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 .
Drawings
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 guide passageway in a resilient pad opening into the upper surface of the resilient pad described in claims 1 and 23-24 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). As best understood, Applicant’s claims are drawn to figures 11-16 of the instant invention. Numerical character 66 in fig.15 is the guide passageway, however, it is not shown to be “in a resilient pad opening into the upper surface of the resilient pad”. A control assembly in claims 1 and 23-24 [which structure or mechanism of the control assembly is performing the “moving” recitation]. 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 use of the term VELCRO®, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation, “wherein the upper slide receiving groove of the of the pair of upper support arms of the upper support structure is an elongated groove extending along a length of the upper support structure of the control assembly” should read, wherein the upper slide receiving groove . 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) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roleder et al. U.S. Publication No. (2010/0263125 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Roleder et al. discloses a support platform (shown in figs.2A-3) for body treatment (abstract, massage table) comprising:
a resilient pad (212, fig.2A) and [0031, padded top table] inherently having an upper surface and a lower surface;
a guide passageway (212A) in resilient pad opening into the upper surface of the resilient pad (as shown in fig.2B) and [0031];
a cushion (240 and 232, fig.2B) and [0038] positioned in and movable along the guide passageway (as shown in fig.2B) and [0047, the table aperture 212A is much larger than is typical in previous designs so that the headrest 232 can easily fit and move up and down within the table aperture 212A]; and
a control assembly (234, 250, figs.2B and 2H) moving the cushion along the guide passageway downward from the upper surface [0041] and [0047] and (Abstract, the coupler assembly (234) includes an adjuster assembly (250) that selectively adjusts the height and angle of the headrest (232) relative to the table top assembly (212), the control assembly includes: an upper support structure (support frame 236, fig.2H) and (Abstract) connected to the cushion (240, figs.2B and 2H); a lower support structure (236A, fig.2H) connected to the upper support structure (236, fig.2H) through a plurality of extension arms (268, 266, fig.2H); and a plurality of horizontal supports (264A, 262, fig.2H).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer was not approved due to the ineligible Power of Attorney; the Office advises to resubmit a more legible copy for consideration. No fee required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 5-13 and 15-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-11 and 13-21 of U.S. Patent No. (11,903,883 B2). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims are a broader recitation of the invention than that of the patented application.
Claim 1 of the instant application recites a support platform for body treatment comprising: a resilient pad having an upper surface and a lower surface; a guide passageway in a resilient pad opening into the upper surface of the resilient pad; a cushion positioned in and movable along the guide passageway; and a control assembly moving the cushion along the guide passageway downward from the upper surface, the control assembly includes an upper support structure connected to the cushion and a lower support structure connected to the upper support structure through a plurality of extension arms, the plurality of extension arms includes a pair of outer extension arms and a pair of inner extension arms, the lower support structure is connected to a lower surface side.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. (11,903,883 B2) recites a support platform for body treatment comprising: a supporting frame; a resilient pad having an upper surface and a lower surface attached to the supporting frame; a guide passageway in the resilient pad opening into the upper surface of the resilient pad; a cushion positioned in and movable along the guide passageway; and a control assembly connected to the cushion and moveable about the guide passageway to control the position of the cushion in the guide passageway to accommodate receiving of a human breast, the control assembly includes an upper support structure connected to the cushion.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between claim 1 of the current application and claim 1 of patent (‘883) lies in the fact that the pending claims include many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus, the invention of instant claim 1 is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of Patent No. (‘883) claim 1. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species". See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since claim 1 of Patent No. (‘883) is anticipated by claim 1 of the instant invention, it is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the instant application.
All of the limitations of claim 5 of the instant application can be found in claim 21 of U.S. patent No. (‘883).
All of the limitations of claim 6 of the instant application can be found in claim 13 of U.S. patent No. (‘883).
All of the limitations of claim 7 of the instant application can be found in claim 19 of U.S. patent No. (‘883).
All of the limitations of claim 8 of the instant application can be found in claim 20 of U.S. patent No. (‘883).
All of the limitations of claim 9 of the instant application can be found in claim 14 of U.S. patent No. (‘883).
All of the limitations of claim 10 of the instant application can be found in claim 15 of U.S. patent No. (‘883).
All of the limitations of claim 11 of the instant application can be found in claim 16 of U.S. patent No. (‘883).
All of the limitations of claim 12 of the instant application can be found in claim 17 of U.S. patent No. (‘883).
All of the limitations of claim 13 of the instant application can be found in claim 18 of U.S. patent No. (‘883).
All of the limitations of claim 15 of the instant application can be found in claim 4 of U.S. patent No. (‘883).
All of the limitations of claim 16 of the instant application can be found in claim 5 of U.S. patent No. (‘883).
All of the limitations of claim 17 of the instant application can be found in claim 6 of U.S. patent No. (‘883).
All of the limitations of claim 18 of the instant application can be found in claim 7 of U.S. patent No. (‘883).
All of the limitations of claim 19 of the instant application can be found in claim 8 of U.S. patent No. (‘883).
All of the limitations of claim 20 of the instant application can be found in claim 9 of U.S. patent No. (‘883).
All of the limitations of claim 21 of the instant application can be found in claim 10 of U.S. patent No. (‘883).
All of the limitations of claim 22 of the instant application can be found in claim 11 of U.S. patent No. (‘883).
Claims 1, 5-13 and 15-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-11 and 13-20 of U.S. Patent No. (9,925,108 B2). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims are a broader recitation of the invention than that of the patented application.
Claim 1 of the instant application recites a support platform for body treatment comprising: a resilient pad having an upper surface and a lower surface; a guide passageway in a resilient pad opening into the upper surface of the resilient pad; a cushion positioned in and movable along the guide passageway; and a control assembly moving the cushion along the guide passageway downward from the upper surface, the control assembly includes an upper support structure connected to the cushion and a lower support structure connected to the upper support structure through a plurality of extension arms, the plurality of extension arms includes a pair of outer extension arms and a pair of inner extension arms, the lower support structure is connected to a lower surface side.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. (9,925,108 B2) recites a support platform for body treatment comprising: a supporting frame having: (a) an upper frame, (b) legs extending downwardly from the support frame at each end of the support frame; a resilient pad having an upper surface and a lower surface attached to the upper frame; a guide passageway in the resilient pad opening into the upper surface of the resilient pad; a cushion positioned in and movable along the guide passageway; and a control assembly connected to the cushion and moveable about the guide passageway to control the position of the cushion in the guide passageway a lower support structure connected supporting frame; and an extension arm supporting the cushion and connected to the lower support structure.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between claim 1 of the current application and claim 1 of patent (‘108) lies in the fact that the pending claims include many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus, the invention of instant claim 1 is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of Patent No. (‘108) claim 1. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species". See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since claim 1 of Patent No. (‘108) is anticipated by claim 1 of the instant invention, it is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the instant application.
All of the limitations of claim 5 of the instant application can be found in claim 12 of U.S. patent No. (‘108).
All of the limitations of claim 6 of the instant application can be found in claim 13 of U.S. patent No. (‘108).
All of the limitations of claim 7 of the instant application can be found in claim 19 of U.S. patent No. (‘108).
All of the limitations of claim 8 of the instant application can be found in claim 20 of U.S. patent No. (‘108).
All of the limitations of claim 9 of the instant application can be found in claim 14 of U.S. patent No. (‘108).
All of the limitations of claim 10 of the instant application can be found in claim 15 of U.S. patent No. (‘108).
All of the limitations of claim 11 of the instant application can be found in claim 16 of U.S. patent No. (‘108).
All of the limitations of claim 12 of the instant application can be found in claim 17 of U.S. patent No. (‘108).
All of the limitations of claim 13 of the instant application can be found in claim 18 of U.S. patent No. (‘108).
All of the limitations of claim 15 of the instant application can be found in claim 4 of U.S. patent No. (‘108).
All of the limitations of claim 16 of the instant application can be found in claim 5 of U.S. patent No. (‘108).
All of the limitations of claim 17 of the instant application can be found in claim 6 of U.S. patent No. (‘108).
All of the limitations of claim 18 of the instant application can be found in claim 7 of U.S. patent No. (‘108).
All of the limitations of claim 19 of the instant application can be found in claim 8 of U.S. patent No. (‘108).
All of the limitations of claim 20 of the instant application can be found in claim 9 of U.S. patent No. (‘108).
All of the limitations of claim 21 of the instant application can be found in claim 10 of U.S. patent No. (‘108).
All of the limitations of claim 22 of the instant application can be found in claim 11 of U.S. patent No. (‘108).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art drawn to Roleder et al. U.S. Publication No. (2010/0263125 A1) fails to show or make obvious the claimed combinations of elements particularly the limitations as set forth in independent claim 23 which recite features not taught or suggested by the prior art drawn to Roleder et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4, filed 01/21/2026, with respect to 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-6 has been withdrawn. The Terminal Disclaimer filed 01/21/2026 has been disapproved by the Office, therefore, the double patenting rejection drawn to claims 1, 5-13 and 15-22 has been maintained by the Office.
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 OPHELIA ALTHEA HAWTHORNE whose telephone number is (571)270-3860. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, 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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 5712703076. 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.
/OPHELIA A HAWTHORNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786