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 .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-18 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10, drawn to an instrument for visceral manipulation having a shaft, a pressure applicator tip with a front surface, back surface, and edge, and a handle coupled to the shaft, classified in A61H 7/007.
II. Claims 11-18, drawn to process for viscerally manipulating an organ (a stomach) of a patient by using an instrument to apply moving pressure along the skin in a direction towards the chest, rotating the handle, and moving the instrument in an opposite direction towards the feet, classified in A61H 2205/083.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process such as a back massager/scratcher (see the structural similarity of claim 1 compared to Suzuki 2007/0093735 and Stultz 2004/0249325), a kegel muscle exerciser (see the structural similarity of claim 1 compared to Marcotte 2005/0113228), or facial cleansing (see the structural similarity of claim 1 compared to Schneider 1,965,861). Suzuki, Stultz, Marcotte, and Schneider each have substantially the same structures as recited in the product of claim 1, but perform materially different processes.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions require employing searching different classification areas. For example, Invention I would require searching A61H 7/002-003, 007, while Invention II would require searching A61H 2205/083 and extensive Non-Patent Literature related to hand-driven massage protocols.
The inventions require employing substantially different search queries. For example, Invention I would require dedicated text searches related to the structure of the device including the curved profile along the height and width of the front surface and the generally spherical knob handle, while Invention II would require dedicated text searches related to the method steps of tilting the shaft at an angle, rotating the handle towards the head of the patient, moving the applicator tip towards the chest and then towards the feet, terminating proximal a belly button, and this massage being for the stomach or hiatal hernia.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Paul Blatt on November 7, 2025, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Invention I, claims 1-10. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In the instant case, line 1 of the abstract states “comprising” which is form/legal phraseology often used in patent claims, and should be avoided. Examiner suggests --includes--.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 1 recites “wherein the front surface has a height and a width, and” which is a duplicated limitation because claim 4 depends from claim 2, which already recites this limitation (see line 1 of claim 2). Examiner suggests deleting this phrase.
Claim 8, line 1 recites “includes straight section” and Examiner suggests --includes a straight section--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does,” and a “‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim,” see MPEP 2114(II). In the instant case, the last two lines of claim 1 recite: “wherein the front surface and the edge are configured to apply pressure to a skin portion.” In this instance where the claim recites functional language of an ability to apply pressure to skin, as long as the prior art teaches the structural limitations capable of performing the function (a front surface and an edge that can be pressed against skin), it will be considered to read on the limitation.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sultana (2019/0307635).
Regarding claim 1, Sultana discloses an instrument for visceral manipulation (Figs. 1-2; Note, the recitation of “for visceral manipulation” is merely a recitation of purpose or intended use in the preamble and the body of the claim describes a complete invention. Thus, the intended use is not limiting, see MPEP 2111.02(II). However, it is noted that Sultana’s massage instrument includes protruding balls 20, pads 24, and corrugations 16, which are adapted to be pressed against skin tissue to provide a massage force and thus the instrument also reads on “for visceral manipulation”) comprising:
a shaft (spine 14, Fig. 2) having a first end (end of spine 14 that connects to handle 12a, Fig. 2) and a second end (end of spine 14 that connects to handle 12b, Fig. 2),
a pressure applicator tip (handle 12a, Figs. 1-3 is considered the “pressure applicator tip” due to it carrying massaging corrugations 16 and pad 24, see Figs. 1-3) coupled to the first end of the shaft (12a is coupled to the first end of 14, Figs. 1-2), the pressure application tip (12a) having a front surface (see “Front Surface 1” in annotated Figure A below, this is considered the front because it is the side of the pressure application tip that has the massaging protrusions 16, 24), a back surface (see “Back Surface 2” in annotated Figure A below) and an edge (surface 26, Fig. 3); and
a handle (handle 12b, Figs. 1-2) coupled to the second end of the shaft (handle 12b is coupled to the second end of 14, Figs. 1-2);
wherein the front surface (1) of the pressure applicator tip has a curved profile (see the curvature of “Front Surface 1” in annotated Figure A below; and the “shape of the handle consists of smooth curves on its top and bottom surfaces making it suitable to be placed against a human body for the purposes of providing a massage” see the last sentence of [0018]), and
wherein the front surface (1) and the edge (26) are configured to apply pressure to a skin portion (the front surface 1 is configured to apply pressure to a skin portion via corrugations 1 and due to its curvature, see Figs. 2-3; “The shape of the handle consists of smooth curves on its top and bottom surfaces making it suitable to be placed against a human body for the purposes of providing a massage” see the last sentence of [0018]. The edge 26 is configured to apply pressure to a skin portion because it is an outer surface at a distal end of the device and thus capable of being pressed against skin, if desired. Additionally, the edge 26 is stated to be used to provide a “lever action” movement “to provide a massage to that part of the human body,” see all of [0022]).
PNG
media_image1.png
337
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A (from Fig. 3 of Sultana): Sultana has an applicator tip (12a) with a front surface (1, darkened line), a back surface (2, dashed line), an edge (26). The front surface has a height and a width (see “Height” and “Width” directions) and the front surface is curved along the height.
Regarding claim 2, Sultana discloses wherein the front surface (1, Fig. A above) has a height and a width (see “Height” and “Width” directions in Fig. A above), and wherein the curved profile (curvature of Front Surface 1, Fig. A) is curved along the height of the front surface (see Fig. A above, the outward curvature of the Front Surface 1 is along the height dimension).
Regarding claim 6, Sultana discloses wherein the shaft (14), the pressure applicator tip (12a), and the handle (12b) form a unitary structure (“the whole tool may be moulded by using suitable plastic material” see lines 1-2 of [0019] and Figs. 1-3 showing the parts 12a, 12b, 14, to be undivided).
Regarding claim 7, Sultana discloses wherein the shaft (14), the pressure applicator tip (12a), and the handle (12b) are each made of the same material (“the whole tool may be moulded by using suitable plastic material” see lines 1-2 of [0019]).
Claims 1-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stultz (2004/0249325).
Regarding claim 1, Stultz discloses an instrument for visceral manipulation (Fig. 1; Note, the recitation of “for visceral manipulation” is merely a recitation of purpose or intended use in the preamble and the body of the claim describes a complete invention. Thus, the intended use is not limiting, see MPEP 2111.02(II). However, it is noted that Stultz’s massage instrument includes massage fingers that “enable simple massages or more deeply probing massages,” see lines 1-4 of [0041]. Thus, the instrument is adapted to be pressed against skin tissue to provide a massage force reading on “for visceral manipulation”) comprising:
a shaft (handle 10, Fig. 1) having a first end (“distal end 14” which is the end at the handle plate 70, Fig. 1; see lines 4-6 of [0037]) and a second end (“proximal end 12” which is the end adjacent grip(s) 20, Fig. 1; see lines 4-6 of [0037]),
a pressure applicator tip (massage head(s) such as 30, Fig. 1) coupled to the first end of the shaft (massage head 30 is selectively coupled to the first end of the shaft via massage plate 60 mating with handle plate 70, see Figs. 1-6; see the last sentence of [0037] and lines 4-14 of para. [0038]), the pressure application tip having a front surface (see “Front Surface 1” in annotated Figure B below. This is a spherical surface as seen in Figures 1-2 and see “spherical surfaces” in lines 1-2 of [0041]), a back surface (see “Back Surface 2” in annotated Figure B below. This faces away from the user as seen in Figure 2) and an edge (see “Edge 3” in annotated Figure B below. This is the circular edge between the adjacent the Back Surface 2); and
a handle (grip 20, Figs. 1-2) coupled to the second end of the shaft (handle 20 is attached to the proximal end 12 of the shaft 10, see Fig. 1);
wherein the front surface (1, Fig. B below) of the pressure applicator tip (30) has a curved profile (the front surface is “spherical” as seen in Figs. 1-2 and as stated in lines 1-2 of [0041]. The surface of a sphere has a curved profile), and
wherein the front surface (1) and the edge (3) are configured to apply pressure to a skin portion (the “spherical surfaces … enabling simple massages or more deeply probing massages” see lines 1-4 of [0041]. Additionally, the edge 3 is configured to apply pressure to a skin portion because it is an outer surface that extends from the handle and thus is capable of being pressed against skin, if desired).
PNG
media_image2.png
238
369
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure B (from Fig. 1 of Stultz): Stultz’ pressure applicator tip (30) has a front surface (1, shaded gray), a back surface (2, shaded black), and an edge (3, the circular edge adjacent the back surface 2). The front surface (1) has a height (H) and a width (W).
Regarding claim 2, Stultz discloses wherein the front surface (1, Fig. B) has a height (see the height “H” in Fig. B above) and a width (see the width “W” in Fig. B above), and wherein the curved profile is curved along the height of the front surface (the front surface is “spherical” as seen in Fig. B above and as stated in lines 1-2 of [0041]. A spherical surface is curved along both the height and the width).
Regarding claim 3, Stultz discloses wherein the front surface (1, Fig. B) has a height (see the height “H” in Fig. B above) and a width (see the width “W” in Fig. B above), and wherein the curved profile is curved along the width of the front surface (the front surface is “spherical” as seen in Fig. B above and as stated in lines 1-2 of [0041]. A spherical surface is curved along both the height and the width).
Regarding claim 4, Stultz discloses wherein the front surface (1, Fig. B) has a height (see the height “H” in Fig. B above) and a width (see the width “W” in Fig. B above), and wherein the curved profile is curved along both the height of the front surface and the width of the front surface (the front surface is “spherical” as seen in Fig. B above and as stated in lines 1-2 of [0041]. A spherical surface is curved along both the height and the width).
Regarding claim 8, Stultz discloses wherein the shaft (10, Fig. 1) includes straight section (see “Straight Section 10a” in annotated Figure C below) and a curved section (see “Curved Section 10b” in annotated Figure C below).
PNG
media_image3.png
512
676
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure C (from Fig. 2 of Stultz): Stultz’s shaft (10) includes a straight section (10a) and a curved section (10b, shaded gray). The pressure applicator tip (30, Fig. 1) is coupled to the curved section of the shaft (via plates 60, 70), and the handle (20) is coupled to the straight section (10a) of the shaft.
Regarding claim 9, Stultz discloses wherein the pressure applicator tip (30, Fig. 1) is coupled (via massage plate 60 and handle plate 70, Fig. 1; see the last sentence of [0037] and lines 4-14 of para. [0038]) to the curved section of the shaft (10b, see Fig. C above) and the handle (20, Figs. 1-2) is coupled to the straight section (10a, see Fig. C above) of the shaft.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stultz (2004/0249325) in view of Lacey (2006/0200053).
Regarding claim 5, Stultz is silent regarding wherein the handle (20, Figs. 1-2) is a generally spherical knob.
Lacey teaches a related body massaging device (Fig. 2) wherein the handle (handle 12, Fig. 2) is a generally spherical knob (“handle 12 has a bulbous portion 20 that is drawn down at one end to form a substantially cylindrical shank 22” see the first sentence of [0029] and Fig. 2). The generally spherical knob end (20) “may itself be used as a massaging portion of the device 10 by applying it directly to a person’s body” (see the first sentence of [0042]), and thus offers a differently sized massage ball than the relatively smaller “bulb or ball structure 48” (see Fig. 3 and the first two sentences of [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handle (20) of Stultz to be a generally spherical knob as taught by Lacey because this would allow the handle itself to optionally be used as a massaging portion by applying it directly to a person’s body while still being a suitable shape to be held as a handle. Similar to Lacey, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the size of the generally spherical knob handle be greater than the size of Stultz’s spherical massage tip to provide different massage effects.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Stultz (2004/0249325).
Regarding claim 10, Stultz discloses wherein the back surface (2, see annotated Fig. B above and note this surface is the back of massage plate 60, Figs. 1-2) of the pressure applicator tip (30) is oriented to approximately 45 degrees to the straight section (10a, see annotated Fig. C above) of the shaft (see the angle θ in annotated Figure D below, an angle between the axis of the back surface 2 of massage plate 60, and the straight section of the shaft. This figure would reasonably suggest an angle of approximately 45 degrees).
PNG
media_image4.png
467
765
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure D (from Fig. 2 of Stultz): Stultz’s back surface extends along a substantially vertical plane defined by massage plate (60) in the figure. This forms an orientation angle (θ) relative to the straight section of the shaft. This would reasonably suggest an angle of approximately 45 degrees. A 45-degree angle is shown with a protractor on the right, for reference.
However, even assuming if the angle (θ, Fig. D) was not considered to be approximately 45 degrees (since Stultz does not state the drawings are to scale), it is noted that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” such as if one skilled in the art would have expected the prior art to have the same properties (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). Here, Stultz specifies that the angle between the handle and the massage fingers is an “acute angle” to allow the handles to be “manipulated from over the user’s shoulders” (see Fig. 2 and the last sentence of [0023]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Stultz’s back massager to have the same properties as the claimed range of approximately 45 degrees because this would still create an acute angle, and Stultz’s angle (θ, Fig. D) is already depicted to be close to 45 degrees.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the curvature of the curved section (10b, Fig. C above) of Stultz such that the back surface of the pressure applicator tip is oriented to approximately 45 degrees to the straight section of the shaft because Stultz’s angle (θ, Fig. D) already appears to be very close to 45 degrees and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect this minor change to have the same properties (i.e., allowing a user to provide a massage force that is at an angle relative to the movement of the handle). Thus, the claimed range is prima facie obvious based on MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kazmazyk (1,724,842) discloses a related massage tool with a handle, a shaft, and a pressure applicator tip with a front surface that is curved. Schneider (1,965,861) discloses a related massage tool with a handle, a shaft, and a pressure applicator tip with a front surface that is curved, an edge, and a back surface. Hoyer (2,017,400) discloses a related massage tool with a spherical handle. Wolocko (4,483,328) discloses a related massage tool with a handle and a curved front surface. Chubinsky (5,843,005) discloses a related massage tool with a handle, a shaft, and a pressure applicator tip with a front surface that is curved. McAtee (6,010,469) discloses a related massage tool with a shaft that connects to at least one pressure applicator tip that has a front surface that is curved. Sevier et al. (6,254,555) discloses a related massage tool with a handle and a pressure applicator tip that has a front surface that is curved. Beaty et al. (2003/0114781) discloses a related massage tool with a handle and a pressure applicator tip that has a front surface that is curved, an edge, and a back surface. Hua (2005/0096572) discloses a related massage tool with a generally spherical handle. Marcotte (2005/0113228) discloses a tool for Kegel muscle exercise having a generally spherical handle, a shaft, and a pressure applicator tip that has a front surface that is curved. Dill (2005/0215929) discloses a related massage tool with a handle and a pressure applicator tip that has a front surface that is curved. Tien (2006/0020232) discloses a related massage tool with a handle that curves to create an angle between the pressure applicator tip and a straight section of the handle. Suzuki (2007/0093735) discloses a related massage tool with a handle, a shaft, and a pressure applicator tip with a front surface, a back surface, and an edge. Raimondi (WO 2009/093204 A1) discloses a related massage tool with a handle, a curved section, and a pressure applicator tip with a front surface having a curve. Grippo (2011/0224588) discloses a related massage tool with a handle, two shafts, and a pressure applicator tip having a front surface with a curve, an edge, and a back surface. Lyu (2012/0143081) discloses a related massage tool with a handle and at least one pressure applicator tip having a front surface, an edge, and a back surface. Ghosh et al. (2016/0166459) discloses a related massage tool with a substantially oval shaped handle that connects to a pressure applicator tip that has a front surface with a curved profile. Louis et al. (9,532,918) discloses a related massage tool with a shaft that has a straight section, a curved section, and a pressure applicator tip with a front surface having a curved profile. Liu (2017/0273855) discloses a related massage tool with a handle, a shaft having a straight section and a curved section, and a pressure applicator tip having a front surface that is curved. Rodriguez (2018/0008505) discloses a related massage tool with a handle connected to a pressure applicator tip that has a front surface that is curved in its height and width. Giddings et al. (2019/0008716) discloses a related massage tool with a plurality of pressure applicator tips that have varying curvatures for different uses. Ennis (2019/0029916) discloses a related massage tool with a circular handle and a pressure applicator tip that has a front surface that may have varying curvatures for different uses. Thornburg (2020/0060924) discloses a related massage tool with a circular handle, a shaft, and a pressure applicator tip having a front surface, a back surface, and an edge. Iwagami (2020/0069517) discloses a related massage tool with an oval shaped handle and a pressure applicator tip having a curved surface. Metzger et al. (11,357,688) discloses a related massage tool with a handle, a curved shaft, and a pressure applicator tip with a front surface that is curved and an edge that is able to be used for massage pressure. Devalal (2023/0016013) discloses a related massage tool with a handle, shaft, and pressure applicator tip having a front surface that is curved, with an edge, and a back surface. Kang et al. (2023/0277414) discloses a related massage tool with a handle, a shaft, and a pressure applicator tip having a curved front surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1473. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00-6:30 (eastern).
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, Justine Yu can be reached at 571-272-4835. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785