DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Rejection for non-provisional application 18/637,950 filed April 17th 2024, which claims benefit from foreign application KR10-2024-0028007 filed February 27th 2024. Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
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 § 102
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)(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jung (US20240065914A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jung discloses a device for correcting posture (Fig. 2; system 200), the device comprising: a face support module (A) (Fig. 2; support assembly 206) configured to support the face of a user lying prone so that the user's head is located higher than the user’s feet (Fig. 2 and 3A, ¶ 40, ¶ 42; wherein support assembly 206 comprised of head support 214 and frame 218 is capable of supporting the face of the user in a manner where the user's head is located higher than the user’s feet via adjustment mechanism 230 about rotational axis A2 and A3), wherein the face support module (A) comprises a face support cushion (100) having a cross section shaped into a horseshoe configured to support an edge of the user’s facial area and a jaw of the user (Fig. 1 and 2; head support 214), and a link member (200) configured to tilt the face support cushion (100) so that the face support cushion (100) is inclined downward in a forward direction where the top of the user's head faces, so that the user when lying prone is maintained in a posture in which the jaw is pulled and the ears and shoulders are located on a same level (Fig. 2, ¶ 42, ¶ 52; adjustment mechanism 230).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US20240065914A1) in view of Martin (US20220296449A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Jung discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the face support module (A) (Fig. 2; support assembly 206) comprises a base member (300) configured to be placed on a floor (Fig. 2, ¶ 42; base beams 220a and 220b), and a face support fixing plate (400) provided above the base member (300) and fixed to the face support cushion (100) at an upper surface thereof (Fig. 3B, ¶ 42; articulating arm 222c), wherein the link member (200) comprises second joint links (220) (Fig. 2 and 3B; articulating arms 222a and 222b) having first ends respectively shaft-coupled to portions of the base member (300) located below a rear end of the face support fixing plate (400) (Fig. 2 and 3B, ¶ 42-43; wherein articulating arms 222a and 222b are shaft-coupled to base beams 220a and 220b via locks 240a and 240b), and wherein second ends of the second joint links (220) are rotatably coupled to a lower surface of a middle portion of the face support fixing plate (400) (Fig. 2 and 3B, ¶ 42-43; wherein articulating arms 222a and 222b are shaft-coupled to articulating arm 222c via lock 240c and rotatable about axis A3).
Jung fails to disclose wherein the link member (200) comprises first joint links (210) having first ends respectively shaft-coupled to portions of the base member (300) located below a rear end of the face support fixing plate (400), wherein the first joint links (210) are formed longer than the second joint links (220) and second ends of the first joint links (210) are rotatably coupled to a lower surface of a front end of the face support fixing plate (400).
However, Martin teaches a headrest assembly wherein the link member (200) comprises first joint links (210) having first ends respectively shaft-coupled to portions of the base member (300) located below a rear end of the face support fixing plate (400) (See annotated Fig. 5A below), wherein the first joint links (210) are formed longer than the second joint links (220) and second ends of the first joint links (210) are rotatably coupled to a lower surface of a front end of the face support fixing plate (400) (See annotated Fig. 5A below; wherein the first joint links are visibly longer than the second joint links). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to add the first joint links of Martin to the frame 218 of Jung. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so as the addition of joint links would enhance the overall stability and adjustability of the head support.
PNG
media_image1.png
554
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US20240065914A1) in view of Martin (US20220296449A1) and in further view of Sklar (US7730563B1).
Regarding Claim 3, although Jung fails to explicitly disclose the device of claim 2, wherein the second joint links (220) each has a form of a bent bar in which a first end portion has a predetermined length and an angle between the first end portion and a remaining portion is an obtuse angle (Fig. 2 and 3B; articulating arms 222a and 222b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to design the second joint links to include a bent bar in which a first end portion has a predetermined length and an angle between the first end portion and a remaining portion is an obtuse angle (as designed for the adjustment mechanism 230 in Fig. 2), because the claimed shape is a matter of choice within the skill of the art. According to MPEP 2144, changes in shape, size, or sequence of adding ingredients is not an inventive feature. Therefore, the claimed bent bar feature of the second joint links is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the shape of the second joint links is critical as In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As set forth in the rejection of Claim 2, Jung discloses a support assembly 206 and Martin teaches modifying Jung to include first joint links in frame 218. Both Jung and Martin teach wherein the joint links each has a form of a straight bar (Jung; Fig. 2 and 3B, articulating arms 222a and 222b) (Martin; See annotated Fig. 5A below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to design the first joint links added from Martin to be straight, consistent with the structures discloses in both references. A skilled artisan would have recognized that using straight joint links would provide predictable mechanical performance, simplifies manufacturing and aligns with the straight-arm configurations shown in both references. Additionally, it has been held that claimed shape is a matter of choice within the skill of the art. According to MPEP 2144, changes in shape, size, or sequence of adding ingredients is not an inventive feature. Therefore, the claimed straight bar feature of the first joint links is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the shape of the first joint links is critical as In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
PNG
media_image2.png
554
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jung fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first end portions of the second joint links (220) have moving guide holes (221) each formed in a longitudinal direction thereof, and the shaft-coupling points between the second joint links (220) and the base member (300) are movable along the moving guide holes (221) (Fig. 2, ¶ 42-43; wherein articulating arms 222a and 222b may be pivotally coupled to base beams 220a and 220b via locks 240a and 240b).
However, Sklar teaches a head support system comprised of moving guide holes (221) each formed in a longitudinal direction thereof and wherein the shaft-coupling points between the second joint links (220) and the base member (300) are movable along the moving guide holes (221) (Fig. 1A, Col. 6 lines 17-26; longitudinal slot 236). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to design the coupling “hole” portion of articulating arms 222a and 222b to base beams 220a and 220b via locks 240a and 240b such that it may be shaped as a longitudinal slot as taught by Sklar. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because the incorporation of a guiding hole would allow for additional positional adjustment, tolerance compensation and improved alignment during assembly. In addition, it is noted that claimed shape is a matter of choice within the skill of the art and it would have been obvious to design the circular hole shape of the coupling points in Jung to be an elongated oval. According to MPEP 2144, changes in shape, size, or sequence of adding ingredients is not an inventive feature. Therefore, the claimed guiding hole feature of the first end portions of the second joint links is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the shape of the first end portions of the second joint links is critical as In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding Claim 4, Jung as modified discloses the limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above, further disclosing a lever (340) (Fig. 2 and 3B; locks 240a, 240b, 240c) provided at one end of the rotation shaft (320) protruding outward from one end of the base frame (310) (Fig. 2 and See annotated Fig. 3B below, ¶ 43; wherein the examiner notes, in order for locks 240a, 240b, and 240c to rotate and adjust the support assembly, a rotational shaft must be present to transmit the rotational motion).
PNG
media_image3.png
355
253
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As noted above in Claim 2, Jung as modified by Martin teaches the first ends of the first joint links (210), which are provided inside close to the opposite ends of the base frame (310) (See annotated Fig. 2 below for applied modifications, wherein first joint links are added inside close to the opposite ends of the base frame via levers 240a and 240b).
PNG
media_image4.png
500
640
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Further, as noted by the modifications set forth in Claims 2 and 3 above, Jung as modified by Martin and Sklar teaches the moving guide holes (221) of the second joint links (220) provided inside the first joint links (210).
Although, Jung fails to explicitly disclose a rotation shaft (320) connecting opposite ends of the base frame (310) and penetrating through the first ends of the first joint links (210), which are provided inside close to the opposite ends of the base frame (310). Jung discloses levers 240a and 240b, each inherently mounted for rotation via a respective rotational shaft (Fig. 2 and See annotated Fig. 3B below, ¶ 43; wherein the examiner notes, in order for locks 240a, 240b, and 240c to rotate and adjust the support assembly, a rotational shaft must be present to transmit the rotational motion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the two individual rotational shafts into a single, continuous shaft extending between both levers and connecting opposite end of the base frame and penetrating through the first ends of the first joint links (210) in order to achieve structural simplification, improved alignment, and synchronized movement. It has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993). This modification represents an integral and predictable variation of the known structure, involving the combination of two functionally similar components into a single part.
PNG
media_image5.png
500
356
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Jung fails to disclose wherein the base member (300) comprises a base frame (310) having a '⊂' shape and a bushing (330) provided between the second joint links (220) that face each other while the rotation shaft (320) penetrates in a longitudinal direction thereof.
However, Martin teaches a headrest assembly wherein the base member (300) comprises a base frame (310) having a '⊂' shape (See annotated Fig. 8 below) and a bushing (330) provided between the second joint links (220) that face each other while the rotation shaft (320) penetrates in a longitudinal direction thereof (See annotated Fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
335
258
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the base frame 218 of Jung with the base of Martin such that it may have a '⊂' shape and comprise of a rotation shaft and bushing. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to design the base of the support to have a '⊂' shape and to incorporate a bushing, as such a configuration is commonly used to allow for greater flexibility in mounting while ensuring stability, provides a more ergonomic fit, and improves clearance around the user’s head or neck and as such represents a predictable design choice aimed at improving user comfort and structural compatibility. It is also noted that claimed shape is a matter of choice within the skill of the art and it would have been obvious to design the base shape of frame 218 in Jung to have a '⊂' shape. According to MPEP 2144, changes in shape, size, or sequence of adding ingredients is not an inventive feature. Therefore, the claimed '⊂' shape feature is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the '⊂' shape feature is critical as In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Jung as modified by Martin and Sklar above teaches a lever (340) provided at one end of the rotation shaft (320) protruding outward from one end of the base frame (310) (Fig. 2 and See annotated Fig. 3B below, ¶ 43; wherein the examiner notes, in order for locks 240a, 240b, and 240c to rotate and adjust the support assembly, a rotational shaft must be present to transmit the rotational motion), which allows the first joint links (210), the second joint links (220), and the bushing (330) to come into close contact with each other or release them from the close contact state to shaft-rotate the first joint links (210) and the second joint links (220). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, the modifications of the rotational shaft, bushing, first joint links and guide holes to be capable of coming into close contact with each other or release them from the close contact state to shaft-rotate the first joint links and the second joint links. Since, Jung teaches that the lever mechanism comprised of a rotational shaft is capable of moving the second joint links into close contact or released via levers 240a, 240b and 240c (¶ 43), it would have been obvious that the first joint links and bushing, as modified, along with the second joint links, should similarly be configured to come into close contact with each other or release them from the close contact. The system as a whole would thus maintain symmetrical coordinated actuation, which is routinely expected when multiple joint links are introduced in comparable mechanical contexts. Such a modification does not require a change in the fundamental operation of the lever mechanism, rather, it is a straightforward extension of the existing system, applying known techniques to a predictable result, consistent with KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US20240065914A1) in view of Sklar (US7730563B1).
Regarding Claim 5, Jung discloses the device of claim 1, further comprising: a shoulder support module (B) configured to support each shoulder of the user when the user is lying prone (Fig. 1; support 116), wherein the shoulder support module (B) comprises a shoulder support cushion (500) configured to support each shoulder of the user (Fig. 1, ¶ 32; support 116).
Jung fails to disclose a height adjusting stand (600) configured to adjust a height of the shoulder support cushion (500).
However, Sklar teaches a head support system wherein a height adjusting stand (600) may be configured to adjust a height of the shoulder support cushion (500) (Fig. 1 and 5; wherein head support and stabilization device 310 is vertically adjustably connected to rack 38 via gear box 36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shoulder support module of Jung with the gear box and rack adjustable support structure of Sklar to include vertical adjustability. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because vertical adjustability of the shoulder support would better accommodate users of varying sizes and ensure anatomical alignment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shefaali Sivabada whose telephone number is 571-272-0451. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Rachael E. Bredefeld can be reached at 571-270-5237. 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.
/SHEFAALI SIVABADA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/RACHAEL E BREDEFELD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786