DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6 are pending.
This action is Non-Final.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 4 has text interfering with the drawing/lines/on shaded surfaces which is improper. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 1 “S10(S), “24L”, “24R”, “25L”, “25R”, “26L”, “26R”, “S28”; Fig. 13 “PS1(PS)” . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “S”, “21”, “26”. 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the drawings and specification are not in agreement, see drawing objections above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an exercise device for the occupant seated on the seat body to take exercise” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6 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.
Regarding claims 1-6, the limitations “an occupant seated on the seat body…for the occupant seated…an occupant” renders the claims indefinite. It is not clear if all instances of occupant or the same or different which makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear which renders the claim indefinite. Additionally, all dependent claims reference to “the occupant” is not clear which “an occupant” is being further limited.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordova et al. (Cordova, US 2005/0239602) in view of Shavit (US 2017/0368413) and Vick, Jr. (Vick, US 2009/0062074) and Wang (US 2017/0020438).
Regarding claim 1, Cordova teaches a seat comprising:
a seat body having a seat cushion and a seat back (see at least Figures 1-3, 6-26, 33, 35 interpreted to read on seat back and seat base in each figure);
an exercise device for the occupant seated on the seat body to take exercise (see at least Figures 1-3, 6-26, 33, 35 interpreted to read on the structures providing exercise);
a display having a screen which an occupant seated on the seat body can see (see at least Figure 1, [0073]); and
sensor and controller where the controller is connected to the sensor (see at least [0026]- [0027]);
however, the limitations of the sensor provided on the seat body configured to acquire pressure value of an occupant seated on the seat body, and wherein the controller is configured to show on the display an image of the seat body and an image corresponding to the sensor, and show the pressure value acquired from the sensor by showing the image corresponding to the sensor with hues or saturation levels varying with the magnitude of the pressure value are not directly taught.
Shavit teaches a related system for providing feedback on training (see title and abstract), and teaches that a sensor can be placed in a seat and connected to a controller, which reasonably teaches the sensor provided on the seat body configured to acquire pressure value of an occupant seated on the seat body (see at least [0445] In an embodiment, the Computing Device Enhanced Training Environment system is configured to utilize sensors to perform the measurements. For example, certain training equipment 160 may have pressure sensors on their seat. Such a sensor may measure the user's mass). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including pressure sensors in a seat in order to detect mass present in the seat.
Vick teaches a related system used in an exercise device (see at least title and abstract), and teaches that pressure sensors in the exercise equipment can be used to sense the posture of the user and to track that the user is performing exercises with correct posture for any type of exercise (see at least [0014]-[0015], [0030]-[0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including pressure sensors in a seat back in order to detect proper posture and pressure during exercise in order to prevent a user from injuring themselves.
Wang teaches a related system for monitoring posture and pressure in a seat (see at least title, abstract, Figure 2), and teaches a process where the posture and pressure sensed can be represented by a gradient map displayed which reasonably teaches wherein the controller is configured to show on the display an image of the seat body and an image corresponding to the sensor, and show the pressure value acquired from the sensor by showing the image corresponding to the sensor with hues or saturation levels varying with the magnitude of the pressure value (see at least Figures 2-3, [0029], [0070], [0090]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way in order to display a pressure variation to a user so they can correct their lifting form using the feedback to improve workouts and avoid injury.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations are met by Cordova in view Shavit and Vick and Wang, where the combination teaches wherein the controller is configured to notify an evaluation of a posture of the occupant during the exercise (see at least Vick alarm [0014]-[0015], [0030]-[0031]) along with the pressure value shown on the display (see at least Wang Figures 2-3, [0029], [0070], [0090]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of alerting a user of incorrect posture and display a pressure variation to a user so they can correct their lifting form using the feedback to improve workouts and avoid injury.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations are met by Cordova in view Shavit and Vick and Wang, where Wang teaches wherein the controller is configured to notify the evaluation of the posture of the occupant during the exercise by showing a message on the display (see at least [0091] where output is used via messaging; see also Shavit [0182], [1110]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result of using messaging capabilities of a display unit in order to display feedback information to improve workouts and avoid injury.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations are met by Cordova in view Shavit and Vick and Wang, where Shavit teaches wherein the exercise device is a butterfly machine having a left- and-right pair of movable parts for the occupant to exercise his/her left and right upper arms by opening and closing the movable parts (see at least [0441] butterfly). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a simple substitution of one known exercise equipment for another to obtain predictable results of sensing and tracking correct posture during an exercise using a butterfly type machine.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations are met by Cordova in view Shavit and Vick and Wang, where Cordova teaches wherein the exercise device comprises: armnrests rotatably supported on the seat back; and a resistance generator configured to generate resistance as if to push the armrests upward such that the occupant can take exercise of pushing down the armnrests (see at least Figures 13-18 abdominal workout).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations are met by Cordova in view Shavit and Vick and Wang, where Cordova teaches wherein the exercise device comprises: an ottoman rotatably supported on the seat cushion; and a resistance generator configured to generate resistance as if to push the ottoman upward such that the occupant can take exercise of pushing down the ottoman (see at least Figures 1-3, 23, 33-35, [0070] hamstring curls).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
