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 information referred to in the IDS filed August 27, 2024 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed August 27, 2024 are objected to as indicia “500”, as indicated in Figure 5, appears to be directed to (by way of leader line) the hammock attachment 107, as shown in Figure 1.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) do not recited associated function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “hook and loop means” in claims 6 and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-20 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 limitation “a user’s legs are positioned on the top pad” in lines 11 to 12. This limitation appears to positively claim the user, thereby rendering the claim as vague. It is suggested that the second occurrence of “are” be changed to “can be”. Similarly note claim 12.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the body component can be constructed of an aluminum, a polyethylene, or a polycarbonate material”. This limitation is vague as it fails to positively define whether or not the body component ‘is” constructed of aluminum, a polyethylene, or a polycarbonate material. Similarly note claim 15.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “to raise or lower the plurality of legs at a push of a power button; wherein with a simple push of the power button …” in lines 15-17. It cannot be ascertained from this recitation, which is purely functional, whether Applicant intends to positively claim a powered push button.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the hammock" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the top pad" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the carrying handle" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are indefinite as each depends from an indefinite 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hill (US2579577).
Note a portable leg rest device that elevates a user’s legs while lying down, the portable leg rest device comprising: a body component (16, 18, 10); and a plurality of legs (30, 34, 50); wherein the body component comprises a top pad (16 and/or 18) and a bottom pad (10) suspended apart in a horizontal configuration by the plurality of legs; wherein the plurality of legs are height-adjustable and are “approximately” two feet in height fully extended, and able to be height adjustable down, as needed; wherein the plurality of legs are positioned in a scissor-lift configuration (see Figure 2) between the top pad and the bottom pad; and further wherein once the plurality of legs are extended up, a user’s legs are positioned on the top pad, which keeps the user’s legs above their heart while lying down to improve blood flow.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coleman et al (US6349438).
Note a portable leg rest device that elevates a user’s legs while lying down, the portable leg rest device comprising: a body component (20, 32); and a plurality of legs (40, 40); wherein the body component comprises a top pad (20) and a bottom pad (32) suspended apart in a horizontal configuration by the plurality of legs; wherein the plurality of legs are height-adjustable and are “approximately” two feet in height fully extended, and able to be height adjustable down, as needed; wherein the plurality of legs are positioned in a scissor-lift configuration (see Figures 2 and 6) between the top pad and the bottom pad; and further wherein once the plurality of legs are extended up, a user’s legs are positioned on the top pad, which keeps the user’s legs above their heart while lying down to improve blood flow.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3, as best understood with the above cited indefiniteness, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US2579577) in view of Smith (US20130257112).
The primary reference shows all claimed features of the instant invention with the exception of the top pad comprises a foam pillow attachment which can be removed and stored within the body component as needed (regarding claim 2); wherein the top pad comprises a pillowcase component for securing the foam pillow attachment (regarding claim 3).
The secondary reference teaches configuring a pad as comprising a foam (see the last line of ¶ 0029) pillow attachment (10) that can be attached and removed from a supporting structure, wherein the pad includes a pillowcase component (12) for securing the foam pillow attachment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the primary reference in view of the teachings of the secondary reference by configuring the top pad as comprising a foam pillow attachment which can be removed (regarding claim 2); wherein the top pad comprises a pillowcase component for securing the foam pillow attachment (regarding claim 3). These modifications respectively provide selective attachment/removal of the top pad for cleaning, repairs, or replacement, and improved aesthetics/durability. Also, with the top pad being selectively removable, it is necessarily capable of being stored within the body component.
Claim(s) 12-15, 17 and 18, as best understood with the above cited indefiniteness, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wem (US9370458) in view of Smith (US20130257112).
The primary reference shows all claimed features of the instant invention with the exception of the pillow attachment being foam (regarding claim 12); wherein the top pad comprises a pillowcase for securing the foam pillow attachment (claim 17).
In the primary reference, note portable device capable of elevating a user’s legs while lying down, the portable leg rest device comprising: a body component; a plurality of legs (72); and a pillow attachment (36); wherein the body component comprises a top pad (22) and a bottom pad (24, 34) suspended apart in a horizontal configuration by the plurality of legs; wherein the plurality of legs are height-adjustable and are “approximately” two feet in height fully extended, and able to be height adjustable down, as needed; wherein the plurality of legs pivot to collapse down and compact the top pad and the bottom pad together, as needed for storage; wherein the plurality of legs are arranged in a scissor-lift configuration (see Figure 8) and secured together at a pivot point with a pin (see Figure 8); wherein the body component comprises a motor (50), a controller (29), and internal battery (21) which communicate to raise or lower the plurality of legs at a push of a power button (31); wherein with a simple push of the power button, a user can adjust a height of the plurality of legs to ensure a personal and custom fit; wherein the foam pillow attachment is secured to the top pad to support a user’s legs during use and stored inside the bottom pad when not in use; and further wherein once the plurality of legs are extended up, a user’s legs are positioned on the top pad, which keeps the user’s legs above their heart while lying down to improve blood flow.
Regarding claim 13, note the body component comprises a carrying handle (see Figure 1) for easy transportation.
Regarding claim 14, note the carrying handle comprises an ergonomic grip (note curvature), texture, or coating.
Regarding claim 15, note the body component “can be” constructed of an aluminum, a polyethylene, or a polycarbonate material.
Regarding claim 18, note the body component comprises a hammock attachment (48) which can be stored (closed, lowered position) inside the bottom pad.
The secondary reference teaches configuring a pad as including a foam (see the last line of ¶ 0029) pillow attachment (10) that can be attached and removed from a supporting structure, wherein the pad includes a pillowcase component (12) for securing the foam pillow attachment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the primary reference in view of the teachings of the secondary reference by configuring the top pad as comprising a foam pillow attachment which can be removed (regarding claim 2); wherein the top pad comprises a pillowcase component for securing the foam pillow attachment (regarding claim 3). These modifications respectively provide selective attachment/removal of the top pad for cleaning, repairs, or replacement, and improved aesthetics/durability. Also, with the top pad being selectively removable, it is necessarily capable of being stored within the body component.
Claim(s) 16, as best understood with the above cited indefiniteness, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wem (US9370458) in view of Smith (US20130257112), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hall et al (US20180042386).
The primary reference, as modified, shows all claimed features of the instant invention with the exception of a plurality of indicia.
Hall et al teaches configuring a footstool with a plurality of indicia (108).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to further modify the primary reference in view of the teachings of Hall et al by adding a plurality of indicia. This modification enhances aesthetics.
Claim(s) 20, as best understood with the above cited indefiniteness, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP0202862.
EP0202862 shows all claimed features of the instant invention with the exception of the specifically recited method of use steps.
In EP0202862, note a portable leg rest device comprising a body component with height-adjustable legs (5, 6, 8, 9), wherein a hammock (14), which is capable of supporting a user’s feet, is secured to a top pad (13); wherein the legs can be collapsed for storage and transporting of the device (see Figure 3). Additionally note a carrying handle (1).
It would have been obvious, if not inherent, to one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify EP0202862 by using it by the specifically recited method steps. This modification provides a user with selective resting of their feet, as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-11 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Martin et al (US9010867) shows an adjustable stool with a height of “approximately” 2 feet (i.e. 17 inches to 23 inches). Nicholson (US4063318) shows a padded support with a hammock member (64) attached thereto. Alexander (US9380880) shows a hammock configured leg support.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILTON NELSON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30am-1:30pm.
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.
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.
mn /MILTON NELSON JR/March 19, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636