitudinal axis, wherein the transverse profile is outwardly curved, such that the longitudinal profile is at its lowest in a middle portion thereof.
As for Claims 15-16, Willingham teaches that the body is shaped such that it has a height which is higher at the rear end than at the front end, wherein the body is of a greatest height at a location between the front and rear ends, but closer to the rear end (see Fig. 1b).
As for Claim 18, so far as understood, Willingham teaches that the upper surface and the base surface meet at the front end of the body.
As for Claim 19, Willingham teaches that the body has a rear surface, located between the upper surface and the base, at the rear end of the body, the rear surface having a different curvature than a curvature of the base.
As for Claim 20, Willingham teaches that the support surface has a contour shaped and oriented to in use encourage a neutral pelvis or slight anterior tilt in the user's pelvis.
As for Claim 21, Willingham teaches that the contour is oriented so that, in use, when the device is positioned at its longitudinal balance point, the neutral or slight anterior tilt in the user's pelvis encourages a posture where the user's lumbar spine is in a neutral position.
As for Claim 22, Willingham teaches that the upper surface includes a rear section extending from the rear end, and the support surface is located forward of the rear section.
Claims 1-14 and 23-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsushita (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0274080 A1).
PNG
media_image5.png
144
192
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
156
196
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
142
190
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As for Claim 1, Matsushita teaches a posture device configured to provide a support surface for a user, the user having a weight, left and right sides, a pelvis, and a spine including a lumbar spine and a thoracic spine, comprising: a body, the body having a front end and a rear end, an upper surface, and a base, wherein the base is contoured so that the body has at least one direction of instability (See figures 1-2).
As for Claim 2, Matsushita teaches that the at least one direction of instability includes a direction which is generally in vertical front-to-back plane which includes a longitudinal axis extending between said front and rear ends (See figures 1-2).
As for Claim 3, so far as understood, Matsushita teaches that in use, the vertical front-to-back plane is generally in registry with a sagittal plane of the user.
As for Claim 4, Matsushita teaches that the at least one direction of instability includes a direction which is generally in vertical side-to- side plane, the vertical side-to-side plane being generally transverse to a central longitudinal axis extending between the front and rear ends (see Fig. 3d).
As for Claim 5, so far as understood, Matsushita teaches that the vertical side-to-side plane is generally in registry with a coronal plane of the user.
As for Claim 6, Matsushita teaches that the device supports the user's pelvis and spine such that when application of the user's weight causes a pressure to be applied by the device to the spine, the user's lumbar spine at least in part is biased to assume a neutral curve which is balanced between left and right sides of the user, and the user's thoracic spine is relaxed.
As for Claim 7, Matsushita teaches that the device supports the user's pelvis and spine such that when application of the user's weight causes a pressure to be applied by the device to the spine, the user's lumbar spine at least in part is biased to assume a neutral curve which is balanced between left and right sides of the user, and the user's thoracic spine is relaxed.
As for Claim 8, Matsushita teaches that body having a front end and a rear end, and an upper surface between the front and rear ends, at least a portion of the upper surface providing the support surface, the body being constructed from a resilient material (see the specification at paragraph [0038] where it reads “Still another aspect of the regulator means is realized by producing the seating surface from a material easily deformable along the shape of the user's buttocks or groin thereon, for example, a low-resilient elastic foam, such that the buttocks is fit with the seating surface more closely, and accordingly, the slippage therebetween is suppressed. ”), such that in use, the material generates a return force in response to the user's weight, said return force having a component in a forward direction.
As for Claim 9, Matsushita teaches that said return force encourages a posture in which the user's pelvis is neutral or slightly tilted.
As for Claims 10-11, so far as understood, Matsushita teaches that the upper surface and the base surface have different surface profiles.
As for Claims 12-14, Matsushita teaches that the base has a longitudinal profile along a longitudinal axis extending between the front end and the rear end of the body which is outwardly curved, such that the longitudinal profile is at its lowest in a middle portion thereof; wherein the base further has a transverse profile along a transverse axis which is transverse to the longitudinal axis, wherein the transverse profile is outwardly curved, such that the longitudinal profile is at its lowest in a middle portion thereof (see Figures 1-2).
PNG
media_image8.png
230
286
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
230
282
media_image9.png
Greyscale
As for Claim 23, Matsushita teaches that the support surface is disposed in a profiled envelope which is generally convex.
As for Claim 24, Matsushita teaches that the upper surface comprises a scalloped area 2 which is gradually depressed from the support surface, wherein the support surface is generally located around the scalloped area.
As for Claim 25, Matsushita teaches that wherein the scalloped area 2 has a perimeter which is generally shaped like a quadrilateral (see Figures 1 and 4).
As for Claim 26, Matsushita teaches that the scalloped area is contoured to have a concave portion 20.
As for Claim 27, Matsushita teaches that the concave portion 20 is located forward of a peak height region 21 of the body (see Fig. 3).
As for Claim 28, Matsushita teaches that the scalloped area further has a generally convex portion located forward of the concave portion (see Fig. 3).
As for Claim 29, Matsushita teaches that the concave portion 20 has a smaller radius of curvature than a radius curvature of the convex portion.
As for Claim 30, Matsushita teaches that a ratio of the radius of curvature of the concave portion to the radius of curvature of the convex portion is 1 to Φ.
As for Claim 31, Matsushita teaches that the body has a rear face which is located at the rear end and adjacent the upper portion, the rear face providing the body with a greater height at the rear end peak height region 21.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it teaches structures and concepts similar to those of the present invention.
Remarks
As noted above, the specification and drawings are very confusing because there are several reference numbers in the drawings that do not appear in the specification and there are several reference numbers in the specification that do not appear in the drawings. Applicant needs to read through the specification and review the drawings and verify that all of the reference numbers that appear in the drawings are labeling the correct feature or part and that all of the reference numbers appear in the specification and that all reference numbers that are in the specification are correct and appear in the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 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, David R. Dunn can be reached at (571) 272-6670. 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.
/Rodney B White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636