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 § 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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 Line 5 recites “supporting a floor surface”, it is unclear what Applicant intends by “supporting a floor surface” since from the review of the specifications recites “For example, the first links 177b, which include bar-shaped members extending from both sides of the footrest 177a, may contact the support surface, such as the floor, or the upper surface of the bed 200.” on page 10. And therefore it would appear that the first links contact the surface of the bed and does not support the floor surface. Since the device is claimed to be on the bed in order to proceed, the Office will interpret the claim such as –is supported by a floor surface--.
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.
(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, 2, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Konopacz et al (US 20210370127 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Konopacz et al teaches a lower body exercise equipment that is disposed on a bed, the lower body exercise equipment comprising: a first support element 1320 disposed on an upper surface of the bed (Refer to Fig. 13A &15A); a second support element 1301 spaced apart from the first support element 1320 in a longitudinal direction (Refer to Fig. 13A); a connection element 1324,136 connecting the first support element 1320 to the second support element 1301 and having a variable length (Refer to Fig. 13A Paragraph [0133]:” As shown in FIGS. 13A-13B, the bed exercise system 1300 includes a mattress anchor 1301, a foot pad 1320, a first elastic connector 1324, and a second elastic connector 1326”); and a stand 1355 arranged at one side of the first support element 1320 and supported by a support panel of the bed (Refer to annotated Fig. 15A below to depict that the stand 1355 is supported by a support panel of the bed when the device is extended to be in contact with the panel in so much as the stand of Applicants is supported when it makes contact).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Konopacz et al continues to teach wherein a distance between the first support element 1320 and the second support element 1301 changes as the variable length of the connection element 1324,1326 changes (Refer to Paragraph [0137]:” In FIGS. 13A-13B and FIGS. 14A-14B, for example, the first elastic connector 1324 includes a first adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a length of the first elastic connector 1324, and the second elastic connector 1326 includes a second adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a length of the second elastic connector 1326.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Konopacz et al continues to teach further comprising a pair of guides 1345 detachably disposed on an upper surface of the first support element 1320 and arranged parallel to each other at both edges of the first support element 1320 in a width direction (Refer to Paragraph [0146]:”FIGS. 15A-15B illustrate the bed exercise system 1300 with an operator's feet coupled to the pockets 1345 on the first portion 1320A of the foot pad 1320……..This can allow for adjustable configuration of the pockets 1345 on the front side 1347. In other examples, the flap 1549 can be releasably coupled to the front side 1347 by an additional or alternative coupling mechanism (e.g., snaps and/or clips). In still other examples, the flap 1548 can be permanently coupled to the front side 1347 (e.g., by stitching) and a size of the pockets 1345 can be adjusted by an alternative mechanism (e.g., a drawstring and/or shoestring laces).”)
Regarding Claim 6, Konopacz et al continues to teach wherein the bed comprises a first frame and a second frame connected to the first frame to enable angle adjustment, the first support element is disposed on an upper surface of the first frame, and the second support element is disposed on an upper surface of the second frame (Refer to annotated Fig. 8B below).
PNG
media_image2.png
500
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heil (US 9132051).
Regarding Claim 1, Heil teaches a lower body exercise equipment that is disposed on a bed, the lower body exercise equipment comprising: a first support element disposed on an upper surface of the bed 106 (Refer to Figs. 8A-C); a second support element spaced apart from the first support element in a longitudinal direction (Refer to annotated Fig. 8B below);
PNG
media_image3.png
490
622
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a connection element 356 connecting the first support element to the second support element and having a variable length (Refer to Figs. 8B,C Abstract:” The support surface may include at least one support section which is collapsible in a length direction of the support surface. The at least one support section collapses as the carriage translates towards the foot end of the primary support frame.”); and a stand 302 arranged at one side of the first support element 1320 and supported by a support panel 304 of the bed (Refer to Fig. 6B).
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(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konopacz et al (US 20210370127 A1) in view of Alaniz, III (US 20180263303 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Konopacz et al teaches the claimed invention as noted above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the first support element 1320 and the second support element 1310 comprise a plastic material slidable with respect to the upper surface of the bed. Alaniz, III teaches an exercise device comprising a fabric having a plastic film (Refer to Paragraph [0023]:” The inelastic strap 36 may be of any suitable type such as an inelastic plastic film, a suitable fabric such as nylon or any other inelastic material”). Alaniz, III is analogous with Applicants invention in that they both teach exercise devices comprising elastic resistance and fabrics attached thereto and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the first and second support elements of Konopacz et al to comprise a plastic material such as a plastic film for the purpose of providing a water resistance covering which would additionally reduce friction when being slid on the bed. Such materials are known in the art and therefore does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts.
Regrading Claim 4, Konopacz et al teaches the claimed invention as noted above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the connection element comprises a deformable fabric material. Alaniz, III teaches an exercise device comprising an elastic fabric (Refer to Paragraph [0020}:” [0020] The arm cuffs 14 may be an elastic fabric material, as in the prior art, or may be a composite structure similar to the band 12 and thereby include a rubber or rubber like sheet 20 curled into a more-or-less circular shape and encased in a sleeve 22.”). Alaniz, III is analogous with Applicants invention in that they both teach exercise devices comprising elastic resistance and fabrics attached thereto and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the connectors of Konopacz et al to comprise a elastic fabric material since such materials are known in the art and therefore does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heil (US 9132051 B2) in view of Alford et al (US 9687401 B2).
Regarding Claim 7, Heil teaches the claimed invention as noted above but fails to teach wherein the stand comprises one or more length adjustment members on a surface of the stand in contact with the support panel. Alford et al teaches an exercise bed comprising a stand 92 wherein the stand comprises one or more length adjustment members 136 on a surface of the stand 92 in contact with the support panel 26 (Refer to Fig. 17 Col 16 Lines 55-63:” FIG. 17 illustrates another embodiment of a person support apparatus 10 having foot pedals 92 coupled to the footboard 26 with a scissors link mechanism 134. In this embodiment, the foot pedal 92 is in the form of a foot pad 136 connected to, and movable relative to, the footboard 26, via the scissors link mechanism 134. The scissors link mechanism 134 includes a biasing mechanism that biases the foot pedals toward the head end H of the support surface”). Alford et al is from the same field of endeavor as Applicants invention of exercise devices for beds and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the stand and panel of Heil to be in view of Alford et al be comprise a stand 92 wherein the stand comprises one or more length adjustment members 136 on a surface of the stand 92 in contact with the support panel 26 for the purpose of allowing foot exercises during hospitalization.
Regarding Claim 8, Heil continues to teach wherein the stand 302 further comprises: a footrest 324a,b,330a,b; a pair of first links 110 extending from both sides of the footrest and supporting a floor surface (Refer to Fig. 8A of Heil to depict the first links 110 located on the sides of the bed attached to both sides of the stand 302 which the footrest as modified by Alford et al is connected). Heil fails to teach a pair of second links rotating integrally with the footrest and extending diagonally toward the second support element (The Office takes the position that the linkages extend diagonally); and a third link connecting the pair of second links to each other. Alford et al teaches a stand comprising a footrest 136 a pair of second links 134 rotating integrally with the footrest and extending diagonally toward the second support element; and a third link 132 connecting the pair of second links 134 to each other. Alford et al is from the same field of endeavor as Applicants invention of exercise devices for beds and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the stand and panel of Heil to be in view of Alford et al be comprise a footrest 136 with a pair of second links 134 rotating integrally with the footrest and extending diagonally toward the second support element; and a third link 132 connecting the pair of second links 134 to each other, for the purpose of for the purpose of allowing foot exercises during hospitalization.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to attach list of references cited for prior arts pertinent to claimed and unclaimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NYCA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7168. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Loan Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4966. 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.
/NYCA T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784