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 .
Claims 1-12, filed 6/24/24, are currently pending.
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 signs mentioned in the description: 60 and 70. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a roller connected the” in line 7, suggested to be changed to --a roller connected to the-- for grammatical reasons.
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 1-12 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 “the opposite side,” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites “a roller connected the interior longitudinal member and positioned on the opposite side of the first transverse member from a middle of the interior longitudinal member” however the phrasing of this language is confusing. As best understood the roller is directly connected to both the interior longitudinal member and the first transverse member.
Claim 5 recites “a middle longitudinal member” suggested to be changed to --a middle longitudinal member of the three longitudinal members-- for clarity.
Claim 5 recites “the longitudinal member” in the last line, suggested to be changed to --the one of the longitudinal members-- for clarity.
Claim 8 recites “the roller,” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites “the two longitudinal members” in line 5 suggested to be changed to --the pair of longitudinal members-- for clarity.
Claim 11 recites “the longitudinal member” however it is unclear which longitudinal member applicant is referring back to.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejection base claim.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (2013/0253390).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 1-4 Park discloses a spine rolling apparatus (structure in fig. 1) comprising, a frame (100 fig. 3), the frame comprising a first transverse member (where 100 is pointing in fig. 3, see annotated fig. 3 below), a second transverse member (member parallel to the first transverse member in fig. 3, see annotated fig. 3 below), and two longitudinal members (see annotated figure 3 below), an interior longitudinal member (see annotated fig. 3 below) positioned parallel the two longitudinal members (see annotated fig. 3 below) and connected between the first transverse member and the second transverse member (see annotated fig. 3 below), and a roller (210 on side closest to first transverse member, rotates in part around axis of 221, fig. 12) connected the interior longitudinal member (indirectly connected, fig. 2) and positioned on the opposite side of the first transverse member from a middle of the interior longitudinal member (Fig. 2-4), the roller rotating around an axis (axis of 221, fig. 12) parallel to a longitudinal axis of the first transverse member (Fig. 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
758
805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses a leg (see annotated fig. 1 directly below) connected to one of the longitudinal members (all three, at least indirectly), the leg comprising a section (upper portion of leg, see annotated fig. 1 directly below) extending above the frame, and a handle (see annotated fig. 1 directly below) connected to the section.
PNG
media_image2.png
517
801
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Watson (2021/0069057).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches a leg (see annotated fig. 1 directly below), but is silent regarding a leg rotatably connected to one of the longitudinal members, the leg comprising a first position and a second position, wherein the first position is at least ninety degrees rotated from the second position. However, in fig. 1 Watson teaches a leg 28 rotatably connected to one of the longitudinal members [0019], the leg comprising a first position (shown in fig. 1) and a second position (folded position against the table 12, [0019]), wherein the first position is at least ninety degrees rotated from the second position (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s leg with a foldable leg, as taught by Watson, for the purpose of allowing for a more compact storage configuration.
PNG
media_image3.png
513
668
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches a leg (see annotated fig. 1 directly above) connected to one of the longitudinal members (indirectly), but is silent regarding the leg comprising a telescoping segment that can adjust the height of the first transverse member off the ground. However, in fig. 1 Watson teaches a leg 28 the leg comprising a telescoping segment that can adjust the height of the first transverse member off the ground [0020]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s leg with a telescopic leg, as taught by Watson, for the purpose of allowing for patient adjustability.
Claims 5-6, 8-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (2013/0253390) view of Watson (2021/0069057).
Regarding claim 5, in fig. 1 Park discloses spine rolling apparatus (structure in fig. 1) comprising, a frame (100, fig. 3), the frame comprising a transverse member (see 1st transverse member in annotated fig. 3 above) and three longitudinal members (see annotated fig. 3 above), the three longitudinal members extending from the transverse member (see annotated fig. 3 above), and a roller assembly (structure in fig. 2, has rollers 110 and 210) adjustably connected to a middle longitudinal member (interior longitudinal member in the annotated fig. 3 above) at the intersection of the transverse member (fig. 2-4), and a leg connected to one of the longitudinal members (annotated fig. 1 directly above), but is silent regarding that the leg rotatably connected to the longitudinal member. However, in fig. 1 Watson teaches a leg 28 rotatably connected to one of the longitudinal members [0019]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s leg with a foldable leg, as taught by Watson, for the purpose of allowing for a more compact storage configuration.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Park discloses that the leg comprising a first position (shown in fig. 1, Watson) and a second position (folded position against the table 12, [0019] Watson), wherein the first position is at least ninety degrees rotated from the second position (Fig. 1, Watson).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Park is silent regarding the leg comprising a telescoping segment that can adjust the height of the roller off the ground. However, in fig. 1 Watson teaches a leg 28 the leg comprising a telescoping segment that can adjust the height of massage member 60 off the ground [0020]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s leg with a telescopic leg, as taught by Watson, for the purpose of allowing for patient adjustability.
Regarding claim 9, in fig. 1-4 Park discloses a spine rolling apparatus (structure in fig. 1) comprising, a frame (100 fig. 3) comprising a pair of transverse members (see annotated fig. 3 above) and a pair of longitudinal members (first and second longitudinal members, see annotated fig. 3 above), an interior longitudinal member (see annotated fig. 3 above) connected between the transverse members oriented parallel the two longitudinal members (see annotated fig. 3 above), a roller (210 on side closest to first transverse member, rotates in part around axis of 221, fig. 12) connected the interior longitudinal member (indirectly connected, fig. 2), and a leg (annotated fig. 1 directly above) connected to one of the longitudinal members, but is silent regarding that the leg comprising a telescoping segment that can adjust the height of the roller off the ground. However, in fig. 1 Watson teaches a leg 28 the leg comprising a telescoping segment that can adjust the height of massage member 60 off the ground [0020]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s leg with a telescopic leg, as taught by Watson, for the purpose of allowing for patient adjustability.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Park is silent regarding that the leg is rotatably connected to the longitudinal member. However, in fig. 1 Watson teaches a leg 28 rotatably connected to one of the longitudinal members [0019]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s leg with a foldable leg, as taught by Watson, for the purpose of allowing for a more compact storage configuration.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Park discloses that the leg comprising a first position (shown in fig. 1, Watson) and a second position (folded position against the table 12, [0019] Watson), wherein the first position is at least ninety degrees rotated from the second position (Fig. 1, Watson).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Watson, as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of Fortier (5,634,887).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Park is silent regarding that the leg comprises a section extending above the frame, and a handle connected to the section. However, in fig. 5 Fortier teaches a leg (74 and 80) comprising a section extending above the frame (portion of 80 extending above frame 12), and a handle 78 connected to the section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s leg with the addition of a section extending above the frame, and a handle connected to the section, as taught by Fortier, for the purpose of allowing for patient adjustability.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Watson, as applied to claim 9 above, in further view of Fortier (5,634,887).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Park is silent regarding that the leg comprises a section extending above the frame, and a handle connected to the section. However, in fig. 5 Fortier teaches a leg (74 and 80) comprising a section extending above the frame (portion of 80 extending above frame 12), and a handle 78 connected to the section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s leg with the addition of a section extending above the frame, and a handle connected to the section, as taught by Fortier, for the purpose of allowing for patient adjustability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hoard (1,265,083) directed towards a massage appliance with handles and Hamilton (1,572,794) directed towards a spinal massage 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