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 .
This action is in response to the filing on 2/19/2024. Since the initial filing, claims 1-14 have been amended and no claims have been added or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-14 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 5: “a ball supporting” should be “a ball for supporting”
Line 7-8: “while the user keeps at least one of his feet on the ground” should be “while the user keeps at least one foot on the ground”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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 recites the limitations of “a movable support member, which is motorized and which supports a lower portion of said ball, pressed downwards against the movable support member under effect of pressing from the user on the upper portion of said ball, and to drive the lower portion of said ball at least in the first tilting movement with respect to said frame” in lines 16-21. The phrasing of this claim makes it unclear what is driving the lower portion of the ball: the support member or the weight of the user. For the purpose of examination and in light of dependent claims, these limitations are being interpreted as the ball is being driven by the support member. Examiner suggest changing to “a movable support member, which is motorized and which supports a lower portion of said ball, wherein said ball is pressed downwards against the movable support member under effect of pressing from the user on the upper portion of said ball, and wherein the movable support member drives the lower portion of said ball at least in the first tilting movement with respect to said frame” to overcome this rejection.
Dependent claims inherit the rejection of their predecessors.
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(s) 1-3 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Raymond (US 2002/0019300).
In regards to claim 1, Raymond discloses a body mobilization apparatus (device 10) comprising: a frame resting fixedly on the ground (casing 20 including carrier 50, paragraph 43); a ball (member 30) supporting the weight of a body part of a user when the body part is pressed on an upper portion of the ball (exposed surface 31, paragraph 42) while the user keeps at least one of his feet on the ground (paragraph 70); a stabilizing member, which is carried by said frame and which is designed to retain said ball by contact so as to keep a center of said ball substantially stationary with respect to said frame, while leaving said ball freely movable with respect to said frame at least in a first tilting movement about a first horizontal axis passing through the center of said ball (bearing members 26, paragraph 47-49); and a movable support member, which is motorized and which supports a lower portion of said ball (adjustment member 51, paragraph 74), pressed downwards against the movable support member under effect of pressing from the user on the upper portion of said ball, and to drive the lower portion of said ball at least in the first tilting movement with respect to said frame (paragraph 43, Fig 2-2b).
In regards to claim 2, Raymond discloses the device of claim 1 and Raymond further discloses wherein said ball has an overall spherical spare centered on the center (member 30, Fig 3), wherein said stabilizing member allows, while maintaining the center of said ball substantially stationary with respect to said frame said ball to rotate freely about the center of said ball with respect to said frame, and wherein said movable support member drives the lower portion of said ball in rotation about the center of said ball with respect to said frame (paragraph 43, ball freely rotates about its center).
In regards to claim 3, Raymon discloses the device of claim 2 and Raymond further disclose wherein said movable support member drive the lower portion of the ball with respect to said frame exclusively in the first tilting movement (Fig 2-2b).
In regards to claim 9, Raymond discloses the device of claim 1 and Raymond further discloses wherein in use, the stabilizing member is fixedly integrated into said frame and in sliding contact with said ball (paragraph 60, Fig 3).
In regards to claim 10, Raymond discloses the device of claim 1 and Raymond further discloses wherein in use, said stabilizing member is freely movable with respect to said frame and is devein by contact by said ball (paragraph 47).
In regards to claim 11, Raymond discloses the device of claim 1 and Raymond further discloses wherein the stabilizing member is arrange laterally to said ball and is in contact with an intermediate portion of said ball over a continuous zone of said stabilizing member, which, in projection in a horizontal plane, extends over more than 180° around said ball (Fig 3).
In regards to claim 12, Raymond discloses the device of claim 1 and Raymond further discloses wherein said stabilizing member is arranged laterally to said ball and is in contact with an intermediate portion of said ball over a plurality of distinct zones of said stabilizing member, which, in projection in a horizontal plane, are dimensioned and distributed around said ball so as to maintain the center of said ball substantially stationary with respect to said frame (Fig 3).
In regards to claim 13, Raymond discloses the device of claim 1 and Raymond further discloses wherein said stabilizing member is arranged below and is in matching contact with the lower portion of said ball (bottom bearing 46, paragraph 67, Fig 3).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond (US 2002/0019300).
In regards to claim 6, Raymond discloses the device of claim 1.
While Raymond does not teach wherein said ball has an elongated shape, which extends lengthwise along the first horizontal axis and which, in cross-section perpendicular to the first horizontal axis, has a circular contour that is centered on the first horizontal axis, it has been held that the configuration of a device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raymond wherein said ball has an elongated shape, which extends lengthwise along the first horizontal axis and which, in cross-section perpendicular to the first horizontal axis, has a circular contour that is centered on the first horizontal axis as no criticality has been assigned to the particular design and it may therefore be considered a simple change of shape lacking patentable weight.
In regards to claim 7, Raymond teaches the device of claim 6.
While Raymond does not teach wherein the circular contour has a diameter which varies in value through said ball along the first horizontal axis, the diameter having a first value in a median portion of said ball and having a second value in each of two end portions of said ball, which are arranged on both sides of the median portion of said ball along the first horizontal axis, the first value being less than the second value, it has been held that the configuration of a device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raymond wherein the circular contour has a diameter which varies in value through said ball along the first horizontal axis, the diameter having a first value in a median portion of said ball and having a second value in each of two end portions of said ball, which are arranged on both sides of the median portion of said ball along the first horizontal axis, the first value being less than the second value as no criticality has been assigned to the particular design and it may therefore be considered a simple change of shape lacking patentable weight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 8 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Clam 4 recites limitations describing the movable support member driving the lower portion of the ball with respect to the frame in a second tilting movement about a second horizontal axis which is distinct from the first. The device of Raymond does not provide structure which could accommodate such movement and could not be altered to provide such without undue modification requiring impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Claim 8 recites the limitations of the movable support member having a movable part on which the lower portion of the ball rests. The device of Raymond includes a lower plate (24) having a bottom bearing (46) on which the ball rests. There exists no direct contact between the movable support member and the ball, nor could the device of Raymond accommodate such structural changes without undue modification requiring impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Claim 14 recites the limitations of a control under to control the device and an interface for interacting with said control unit and displaying device operation values. The device of Raymond has no specific electrical part nor does it teach any form of control or display interface. Addition of such features could not be added without undue modification requiring impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Therefore claim 4, its dependent claim 5, claim 8 and claim 14 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arielle Wolff whose telephone number is (571)272-8727. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00.
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.
/ARIELLE WOLFF/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights