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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 02/27/26. Claims 1-3, 7, 21, and 23-25 been amended, no new claims have been added, and claims 10-20 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-9 and 21-25 are presently pending in this application.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clowdus (2015/0182419) in view of Persaud (4,984,568) and Gaquer (3,739,771).
PNG
media_image1.png
360
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 1 of Clowdus.
With respect to claim 1, Clowdus discloses a device for massage, physical therapy, chiropractic therapy, and myofascial release (10, fig 1), the device comprising a pressure head (16, fig 1) for applying a pressure to a tissue (see para. 47) of a patient (100, fig 1), a lever arm (11, fig 1) comprising a first end (left side; see annotated fig 1 of Clowdus) and a second end (right side, see annotated fig 1 of Clowdus) coupled to the pressure head (via 193/13, fig 1), wherein the pressure head protruding below the lever arm (see fig 1) and a force acting on the second end of the lever arm multiplies the force applied to the tissue by the pressure head (see para. 47), a first hinge (14, fig 1) attached to the first end of the lever arm (see fig 1) and configured to allow the pressure head to pivot into and out of contact with the tissue of the patient (see para. 44), a support (12, fig 1) coupled to the first hinge elevating the first hinge above a fastening point (see annotated fig 1 and connection via clamp and pin 15/17), and a fastener (clamp; 17, fig 1) coupled to the support, for fixing the device to a surface (table 18, fig 1) when the pressure is applied to the tissue of the patient (see para. 43) positioned against the surface (see fig 1); wherein the surface defining a plane along a first axis referred to as an x axis (see annotated fig 1 of Clowdus with defined axes) and a second axis referred to as a y axis (see annotated fig 1 of Clowdus with defined axes; note the surface is 3D and has three axes); a second fastening (192, fig 1 and para. 44 of Clowdus) coupled to the support (see fig 1 of Clowdus) and configured to move the lever arm around a second axis, referred to as the y-axis (see annotated fig 1 of Clowdus with the labeled axes), that runs perpendicular to the elongated surface for receiving the patient (see y axis perpendicular to table axis), the second fastening enabling movement of the lever arm such that an oblique pressure can be applied (the device of Clowdus is capable of applying an oblique pressure dependent on the position of the user) from the pressure head to the tissue when the patient is positioned substantially flat on the surface, but lacks the second fastening is a hinge allowing for rotation.
However, Persaud teaches a massage device (10, fig 1) with hinge points (21, 27, and 29, fig 1) allowing for rotational movement (see col. 4, lines 38-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second fastening of Clowdus to be hinged as taught by Persaud so as to allow for rotational movement in various directions.
Further, the modified Clowdus lacks the pressure head comprising a friction surface for engagement with skin over the tissue for gripping the skin during application of the pressure to provide a sheer pressure to the tissue, and wherein the friction surface comprising rubber.
However, Gaquer teaches a massage device (20, fig 1) comprising a pressure head (44, fig 1) comprising a friction surface (outer surface of 44, fig 1) for engagement with skin over the tissue for gripping the skin during application of the pressure to provide a sheer pressure to the tissue (note the surface of the pressure head would provide pressure and grip the skin due to the use and material), and wherein the friction surface comprises rubber (see col. 8, lines 35-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressure head of Clowdus to be made rubber as taught by Gaquer so as to provide a resilient material to maintain and provide pressure to the user during use.
With respect to claim 4, the modified Clowdus shows a first grip (see annotated fig 1 of Clowdus) located on the lever arm at least one of at the second end of the lever arm and a first location between the pressure head and the second end of the lever arm, the first grip for receiving an extremity of a practitioner to apply the force acting on the second end of the lever arm (see para. 39 and claim 19), wherein the first grip positioned such that the force applied to the tissue by the pressure head is an integer multiple of the force acting on the second end of the lever arm (note the force applied is dependent on the practitioner’s application and would inherently be a multiplied force).
With respect to claim 7, the modified Clowdus shows the friction surface comprises rubber (see col. 8, lines 35-37 of Gaquer).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clowdus, Persaud, and Gaquer as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Chavanne (3,904,195).
With respect to claim 2, the modified Clowdus shows the fastener fixes the device on a surface (18, fig 1 and para. 43) that is elongated and usable to receive the patient in a substantially flat position (see fig 1 and ‘horizontal positioned victim’ para. 39) but lacks a track configured to translate of the device along a first axis, referred to as an x-axis, running parallel to the surface.
However, Chavanne teaches a massage device (see col. 3, lines 50-51 and fig 3) comprising a track (12, fig 3) configured to translate of the device (frame 13 of device; see col. 3, lines 55-62) along a first axis (longitudinal edge), referred to as an x-axis, along a surface (1’, fig 3) that is elongated and usable to receive the patient in a substantially flat position (see col. 4, lines 10-13), wherein a fastener (handle 13b for locking, fig 3) fixes the device at a location in the track along the first axis (col. 3, lines 60-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface of Clowdus to include a track as taught by Chavanne so as to allow the device to be slidably adjustable.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clowdus, Persaud, Gaquer, and Chavanne as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Persaud (4,984,568).
With respect to claim 3, the modified Clowdus shows a third fastening (191, fig 1 and para. 44 of Clowdus) coupled to the support and configured to rotate the lever arm around a third axis, referred to as a z-axis (see annotated fig 1 of Clowdus with the labeled axes), that runs perpendicular to both the y-axis and the z-axis, the third fastening enabling movement of the lever arm to apply the pressure to the tissue at two or more horizontal locations of the patient without the patient repositioning on the surface (see movement of second hinge allowing movement of 11 right to left in fig 1 of Clowdus), but lacks the third fastenings are hinges allowing for rotation.
However, Persaud teaches a massage device (10, fig 1) with hinge points (21, 27, and 29, fig 1) allowing for rotational movement (see col. 4, lines 38-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the third fastening to be hinged as taught by Persaud so as to allow for rotational movement in various directions.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clowdus, Persaud, and Gaquer as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hill (20190365597) and Chavanne (3,904,195).
With respect to claim 5, Clowdus discloses the fastener coupled to a surface (18, fig 1) that is a table on which the patient rests in the substantially flat position (see para. 43), but lacks the table comprising a head space comprising a cavity and a hole for receiving a head of the patient when the patient is positioned on their stomach on the surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
237
356
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 1 of Hill.
However, Hill teaches a massage device (10, fig 1) comprising a surface (14, fig 1) that is a table (see 14 on table 11, fig 1) on which the patient rests in the substantially flat position (see para. 43), the table comprising a head space (16, fig 1) comprising a cavity (see annotated fig 1) and a hole (see fig 8 where 16 is a through hole to the opposite side) for receiving a head of the patient when the patient is positioned on their stomach on the surface (see para. 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface of Clowdus to include a headspace as taught by Hill so as to provide comfortability to the user when laid on the surface.
Further, the modified Clowdus lacks a track extends along one edge of the table such that the pressure head may be translated to different locations along the table.
However, Chavanne teaches a massage device (see col. 3, lines 50-51 and fig 3) comprising a track (12, fig 3) configured to translate of the device (frame 13 of device; see col. 3, lines 55-62) along a first axis (longitudinal edge), referred to as an x-axis, running parallel to a surface (1’, fig 3) that is elongated and usable to receive the patient in a substantially flat position (see col. 4, lines 10-13), wherein a fastener (handle 13b for locking, fig 3) fixes the device at a location in the track along the first axis (col. 3, lines 60-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface of Clowdus to include a track as taught by Chavanne so as to allow the device to be slidably adjustable.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clowdus, Persaud, and Gaquer as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Lee (2020/0085675).
With respect to claim 6, Clowdus discloses an attachment point (193, fig 1) located on the lever arm coupling the pressure head to the lever arm (see fig 1 and para. 44) but lacks the pressure head detachable from the lever arm.
However, Lee teaches a massage device (10, fig 1) with a replaceable pressure head (24, fig 1 and para. 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressure head of Clowdus to be changeable as taught by Lee so as to feature a variety of different massage heads to provide different therapies.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clowdus, Persaud, Gaquer, and Chavanne as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Nagano (2010/0286569).
With respect to claim 8, the modified Clowdus shows a first grip (see annotated fig 1 of Clowdus) and a second grip (see annotated fig 1of Clowdus) located on the lever arm between the pressure head and the first grip (see location in annotated fig 1 of Clowdus), the second grip for receiving an extremity of a practitioner (see para. 39) to apply the force acting on the second end of the lever arm at a different force multiplier than the first grip (the force would be different at different locations along the lever arm) but lacks a sensor measuring the force applied to the pressure head, wherein the sensor transmitting data to at least one of a computer memory for storage and a user interface for display to the practitioner.
However, Nagano teaches a massage device (fig 1) with a sensor (SC, fig 6A) measuring the force applied to the pressure head (see para. 51), wherein the sensor transmitting data to at least one of a computer memory for storage (see para. 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of the modified Clowdus to include a sensor as taught by Nagano so as to avoid excessive pressure and risk injury to the user.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clowdus, Persaud, Gaquer, and Chavanne as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Everete (5,257,619).
With respect to claim 9, the modified Clowdus shows the lever arm comprising a second track (camlock and pin; 193, fig 1 of Clowdus) allowing the pressure head to slide along the lever arm to reposition the pressure head enabling application of pressure to the tissue at different horizontal locations of the patient without the patient repositioning on the surface (see para. 44) but lacks a length of the lever arm is adjustable to permit a practitioner to remain in physical contact with the patient during treatment.
However, Everete teaches a massage device (fig 2) with a lever arm (5, fig 2) wherein a length of the lever arm is adjustable (via extension rod 6, fig 2 and col. 2, lines 17-21) to permit a practitioner to remain in physical contact with the patient during treatment (a change in length allows the practitioner to adjust his/her distance from the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lever arm of the modified Clowdus to have an adjustable extension rod as taught by Everete so as to allow the practitioner to adjust the distance to the patient.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pg. 16 of remarks that "Clowdus is not a massage tool but rather "A mechanical device for providing external chest compression for cardiac resuscitation [and CPR]... Clowdus is not analogous art and would not be looked to by one skilled in the art in developing amended claim 1." This is not persuasive since the device of Clowdus is used for massaging the heart externally, or chest compressions. Further, massage is defined by Merriam-Webster as "manipulation of tissues (as by rubbing, kneading, or tapping) with the hand or an instrument for relaxation or therapeutic purposes" which is the function performed by the device of Clowdus. Therefore, the rejection stands.
Additionally, on pg. 17 Applicant argues "Clowdus does not teach or suggest a y-axis that can be used to apply oblique force." This is not persuasive since the device is capable of applying an oblique pressure depending on the position of the user in relation to the device. As well, the modifications to include a hinge for rotating around different axes allows the device to be manipulated to provide oblique force. Thus, the rejection stands.
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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E BALLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/KELSEY E BALLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TU A VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785