Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/733,356

Percussive Massage Device and Adaptor

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 29, 2022
Examiner
PATEL, ROHAN DEEP
Art Unit
3785
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
12 granted / 21 resolved
-12.9% vs TC avg
Strong +45% interview lift
Without
With
+45.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
70
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
§103
55.4%
+15.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
§112
16.4%
-23.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 21 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. 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. Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. KR 101003315, in view of Seim et al. WO 2019/067590 Regarding claim 13, Park discloses a percussive massage device (Page 1 of the translated reference states that “The solenoid is installed in the form of an operating rod (small hammer) on the top of the core to move up and down in accordance with the current supply, the operating rod can be hitting a specific part of the user's body continuously to obtain a massage effect.”) comprising: a flexible pressure distribution element on a top surface (Figure 3, cushioning hole 36, page 2 states that “the upper portion of the movable iron core 33 and the brackets 31 are provided with a cushioning hole 36 made of a synthetic resin material to prevent noise and buffer function by preventing direct contact with each other” This element distributes pressure applied by massage head portion 34.); and a reciprocating shaft (Page 2 states that “the movable iron core 33 is configured to move forward and backward”) connected to a motor (Page 2 states “as power is applied to the magnetic field coil, the movable iron core 33 is advanced by the solenoid action of the internal magnetic force of the core part 32, and a massage action is performed on the head part 34, and then the magnetic force is released.” The magnetic field coil allows for movement of iron core 33 to take place.), the reciprocating shaft having a tip that engages a contact surface of the flexible pressure distribution element (Figure 3 depicts the top of movable iron core 33 contacting cushioning hole 36.). Park fails to teach a sleeve configured to receive a hand of a user and wherein the top surface of the sleeve is configured to be disposed above a back of the hand of the user and the distribution of forces from the reciprocating shaft through the hand inserted in the sleeve. Seim discloses an analogous muscle stimulation device for the hand that does teach a sleeve configured to receive a hand of a user (glove 110) and wherein the top surface of the sleeve is configured to be disposed above a back of the hand of the user (Figure 1 depicts the top surface of glove 110 located at the back of a user’s hand). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to take the percussive element of Park, and replace the neck massage clothing article 10 or the back massage clothing article 20 with the clothing article of the glove seen in Seim and include a sleeve configured to receive a hand of a user and wherein the top surface of the sleeve is configured to be disposed above a back of the hand of the user, as this allows for a massage treatment to be applied to the hand (0024), as opposed to the back or neck as shown by Park. Furthermore, once the glove in Seim is substituted onto the individual massage tool seen in Park, the same structure would allow for forces to be distributed from the reciprocating shaft through the hand that is inserted within the sleeve as the hand would be located below the reciprocating shaft and would be acted on by way of reciprocation of massage head 34. Regarding claim 14, the combination of Park and Seim teaches the percussive massage device of claim 13. Park further discloses wherein the contact surface comprises a groove for seating the tip of the reciprocating shaft. As seen in figure 4a, Cushioning hole 36 has a through hole 36a to allow for affixation with movable iron core 33. Regarding claim 15, the combination of Park and Seim teaches the percussive massage device of claim 13. Park further discloses a pressure distribution element (Figure 3, cushioning hole 36) that comprises a substantially dome-shaped pillow (Figure 3 illustrates this member in a dome shape) formed of a flexible material (Page 2 states that the cushioning hole 36 is “made of a synthetic resin material”). The combination of Park and Seim further teaches the dome shaped pillow being fixed to the top surface of the sleeve positioned at the back of a users’ hand when a users’ hand is inserted in the sleeve. Once the sleeve of Seim has been substituted onto the massage device of Park, cushioning hole 36 would then be fixed to the top surface of the sleeve configured to be positioned at the back of the users’ hand when the users’ hand is inserted in the sleeve (Figure 1 of Seim, glove 110). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 13 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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 ROHAN DEEP PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 5:30 AM - 3:00 PM PST. 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, Brandy S Lee can be reached at (571) 2707410. 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. /ROHAN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 29, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 03, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594211
WALKING ASSIST DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582782
DRY SALT THERAPY DEVICE WITH CONVERGING-DIVERGING NOZZLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575995
WEARABLE MOTION ASSISTANCE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12527933
Automatic Placement of a Mask
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12508388
TUBE CONNECTOR FOR VENTILATOR SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
57%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+45.0%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 21 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month