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 § 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, 2, 4-5, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Samuel (US 10,092,42).
Regarding Claim 1, Samuel discloses an adjustable support (10) for differentially adjusting a height of at least one sitz bone of a user, comprising:
a plurality of stackable lifts (16) designed to support the at least one sitz bone, each lift having an upper surface and an opposing bottom surface defining a thickness therebetween and being shaped and sized to fit within an article of clothing (see Figs. 4 and 7) and;
wherein during use one or more of the plurality of stackable lifts is positioned within the article of clothing adjacent the user’s at least one sitz bone such that one or more of the plurality of stackable lifts is in engagement with the at least one sitz bone (see Fig. 5) and is sufficiently stiff to apply pressure to lift the user’s at least one sitz bone to adjust the height of the at least one sitz bone relative to the other of the user's sitz bone when in a seated position.
Regarding Claim 2, Samuel discloses wherein the plurality of stackable lifts are shaped and sized to fit within at least one pouch (20) supported by the article of clothing.
Regarding Claim 4, Samuel discloses wherein the at least one pouch includes a first pouch (20) and a second pouch (20), the first pouch positioned adjacent a first sitz bone and the second pouch positioned adjacent a second sitz bone (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Samuel discloses wherein the at least one pouch includes an opening to receive the plurality of stackable lifts (see Col. 4, Lines 38-49).
Regarding Claim 7, Samuel discloses wherein the at least one pouch is supported on an inside surface of the article of clothing (see Col. 4, Lines 37-40).
Regarding Claim 8, Samuel discloses an adjustable support for differentially adjusting a height of a user's sitz bone during sitting, comprising:
a plurality of stackable lifts (16), each lift including an upper surface and an opposing bottom
surface defining a thickness therebetween, the upper surface and bottom surface including cooperating contours (see Fig. 7);
wherein the plurality of stackable lifts are configured to fit within at least one pouch (20) supported by an article of clothing and held adjacent to at least one of a user’s sitz bones when in a seated position, and are further configured to adjust the height of the at least one sitz bone relative to the other of the user's sitz bone when in the seated position (see Fig. 5).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 9, 10, 11, 13-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuel (US 10,092,42).
Regarding Claim 3, Samuel discloses wherein the upper surface and the bottom surface of each of the plurality of stackable lifts include cooperating contours (see Fig. 7). Samuel fails to disclose configured to stack the plurality of stackable lifts one on top of the other within the at least one pouch. Samuel discloses a single lift (16) in each pouch 20. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have more than one lift in each pouch 20, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Having more than one lift in each pouch would provide more cushioning, thus further relieving, reducing, minimizing or eliminating pressure to the perineal region of the wearer's body by raising the perineal region away from the seated surface, thereby taking a significant portion of the wearer's weight off his perineal region and distributing the wearer's weight over the area of the pads (see Col. 5, Lines 40-45).
Regarding Claim 9, following a similar reasoning as that of the rejection of Claim 3 above, Samuel teaches wherein the at least one pouch includes a first (20)and a second pouch (20) and the plurality of stackable lifts are configured to fit within the first pouch and the second pouch in a stacked configuration, one on top of the other, when sitting (see Claim 3 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 10, Samuel as modified teaches wherein the stacked configuration of the stackable lifts in each of the first pouch and the second pouch forms a first platform and a second platform, respectively, and wherein the height of the first platform and the second platform is adjustable by moving the stackable lifts between the first pouch and the second pouch to increase the height of the first platform and the second platform, as desired (see Fig. 5 and Claim 3 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 11, Samuel discloses wherein the at least one pouch includes an opening to receive the plurality of stackable lifts (see Col. 4, Lines 38-49).
Regarding Claim 13, Samuel discloses wherein the plurality of stackable lifts each include a shape selected from the group consisting of a teardrop, tapered, rectangular, or circular shape (see Col. 5, Lines 19-25).
Regarding Claim 14, Samuel discloses wherein the at least one pouch is supported on an inside surface of the article of clothing (see Col. 4, Lines 37-40).
Regarding Claim 15, Samuel discloses an adjustable support (10) for differentially adjusting a height of a user's sitz bone during sitting, comprising:
a plurality of stackable lifts (16), each lift including an upper surface and an opposing bottom surface defining a thickness therebetween, the upper surface and bottom surface including cooperating contours wherein the plurality of stackable lifts are each individual pieces (see Figs. 4 and 7);
a first pouch (20);
a second pouch (20);
Samuel fails to disclose the first and second pouch are configured and arranged to receive the plurality of stackable lifts therein and to be positioned in alignment with one of a user’s sitz bones while sitting and wherein the plurality of stackable lifts are shaped and sized to fit within the first pouch and the second pouch and are stackable within the first pouch and the second pouch and movable therebetween, the plurality of stackable lifts when disposed within the first pouch forming a first platform and the plurality of stackable lifts when disposed within the second pouch forming a second platform, each of the first platform and the second platform configured to adjust the height of the user's sitz bone relative to the other of the user's sitz bone independent of each other. Samuel discloses a single lift (16) in each pouch 20. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have more than one lift in each pouch 20, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Having more than one lift in each pouch would provide more cushioning, thus further relieving, reducing, minimizing or eliminating pressure to the perineal region of the wearer's body by raising the perineal region away from the seated surface, thereby taking a significant portion of the wearer's weight off his perineal region and distributing the wearer's weight over the area of the pads (see Col. 5, Lines 40-45).
Regarding Claim 20, Samuel discloses wherein the at least one pouch is supported on an inside surface of the article of clothing (see Col. 4, Lines 37-40).
Claim(s) 6, 12, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuel (US 10,092,042) in view of Breindel (US 5,749,101).
Regarding Claims 6 and 12, Samuel fails to disclose wherein the at least one pouch includes a closure to secure at least one of the plurality of stackable lifts within the at least one pouch. Breindel teaches wherein the at least one pouch includes a closure to secure at least one of the plurality of stackable lifts within the at least one pouch (see Col. 1, Lines 39-42). Samuel and Breindel are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. clothing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pouch of Samuel with the closure of Breindel. The motivation would have been to prevent the lifts from falling out of the pouch.
Regarding Claim 16, Samuel fails to disclose wherein the first pouch and the second pouch each comprise a single pouch having two compartments designed to receive one or more of the plurality of stackable lifts. Breindel teaches wherein a first pouch and a second pouch each comprise a single pouch having two compartments (created by seam 26) designed to receive one or more of the plurality of stackable lifts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the first pouch and second pouch construction of Samuel with the single pouch with a seam down the middle of Breindel. The motivation would have been to simplify the construction method of the pouches.
Regarding Claim 17, Samuel as modified teaches wherein the first pouch and the second pouch each comprise two separate pouches, each having its own compartment, the compartments designed to receive one or more of the plurality of stackable lifts (see Fig. .4 of Samuel and Fig. 3 of Breindel).
Regarding Claim 18, Samuel discloses wherein the first pouch and the second pouch each includes an opening to receive the plurality of stackable lifts (see Col. 4, Lines 38-49).
Regarding Claim 19, Samuel as modified in the rejection of Claims 6 and 12 above teaches wherein the first pouch and second pouch each includes a closure to secure at least one of the plurality of stackable lifts within the first pouch and the second pouch (Breindel: see Col. 1, Lines 39-42 and Claim 6 rejection above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J KURILLA whose telephone number is (571)270-7294. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7AM-6PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/ERIC J KURILLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
