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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 10 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites more than one period in the claim. The additional periods following “a.,” “i.,” “blanket.,” “mattress.,” “sleeve.,” “pillow.,” “ii.,” “iii.,” “iv.,” “b.” and the period after “compositions” in the 2nd to last line should be removed.
Claims 4 and 13 recite “track progress” and “receive” in line 4, suggested to be changed to --tracking progress-- and --receiving--, respectively, for grammatical reasons. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites more than one period in the claim. The additional periods following “a.,” “b.,” and “c.” should be removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 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 “may be” however it is unclear if the language following is positively recited. The language is suggested to be changed to --configured to be--.
Claim 1 recites “said amplifiers,” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 2 and 11 recite “a user’s arm” suggested to be changed to --an arm of the user-- to refer back to the user of claims 1 and 10, respectively.
Claims 3 and 12 recite “a user’s body” suggested to be changed to --the user’s body-- in order to refer back to the user of claims 1 and 10, respectively.
Claim 2 recites “a sleeve” however it is unclear if applicant is referring back to the ergonomic sleeve from claim 1 or introducing a new and different sleeve. As best understood and for examination purposes, applicant is referring to the sleeve of claim 1.
Claims 3 and 12 recite “sensors integrated into said pieces and/or onto a user's body” however sensors integrated onto a user’s body adds structure to a closed system since “consisting of” language is used in independent claims 1 and 10. A claim which depends from a claim which “consists of” the recited elements or steps cannot add an element or step. MPEP 2111.03 II.
Claims 4 and 13 recite “a user’s” suggested to be changed to --the user’s-- in order to refer back to the user of claims 1 and 10, respectively.
Claims 4 and 13 recite “their” suggested to be changed to --the user’s-- for clarity.
Claims 6 and 15 recite “the list,” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 7 and 16 recite “the therapeutic effect,” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 9 and 18 recite “further comprising a portable speaker system that wirelessly connects to said pieces” however a portable speaker system adds structure to a closed system since “consisting of” language is used in independent claims 1 and 10. A claim which depends from a claim which “consists of” the recited elements or steps cannot add an element or step. MPEP 2111.03 II.
Claim 10 recites “the duration,” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites “the planned combinations of frequencies” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites “personal journey of self-help documentation of the planned combinations of frequencies and their impact on mental, emotional and physical systems” however this language is not written as a method step.
Claims 12, 16 and 18 recite “said pieces,” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites “said sonic therapy system” and “sonic therapy regimen” which lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14 recites “said low-frequency sonic therapy,” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 15 recites “said power supply,” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
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 3 is 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).
Claim 3 recites “sensors integrated into said pieces and/or onto a user’s body,” which is language that appears to claim the user’s body.
Claim 3 recites “said sensors measure physiological parameters of the user,” which is language that appears to claim the user.
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 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (2016/0030280), Rabin et al. (2025/0090790) and Dorfman et al. (2018/0168362).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 6 Jones discloses a sonic therapy system (abstract) consisting of: a modular piece (sleeve, see fig. 6 [0019]) provided with low frequency transducers adapted to produce tones in a frequency range (abstract 20-100 Hz) to produce sound [0025] and vibration [0025] and a power supply (power level adjustment described, transducers must have a power supply to operate [0012]), the piece being an ergonomic sleeve (fig. 6 [0019]), whereby low frequency sonic therapy may be carried out while a user sleeps [0021], but is silent regarding that the frequency range is from 30-120 Hz. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the frequency range of 20-100 HZ to 30-120 Hz, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and it appears that a frequency range of 30-120 Hz would perform equally as well at providing sonic therapy to a user. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The modified Jones is silent regarding three further modular and integrated pieces each provided with low frequency transducers, a low frequency sound amplifier powering said transducers, said pieces being: i. a blanket. ii. a topper adapted to fit a mattress. iv. a pillow. b. an app adapted to control said amplifiers to produce low-frequency sounds from said transducers, thereby creating low sound frequency compositions. However, Rabin teaches three further modular and integrated pieces each provided with low frequency transducers [0201], a low frequency sound amplifier powering said transducers [0167], said pieces being: i. a blanket [0164] ii. a topper adapted to fit a mattress [0164]. iv. a pillow [0164] b. an app adapted to control said amplifiers to produce low-frequency sounds from said transducers [0156], thereby creating low sound frequency compositions [0201]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones’ system with the addition of a low frequency sound amplifier powering the transducers, 3 further pieces and an app to control said amplifiers, as taught by Rabin, for the purpose of providing further sleep therapy to a user’s body ([0021] Rabin). The modified Jones’ is silent regarding that the topper is a fitted topper. However, Dorfman teaches a fitted topper (Fig. 3, [0022] mattress pad 300 fitted over and around a mattress, the mattress pad including transducers). 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 modified Jones’ topper with a fitted topper, as taught by Dorfman, for the purpose of providing a secure topper to the mattress.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Jones’ is silent regarding sensors integrated into said pieces and/or onto a user's body, wherein said sensors measure physiological parameters of the user and adjust the frequency and intensity of the low-frequency sound waves based on real-time feedback. However, Rabin teaches sensors 118 integrated into said pieces [0162] and/or onto a user's body, wherein said sensors measure physiological parameters of the user [0162] and adjust the frequency [0162] and intensity [0162] of the low-frequency sound waves based on real-time feedback [0162][0288]. 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 modified Jones’ system with the addition of sensors, as taught by Rabin, for the purpose of providing adjustment to the transducers as needed.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Jones’ discloses that said low-frequency sonic therapy is specifically tuned to reduce mental stress, emotional stress, physical stress, insomnia, and negative thoughts (based on the frequency range of the transducers, mental stress, emotional stress, physical stress, insomnia, and negative thoughts will be reduced).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Jones’ is silent regarding that said power supply is selected from the list consisting of one or more of: battery; low-voltage dc power supply; inductive coupler. However, Rabin teaches a battery [0177] provided to the stimulation device 102. 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 modified Jones’ power source with a battery, as taught by Rabin, for the purpose of providing an alternate power source having the predictable results of providing power to transducers.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Jones’ discloses that said pieces are made of materials that enhance the transmission and absorption of low-frequency sound waves, maximizing the therapeutic effect (the materials of the pieces are made of materials that allow for the transmission and absorption of low-frequency sound waves compared to other materials that do not allow for transmission and absorption).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, Rabin and Dorfman, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Northern et al. (2023/0008214).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Jones discloses a sleeve adapted to fit around a user's arm or leg (Fig. 6, Jones), said sleeve being fitted with low sound frequency transducers adapted to produce tones in the frequency range of 30-120 Hz to produce sound and vibration (see modification to Jones’ frequency in the rejection of claim 1), that a user’s arm experiences restlessness [0003], but does not explicitly recite that the sleeve is around said user's arm. However, Northern teaches an arm sleeve including sonic transducers [0389]. 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 modified Jones’ leg sleeve with an arm sleeve, as taught by Northern, for the purpose of providing therapy to a user’s arm.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, Rabin and Dorfman, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Van Halteren et al. (2018/0277013) and Giacomini et al. (2021/006287).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Jones is silent regarding that said app allows for measurement and recording of biofeedback relating to a user's mental, emotional, and physical well-being, enabling said user to improve the operation of said sonic therapy system towards attaining said well-being, track progress. However, Van Halteren teaches an app that allows for measurement and recording of biofeedback relating to a user's mental, emotional, and physical well-being ([0057] 2nd to last sentence), enabling said user to improve the operation of said sonic therapy system towards attaining said well-being (the more information a user has regarding their health the better the user’s well-being), track progress (recording the sensor signals tracks progress). 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 modified Jones’ app with the ability to measure and record biofeedback relating to a user's mental, emotional, and physical well-being, as taught by Van Halteren, for the purpose of providing further information for a user regarding their therapy. The modified Jones’ is silent regarding receiving recommendations for optimizing their sonic therapy regimen. However, Giacomini teaches receiving recommendations for optimizing a vibration therapy regimen [0061-0062]. 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 modified Jones’ app with the ability to receive recommendations, as taught by Giacomini, for the purpose of providing informed recommendations to the user.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, Rabin and Dorfman, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Auphan et al. (2016/0015315) and Giacomini et al. (2021/006287).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Jones is silent regarding that the app includes a database of pre-programmed therapeutic sequences based on user feedback. However, Auphan teaches an app that includes a database of pre-programmed therapeutic sequences based on user feedback [0125]. 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 modified Jones’ app with a database of pre-programmed therapeutic sequences based on user feedback, as taught by Auphan, for the purpose of providing therapy based on the user’s needs. The modified Jones is silent regarding that the app includes a database of pre-programmed therapeutic sequences based on expert recommendations, offering users a curated selection of wellness routines. However, Giacomini teaches an app that includes a database of pre-programmed therapeutic sequences based on expert recommendations [0061-0062], offering users a curated selection of wellness routines [0061-0062]. 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 modified Jones’ app with a database of pre-programmed therapeutic sequences based on expert recommendations, as taught by Giacomini, for the purpose of providing therapy based on informed recommendations to the user.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, Rabin and Dorfman, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Ning et al. (11,541,202).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Jones is silent regarding a portable speaker system that wirelessly connects to said pieces, allowing users to enjoy low-frequency sonic therapy sessions in various settings, including outdoors or during travel. However, Ning teaches a portable speaker system that wirelessly connects to various transducers ([0125] separate vibration and sound transducers are connected wirelessly), allowing users to enjoy low-frequency sonic therapy sessions in various settings, including outdoors or during travel ([0125] due to the portability of the speaker). 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 modified Jones’ system with the addition of a portable speaker system that wirelessly connects to said pieces, as taught by Ning, for the purpose of providing further control of the pieces.
Claims 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (2016/0030280), Rabin et al. (2025/0090790), Rise et al. (2009/0264956) and George et al. (2020/0121544).
Regarding claim 10, in fig. 6 Jones discloses a method consisting of: a. surrounding said user with sources of low frequency sound waves (abstract 20-100 Hz), but is silent regarding controlling the duration, intensity, and sequence of said low frequency sound waves by means of an app used by said user, for production of desired states of relaxation in a user. However, Rabin teaches controlling the duration [0162], intensity [0162], and sequence (pattern [0162]) of said low frequency sound waves by means of an app used by said user, for production of desired states of relaxation in a user [0009]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones’ method with the addition of controlling the duration, intensity, and sequence of said low frequency sound waves by means of an app used by said user, for production of desired states of relaxation in a user, as taught by Rabin, for the purpose of providing adjustment to the user’s therapy. The modified Jones is silent regarding a step of a personal journey of self-help documentation of the planned combinations of frequencies and their impact on mental and emotional systems. However, Rise teaches a personal journey of self-help documentation of the planned combinations of frequencies and their impact on mental and emotional systems ([0073] discusses a patient indicating a change in mood after a specific therapy, a person’s mood is part of a user’s mental and emotional systems). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones’ method with the addition of a personal journey of self-help documentation of the planned combinations of frequencies and their impact on mental and emotional systems, as taught by Rise, for the purpose of providing feedback for future therapy. The modified Jones is silent regarding a step of a personal journey of self-help documentation of the planned combinations of frequencies and their impact on physical systems. However, George teaches a personal journey of self-help documentation of the planned combinations of frequencies [0296] and their impact on mental and emotional systems ([0239] discusses a patient indicating a change in pain after a specific therapy [0092]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones’ method with the addition of a personal journey of self-help documentation of the planned combinations of frequencies and their impact on physical systems, as taught by George, for the purpose of providing feedback for future therapy.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Jones’ is silent regarding sensors integrated into said pieces and/or onto a user's body, wherein said sensors measure physiological parameters of the user and adjust the frequency and intensity of the low-frequency sound waves based on real-time feedback. However, Rabin teaches sensors 118 integrated into said pieces [0162] and/or onto a user's body, wherein said sensors measure physiological parameters of the user [0162] and adjust the frequency [0162] and intensity [0162] of the low-frequency sound waves based on real-time feedback [0162][0288]. 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 modified Jones’ system with the addition of sensors, as taught by Rabin, for the purpose of providing adjustment to the transducers as needed.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Jones’ discloses that said low-frequency sonic therapy is specifically tuned to reduce mental stress, emotional stress, physical stress, insomnia, and negative thoughts (based on the frequency range of the transducers, mental stress, emotional stress, physical stress, insomnia, and negative thoughts will be reduced).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Jones’ is silent regarding that said power supply is selected from the list consisting of one or more of: battery; low-voltage dc power supply; inductive coupler. However, Rabin teaches a battery [0177] provided to the stimulation device 102. 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 modified Jones’ power source with a battery, as taught by Rabin, for the purpose of providing an alternate power source having the predictable results of providing power to transducers.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Jones’ discloses that said pieces are made of materials that enhance the transmission and absorption of low-frequency sound waves, maximizing the therapeutic effect (the materials of the pieces are made of materials that allow for the transmission and absorption of low-frequency sound waves compared to other materials that do not allow for transmission and absorption).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, Rabin, Rise and George, as applied to claim 10 above, in further view of Northern et al. (2023/0008214).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Jones discloses a sleeve adapted to fit around a user's arm or leg (Fig. 6, Jones), said sleeve being fitted with low sound frequency transducers adapted to produce tones in the frequency range of 30-120 Hz to produce sound and vibration (see modification to Jones’ frequency in the rejection of claim 1), that a user’s arm experiences restlessness [0003], but does not explicitly recite that the sleeve is around said user's arm. However, Northern teaches an arm sleeve including sonic transducers [0389]. 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 modified Jones’ leg sleeve with an arm sleeve, as taught by Northern, for the purpose of providing therapy to a user’s arm.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, Rabin, Rise and George, as applied to claim 10 above, in further view of Van Halteren et al. (2018/0277013) and Giacomini et al. (2021/006287).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Jones is silent regarding that said app allows for measurement and recording of biofeedback relating to a user's mental, emotional, and physical well-being, enabling said user to improve the operation of said sonic therapy system towards attaining said well-being, track progress. However, Van Halteren teaches an app that allows for measurement and recording of biofeedback relating to a user's mental, emotional, and physical well-being ([0057] 2nd to last sentence), enabling said user to improve the operation of said sonic therapy system towards attaining said well-being (the more information a user has regarding their health the better the user’s well-being), track progress (recording the sensor signals tracks progress). 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 modified Jones’ app with the ability to measure and record biofeedback relating to a user's mental, emotional, and physical well-being, as taught by Van Halteren, for the purpose of providing further information for a user regarding their therapy. The modified Jones’ is silent regarding receiving recommendations for optimizing their sonic therapy regimen. However, Giacomini teaches receiving recommendations for optimizing a vibration therapy regimen [0061-0062]. 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 modified Jones’ app with the ability to receive recommendations, as taught by Giacomini, for the purpose of providing informed recommendations to the user.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, Rabin, Rise and George, as applied to claim 10 above, in further view of Auphan et al. (2016/0015315) and Giacomini et al. (2021/006287).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Jones is silent regarding that the app includes a database of pre-programmed therapeutic sequences based on user feedback. However, Auphan teaches an app that includes a database of pre-programmed therapeutic sequences based on user feedback [0125]. 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 modified Jones’ app with a database of pre-programmed therapeutic sequences based on user feedback, as taught by Auphan, for the purpose of providing therapy based on the user’s needs. The modified Jones is silent regarding that the app includes a database of pre-programmed therapeutic sequences based on expert recommendations, offering users a curated selection of wellness routines. However, Giacomini teaches an app that includes a database of pre-programmed therapeutic sequences based on expert recommendations [0061-0062], offering users a curated selection of wellness routines [0061-0062]. 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 modified Jones’ app with a database of pre-programmed therapeutic sequences based on expert recommendations, as taught by Giacomini, for the purpose of providing therapy based on informed recommendations to the user.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, Rabin, Rise and George, as applied to claim 10 above, in further view of Ning et al. (11,541,202).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Jones is silent regarding a portable speaker system that wirelessly connects to said pieces, allowing users to enjoy low-frequency sonic therapy sessions in various settings, including outdoors or during travel. However, Ning teaches a portable speaker system that wirelessly connects to various transducers ([0125] separate vibration and sound transducers are connected wirelessly), allowing users to enjoy low-frequency sonic therapy sessions in various settings, including outdoors or during travel ([0125] due to the portability of the speaker). 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 modified Jones’ system with the addition of a portable speaker system that wirelessly connects to said pieces, as taught by Ning, for the purpose of providing further control of the pieces.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Simon et al. (9,682,001) directed towards an app adapted to control amplifiers to produce stimulation, Cohen (2006/0036201) directed towards a sound a vibration transmission system and Simmons (2025/0367068) directed towards a vibroacoustic tactile device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1481. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571) 272-5139. 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.
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights