DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/09/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites “the one or more sensors include inertial measurement units (IMUs) configured to detect angular displacement or rotation of a human subject during suspended movement”, which is new matter.
The disclosure, as originally filed, does not appear to contain the language of inertial measurement units, IMUs, inertia, angular displacement, or angular rotation. Although the instant Specification discloses the sensors 150 detect “variables such as acceleration, pressure, orientation, displacement, and rotational information” (page 25, first paragraph), there is no corresponding software and/or hardware disclosed sufficient to reasonably convey inertial measurement units, as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 (and similarly Claim 19) recites, “the monitoring screen further displays a personalized performance summary derived from the one or more sensor outputs, including one or more indications of detected deviations”, Claim 13 recites “wherein the personalized performance summary of a yoga session is available on an application”, and/or Claim 15 recites “the personalized performance summary includes a balance assessment indication based on a deviation of detected movement from an expected alignment condition”; and, similarly, Claim 14 recites “the one or more sensors are configured to determine a center of gravity of a human subject based on positional input from multiple sensor points,” and Claim 16 recites “the one or more sensors are further configured to … determine whether a human subject is evenly suspended”, which are each respectively directed to controlling software that is only nominally disclosed and does not comply with the written description requirement in accordance with MPEP 2161.
MPEP 2161 states: “It is “not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reversing and remanding the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity for lack of adequate written description where there were genuine issues of material fact regarding "whether the specification show[ed] possession by the inventor of how accessing disparate databases is achieved"). If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.” (emphasis added)
In the instant case, the Specification is entirely devoid of any algorithm, steps, procedure, or flowchart which would detail the claimed “personalized performance summary” and/or “application” and/or the claimed functionality of the sensors, and is likewise absent any substantial discussion of the claimed software. For example, the Specification discloses “[t]he personalized performance summary 180 is a comprehensive report including data and analytics derived from the user’s activity during a yoga session” and “may provide a detailed account of the user’s performance, including metrics such as the duration and stability of holds, the precision of poses, the consistency of practice, and other personalized feedback that can inform and guide the user’s progression in aerial yoga” (pages 22, last paragraph), but is otherwise devoid of any description of an associated, e.g. algorithm, to produce the claimed “personalized performance summary” and/or “application.”
Regarding the remaining structure, it is considered inherent that detectors detect and monitors display. However, processing of sensor data is not considered inherent to sensors. Rather, processing data requires, e.g., a computer and/or software and/or an algorithm.
Although an ordinary practitioner could write a program to achieve the claimed functionality as identified above, the disclosure has not described how the claimed functionality is achieved in accordance with MPEP 2161. Therefore, “the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function are not described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed” (MPEP 2161(I)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 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 “a first/second/third/fourth carabiner” and “via one or more carabiners,” followed by “wherein the one or more carabiners”, and it is unclear what structure, i.e. the number of carabiners, the claim requires. For example, if the claim requires four carabiners, it is unclear how the claim can also only require “one carabiner.” Further, it is unclear if the “one or more carabiners” of the later recitation(s) is/are to refer to the four carabiners of the previous recitation. See MPEP 2173.05(o) which states "where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite. Ix parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989)".
Claim 2 recites “one or more sensors”, which is a double inclusion that is unclear in accordance with MPEP 2173.05(o) since Claim 1 also requires “one or more sensors”.
Claim 14 recites “the one or more sensors are configured to determine a center of gravity of a human subject based on positional input from multiple sensor points” and it is unclear, in light of the Specification, how the system is determining a center of gravity of a human subject, rather than the center of gravity of the entire system. For example, the Specification on instant page 18 discloses, “[t]he third sensor 150c, positioned on the center section 130 of the hammock 102, complements the first sensor 150a and the second sensor 150b by detecting the vertical balance and the overall center of gravity of the aerial yoga smart system 100 as the user moves.”
Claim 20 recites “wherein the one or more sensors are worn by the human subject,” but Claim 19 has been amended to recite “one or more sensors, wherein at least a first sensor is attached to the hammock and at least a second sensor is attached to one of at least two support cables,” and it is unclear what is required by the claim. For instance, it is unclear if a user which is suspended by the hammock is to be considered “wearing” a sensor attached to the hammock; or if the “one or more sensors” of Claim 20 are intended to be distinct from the “first/second sensor” of Claim 19, e.g. an additional third sensor which is worn by the user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The structure of Claims 6 and 11 appear to be already incorporated into the amended language of respective Claims 1 and 2, and redundant limitations are not further limiting.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 6, 10, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (US 2020/0238124), Silverman et al. (US 8,197,392), and Train (EP 4218957).
Regarding claim 1, the combination is summarized as follows:
Perez discloses the general structure of the claim, including an apparatus (100) comprising at least six grip sections (fig. 1) and at least one center section (fig. 1), a pair of ceiling hooks (32, 34), at least two support cables (120), a first carabiner (fig. 2B shows carabiner attached to either 32 or 34) coupled to the support cable (120), a second carabiner (of 110) coupled (i.e., indirectly coupled) to the first carabiner (fig. 2B), a third carabiner (other of 110) coupled to the second carabiner via a cable swivel connector (110), and a fourth carabiner (fig. 2B shows carabiners of either 130) coupled to the third carabiner (fig. 2B), wherein the fourth carabiner is coupled to a looped section (130) that is knotted to the hammock. However, Perez discloses a single swivel connection 110, and therefore cannot be said to disclose the carabiner structure for each support cable, as claimed. Further, Perez does not disclose the general structure of one or more sensors, as claimed. Silverman teaches respective structures of exercise straps 10, with strap attachment members 50 and mounts 90; and Train teaches a grip 100 with one or more sensors 12 (para. 56-57, 76, 78), where the generated information may be presented to a user to provide information about their workout via a display (para. 51), including form correctness (para. 59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to combine the disclosure of Perez with the teachings of Silverman and/or Train, for the expected benefit of greater adjustability; and/or providing user feedback, both well-known advantages in the art.
The remaining limitations of the claims flow naturally from the explanations of the prior art above.
Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (US 2020/0238124), Silverman et al. (US 8,197,392), Train (EP 4218957), and Ferri (US 5,209,712).
Regarding claim 2, Perez does not disclose wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least a second sensor attached to one of the at least two support cables. Ferri teaches sensors (110) configured to detect physical parameters associated with the hammock and/or support cables (e.g., col. 7, lines 9-12), attached to two support cables (fig. 3; col. 7, lines 9-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to combine the disclosure of Perez with the teachings of Ferri, for the expected advantage of improved accuracy and/or to provide useful feedback to the user (Ferri, col. 7, lines 13-24) during use of the hammock, especially allowing a user to adjust their use of the apparatus to achieve desired results (Ferri, col. 7, lines 2-4).
Thereafter, the combination suggests the remaining claimed limitations, as explained above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618