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 .
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 and 19-20 designated Group I in the reply filed on 09/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of species A in the reply filed on 09/22/2026 is also acknowledged. Applicant’s traversal is on the grounds that specification relates the two species as configurations with Applicant's pointing to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0316308 A1, paragraph [0106] which corresponds with instant specification as-file page 21 second full paragraph which states “In yet another example embodiment of the invention, multiple sensory enclosures 10 may be connected or stacked together in either a side-by-side configuration or a bunkbed configuration.” Applicant’s arguments in light of instant specification as-file page 21 second full paragraph stating “stacked” configuration is synonymous with “bunkbed” were found persuasive in light of instant specification as-filed page 16 last partial paragraph which notes “sensory enclosure 12 to function as a traditional bunk bed”. Since, stacked configuration is similar to a traditional bunk bed, the restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Claim 11-18 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Currently, claims 1-10 and 19-20 are being examined on the merits as drawn to the elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: [a] figure 3 does not include the following reference sign(s) “30a” mentioned in the description in at least page 10 [b] figure 4 does not include the following reference sign(s) “66” mentioned in the description in at least page 11.
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. 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:
“…It is estimated that 15-20 percent of the world's population exhibits some form of neurodivergence. neurodivergent individuals include individuals with autism, ADHD, PTSD, and OCD, to name a few …” in page 2 needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is -- It is estimated that 15-20 percent of the world's population exhibits some form of neurodivergence. [[n]]Neurodivergent individuals include individuals with autism, ADHD, PTSD, and OCD, to name a few --.
“Lip 22 is able aids in retaining objects” in page 8 needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is -- Lip 22
“Therefore, sensory enclosures 10 of the present include one or more safety barriers” page 11 needs to be corrected.
“that are able to fit into or mat with end channels” in page 12 needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is -- that are able to fit into or [[mat]] mate with end channels--.
“in an open state and parallel to each other, holes formed each door panel can be aligned allowing for insertion of a pin into the aligned holes, thereby locking them in the open position” in page 12 needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is -- in an open state and parallel to each other, holes formed in each door panel can be aligned allowing for insertion of a pin into the aligned holes, thereby locking them in the open position--.
“sensory enclosures 100a and 100b also include a stair or ladder 200 that allows a user to reach the upper sensory enclosure 100a more easily pod” in page 15 needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is -- sensory enclosures 100a and 100b also include a stair or ladder 200 that allows a user to reach the upper sensory enclosure 100a more easily [[pod]]--.
“(if different from support platform 12))” in page 17 needs to be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification is objected to for not including any line or paragraph numbers making it harder to reference subsections. Paragraph or line numbers are suggested for ease of reference.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5-7 “the one or more sensory accessory” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is – the at least one sensory accessory – in light of its antecedent “at least one sensory accessory” in claim 1 line 9 and also in order to maintain claim term consistency.
Claim 20 “the one or more sensory accessory” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is – the at least one sensory accessory – in light of its antecedent “at least one sensory accessory” in claim 19 line 15 and also in order to maintain claim term consistency.
Claim 6 “the control center comprises a computer interface in operative communication with the interior compartment and capable of controlling the one or more sensory accessory” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is -- the control center comprises a computer interface in operative communication with the interior compartment , wherein the control center is configured for controlling the one or more sensory accessory-- to avoid potential intended use/functional limitation interpretation as detailed in MPEP 2111.04 which states inter alia that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (See MPEP 2111.04 ).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Each of claims 5-6 in line 1 recite the limitation "the control center". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims 7 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the additional recited limitations fail to cure the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue in their respective base claims. Consequently, dependent claims 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their direct/indirect dependency on their respective base claims.
Claim Interpretation
Claims terms where relevant are being interpreted in light of definitions enumerated in instant application specification as-filed pages 1-2, 7, 16-18, 21.
Please note that USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.... The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.... An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.").
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 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.
(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 1-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zpods (Pub: ZPods' can help kids get some sleep, George Bailey, Jul 8, 2020, Youtube Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCnjpbiUC9I&lc=Ugwdh_4zbsdzgEalvzZ4AaABAg, hereinafter referred to as “Zpods”).
As per independent Claim 1, Zpods discloses a sensory enclosure assembly having an interior compartment conducive to sensory or sleep management (Entire Zpods YouTube video along with the details in Zpods entire document discloses relevant subject-matter. More pertinently, Zpods in at least fig. 7, fig. 11), comprising: a support platform having a support surface configured to support a weight (Zpods in at least fig. 7, fig. 11 middle panel image); one or more wall panels extending upwardly from the support platform and at least partially surrounding the support surface (Zpods in at least fig. 4, fig. 7, fig. 11); a ceiling panel resting upon and extending between the one or more wall panels (Zpods in at least fig. 1, fig. 4, fig. 7, fig. 11); and at least one sensory accessory disposed in the interior compartment (Zpods in at least fig. 3, 5-7, 9-11, example lighting, mirror); wherein the at least one sensory accessory is adjustable to control an environment of the interior compartment (Zpods in at least fig. 9-10, control panel).
As per dependent Claim 2, Zpods further discloses the sensory enclosure assembly further comprising one or more door panels operatively extending between the support platform and the ceiling platform to permit egress and ingress of the interior compartment (Zpods in at least fig. 11 left and right panel images).
As per dependent Claim 3, Zpods further discloses the sensory enclosure assembly further comprising a control center operatively coupled to the at least one sensory accessory to control adjustment of the environment of the interior compartment (Zpods in at least fig. 9-10, control center/panel).
As per dependent Claim 4, Zpods further discloses the sensory enclosure assembly wherein the at least one sensory accessory comprises one or more lights, thermostats, speakers, scent emitters, sound generators, vibration generators, headphones, and virtual reality devices, or combinations thereof (Zpods in at least fig. 3, 5-7, 9-11, example lighting, mirror).
As per dependent Claim 5, Zpods further discloses the sensory enclosure assembly wherein the control center comprises a user interface positioned in the interior compartment that is selectable by a user wanting to control the one or more sensory accessory (Zpods in at least fig. 9-10, control center/panel user interface).
As per dependent Claim 6, Zpods further discloses the sensory enclosure assembly wherein the control center comprises a computer interface (Zpods in at least fig. 9-10) in operative communication with the interior compartment and capable of controlling the one or more sensory accessory (Zpods in at least fig. 9).
As per dependent Claim 8, Zpods further discloses the sensory enclosure assembly further comprising a mirror in the interior compartment (Zpods in at least fig. 3-4, 9-10, mirror in interior).
As per dependent Claim 9, Zpods further discloses the sensory enclosure assembly further comprising at least two sensory enclosures stacked in a vertical configuration (Zpods in fig. 7, fig. 11 (left panel image) stacked enclosures).
As per dependent Claim 10, Zpods further discloses the sensory enclosure assembly further comprising a passageway extending between the at least two sensory enclosures stacked in the vertical configuration (fig. 7, fig. 11 left panel image, ladder).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Nate et al. (Pub: Thailand Capsule Hotel (sleeping in the Bangkok airport), By Kara and Nate, Dec 9, 2019, Youtube Video available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pps8hh5Aq-c, hereinafter referred to as “Nate”).
As per independent Claim 19, Nate discloses a sensory enclosure system having one or more interior compartments that are conducive to improving sensory management or sleeping habits (Entire Nate YouTube video along with the details in Nate entire document discloses relevant subject-matter. More pertinently, Nate in at least fig. 1-3, fig. 9-11), comprising: a base support platform having a base support surface configured to support a weight (Nate fig. 2-3, fig. 6) ; one or more base wall panels resting upon the base support surface of the base support platform and at least partially surrounding the base support surface (Nate fig. 1-3, fig. 9); a secondary support platform having a secondary support surface configured to support a mattress (Nate fig. 1, fig. 10-11), wherein the secondary support platform rests upon and extends between the one or more base wall panels(Nate fig. 11 ); one or more secondary wall panels resting upon the secondary support surface of the secondary support platform and at least partially surrounding the secondary support surface (Nate fig. 11); a ceiling panel resting upon and extending between the one or more secondary wall panels (Nate fig. 11); at least one sensory accessory comprises one or more lights, thermostats, speakers, scent emitters, sound generators, vibration generators, headphones, and virtual reality devices, or combinations thereof (Nate fig. 2-8, fig. 11); and one or more door panels operatively resting upon and extending between the base support platform and the secondary support platform to permit egress and ingress into the interior (Nate fig. 2 vs. fig. 11).
As per dependent Claim 20, Nate further discloses the sensory enclosure system further comprising a control center comprises a user interface positioned in the interior compartment that is selectable by a user wanting to control the one or more sensory accessory (Nate, fig. 2-8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zpods in view of Lee et al. (Pub. No.: US 20250099028 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Lee”).
As per dependent Claim 7, Zpods discloses sensory enclosure assembly of claim 6 (see claim 6 analysis above)
Zpods does not explicitly disclose artificial intelligence features.
However, in an analogous sensory enclosure having an interior compartment conducive to sensory or sleep management field of endeavor, Lee discloses sensory enclosure having an interior compartment (Lee in at least abstract, [0020], [0033], [0164-0174]. See at least Lee in at least [0164] “environment sensing information … may be acquired through an electronic device (e.g., a user terminal (10), etc.). The environment sensing information may refer to sensing information acquired from a space in which a user is located”)
wherein the computer interface comprises artificial intelligence configured to control the one or more sensory accessory to control the sensory environment of the interior compartment for a user having sensory needs (Lee in at least Lee in at least [0033], [0164-0182], [0191], [0306]. See at least Lee [0168] “user terminal (10) may include … smartphone… artificial intelligence (AI) speaker and artificial intelligence (AI) TV, and wearable device, etc., and may include any type of terminal that has access to a wired or wireless network”; [0172] “environment adjustment device (30) can adjust the user's sleep environment by operating the environment adjustment module regarding at least one of air quality, illumination, temperature, wind direction, humidity, and sound of a space in which the user is located based on environment adjustment information received from the computing device (100).”; [0191] “computing device (100) may acquire sleep state information based on the environment sensing information acquired from the user terminal (10). Specifically, the computing device (100) may convert and/or adjust unclearly acquired environment sensing information, including a lot of noise, into data that can be analyzed. The converted and/or adjusted data may be utilized to perform training on an artificial neural network.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer interface of the sensory enclosure assembly as taught by Zpods, in a manner that the computer interface additionally comprises artificial intelligence, as taught by Lee. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the advantage that that a high learning rate can be used to increase efficiency by allowing the AI algorithm to quickly achieve a certain level of performance while also increasing accuracy by allowing low learning rate later in the learning of the AI algorithm (Lee, [0302]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and/or the claims. US 20210213238; US 20160012747; US 5304112; US 20100030013; US 20160144150; US 20080120919; US 20070193132; US 20130261378; US 20230355917; US 20180320394; US 20190201806; US 20160008568; US 20130012763; US 6702767; US 20250099028; US 20200405998 for disclosing sensory and/or sleeping capsule/pods/enclosures similar to that claimed and/or disclosed.
Non-patent literature Optimi Rooms - Futuristic Capsules In Bilbao, Optimi Rooms, Dec 1, 2021 for disclosing single and stacked sensory enclosures/capsules equipped with wireless headphones, a ventilation system, chargers, built-in LCD screens, safes, adjustable lights that enhances relaxation/sleep similar to that disclosed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNITA REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-5151. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thu 10-4 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHARLES A MARMOR II can be reached on (571)272-4730. 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
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) Form at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SUNITA REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
