`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`313- 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22
`wwwnsptogov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
` F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`1 1/902,377
`
`09/21/2007
`
`Daisuke Morikawa
`
`MOR13019/JJC/TL
`
`7998
`
`23364
`
`7590
`
`02/19/2013
`
`BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
`625 SLATERS LANE
`FOURTH FLOOR
`ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176
`
`EXAMINER
`
`MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3778
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`02/19/2013
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`
` 11/902,377 MORIKAWA ET AL.
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`KRISTEN MATTER
`3778
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136(a).
`In no event however may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)|Zl Responsive to communication(s) filed on 26 March 2012.
`
`2a)|:l This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)IXI This action is non-final.
`
`3)|:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:l Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`5)IZ Claim(s) 689 11 13 and 16—26is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 6,8,9,11 and 13 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)|:| Claim(s) _ is/are allowed.
`
`7)|Xl CIaim(s)1;26is/are rejected.
`
`8)|:| Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`
`9)|:I Claim(s)
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway
`program at a participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`httn:,I/www usntq. quwua'ertslanr events/
`h/index.'s or send an inquiry to PPeredback us Emmi.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:| The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)|:l The drawing(s) filed on _ is/are: a)|:l accepted or b)|:l objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)|:| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`a)|:l All
`
`b)|:l Some * c)I:I None of:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. _
`
`3.I:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) IZI Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 09-12)
`
`3) I] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`4) D Other:
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20130211
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/902,377
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3778
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`This Action is in response to the RCE filed 3/26/2012. Claim 16 has been amended,
`
`claims 1—5, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 15 have been cancelled, and claims 16—26 have been added. Claims
`
`6, 8, 9, 11, and 13 have been previously withdrawn from consideration but were also amended.
`
`Thus, claims 16—26 have been examined on the merits in this Action.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
`
`In claim 23, “claims” in line 1 should be changed to ——claim—— since only one claim is
`
`referred to and in the last line, “the medical treatment element” should be changed to ——the
`
`treatment element—— to keep claim language consistent.
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
`section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
`having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the
`manner in which the invention was made.
`
`Claims 16-18, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Dehli (US 2005/0101892) in View of Yamanaka et al. (US 5,792,082, herein referred to
`
`as “Yamanaka”).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/902,377
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3778
`
`Regarding claims 16—18, Dehli discloses a massage machine of a chair—type having a
`
`backrest part (62) and a seat part (64; see abstract and Figure 8), comprising: a torso rolling
`
`device (10, 12) provided in each of the backrest part and seat part (see paragraph 83). Dehli
`
`further discloses the rolling devices having two bellows/upheaving mechanisms (14A, 14B)
`
`arranged in left and right parts to inflate bladders (40) in alternating sequences (i.e., the left one
`
`inflates as the right one deflates via the bellows 14A/B; see Figure 7 and paragraphs 37—41) and
`
`that any number of bladders (40) can be provided in each of the seat and back portions (see
`
`paragraphs 75 and 83). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time the invention was made to have used the most basic inflatable configuration of two
`
`bladders as seen in Figure 7 and to place one air supply system (10) in each of the back, seat and
`
`foot parts in order to provide a fully body massage while using fewer parts and connections for
`
`example (i.e., as opposed to the more complex arrangement discussed in paragraphs 79—80).
`
`Dehli does not specifically disclose a “rolling mode” although the claimed rolling mode
`
`is possible with Dehli as discussed above. In addition, Dehli does not expressly disclose the two
`
`bladders (40) being specifically on a left side and a right side of the device. However, Yamanaka
`
`discloses another inflatable chair massager with bladders (22—24) separated onto left and right
`
`sides of the chair (see Figure 1) and a button (27) for allowing various modes of massage to be
`
`applied (see column 4, lines 50—65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have oriented the two bladders (40) in Dehli
`
`to be on left and right sides in both the back and seat portion (50) and to operate their
`
`inflation/deflation in a “mode” as taught by Yamanaka in order to massage both sides of the
`
`body as is well known in the art and to allow various customized massages quickly.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/902,377
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3778
`
`Use of the described modified Dehli device would produce a rolling motion by pushing
`
`the torso to the left and right sequentially. Although Dehli does not disclose both the left and
`
`right bladders in each section (50; i.e., backrest and seat part) being inflated at the same time to
`
`create the claimed “rolling mode,” such a configuration would have been obvious to try in light
`
`of Dehli from a finite number of possible configurations of having the left and right sides in each
`
`section (50) inflate/deflate and yield predictable results that do not patentably distinguish an
`
`invention over the prior art (i.e., inflating the left sides together stretches the back while inflating
`
`the left and right sides in opposition squishes/twists the back and pelvis but it is considered
`
`obvious to try either configuration).
`
`Regarding claim 23, Dehli discloses pads (44A—E) that can be considered “treatment
`
`elements” for pressing the user’s body to provide the rolling motion.
`
`Regarding claim 24, Dehli is silent as to the backrest reclining. However, Yamanaka
`
`discloses that the backrest part is freely reclined and that the whole body can be massaged by
`
`inflating/deflating the air bags while reclined (see abstract and Figure 2). Therefore, it would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have
`
`allowed Dehli's backrest to recline as taught by Yamanaka and is well known in the art in order
`
`to allow a user to sit at a desired angle for comfort while still receiving a massage. The backrest
`
`appears to be shown at an angle of 45 degrees or less with respect to horizontal in Figure 2, but
`
`in any case the exact angle of recline is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`since chairs that allow positions from full supine to perpendicular with horizontal are well known
`
`in the art.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/902,377
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3778
`
`Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dehli
`
`and Yamanaka as applied to claims 16-18, 23 and 24 above, and further in view of Mochida
`
`(JP 11-244347).
`
`Regarding claims 19—22, Dehli as modified by Yamanaka discloses a drive unit (10 or 12)
`
`but lacks the torso rolling devices including a rotating member having a width extending the full
`
`left and right of a user’s torso, but does disclose that pressing plates/pads (44A—E) can be used in
`
`the device to relieve pressure on the person sitting (see paragraphs 76—77). Mochida discloses a
`
`massage chair that has pressing plate rotating members (23) rotatable about a pivot shaft (30a)
`
`and driven by airbag upheaving mechanisms (28) on the back part of the left and right side of the
`
`rotating member/plates that are inflated and deflated to position a user’s body. The plates extend
`
`the fill width of the user’s neck/body. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used rotating members with plates like
`
`those disclosed by Mochida in Dehli’s modified device (and obviously to have those plates
`
`extend all the way across the user's width in order to provide a massage to the whole back ——
`
`examiner also notes that such a limitation is dependent on the size of a user e. g., child, adult,
`
`etc.) in order to use a more rigid system for massaging. Such a modification appears to involve
`
`the mere use of one well—known upheaving air massage system for another to yield predictable
`
`results that do not patentably distinguish an invention over the prior art.
`
`Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Dehli, Yamanaka and Mochida as applied to claims 19-22 above, and further in view of
`
`Felton et al. (US 2002/0180249, herein referred to as “Felton”).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/902,377
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3778
`
`The modified Dehli device lacks the rotating member being formed as a single part.
`
`However, Felton discloses another similar back support system with a rotating member (76 or
`
`the sheet bladders 112, 114, 116, 118 are attached to —— see Figures 3—5) that extends the width of
`
`a user's back and is formed as a single part. The rotating member has a curved shaped (see Figure
`
`4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to have provided Dehli’s modified device with a single piece rotating
`
`member as taught by Felton because it would have provided another well—known means of
`
`relieving pressure on the torso of the user while seated via airbags while ensuring more even
`
`applied force, for example. Furthermore, there is nothing structurally preventing the modified
`
`Dehli device from having a single piece rotating member as taught by Felton and it appears as
`
`though Dehli would perform equally well with such a modification.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16—26 have been considered but are moot in
`
`view of the new grounds of rejection.
`
`Examiner agrees that Sugiyama would not operate in a “rolling mode” as claimed and has
`
`therefore withdrawn the previous rejection.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this
`
`Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
`
`Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/902,377
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3778
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed Within TWO
`
`MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after
`
`the end of the THREE—MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period
`
`Will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37
`
`CFR l.l36(a) Will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event,
`
`however, Will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this
`
`final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to KRISTEN MATTER Whose telephone number is (571)272—5270.
`
`The examiner can normally be reached on Monday — Friday 9—5.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Jackie Ho can be reached on (571) 272—4696. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization Where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571—273—8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
`
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
`
`may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
`
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
`
`system, see http://pair—direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR
`
`system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866—217—9197 (toll—free). If you would
`
`like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated
`
`information system, call 800—786—9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571—272—1000.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/902,377
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3778
`
`/Kristen C. Matter/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3778
`
`