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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 lines 2-4, “motor, characterized by comprising: an abnormality detector” should be changed to –motor, comprising: an abnormality detector” in order to correct the typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology (“the present disclosure” line 2, “configured” in lines 5 and 7-8). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “transmission gears” (claim 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “reverse unit configured to operate according to the abnormal signal”, in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “A cosmetic device which massages skin while a plurality of massage tools rotate eccentrically by operation of a motor, characterized by comprising” in lines 1-3 is unclear whether the “a plurality of massage tools” and “a motor” are part of the claimed invention or not (and would thus be intended use) because the limitations are recited in the preamble. Applicant is suggested to amend the body of the claim to positively claim these elements if applicant wishes to have this features considered part of the claimed invention.
Claim limitation “reverse unit” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “gears are formed in…a gear ratio” in lines 2-4 is unclear how gears can be “formed” in a gear ratio (i.e. a gear ratio appears to be a relationship but the term “formed” suggests a manufacturing step, so it is not clear how gears can be “formed” in a gear ratio). The terms “same” and “different” are also unclear as to what comparison is being made that renders a ratio “same” or “different” (same or different compared to what?).
Furthermore, the phrase “formed in two or more stages” is unclear what the term “stages” means in this context (i.e. two stages of manufacturing?).
Regarding claim 8, the lack of conjunction (i.e. “and”, “or”, “wherein”, “such that”, etc.) between “respectively” and “when” in lines 3-4 renders the claim unclear as it is not clear how the first limitation relates to the second and third limitations (i.e. is there an “or” relationship? Are all three limitations required of the claimed invention? Etc). Furthermore, it is not clear how “each of the plurality of shaft gears” can be “formed” in a gear ratio, as it is not clear how a single gear can be formed into a ratio, as a ratio implies more than one element (in order for the comparison to form to ratio to actually occur).
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependence on a rejected base claim.
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) 1-2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (JP 2014171856).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses (Fig. 1-6) a cosmetic device which massages skin while a plurality of massage tools (rotating heads 7) rotate eccentrically by operation of a motor (paragraph [0002] and Fig. 6), comprising:
an abnormality detector (current detection unit 514) configured to generate an abnormal signal when an abnormality occurs in the motor or each of the plurality of massage tools (determines a current value, which can include current values that are above a threshold value and thus an abnormality, paragraph [0014]); and
a reverse unit (control unit 516) configured to operate according to the abnormal signal (compares the current value to a threshold value read from memory unit, paragraph [0015]), wherein the reverse unit is configured to perform an auto-reverse function of eccentrically rotating the eccentric rotation of the plurality of massage tools at a predetermined angle in an opposite direction (reversely rotates motor if current value is larger than threshold and thus overcurrent detected, paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 2, Yang discloses the reverse unit is configured to:
receive the abnormal signal to check a restraint state of the plurality of massage tools for a first time (receives abnormal signal and compares to threshold, paragraph [0015]);
stop the eccentric rotation of the plurality of massage tools for a second time (stops rotation in first direction for some period of time in order to reverse rotation, paragraph [0015]);
cause the eccentric rotation of the plurality of massage tools to be eccentrically rotated in a reverse direction for a third time (rotates in reverse direction, paragraph [0015]);
stop the eccentric rotation of the plurality of massage tools again for a fourth time (rotates in this direction for a predetermined time, and thus stops at a fourth time, paragraph [0015]. See also paragraph [0040] which describes stopping after reverse direction rotation); and
cause the eccentric rotation of the plurality of massage tools to be eccentrically rotated in a reverse direction for a fifth time (paragraph [0040]) and then the plurality of massage tools to be re-operated in forward rotation (after being in reverse direction for a period of time, rotation direction returned to normal direction, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 11, Yang discloses the plurality of massage tools are provided inclined by a predetermined angle (paragraph [0021]), and rotate eccentrically after their initial positions are aligned with a center of the device (rotate eccentrically as shown in Fig. 6, after initial positions aligned with center of device as shown in Fig. 1 (heads 7 angled to center of device when not moving)).
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(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (JP 2014171856) in view of Li (CN 110043607)
Regarding claim 3, Yang discloses the plurality of massage tools (rotating heads 7), but does not disclose the massage tools are respectively connected to a transmission gear which is built in a gearbox connected to the motor and individually controlled, and are individually operated according to control of an eccentric rotation speed and an eccentric rotation direction of the transmission gears.
However, Li teaches (Fig. 1-9) a massage device having transmission gears (linkage mechanisms 4) built in a gearbox (gearbox 1) connected to the motor (motor 6) and massage tools (massage contacts 22) that are individually controlled and operated according to control of an eccentric rotation speed and an eccentric rotation direction of the transmission gear (page 2 paragraph 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang so that the massage tools are individually controlled, and are individually operated according to control of an eccentric rotation speed and an eccentric rotation direction of the transmission gear, as taught by Li, for the purpose of providing independent control of the speed and steering of the two massage contacts, without affecting each other, that is, a variety of different massage modes can be obtained (page 2 paragraph 9 Li).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yang discloses when massaging skin while rotating eccentrically, the plurality of massage tools compositely implements a massage function of kneading (kneading motion due to eccentric movement of Yang), a massage function of rubbing (rubbing action due to massage projections 231 of Yang), and a massage function of twisting in various non- periodic massage area patterns (twisting due to eccentric motion of massage heads of Yang, see Fig. 6 Yang).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (JP 2014171856) in view of Li (CN 110043607), and further in view of Lu (CN 107669463) and Barnes (GB 2516084).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yang discloses a plurality of shaft gears (gears 901a-904a and 901b-904b of Yang) to which the plurality of massage tools are coupled (via shafts 6 Yang), respectively; but does not disclose a plurality of clutches provided separately between the gearbox and the plurality of shaft gears.
However, Lu teaches (Fig. 1-3) a plurality of clutches (clutches 7) provided separately that enable individual control of each massage tool (page 2 paragraph 2). While Lu discloses the clutch is between the gears (5,6) and shaft (shaft comprising sleeves 8-10), it appears the combined invention of Lu with the combined Yang reference provides for the clutches are being provided between the gearbox and the plurality of shaft gears. However, in the alternative, Barnes further teaches (Fig. 17) a manipulation treatment apparatus having a clutch (clutch 182) that regulates compression to a user’s body (page 17 lines 5-20) wherein the clutch is provided between a gearbox (gearbox 180) and a wheel (wheel 190) which mounts a rotating rod (192) (even though wheel 190 is not a gear, it serves same purpose of mounting a rotating shaft and thus is analogous in function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Yang to include a plurality of clutches provided separately, as taught by Lu, for the purpose of enabling individual control of each massage tool (page 2 paragraph 2 Lu), and to further modify the clutches to be arranged between the gearbox and plurality of shaft gears, as taught and suggested by Barnes, for the purpose of improving control of the massage function by providing the clutch between the driving means and the massaging means so that the different massagers can be activated/deactivated independently.
Regarding claim 6, modified Yang discloses the plurality of massage tools are individually regulated by the plurality of clutches (page 2 paragraph 2 Lu), and the regulated corresponding massage tools do not rotate eccentrically (when the massage tools are not activated, no rotation occurs and thus no eccentric rotation occurs, page 2 paragraph 2 Lu).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, modified Yang discloses the plurality of shaft gears are formed in a same gear ratio (the shaft gears 901a-904a and 901b-904b of Yang are identical and thus have a same gear ratio (amount of teeth on each shaft gear is identical resulting in a same gear ratio between the gears (interpreted as ratio of number of teeth of a gear compared to ratio of teeth of another gear)).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, modified Yang discloses each of the plurality of shaft gears is connected to each of the plurality of clutches (page 2 paragraph 2 Lu), respectively, when formed in the same gear ratio, the plurality of massage tools have the same eccentric rotation speed (same speed when plurality of massage tools activated).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (JP 2014171856) in view of Kim (US 20210137775).
Regarding claim 9, Yang discloses a cosmetic device but does not disclose the device
further comprises a pulse width modulator configured to apply an electronic muscle stimulation (EMS) to the plurality of massage tools, wherein the pulse width modulator is configured to control EMS intensity of the plurality of massage tools while varying a voltage and a frequency.
However, Kim teaches (Fig. 1-4) a massage device comprising rollers (130) and a stimulator (160) for providing EMS to a user (paragraph [0080]), the device comprising a pulse width modulator (stimulator 160 which modulates pulse width as described in paragraph [0098]) configured to apply an electronic muscle stimulation (EMS) to the plurality of massage tools (provides EMS to rollers 130, paragraph [0098]-[0099]), wherein the pulse width modulator is configured to control EMS intensity of the plurality of massage tools while varying a voltage and a frequency (frequency and voltage adjustable, paragraph [0106]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang to include a pulse width modulator configured to apply an electronic muscle stimulation (EMS) to the plurality of massage tools, wherein the pulse width modulator is configured to control EMS intensity of the plurality of massage tools while varying a voltage and a frequency, as taught by Kim, for the purpose of improving massage function by providing an EMS to a user which promotes blood circulation and relaxes stiff muscles (paragraph [0097] Kim).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yang discloses the pulse width modulator is configured to:
perform a first EMS for a first time while varying a frequency in a state where a first voltage is applied; perform a second EMS for a second time while varying the frequency in a state where a second voltage higher than the first voltage is applied; perform a third EMS for a third time while varying the frequency in a state where a third voltage higher than the second voltage is applied (because the claim is directed to an apparatus and not a method, and because Kim discloses the voltage and frequency are adjustable via a button, paragraph [0106], the pulse width modulator is capable of performing the claimed functions and thus comprehends the claim limitations enumerated above), and perform the first EMS again after stopping the EMS for a predetermined period of time (Kim discloses the EMS is configured to be stopped by an on/off switch, paragraph [0105], and thus Kim discloses a device capable of performing EMS after stopping EMS for a predetermined period of time).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jurna (US 2015/0190299) discloses a skin treatment apparatus with a plurality of heads.
Julian (US 7,306,570) discloses a massage apparatus with independently controllable massage heads.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MOON whose telephone number is (571)272-2554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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.
/MATTHEW R MOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights