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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
In claim 1, line 2 positively recites, “a lumbar support that supports a lower back”. It is suggested to amend the language to read, “a lumbar support that is configured to support a lower back” to overcome the rejection.
In claim 1, line 3 positively recites, “a chest support and a leg support that respectively support a chest and legs”. It is suggested to amend the language to read, “a chest support and a leg support that are configured to respectively support a chest and legs” to overcome the rejection.
In claim 1, lines 9-10 positively recite, “and respectively correspond to a left ilium, a right ilium, a left ischium, and a right ischium”. It is suggested to amend the language to read, “and are configured to respectively correspond to a left ilium, a right ilium, a left ischium, and a right ischium” to overcome the rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “the holding member takes an ascended portion” in line 15, should read, “the holding member takes an ascended position”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (US 20060123546 A1) in view of Ishikawa (JP 6609082 B1) (The translation relied upon for the rejection accessed 2/13/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Horton discloses a sacroiliac joint correction bed (FIG. 2 Surgical table system 10 as set forth in [0020]) provided with a lumbar support that is configured to support a lower back (FIG. 2 The portion of the torso support system 80, that includes pelvis support members 92a, 92b and abdomen support members 88a, 88b as set forth in [0030]) equipped between a chest support (FIG. 2 Pectoral support members 94a, 94b as set forth in [0030]) and a leg support (FIG. Leg support system 120 as set forth in [0025]) that are configured to respectively support a chest and legs of a patient in a prone posture (As set forth in [0003]), wherein the lumbar support comprises four bases that are arranged in a matrix in front-back and left-right directions (FIG. 2 The mounting members 89 and 93 that support the pelvis support members 92a, 92b and abdomen support members 88a, 88b as set forth in [0030]-[0032]) and installed individually movable up and down (FIG. 3 Mounting members 89 and 93 include a structure that allows for raising and lowering of the support member mounted thereon relative to frame system 12 as indicated by arrows 100 as set forth in [0032]), four supporting bodies that are in a plate shape (FIG. 2 The top surface of pelvis support members 92a, 92b and abdomen support members 88a, 88b as set forth in [0030]), attached freely pivotable around horizontal axes to the bases (FIG. 3 The mounting members 89, 93 can allow the particular support member supported thereon to articulate to accommodate the anatomy and positioning of the patient thereon including allowing for the support members to universally pivot relative to frame system 12, as indicated in part by arrows 102 as set forth in [0032]), and are configured to respectively correspond to a left ilium, a right ilium (The left and right ilium are located in the lower abdomen and would correspond to the FIG. 2 abdomen support members 88a, 88b as set forth in [0030]), a left ischium, and a right ischium (The left and right ischium are located in the pelvis region of a user and would correspond to the FIG. 2 pelvis support members 92a, 92b as set forth in [0030]) of the patient to support, and four holding mechanisms (The means in which the bottom surface of each support member and base are connected) each of which exists between each of pairs of the bases (FIG. 2 The mounting members 89 and 93 that support the pelvis support members 92a, 92b and abdomen support members 88a, 88b as set forth in [0030]-[0032]) and the supporting bodies (FIG. 2 The top surface of pelvis support members 92a, 92b and abdomen support members 88a, 88b as set forth in [0030]), and configured to hold the supporting body in an inclined state in the ascended position (FIG. 3 The supporting body can be held in an inclined state given that the support members can universally pivot relative to frame system 12, as indicated by arrows 102 as well as be held in an ascended position as indicated by arrows 100 as set forth in [0021]), and configured to pivot the supporting body into a horizontal state from the inclined state when the holding member descends to the descended position (FIG. 3 The supporting body can be placed back in a horizontal state as well as a descended position as pictured in FIG. 3) by applying an impact force to the supporting body (The impact force being the force need to adjust the supporting body back to a descended and horizontal state as picture in FIG. 3), and in the inclined state, two of the supporting bodies, which support the left ilium and the left ischium, are arranged to oppose each other (FIG. 2-3 Support members 88b and 92b can be tilted according to arrows 102 to oppose each other), and two of the supporting bodies, which support the right ilium and the right ischium, are arranged to oppose each other (FIG. 2-3 Support members 88a and 92a can be tilted according to arrows 102 to oppose each other).
Horton is silent as to the structure of the members between the bases and holding mechanisms of the supporting bodies and fails to explicitly disclose each of the holding mechanisms is provided with a main body fixed to the base and a holding member that is installed movable up and down on the main body so that the holding member takes an ascended portion when being up and a descended position when being down.
However, Ishikawa teaches, wherein each of the holding mechanisms (Ishikawa: FIG. 1-2 The means in which the bottom surfaces of members 21 and lift device 31 are connected) is provided with a main body (Ishikawa: FIG. 2 Rods 31a as set forth on page 2 in paragraph 5 of the machine translation) fixed to the base (Ishikawa: FIG. 2 Lift devices 31 as set forth on page 2 in paragraph 4) and a holding member that is installed movable up and down on the main body (Ishikawa: As set forth on page 2 in paragraphs 4-5) so that the holding member takes an ascended position when being up (Ishikawa: When rods 31a are extended) and a descended position when being down (Ishikawa: When rods 31a are not extended; the difference between the ascended and descended position being in a range of about 10 mm to 30 mm as set forth on page 3 in paragraph 6).
Horton and Ishikawa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of patient-supporting surfaces, specifically in relation to the back. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of the members between the bases and holding mechanism of Horton to incorporate the teaching of Ishikawa and include wherein each of the holding mechanisms (Ishikawa: FIG. 1-2 The means in which the bottom surfaces of members 21 and lift device 31 are connected) is provided with a main body (Ishikawa: FIG. 2 Rods 31a as set forth on page 2 in paragraph 5 of the machine translation) fixed to the base (Ishikawa: FIG. 2 Lift devices 31 as set forth on page 2 in paragraph 4) and a holding member that is installed movable up and down on the main body (Ishikawa: As set forth on page 2 in paragraphs 4-5) so that the holding member takes an ascended position when being up (Ishikawa: When rods 31a are extended) and a descended position when being down (Ishikawa: When rods 31a are not extended; the difference between the ascended and descended position being in a range of about 10 mm to 30 mm as set forth on page 3 in paragraph 6). Doing so would enable the supporting bodies to be position at a predetermined height in order to accommodate the user (Ishikawa: As set forth on page 2 in paragraphs 4-5).
Regarding claim 2, Horton as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Horton further discloses, wherein defining two of the supporting bodies that are placed adjacent in the front-back direction as a front-side supporting body in the front side (FIG. 2 Abdomen support members 88a, 88b as set forth in [0030]) and a back-side supporting body in the back side (FIG. 2 Pelvis support members 92a, 92b as set forth in [0030]), and a space (S1) between the front-side and back-side supporting bodies (The space between the abdomen support members and the pelvis support members) and defining two of the supporting bodies that are placed adjacent in a left-right direction as a left-side supporting body in the left side (The abdomen support member and the pelvis support member on the left side of the central axis) and a right-side supporting body in the right side (The abdomen support member and the pelvis support member on the right side of the central axis) and a space (S2) between the left-side and right-side supporting bodies (The space between the abdomen support member and the pelvis support member on one side of the central axis and the abdomen support member and the pelvis support member on the other side of the central axis).
Horton fails to explicitly disclose that the back-side supporting body is formed to have a larger area than the front-side supporting body.
However, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the back-side supporting body formed to have a larger area than the front-side supporting body in the device of Horton as modified because Applicant has not disclosed that the specific size differential, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem apart from ensuring the desired corrective forces can be applied to the sacroiliac joints with ease, while stably supporting the pelvis with the back-side supporting bodies. Specifically, the specification states in [0022] that the back-side supporting bodies should preferably have larger areas than the front-side supporting bodies closer to the sacroiliac joints, thereby it become easier to apply desired corrective forces to the sacroiliac joints by the rotations of the front-side supporting bodies while stably supporting the pelvis with the back-side supporting bodies. However, as explained in MPEP § 2144, subsection II, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges or values are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), it was held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the size of the supporting bodies of Horton, and Applicant' s supporting bodies, to perform equally well because both mechanisms perform the same function of allowing for a desired corrective force to be applied to the sacroiliac joints, while stably supporting the pelvis.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to further modify Horton to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2, because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan in order to achieve the desired adjustable support of the user’s pelvis and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Horton.
Horton as modified fails to explicitly disclose that the space (S1) between the front-side and back-side supporting bodies is 10~30 mm, and the space (S2) between the left-side and right-side supporting bodies is a 50~70 mm.
However, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the space (S1) between the front-side and back-side supporting bodies 10~30 mm, and the space (S2) between the left-side and right-side supporting bodies 50~70 mm in the device of Horton as modified because Applicant has not disclosed that the specific space size, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem apart from ensuring the spaces aren’t too large or small. Specifically, the specification states in [0021] that when spaces S1 and S2 between the supporting bodies are too small, it becomes difficult to apply desired corrective forces to the sacroiliac joints and if they are too large, the support of the pelvis can easily become unstable. However, as explained in MPEP § 2144, subsection II, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges or values are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), it was held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the size of the spaces between the supporting bodies of Horton, and Applicant' s space sizes, to perform equally well because both mechanisms perform the same function of allowing for a desired corrective force to be applied to the sacroiliac joints, while stably supporting the pelvis.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to further modify Horton to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2, because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan in order to achieve the desired adjustable support of the user’s pelvis and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Horton.
Regarding claim 3, Horton as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Horton as modified by Ishikawa further teaches, wherein a distance from the descended position to the ascended position of the holding members is 10~30 mm (Ishikawa: When rods 31a are extended they are in an ascended position; When rods 31a are not extended they are in a descended position; the difference between the ascended and descended position being in a range of about 10 mm to 30 mm as set forth on page 3 in paragraph 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEIRA EILEEN CALLISON whose telephone number is (571)272-0745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/KEIRA EILEEN CALLISON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785