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 § 112
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 1-5, 11, and 13, and thus their dependent claims, 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. Claims 1 and 13 recite the limitation of “the exposed portion of the head is formed such that the head comes into contact with the body of the user even when the sonic vibration module is positioned at a maximum rotation angle in the preset rotation angle range”, however neither the “maximum rotation angle” nor the “preset rotation angle range” is defined by the claims. For the purpose of examination, the examiner has taken this limitation to mean that the head of the sonic vibration module must always be exposed no matter what angle the sonic vibration module is set in. Similarly, claim 2 recites the limitation of “maximum rotation angle”, however again this angle is not specified by the claim.
Regarding claims 3-5, these claims are all apparatus claims that recite a method step of the using the apparatus, and therefore are indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(p).II)). Specifically, claim 3 recites the functional limitation of “wherein: while the sonic vibration is generated, the solid angle is changed between a minimum solid angle and a maximum solid angle; and the minimum solid angle is set to be greater than the maximum rotation angle such that the head is in continuous contact with the body of the user while the sonic vibration is generated”, claim 4 recites the functional limitation of “wherein a length of the exposed portion is formed based on an amplitude of the sonic vibration massage”, and claim 5 recites the limitation of “wherein the length of the exposed portion is less than a maximum amplitude of the sonic vibration massage”. For the purpose of examination, as these claims recite functional limitations (see MPEP 2111.04), the Examiner is interpreting these limitations to be met as long as the prior art is capable of performing such functions. The Examiner also suggests incorporating “configured to” language or the like into these limitations.
Specifically regarding claim 4, and thus claim 5 from which it depends, the Examiner would like to note claim 4 is indefinite for additional reasons other than the functional language. Claim 4 recites the limitation of “wherein a length of the exposed portion is formed based on an amplitude of the sonic vibration massage”, however does not define what the length is nor how the length is related to the amplitude of the sonic vibration massage. Therefore, it is unclear what is meant by this particular limitation. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations to be met by the prior art as long as there is some portion and/or length of the exposed portion of the head that moves in coordination with the sonic vibration.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the limitation of “wherein the certain angle is related to an angle at which the lower portion is inclined when the sonic vibration module installed at the lower portion is moved forward to or backward from the body of the user by the driving part”. The Examiner notes this limitation comprises both functional language and does not clearly define how the “certain angle” is related to “an angle at which the lower portion is included”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (KR 20170072040 A).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a human body stimulation unit for providing a sonic vibration massage to a body of a user (massaging chair 100 configured to transmit sonic vibration to the body of a user via a sonic vibrating head 300, Abstract, Page 5 and Figure 1), the human body stimulation unit comprising: a sonic vibration module configured to provide the sonic vibration massage (head guide 500 comprises a sonic vibrating unit 400 on an arm 200 to induce sonic vibrations, Page 7 and Figure 5); an arm connected to one end portion of the sonic vibration module to support the sonic vibration module (see arm 200 connected to one end portion of the vibration guide 500, Figure 5); and a driving unit which drives the arm to move the sonic vibration module within a preset rotation angle range (drive unit 110 may drive motion of the arm 200, with the angle of the lip plates 220a and 220b of the arm 200 being set to a predefined acute angle about the hinge 210, Figure 2 and Pages 5-6), wherein: the sonic vibration module includes a housing (housing 510, Figure 6 and Page 7), a sonic vibration generator configured to generate sonic vibration inside the housing (sound wave vibrating unit 400 disposed within housing 510, Figure 6 and Page 7), and a head connected to the sonic vibration generator and configured to transmit the generated sonic vibration to the body of the user in order for the sonic vibration massage (a head 300 vibrates in response to the vibration transmitted from the sound wave transmitting unit 400, Page 7 and Figure 6); the housing partially surrounds the head to expose a portion of an upper portion of the head from the housing (see housing 510 partially surrounding the head 300, with a vibrator hole 530 formed in the mask 520 of the housing, therefore leaving a top portion of the head 300 exposed, Page 7 and Figures 5-6); and the exposed portion of the head is formed such that the head comes into contact with the body of the user even when the sonic vibration module is positioned at a maximum rotation angle in the preset rotation angle range (as the top portion of the head 300 is exposed through the vibrator hole 530, the top portion of the head 300 would come into contact with the body of the user no matter what angle the arm 200 is rotated, Figures 1-3; the Examiner also notes the 112b rejection presented above).
Regarding claim 2, Choi further discloses the exposed portion of the head has a solid angle that is greater than the maximum rotation angle in the preset rotation angle range; and the solid angle is defined as an angle between a central axis of the head and an imaginary line formed between a central point of the upper portion of the head and a point at which the exposed portion starts to be exposed from the housing (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above regarding this functional limitation. However, for the purpose of the examination, the examiner has taken this limitation to be met by the prior art as the exposed portion of Choi’s head 300 is angled from the housing 500 in a similar manner as Applicant’s Figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Choi further discloses while the sonic vibration is generated, the solid angle is changed between a minimum solid angle and a maximum solid angle; and the minimum solid angle is set to be greater than the maximum rotation angle such that the head is in continuous contact with the body of the user while the sonic vibration is generated (The Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above regarding this functional limitation. However, for the purpose of the examination, the examiner has taken this limitation to be met by the prior art as the angle of the head 300 may be changed to any acute angle via the driving unit 110, wherein the head 300 is always positioned in an exposed manner and therefore may have continuous contact with the body of the user while the vibrating unit 400 is vibrating the head, Figure 2 and Page 7).
Regarding claim 4, Choi further discloses wherein a length of the exposed portion is formed based on an amplitude of the sonic vibration massage (The Examiner notes the 112b rejection above regarding this limitation. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations to be met by the prior art as long as there is some portion and/or length of the exposed portion of the head that moves in coordination with the sonic vibration. Therefore, as Choi’s head 300 is exposed at the top portion and vibrations in coordination with the vibration unit 400, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be met).
Regarding claim 5, Choi further discloses wherein the length of the exposed portion is less than a maximum amplitude of the sonic vibration massage (The Examiner notes the 112b rejection above regarding this limitation. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations to be met by the prior art as long as there is some portion and/or length of the exposed portion of the head that moves in coordination with the sonic vibration. Therefore, as Choi’s head 300 is exposed at the top portion and vibrations in coordination with the vibration unit 400, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be met).
Regarding claim 6, Choi further discloses a lower portion of the head is connected to the sonic vibration generator (see lower portion of head 300 connected to the sonic vibrator unit 400, Figure 5) and transmits the sonic vibration generated from the sonic vibration generator to the upper portion of the head (sonic vibrations generated from vibrating unit 400 transmit through the head 300, Figure 5 and Page 5); and the upper portion of the head applies the received sonic vibration to the body of the user (exposed upper portion of head 300 transmit the vibrations to the user, Figure 5 and Page 5).
Regarding claim 7, Choi further discloses wherein the upper portion of the head is formed in a shape having a round surface including a spherical shape or a hemispherical shape (see upper portion of head 300 having a round spherical shape, Figures 5-6).
Regarding claim 8, Choi further discloses wherein a front surface portion of the housing has a round surface (housing 500 is cylindrical in shape, therefore having a round front surface, Figure 5).
Regarding claim 9, Choi further discloses the arm (arm 200, Figure 2) includes an upper portion and a lower portion (see arm 200 having an upper plate 220a and a lower plate 220b, Figure 2) which move in conjunction with each other (driving device 110 drive the motion of the arm 200 and therefore the upper and lower portions 220a and 220b, Figure 2 and Page 5); a massage ball or the sonic vibration module is installed at the upper portion (see sonic vibration module 500 installed on upper portion 220a, Figure 2); and the sonic vibration module is installed at the lower portion (see sonic vibration module 500 installed on lower portion 220b, Figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Choi further discloses wherein the sonic vibration module installed at the lower portion is installed downward at a certain angle from the arm (see the lower sonic vibration module 500 installed at a downward angle, Figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, Choi further discloses wherein the certain angle is related to an angle at which the lower portion is inclined when the sonic vibration module installed at the lower portion is moved forward to or backward from the body of the user by the driving part (The Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above regarding this limitation. As the general angles of Choi’s head 300 and arm 200 are arranged in a similar manner as the corresponding structure in Applicant’s Figure 2, and the driving unit 110 is capable of moving the arm 200 and therefore the angles, the Examiner has considered this limitation to be met).
Regarding claim 12, Choi further discloses wherein the certain angle is in a range of 5 to 20 degrees (the angle of the upper and lower portions 220a and 220b are at an acute angle of greater than 0 degrees and less than 45 degrees, therefore falling within the claimed range, Page 6 and Figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Choi discloses a chair-type human body stimulation device (chair-type human body massager device 100, Figure 1 and Abstract), a bed-type human body stimulation device, or a sofa-type human body stimulation device (the Examiner notes due the presence of the term “or” the bed-type and sofa-type device limitations are not required by the claim) comprising a human body stimulation unit, the human body simulation unit comprising: a sonic vibration module configured to provide the sonic vibration massage (head guide 500 comprises a sonic vibrating unit 400 on an arm 200 to induce sonic vibrations, Page 7 and Figure 5); an arm connected to one end portion of the sonic vibration module to support the sonic vibration module (see arm 200 connected to one end portion of the vibration guide 500, Figure 5); and a driving unit which drives the arm to move the sonic vibration module within a preset rotation angle range (drive unit 110 may drive motion of the arm 200, with the angle of the lip plates 220a and 220b of the arm 200 being set to a predefined acute angle about the hinge 210, Figure 2 and Pages 5-6), wherein: the sonic vibration module includes a housing (housing 510, Figure 6 and Page 7), a sonic vibration generator configured to generate sonic vibration inside the housing (sound wave vibrating unit 400 disposed within housing 510, Figure 6 and Page 7), and a head connected to the sonic vibration generator and configured to transmit the generated sonic vibration to the body of the user in order for the sonic vibration massage (a head 300 vibrates in response to the vibration transmitted from the sound wave transmitting unit 400, Page 7 and Figure 6); the housing partially surrounds the head to expose a portion of an upper portion of the head from the housing (see housing 510 partially surrounding the head 300, with a vibrator hole 530 formed in the mask 520 of the housing, therefore leaving a top portion of the head 300 exposed, Page 7 and Figures 5-6); and the exposed portion of the head is formed such that the head comes into contact with the body of the user even when the sonic vibration module is positioned at a maximum rotation angle in the preset rotation angle range (as the top portion of the head 300 is exposed through the vibrator hole 530, the top portion of the head 300 would come into contact with the body of the user no matter what angle the arm 200 is rotated, Figures 1-3; the Examiner also notes the 112b rejection presented above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Inada et al. (US 2004/0097851 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH B LEDERER whose telephone number is 571-272-7274. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Brandy Lee can be reached on (571)-270-7410. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SARAH B LEDERER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/MARGARET M LUARCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785