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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 05/20/26. Claim(s) 1-4 have been amended, no new claims have been added, and claims 6-10 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-5 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 13 "link member." should be changed to --link member,-- to correct punctuation.
In claim 1, line 20 "foundation respectively." should be changed to --foundation respectively,-- to correct punctuation.
In claim 1, line 28 "with the frame." should be changed to --with the frame,-- to correct punctuation.
In claim 1, line 30 "rotating shaft. the link" should be changed to --rotating shaft, and the link-- to correct punctuation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "driving member" "lifting assembly" "transmission mechanism" in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (2021/0259431) in view of Zhou (CN110236326).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 1, Wang discloses an intelligent vibration equipment (fig 1) with lifting function (see fig 8 and [0082]), comprising a frame (210, fig 8), further comprising an elevating portion (201/202, fig 8), one end of the elevating portion is rotatably connected on the frame (see connections labeled in annotated fig 8 of Wang), the elevating portion is provided with a lifting assembly (215a/b, fig 8), one end of the lifting assembly is connected with the frame (see fig 8 and [0083]), another end of the lifting assembly is connected with the elevating portion (see fig 8 and [0083]); wherein, the lifting assembly is used to drive the elevating portion to rotate relative to the frame (see [0083]), but is silent regarding a foundation, a driving member, the frame is defined on the foundation, the driving member is defined on the foundation or the frame; the foundation is equipped with a transmission mechanism, the frame is movably arranged on the foundation via the transmission mechanism; the transmission mechanism includes a link member, and the driving member includes an eccentric shaft, the driving member drives the eccentric shaft to rotate, the rotating eccentric shaft drives the frame to move back and forth relative to the foundation via the link member.
However, Zhou teaches a reciprocating device (fig 1) comprising a frame (1, fig 3), a foundation (2, fig 3), a driving member (341, fig 1), the frame is defined on the foundation (see 1 on 2 via links 31 in fig 3), the driving member is defined on the foundation or the frame (see 341 on 2 in figs 1 and 3); the foundation is equipped with a transmission mechanism (3421-3424, fi 1), the frame is movably arranged on the foundation via the transmission mechanism (see figs 1 and 3 and [0035]); the transmission mechanism includes a link member (345, fig 1), and the driving member includes an eccentric shaft (343, fig 1), the driving member drives the eccentric shaft to rotate (see [0035] of Zhou), the rotating eccentric shaft drives the frame to move back and forth relative to the foundation via the link member (see [0032]); the transmission mechanism further includes a rotating shaft (344, fig 1 of Zhou), two ends of the rotating shaft are respectively rotatably arranged at two ends of the foundation away from each other (see the two ends of 344 at the left and right of the foundation (32) in fig 1 of Zhou), the link member is connected to the rotating shaft (see fig 1-2 of Zhou), the driving member drives the eccentric shaft to rotate, the rotating eccentric shaft drives the frame to move back and forth relative to the foundation via the link member (see [0035] of Zhou); two rotating shafts (344 and 343 in fig 1 of Zhou), the two rotating shafts are rotatably arranged at both ends of the foundation respectively (located at two ends of the foundation in figs 1 and 2 of Zhou); the link member includes a first link (see annotated fig 1 of Zhou), a first supporting plate (3423, fig 1 of Zhou), and a linkage assembly (see annotated fig 1 of Zhou); the linkage assembly includes a second link (see annotated fig 1 of Zhou) and a second supporting plate (see annotated fig 2 of Zhou), one end of the first link is mounted on the outer side of the eccentric shaft (see fig 1 of Zhou where 334 connects to the annotated first link), another end of the first link is rotatably defined with one end of the first supporting plate (see annotated fig 2 of Zhou), another end of the first supporting plate is fixedly installed in the middle of the rotating shaft, one end of the second link is fixedly installed with the rotating shaft, another end of the second link is rotatably defined with one end of the second supporting plate (see annotated fig 2 of Zhou), another end of the second supporting plate is fixedly installed with the frame (see annotated fig 2 of Zhou); there are two linkage assemblies, the two linkage assemblies are installed at two ends of the rotating shaft (see figs 1-2 of Zhou where the shaft 344 is connected to the link members at each end and also [0035] of Zhou); and there are two link members, the two link members are positioned at both ends of the foundation respectively (see figs 1-2 of Zhou where the shaft 344 is connected to the link members at each end and also [0035] of Zhou), the two first links are mounted on the outer side of the eccentric shaft (see two links attached to shaft 344 in fig 1 of Zhou).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the equipment and frame (210) of Wang to include a foundation, driving member, and supporting structure as taught by Zhou so as to provide an additional therapeutic effect with a simple structure, better comfort, and sleep aiding effects (see [0007] of Zhou). Note frame 210 of Wang would be placed on frame 1 and driving mechanism of Zhou.
With respect to claim 2, the modified Wang shows a supporting frame (see annotated fig 8 of Wang) arranged on the foundation (210 is on top of foundation after modification by Zhou), one end of the elevating portion is rotatably arranged on the supporting frame (see connections of supporting frame and 201/202 in fig 8 of Wang), one end of the lifting assembly is rotatably arranged on the supporting frame (see connections of supporting frame and 215a/b in fig 8 of Wang), another end of the lifting assembly is arranged in the middle of the elevating portion (see 215a/215b connected in the middle of 201/202, respectively, in fig 8 of Wang), the lifting assembly drives the elevating portion to rotate resulting in the elevating portion being defined at an angle relative to the supporting frame (see fig 8 and [0083] of Wang).
With respect to claim 3, the modified Wang shows a movable frame (218, fig 8), two ends of the elevating portion are rotatably arranged with the supporting frame and the movable frame (see fig 8 and [0083] of Wang) respectively, the movable frame is movably connected to the supporting frame at one end away from the elevating portion (see connection via 219 in fig 8 and [0085] of Wang), the lifting assembly drives the elevating portion to rotate (see [0084 and 86]), resulting in the elevating portion being set at an angle relative to the supporting frame, and the elevating portion and the movable frame being set at another angle (see angle of 217 vs angle of 218 in fig 8 of Wang).
With respect to claim 4, the modified Wang shows a connecting rod (219, fig 8 of Wang), one end of the connecting rod rotates with a free end of the movable frame (see [0085] and 219 location to movable frame 218 in fig 8), another end of the connecting rod rotates with the supporting frame (see [0085] of Wang), one end of the movable frame away from the elevating portion is movably connected to the supporting frame via the connecting rod (see fig 8 of Wang).
With respect to claim 5, the modified Wang shows all the elements as claimed above but is silent regarding two connecting rods, one end of the two connecting rods is rotatably arranged at two ends of the movable frame away from each other, another end of the two connecting rods is rotatably arranged at two ends of the supporting frame away from each other.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the modified the connecting rod of the modified Wang having a second rod identical to the first, since the mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, and since the replicated rod would keep the moving frame attached to the supporting frame. MPEP 2144.04 VI. (B)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pg. 5 that "these terms are no longer generic placeholders, and the presumption of interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted. Applicants respectfully request that the Examiner withdraw the 112(f) interpretation.” This is not persuasive since the 112(f) interpretation is based on the claim language and not the description in the specification. Therefore, the 112(f) interpretation still applies to the terms in claim 1 and thus the rejection stands.
Further, on pg. 7 Applicant argues that “Even if Wang and Zhou are combined, the combined solution can only realize a low-frequency arc rocking bed with lifting function, which still uses Zhou's boom and swing arm transmission structure and can only achieve low-frequency arc rocking motion. There is no teaching in the prior art that would motivate a person having ordinary skill in the art to abandon Zhou's mature cantilever rocking structure and completely redesign it into the sequential transmission structure of the present invention to achieve high-frequency linear vibration.” This is not persuasive since the Wang and Zhou combination would reasonably provide the device and function of vibration equipment with lifting function. Placing the driving mechanism on the frame of Wang would provide a different and more moving effects to the user allowing more comfort and sleep aid. Also, replacing one driving mechanism with another would be reasonable and allow the movement and vibration of the device without ruining the device and function. Thus, the rejections stands.
Conclusion
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 KELSEY E BALLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4 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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/KELSEY E BALLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TU A VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights