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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant' s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a) with reference to Application Number: GB1905889 filed on 4/26/2019.
Claim Objections
Claims 104, 110, and 111 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Additionally, if a dependent claim contains an improper reference which cannot be understood, the claim should not be treated on the merits. See MPEP 608(n)(I)(F). The scope of claims 110 and 111 cannot be understood because they depend on a cancelled claim. Accordingly, claims 110 and 111 have not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 110-111 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 110 recites the limitation “controlling the spinal therapy device of any one of the claims 14-18.” Claims 14-18 are cancelled, therefore the scope of the claim is unclear. Claim 111 is rejected on the same grounds due to its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 92, 100, and 103-104 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2017168140) in view of Nagano (US PGPub 20100286569).
Regarding claim 92, Lee teaches a method of control for a spinal therapy bed (abstract and fig. 1), the spinal therapy bed comprising:
A plurality of manipulation members (Fig. 8A and 8C, plurality of manipulation members 628 or 744 as shown in 8C; see page 17, lines 10-16) spaced along the length of a user’s spine (see fig. 8A and Fig. 9, the manipulation members are spaced along the spine) and adjustable to the curvature of an individual user’s spine (see fig. 9 and page 18, line 26- page 19, line 2, the manipulation members are adjustable relative to the user’s spine to adjust to the curve of their spine) and arranged to apply pressure from either side of the spine at multiple points along the spine (see fig. 8A and page 19, lines 3-5, there are manipulation members on either side of the spine and along multiple points, fig. 8C has the same configuration and just shows an up close view), each manipulating member arranged to engage a user’s spine at a respective vertebral area between a spinous process and a transverse process (see page 20, lines 8-13) arranged to be driven from a proximal end and having a portion for engaging the spine at a distal end (see figs. 8A and 8C and page 18, lines 6-10, at the proximal end there is motor 745 that drives that manipulation member, at the distal end there is the fingertip 744 that engages the spine ;
And a drive system (Fig. 8C, motor 645, see page 18, lines 11-14);
Wherein the method comprises: controlling the drive system to actuate the manipulation members to apply pressure to their respective vertebral areas (page 18, lines 15-22, motor drives the manipulation member up into the respective vertebral areas they are targeting), wherein a plurality of the manipulation members are driven simultaneously and independently (page 18, lines 11-22, there is a motor that drives the right manipulation members simultaneously in the C4 direction and simultaneously drives the left manipulation members in the C2 direction. At the same time, the left and right manipulation members are driven independently of one another).
Lee does not teach wherein the spinal therapy bed further comprises sensors for monitoring the behavior of each manipulating member and wherein the method includes: receiving measurements from the sensors, the measurements comprising at least a measurement indicative of a force applied by at least one manipulating member over a cycle in which the manipulating member moves towards and away from its respective vertebral area and returns to its starting position; and adaptively adjusting the force applied by each manipulating member in response to the received measurements.
However, Nagano teaches an analogous spinal therapy method (abstract and fig. 1) comprising manipulating members (see Fig. 2, manipulating members 28) and sensors for monitoring the behavior of each manipulating member (fig. 12, force sensor SC; see paragraph 54) and wherein the method includes: receiving measurements from the sensors (Fig. 7, step St0; see paragraph 54, “output value of force sensor SC”), the measurements comprising at least a measurement indicative of a force applied by at least one manipulating member over a cycle in which the manipulating member moves towards and away from its respective vertebral area and returns to its starting position (see paragraphs 53-54 and fig. 7, the massage head is pressed along the body at St5 and retracted at step St8, the force is measured during this cycle of pressing and retracting at step St6) and adaptively adjusting the force applied by each manipulating member in response to the received measurements (see paragraph 54, the force sensor is measuring the force and comparing to a threshold, if the force exceeds the threshold, the force is reduced).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Lee to include measuring the forces applied by the manipulating members and adjusting the force based on the received measurements, as taught by Nagano, for the purpose of control the pressing amount of the massage heads appropriately and not harming the user’s back (see paragraphs 54-55 of Nagano “it is necessary to control a pressing amount of the massage heads 28 appropriately because the operation of the pressing directly affects the massage condition” and “SC is continuously compared with the second threshold, so as not to apply an excessive force to the back”).
Regarding claim 100, Lee further teaches wherein the independent driving includes: rippling motion with a constant phase between adjacent manipulating members (see page 20, lines 5-7, pressure applied in one location at a time sequentially along the length of the spine); and/or different motions in cervical, thoracic and lumbar portions of a user's spine (see page 20, lines 4-7, pressure applied can be applied in multiple locations or different locations along the spine).
Regarding claim 103, Lee teaches a spinal therapy apparatus (abstract and fig. 1):
A plurality of manipulation members (Fig. 8A and 8C, plurality of manipulation members 628 or 744 as shown in 8C; see page 17, lines 10-16) spaced along the length of a user’s spine (see fig. 8A and Fig. 9, the manipulation members are spaced along the spine) and adjustable to the curvature of an individual user’s spine (see fig. 9 and page 18, line 26- page 19, line 2, the manipulation members are adjustable relative to the user’s spine to adjust to the curve of their spine) and arranged to apply pressure from either side of the spine at multiple points along the spine (see fig. 8A and page 19, lines 3-5, there are manipulation members on either side of the spine and along multiple points, fig. 8C has the same configuration and just shows an up close view), each manipulating member arranged to engage a user’s spine at a respective vertebral area between a spinous process and a transverse process (see page 20, lines 8-13) arranged to be driven from a proximal end and having a portion for engaging the spine at a distal end (see figs. 8A and 8C and page 18, lines 6-10, at the proximal end there is motor 745 that drives that manipulation member, at the distal end there is the fingertip 744 that engages the spine ;
And a drive system (Fig. 8C, motor 645, see page 18, lines 11-14);
Wherein the method comprises: controlling the drive system to actuate the manipulation members to apply pressure to their respective vertebral areas (page 18, lines 15-22, motor drives the manipulation member up into the respective vertebral areas they are targeting), wherein a plurality of the manipulation members are driven simultaneously and independently (page 18, lines 11-22, there is a motor that drives the right manipulation members simultaneously in the C4 direction and simultaneously drives the left manipulation members in the C2 direction. At the same time, the left and right manipulation members are driven independently of one another).
Lee does not teach wherein the spinal therapy bed further comprises sensors for monitoring the behavior of each manipulating member and wherein the method includes: receiving measurements from the sensors, the measurements comprising at least a measurement indicative of a force applied by at least one manipulating member over a cycle in which the manipulating member moves towards and away from its respective vertebral area and returns to its starting position; and adaptively adjusting the force applied by each manipulating member in response to the received measurements.
However, Nagano teaches an analogous spinal therapy apparatus (abstract and fig. 1) comprising manipulating members (see Fig. 2, manipulating members 28) and sensors for monitoring the behavior of each manipulating member (fig. 12, force sensor SC; see paragraph 54) and wherein the method includes: receiving measurements from the sensors (Fig. 7, step St0; see paragraph 54, “output value of force sensor SC”), the measurements comprising at least a measurement indicative of a force applied by at least one manipulating member over a cycle in which the manipulating member moves towards and away from its respective vertebral area and returns to its starting position (see paragraphs 53-54 and fig. 7, the massage head is pressed along the body at St5 and retracted at step St8, the force is measured during this cycle of pressing and retracting at step St6) and adaptively adjusting the force applied by each manipulating member in response to the received measurements (see paragraph 54, the force sensor is measuring the force and comparing to a threshold, if the force exceeds the threshold, the force is reduced).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Lee to include measuring the forces applied by the manipulating members and adjusting the force based on the received measurements, as taught by Nagano, for the purpose of control the pressing amount of the massage heads appropriately and not harming the user’s back (see paragraphs 54-55 of Nagano “it is necessary to control a pressing amount of the massage heads 28 appropriately because the operation of the pressing directly affects the massage condition” and “SC is continuously compared with the second threshold, so as not to apply an excessive force to the back”).
Regarding claim 104, Lee, as modified, teaches a spinal apparatus according to claim 103 (see above rejection of claim 103) including control logic (see page 5, line 18 - page 6, line 5, a controller is used to control massage operation; see also Nagano fig. 7, showing control logic) arranged to perform a method according to claim 92 (see above rejection of claim 92).
Regarding claim 105, Lee, as modified, teaches all previous elements of the claim as stated above and further teaches wherein the plurality of manipulating members are arranged to engage a user's spine at a respective vertebral area between a spinous process and a transverse process (see page 20, lines 8-13).
Lee does not teach determining control signals for controlling a plurality of manipulating members of the spinal therapy device based on a stored treatment profile, wherein the plurality of manipulating members are arranged to engage a user's spine at a respective vertebral area between a spinous process and a transverse process; applying the control signals to drive the manipulating members in at least one cycle to implement a treatment regime; receiving feedback signals from a plurality of sensors indicative of at least one of pressure and movement applied on the user's spine by the plurality of manipulating members during the at least one cycle; and determining adjusted control signals based on the control signals of the stored treatment profile and the received feedback signals to implement an updated treatment regime.
However, Nagano teaches an analogous method for controlling a spinal therapy apparatus (abstract and fig. 1) comprising manipulating members (see Fig. 2, manipulating members 28), the method comprising determining control signals for controlling a plurality of manipulating members of the spinal therapy device based on a stored treatment profile (see Fig. 7, step St7, see paragraph 54 “ the massage heads 28 are moved along the movement pattern that is memorized beforehand, thus giving a massage to the back.” The pattern is stored in memory M) , applying the control signals to drive the manipulating members in at least one cycle to implement a treatment regime (see fig. 7 and paragraphs 54-55, the massage operation in step St7 is performed and continued until the end instruction is received); receiving feedback signals from a plurality of sensors indicative of at least one of pressure and movement applied on the user's spine by the plurality of manipulating members during the at least one cycle (see fig. 7, step St9; see paragraph 55, the pressure from the force sensor is continuously compared to the threshold); and determining adjusted control signals based on the control signals of the stored treatment profile and the received feedback signals to implement an updated treatment regime (see fig. 7 step St8 and paragraph 55, the pressure is reduced by controlling the manipulating members to retract and the treatment is resumed with that control).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of controlling the apparatus of Lee to include monitoring the pressure and updating the control signals to the manipulating members based on the monitored pressure, as taught by Nagano, for the purpose of control the pressing amount of the massage heads appropriately and not harming the user’s back (see paragraphs 54-55 of Nagano “it is necessary to control a pressing amount of the massage heads 28 appropriately because the operation of the pressing directly affects the massage condition” and “SC is continuously compared with the second threshold, so as not to apply an excessive force to the back”).
Claim 93 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2017168140) in view of Nagano (US PGPub 20100286569) as applied to claim 92 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US PGPub 20140277300, hereinafter “Lee2”).
Regarding claim 93, Lee, as modified, teaches all previous elements of the claim as stated above. Lee does not teach wherein a measurement indicative of a force applied is derived based on the current supplied to an actuator.
However, Lee2 teaches an analogous spinal massage device and method (abstract and fig. 1) wherein a measurement indicative of a force applied is derived based on the current supplied to an actuator (see Figs. 3A and 3B and paragraph 28, an operating current of the motor is measured. “if the moxibustion device is tilted when the moxibustion device passes over the pelvic bone, two peak values are detected in the region of vertebra No. 24 because the motor current suddenly changes”. The increased force from the pelvic bone causes the actuator to tilt and the current to change).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the force measurement of Lee to be derived based on the current supplied to an actuator, as taught by Lee2 because Lee2 teaches that operating current can be used to determine the force applied from the user’s back to the actuator. This relationship between current and force is known and this method of determining force can be easily substituted for the force sensor of the modified device of Lee.
Claim 94 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2017168140) in view of Nagano (US PGPub 20100286569) as applied to claim 92 above, and further in view of Mori et al. (US PGPub 20040122343).
Regarding claim 94, Lee, as modified, teaches all previous elements of the claim as stated above. Lee does not teach wherein the spinal therapy bed further comprises sensors for monitoring the distance travelled by each manipulating member and wherein the method includes: receiving measurements from the sensors, the measurements comprising at least a measurement indicative of a distance travelled by at least one manipulating member over a cycle in which the manipulating member applies a time varying force to its respective vertebral area; and adaptively adjusting the motion of each manipulating member in response to the received measurements.
However, Mori teaches an analogous spinal treatment method (see abstract and fig. 29) wherein the spinal therapy apparatus further comprises sensors for monitoring the distance travelled by each manipulating member (see fig. 28, position sensors 417A and 417B; see paragraph 133, the front-rear position detection sensors detect the distance the manipulating members travel; see fig. 2 showing the retreat, neutral, and protrusion positions of the manipulating members) and wherein the method includes: receiving measurements from the sensors (see fig. 29, steps S24 and S38; see paragraphs 148 and 150, the protrusion of the manipulating member is determined from the sensors), the measurements comprising at least a measurement indicative of a distance travelled by at least one manipulating member over a cycle in which the manipulating member applies a time varying force to its respective vertebral area (see Fig. 29, the manipulating member applies a force during the cycle of massage, the protrusion, or distance, is measured over the course of this cycle); and adaptively adjusting the motion of each manipulating member in response to the received measurements (see Fig. 29, steps S26 and S39, the motor for the manipulating member is stopped if the protrusion, or distance, limit is reached).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Lee to include the step of receiving distance measurements of the manipulating members from distance sensors and adjusting the motion of the manipulating member in response to the measurements, as taught by Mori, for the purpose of controlling the force exerted on the treatment subject and adjusting the force to be of suitable strength for the condition being treated (see paragraph 12 of Mori).
Claims 95-99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2017168140) in view of Nagano (US PGPub 20100286569) as applied to claim 92 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US PGPub 20190053979).
Regarding claim 95, Lee, as modified, teaches all previous elements of the claim as stated above. Lee does not teach wherein applying the pressure comprises changing a control variable: receiving a profile of the control variable over the cycle; identifying a threshold value of the control variable from the profile, wherein the threshold value is indicative of a time at which a statistically significant change in the control variable is determined; and controlling the drive system based on the threshold value.
However, Han teaches an analogous spinal massage method (see figs. 1 and 3) that applies pressure (see paragraph 15) wherein applying the pressure comprises changing a control variable (see Fig. 5, the operating power is changed over the course of the treatment): receiving a profile of the control variable over the cycle (see Fig. 5, the controller receives the power data through the cycle of massage; see paragraph 68); identifying a threshold value of the control variable from the profile (fig. 5 and paragraphs 59-60, threshold value is identified, Lee teaches a threshold of 250 A/D), wherein the threshold value is indicative of a time at which a statistically significant change in the control variable is determined (see paragraphs 20-21 and 53; 240 A/D is a safe operating range); and controlling the drive system based on the threshold value (see figs. 3 and 5 and paragraph 68, if the threshold is met, the acupressure section is driven downward).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Lee to include a step of changing a control variable based on a threshold value and controlling the drive system based on that threshold, as taught by Han, for the purpose of controlling the massage in real-time to apply an approprisate amount of pressure to the back based on the anatomy of the back (see paragraph 24) and accommodating for if the user shifts on the bed and the spine body position has changed (see paragraphs 47-48).
Regarding claim 96, Lee, as modified by Han, further teaches wherein the control variable is selected from current, power or voltage drawn by an actuator (Fig. 5 and paragraph 68, the control variable is the acupressure power).
Regarding claim 97, Lee, as modified by Han, further teaches wherein the threshold value of the control variable is updated throughout a treatment regime (see Figs. 4 and 5 and paragraph 45, the value is updated in real-time, throughout the treatment).
Regarding claim 98, Lee, as modified by Han, further teaches wherein the threshold value of the control variable provides an indication of the relative firmness of the vertebral areas (see fig. 3 and paragraphs 20-21 and 42-44 and 46, the acupressure power is adjusted based on the weight that is measured, the device uses this data to figure out spinal positions, spine positions indicating firmer vertebral areas than the surrounding tissue); and a treatment regime is adaptively developed based on the indication of relative firmness of the vertebral areas (see paragraphs 20-21 and figs. 3 and 4, the treatment is adjusted to massage these specific points).
Regarding claim 99, Lee, as modified by Han, further teaches wherein the treatment regime includes: controlling or changing distances for each manipulating member to extend during treatment (see Lee fig. 5 and paragraph 60, the vertical height, or distance that the massager is traveling, is changed according to the measured control value); controlling or changing forces for each manipulating member to exert during treatment (see Lee fig. 5, the power of the manipulating member is adjusted to the target power); and/or controlling or changing relative start points for each manipulating member (see Fig. 5 of Lee, the controller has set points for the spine, the points are adjusted based on the measured values).
Claim 101 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2017168140) in view of Nagano (US PGPub 20100286569), as applied to claim 92 above, and further in view of Lane et al. (US 3998218).
Regarding claim 101, Lee, as modified, teaches all previous elements of the claim as stated above. Lee does not teach wherein the spinal therapy bed includes an adjustable leg support and the method includes adjusting the height of the adjustable leg support at specific timings during a treatment process.
However, Lane teaches an analogous spinal treatment device (abstract and fig. 1) wherein the spinal therapy bed includes an adjustable leg support (Fig. 1, legs 24 and 24a are adjustable up and down; see col. 3, lines 44-52) and the method includes adjusting the height of the adjustable leg support at specific timings during a treatment process (see col. 1, lines 55-62, the adjustable leg support allows the height to be adjusted to perform certain treatments on the spine during the treatment process).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the spinal therapy bed of Lee to have adjustable leg supports, as taught by Lane, for the purpose of allowing the user to adjust the height or angle of the table to perform certain treatments (col. 1, lines 55-62 of Lane).
Claim 102 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2017168140) in view of Nagano (US PGPub 20100286569), as applied to claim 92 above, and further in view of Takagi. (US 5265590).
Regarding claim 101, Lee, as modified, teaches all previous elements of the claim as stated above. Lee does not teach wherein the drive system is fitted with a cut out operable to stop the driving system from driving one or more manipulating members if an actuator draws more than a threshold value of current, voltage or power.
However, Takagi teaches an analogous actuator driven spinal therapy device (abstract and fig. 1) wherein the drive system is fitted with a cut out operable to stop the driving system from driving one or more manipulating members if an actuator draws more than a threshold value of current, voltage or power (see col. 7, lines 39-60, if the load exceeds a limit, when the current is too high, the device stops the motor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the drive system of Lee to have a cut out operable to stop the system from driving the manipulating member if the actuators draw more than a threshold value of current, as taught by Takagi, for the purpose of preventing an uncomfortable massage (see col. 1, lines 28-31 of Takagi) and avoid the actuator breaking.
Claim 106 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2017168140) in view of Nagano (US PGPub 20100286569) as applied to claim 105 above, and further in view of Driscoll et al. (US PGPub 20160000641).
Regarding claim 106, Lee, as modified, teaches all previous elements of the claim as stated above. Lee does not teach wherein the adjusted control signals are determined using machine learning algorithms.
However, Driscoll teaches an analogous massage device and method of controlling the device (see fig. 1 and paragraph 43) wherein the adjusted control signals of the device are determined using machine learning algorithms (see paragraph 43 “instructions may also dynamically evolve over time through the use of machine learning algorithms”.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of the modified Lee to use machine learning algorithms to determine the adjusted control signals, as taught by Driscoll, for the purpose of using a method that improves over time as the algorithm learns how to better analyze the data (see paragraph 43 of Driscoll).
Claim 107 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2017168140) in view of Nagano (US PGPub 20100286569) as applied to claim 105 above, and further in view of Govindjee et al. (US PGPub 20190163873).
Regarding claim 107, Lee, as modified, teaches all previous elements of the claim as stated above. Lee does not teach applying the adjusted control signals in a subsequent cycle, optionally further comprising updating the treatment regime based on the adjusted control signals.
However, Govindjee teaches an analogous treatment device (abstract and fig. 1) wherein applying the adjusted control signals in a subsequent cycle, optionally further comprising updating the treatment regime based on the adjusted control signals (see fig. 1, steps 160-170 and paragraphs 19-20, the instructions are updated based on the determined problem areas).
Claim 108 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2017168140) in view of Nagano (US PGPub 20100286569) as applied to claim 105 above, and further in view of Malaviya (US PGPub 20140142478).
Regarding claim 108, Lee, as modified, teaches all previous elements of the claim as stated above. Lee does not teach storing a new treatment profile based on the updated treatment regime.
However, Malaviya teaches an analogous treatment device (abstract and fig. 1) wherein a treatment profile is stored based on an updated treatment regime (see paragraph 29, “the plurality of preset selection buttons 41 allow a user to store personalized settings so that they do not have to reprogram the massage settings to their personal massage preferences every time they wish to utilize the present invention.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lee to store a profile based on the updated settings so that the device does not have to be reprogrammed each time to learned settings.
Claim 109 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2017168140) in view of Nagano (US PGPub 20100286569) as applied to claim 105 above, and further in view of Ashby (US PGPub 20150366746).
Regarding claim 109, Lee, as modified, teaches all previous elements of the claim as stated above. Lee does not teach wherein the stored treatment profile is selected from a library of treatment profiles, optionally stored at a central server, optionally wherein the library comprises treatment profiles selectable from one or more of the following: a general treatment profile; and/or a personal treatment profile developed for a user based at least in part on feedback signals from the user.
However, Ashby teaches an analogous massage device (abstract and fig. 1) wherein the stored treatment profile is selected from a library of treatment profiles (see paragraphs 69-70, the massage techniques are selected from a library), optionally stored at a central server (see paragraphs 74-75, memory may be in a server), optionally wherein the library comprises treatment profiles selectable from one or more of the following: a general treatment profile (see paragraph 70, a general treatment for different body parts can be selected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Lee to select the treatment profile from a library of profiles located at a central server, as taught by Ashby, for the purpose of enabling different modes to be implemented on the massage device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Badger et al. (US 2672860); Tsukada et al. (US PGPub 20070225624); Auman (US PGPub 20110288586)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAVANNAH GABRIEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6462. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 4:30 M-F.
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, Sam Yao can be reached on 571-272-1224. 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.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRADLEY H PHILIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799