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 .
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.
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 and 15-18 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 ‘an alarm configured to output an alarm’ making it unclear if each use of the word ‘an alarm’ is meant to refer to the same element or not. Further is it unclear how an ‘alarm’ outputs itself.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the thigh support portion sensors" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the other thigh support portion sensor" in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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 1 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 1 recites ‘a buttock support portion on which a buttock of the user is placed’ thus appearing to positively recite a human organism. Examiner suggest amending to recite ‘a buttock support portion configured to support a buttock of the user’ and in the interest of compact prosecution, the following subject matter eligibility analysis is provided assuming such an amendment is made.
Claims 1-12, 15-18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 1-12, 15-18, and 21-24 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a system (claims 1-12, 15-18, and 21-24).
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1 and 21, the recited steps are directed mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Specifically from claim 1:
A posture detection system for detecting a posture of a user seated on a cushion, the cushion comprising: a seating portion having a buttock support portion on which a buttock of the user is placed; and a lumbar support portion having a sacral support portion configured to support a sacrum of the user from behind, the posture detection system comprising:
a seating portion sensor attached to the seating portion and configured to detect whether or not the user is seated on the seating portion;
a sacral support portion sensor attached to the sacral support portion and configured to generate an output based on one or more points of contact associated with the posture of the user seated on the seating portion;
a processing device configured to determine that the posture of the user is unsatisfactory based, at least in part, on the output generated by the sacral support portion sensor; and
an alarm configured to output an alarm in response to the processing device determining that the posture of the user is unsatisfactory.
Specifically from claim 21:
A posture detection system for detecting a posture of a user seated on a cushion, the cushion comprising a sacral support portion configured to support a sacrum of the user, the posture detection system comprising:
one or more sensors configured to detect one or more points of contact associated with the posture of the user seated on the cushion, including a sacral support portion sensor configured to generate an output in response to detecting when the sacrum of the user is in contact with the sacral support portion; and
a processing device configured to:
determine that the posture of the user is unsatisfactory based, at least in part, on the output generated by the sacral support portion sensor; and
generate an alarm in response to determining that the posture of the user is unsatisfactory
The above underlined limitations describe a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a medical, biomedical or engineering professional with the aid of a pen and paper; their knowledge gained from education, background, or experience; or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests an undue level of complexity that the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform the mental process steps.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
• claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exceptions (abstract ideas) in claims 1-12, 15-18, and 21-24). are not integrated into a practical application because:
•The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for performing the abstract ideas merely invoke a computer as a tool.
•The data-gathering steps do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
•There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computer that is used as a tool for performing the abstract ideas
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to provide a medical measurement.
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computer to perform the abstract ideas. The claims do not apply the obtained measurements to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Step 2B
The additional elements are identified as follows: see the bolded elements above for claims 1 and 21, the thigh support portions and a pair of thigh support portion sensors in claims 4 and 24, ‘fabric’ and ‘core material’ in claim 5, ‘inner fabric’ and ‘outer fabric’ in claims 6 and 9, ‘the posture detection system’ elements of claims 11 and 12
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
Applicant’s Specification (Paragraphs 0002-0006) for the seat, cushion, and sensors
The prior art provided by the Applicant in the IDS and by the Examiner in PTO-892 which disclose each of the elements as being known and conventional in the art elements;
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3. Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional elements as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2106.05(b). The cushion and support elements merely indicate field of use.
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry or 3) further recite additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art.
Claims 4-12 and 24 recites additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art or merely indicate field of use
Claims 2-3 and 15-18 and 22-24 are steps that are also abstract as a mental process through additional data gathering or analysis
Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
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)(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, 12, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizoi et al. (JP2020-66404A).
Regarding claim 1, Mizoi teaches a posture detection system for detecting a posture of a user seated on a cushion (Paragraph 0001), the cushion comprising: a seating portion having a buttock support portion on which a buttock of the user is placed (seat cushion S2; Figures 1 and 4; includes cushion pad CP); and a lumbar support portion having a sacral support portion configured to support a sacrum of the user from behind (seat back S1; Figures 1 and 4), the posture detection system comprising:
a seating portion sensor (pressure sensor 4) attached to the seating portion and configured to detect whether or not the user is seated on the seating portion (Paragraphs 0014, 0017, and 0030; Figures 1 and 4; “whether or not a seated person M, for example, a driver is seated by measuring the pressure received from the pressure sensor 4 (S101).”);
a sacral support portion sensor (pressure sensor 4) attached to the sacral support portion and configured to generate an output based on one or more points of contact associated with the posture of the user seated on the seating portion (Paragraphs 0014 and 0027-0029; Figures 1 and 4);
a processing device (electronic control unit, ECU 50) configured to determine that the posture of the user is unsatisfactory based, at least in part, on the output generated by the sacral support portion sensor (Paragraphs 0027-0032); and
an alarm configured to output an alarm in response to the processing device determining that the posture of the user is unsatisfactory (Paragraphs 0038-0039; warning screen for possible future injury risk).
Regarding claim 12, Mizoi teaches wherein the buttock support portion includes a pair of ischial support portions configured to support an ischium of the user seated on the seating portion, and the seating portion sensor is arranged around each of the paired ischial support portions (Figures 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 21, Mizoi teaches a posture detection system for detecting a posture of a user seated on a cushion, the cushion comprising a sacral support portion configured to support a sacrum of the user (Paragraph 0001; seat back S1; Figures 1-4), the posture detection system comprising:
one or more sensors (sensors 4) configured to detect one or more points of contact associated with the posture of the user seated on the cushion, including a sacral support portion sensor configured to generate an output in response to detecting when the sacrum of the user is in contact with the sacral support portion (Paragraphs 0014, 0017, and 0027-0030; Figures 1 and 4); and
a processing device (electronic control unit, ECU 50) configured to:
determine that the posture of the user is unsatisfactory based, at least in part, on the output generated by the sacral support portion sensor (Paragraphs 0027-0032); and
generate an alarm in response to determining that the posture of the user is unsatisfactory (Paragraphs 0038-0039; warning screen for possible future injury risk).
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) 2-3 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoi et al. (JP2020-66404A) in view of Iname (JP2004-167070A) and Yang et al. (US 2017/0092094).
Regarding claim 2, Mizoi is silent on the output signifying sacrum contact.
Iname teaches wherein the sacral support portion sensor is configured to generate the output signifying that a threshold pressure is detected when the sacrum of the user is in contact with the sacral support portion (Paragraphs 0029 and 0034-0035),
the processing device determines that the posture of the user is unsatisfactory when the sacral support portion sensor fails to generate the output over a predetermined period of time (Paragraphs 0029 and 0034-0035), and
Yang teaches being able to modify an alarm depending on various posture data characteristics (Paragraphs 0053 and 0063) and thus Mizoi in view of Iname and Yang would teach the alarm signifies that the sacrum of the user is not in contact with the sacral support portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with Iname because it is an additional fatigue point that can be sensed for the user to help reduce said fatigue and improve the user’s posture (Paragraphs 0006-0007 of Iname).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with and Iname with Yang to specifically have the alarm based on the posture data taught by Iname because Yang teaches being able to modify an alarm depending on various posture data characteristics (Paragraphs 0053 and 0063) and thus the modification would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Mizoi is silent on the output signifying sacrum contact.
Iname teaches wherein the output generated by the sacral support portion sensor measures a load applied by the sacrum of the user on the sacral support portion sensor (Paragraphs 0029 and 0034-0035),
the processing device determines that the posture of the user is unsatisfactory in response to determining that the load measured by the sacral support portion sensor is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold (Paragraphs 0029 and 0034-0035), and
Yang teaches being able to modify an alarm depending on various posture data characteristics (Paragraphs 0053 and 0063) and thus Mizoi in view of Iname and Yang would teach the alarm signifies that the posture of the user is leaning backward excessively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with Iname because it is an additional fatigue point that can be sensed for the user to help reduce said fatigue and improve the user’s posture (Paragraphs 0006-0007 of Iname).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with and Iname with Yang to specifically have the alarm based on the posture data taught by Iname because Yang teaches being able to modify an alarm depending on various posture data characteristics (Paragraphs 0053 and 0063) and thus the modification would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 22, Mizoi is silent on the output signifying sacrum contact.
Imane teaches wherein the sacral support portion sensor is configured to generate the output signifying that a threshold pressure is detected when the sacrum of the user is in contact with the sacral support portion (Paragraphs 0029 and 0034-0035), and
the processing device is configured to:
determine that the posture of the user is unsatisfactory when the sacral support portion sensor fails to generate the output over a predetermined period of time (Paragraphs 0029 and 0034-0035); and
Yang teaches being able to modify an alarm depending on various posture data characteristics (Paragraphs 0053 and 0063) and thus Mizoi in view of Iname and Yang would teach generate the alarm signifying that the sacrum of the user is not in contact with the sacral support portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with Iname because it is an additional fatigue point that can be sensed for the user to help reduce said fatigue and improve the user’s posture (Paragraphs 0006-0007 of Iname).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with and Iname with Yang to specifically have the alarm based on the posture data taught by Iname because Yang teaches being able to modify an alarm depending on various posture data characteristics (Paragraphs 0053 and 0063) and thus the modification would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 23, Mizoi is silent on the output signifying sacrum contact.
Iname teaches wherein the output generated by the sacral support portion sensor measures a load applied by the sacrum of the user on the sacral support portion sensor (Paragraphs 0029 and 0034-0035), and
the processing device is configured to:
determine that the posture of the user is unsatisfactory in response to determining that the load measured by the sacral support portion sensor is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold (Paragraphs 0029 and 0034-0035); and
Yang teaches being able to modify an alarm depending on various posture data characteristics (Paragraphs 0053 and 0063) and thus Mizoi in view of Iname and Yang would teach generate the alarm signifying that the posture of the user is leaning backward excessively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with Iname because it is an additional fatigue point that can be sensed for the user to help reduce said fatigue and improve the user’s posture (Paragraphs 0006-0007 of Iname).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with and Iname with Yang to specifically have the alarm based on the posture data taught by Iname because Yang teaches being able to modify an alarm depending on various posture data characteristics (Paragraphs 0053 and 0063) and thus the modification would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 11, 15-18, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoi et al. (JP2020-66404A) in view of Yang et al. (US 2017/0092094).
Regarding claim 4, Mizoi teaches wherein
the seating portion includes a pair of thigh support portions aligned along a left-to-right direction as viewed by the user seated on the seating portion (Figures 1 and 4), and
Mizoi is silent on the thigh sensors specifically.
Yang teaches the posture detection system further comprises a pair of thigh support portion sensors attached to the pair of thigh support portions, respectively, and configured to detect a load applied by one or more thighs of the user seated on the seating portion (“the right thigh sensor 36, and the left thigh sensor 37”; Paragraph 0033; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with Yang because it enables a full check for the user’s posture which includes the thighs (Paragraph 0003 of Yang) and aids in promoting more ergonomic posture (Paragraph 0004 of Yang) and further implementing additional sensors would only require routine experimentation in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Mizoi is silent on the thigh sensors specifically.
Yang teaches wherein
the core material of the cushion includes a concave portion formed on an upper surface of the seating portion and a concave portion formed on an upper surface of the thigh support portion (Figure 1), and
the seating portion sensor is embedded in the concave portion of the seating portion, and the thigh support portion sensor is embedded in the concave portion of the thigh support portion (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with Yang because it enables a full check for the user’s posture which includes the thighs (Paragraph 0003 of Yang) and aids in promoting more ergonomic posture (Paragraph 0004 of Yang) and further implementing additional sensors would only require routine experimentation in the art.
Furthermore, the changes in shape claimed represent a design choice, and so a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found that the change in shape did not sufficiently alter the device as it was an obvious change motivated by manufacturing parameters or user preference. See re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1996).
Regarding claim 11, Mizoi teaches wherein the seating portion extends in a first direction and a second direction, the first direction being a front-to-rear direction as viewed by the user seated on the seating portion and the second direction being a left-to-right direction as viewed by the user seated on the seating portion (Figures 1 and 4), and
the posture detection system includes:
the two seating portion sensors arranged along the second direction (Figures 1 and 4);
the sacral support portion sensor (Figures 1 and 4); and
Mizoi is silent on the thigh sensors specifically.
Yang teaches the pair of thigh support portion sensors arranged along the second direction (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with Yang because it enables a full check for the user’s posture which includes the thighs (Paragraph 0003 of Yang) and aids in promoting more ergonomic posture (Paragraph 0004 of Yang) and further implementing additional sensors would only require routine experimentation in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Mizoi is silent on the thigh sensors specifically.
Yang teaches wherein the processing device is configured to:
calculate a difference in loads applied to the pair of thigh support portions as measured by the pair of thigh support portion sensors (Paragraph 0063); and
determine that the posture of the user is unsatisfactory in response to determining that the difference in loads measured by the pair of thigh support portion sensors over a predetermined period of time is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold (Paragraphs 0063 and 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with Yang because it enables a full check for the user’s posture which includes the thighs (Paragraph 0003 of Yang) and aids in promoting more ergonomic posture (Paragraph 0004 of Yang) and further implementing additional sensors would only require routine experimentation in the art.
Regarding claim 16, Mizoi is silent on the thigh sensors specifically.
Yang teaches wherein the processing device is configured to:
calculate an absolute value of a difference between a load applied to one of the thigh support portion sensors by a left thigh and a load applied to the other thigh support portion sensor by a right thigh (Paragraph 0063); and
determine that the posture of the user is unsatisfactory in response to determining that the calculated absolute value is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold (Paragraph 0063), and
wherein the alarm signifies that a left-to-right balance of the user seated on the seating portion is out of balance (Paragraph 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with Yang because it enables a full check for the user’s posture which includes the thighs (Paragraph 0003 of Yang) and aids in promoting more ergonomic posture (Paragraph 0004 of Yang) and further implementing additional sensors would only require routine experimentation in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Mizoi is silent on the thigh sensors specifically.
Yang teaches wherein the processing device determines that the posture of the user is unsatisfactory when the pair of thigh support portion sensors only detects the load applied on one of the pair of thigh support portions for a predetermined period of time, and the alarm signifies that the legs of the user are crossed (Paragraphs 0063 and 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with Yang because it enables a full check for the user’s posture which includes the thighs (Paragraph 0003 of Yang) and aids in promoting more ergonomic posture (Paragraph 0004 of Yang) and further implementing additional sensors would only require routine experimentation in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Mizoi is silent on the thigh sensors specifically.
Yang teaches further comprising: a display configured to display as a time chart, at least one of a seating time period during which the user is seated on the seating portion, a time period during which the posture is proper, a time period during which the posture is hunched, a time period during which the posture is excessively leaning back, a time period during which a left-to-right balance is unsatisfactory, and a time period during which legs of the user are crossed (Paragraphs 0053 and 0063).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with Yang because it enables a full check for the user’s posture which includes the thighs (Paragraph 0003 of Yang) and aids in promoting more ergonomic posture (Paragraph 0004 of Yang) and further implementing additional sensors would only require routine experimentation in the art.
Regarding claim 24, Mizoi is silent on the thigh sensors specifically.
Mizoi teaches wherein the cushion comprises a pair of thigh support portions (Figures 1 and 4), and Yang teaches the one or more sensors include a pair of thigh support portion sensors configured to measure a load applied to one or both of the pair of thigh support portions (“the right thigh sensor 36, and the left thigh sensor 37”; Paragraph 0033; Figure 1), and
the processing device is configured to:
calculate a difference in loads applied to the pair of thigh support portions as measured by the pair of thigh support portion sensors (Paragraphs 0063 and 0066); and
determine that the posture of the user is unsatisfactory in response to determining that the difference in loads measured by the pair of thigh support portion sensors over a predetermined period of time is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold (Paragraphs 0063 and 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with Yang because it enables a full check for the user’s posture which includes the thighs (Paragraph 0003 of Yang) and aids in promoting more ergonomic posture (Paragraph 0004 of Yang) and further implementing additional sensors would only require routine experimentation in the art.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoi et al. (JP2020-66404A) in view of Mravyan et al. (US 2011/0245732).
Regarding claim 5, Mizoi is silent on the fabric. Mravyan teaches further comprising a fabric configured to cover at least a part of a core material of the cushion, with the seating portion sensor and the sacral support portion sensor attached to the fabric (Paragraphs 0039-0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with Mravyan because the medical fabric is conventional in the art (Paragraph 0039 of Mravyan) and provides higher levels of elasticity for environments with additional pressure management requirements and provides a controlled level of stretch and recover (Paragraph 0039 of Mravyan).
Regarding claim 6, Mizoi is silent on the fabric. Mravyan teaches further comprising an outer fabric that covers the core material, wherein the fabric is an inner fabric covered by the outer fabric (Paragraphs 0039-0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with Mravyan because the medical fabric is conventional in the art (Paragraph 0039 of Mravyan) and provides higher levels of elasticity for environments with additional pressure management requirements and provides a controlled level of stretch and recover (Paragraph 0039 of Mravyan).
Regarding claim 10, Mizoi is silent on the fabric. Mravyan teaches wherein the fabric covers only a part of the core material, and the fabric is fixed to the core material in such a way as to cover the seating portion and the sacral support portion (Paragraph 0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with Mravyan because the medical fabric is conventional in the art (Paragraph 0039 of Mravyan) and provides higher levels of elasticity for environments with additional pressure management requirements and provides a controlled level of stretch and recover (Paragraph 0039 of Mravyan).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoi et al. (JP2020-66404A) in view of Caruso (US Patent No. 7931334).
Regarding claim 8, Mizoi is silent on the protruding surfaces.
Caruso teaches wherein the sacral support portion includes a protruding surface with a forward-protruding curved shape and a recessed portion that is indented rearward from the protruding surface (Figures 1-3; Column 6, Lines 26-42; Column 8, Lines 40-58)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with Caruso because it allows the user to achieve their ideal comfort (Column 6, Lines 26-42; Column 8, Lines 40-58 of Caruso).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi in view of Caruso such that and the sacral support portion sensor is attached to the recessed portion of the sacral support portion since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art MPEP 2144.04 VI. (C).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoi et al. (JP2020-66404A) in view of Yang et al. (US 2017/0092094) and in further view of Mravyan et al. (US 2011/0245732).
Regarding claim 9, Mizoi is silent on the fabric. Mravyan teaches further comprising a fabric configured to cover at least a part of a core material of the cushion, wherein the fabric is an inner fabric to which the seating portion sensor, the sacral support portion sensor, and the thigh support portion sensor are attached (Paragraph 0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizoi with Mravyan because the medical fabric is conventional in the art (Paragraph 0039 of Mravyan) and provides higher levels of elasticity for environments with additional pressure management requirements and provides a controlled level of stretch and recover (Paragraph 0039 of Mravyan).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-3PM EST.
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, JASON SIMS can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
