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 an amendment filed on 2/23/2026. As directed by the amendment, claim 12 was canceled, claim 1 was amended, and no new claims were added. Thus, claims 1-11 are pending for this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “said effective depth is determined based at least on…a subcutaneous fat parameter, the subcutaneous fat parameter being patient-dependent and body area-dependent” in lines 20-22. While the original description discloses the effective depth is “a function of the vertical force applied, the torque and the amount of fat”, there is lack of written description regarding a subcutaneous fat parameter that is patient and body area dependent. The claims recite the effective depth is determined by a processor, but the specification does not recite how the processor utilizes fat level (especially how it utilizes patient/body dependence fat levels) to determine the effective depth. Thus, claim 1 is rejected for introducing new matter.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
The term “convenient” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “convenient” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (CN 205586230) in view of Ellerman (US 2020/0188211), Zipper (US 2016/0000642), Giacometti (US 2019/0374429), and Suh (US 20190029919).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Su discloses (Fig. 1-2 and 5-6) a body massage device comprising:
a handpiece (outer casing 15) comprising a plurality of movable heads (massage heads 11) for applying force on a patient's body and a massage arm (bracket 1) connected to the movable heads (see Fig. 5);
a motor (“massage motor”, page 4 paragraph 5) mechanically coupled to the plurality of movable heads for conveying at least a rotation motion thereto (“the massage motor drives the main gear rotating on the motor shaft to rotate, the main gear meshes with the plurality of satellite gears, and the main gear and the satellite gear drive the massage heads on the respective connecting shafts to rotate”, page 4 para 5);
measurement means comprising a vertical force sensor (pressure sensor 9) configured for measuring the force applied perpendicularly on the patient's body to obtain one or more vertical force measurement values (page 4 para 3),
an electromagnetic radiation generator (infrared emitting unit 12) configured for generating electromagnetic radiation (page 2 para 8) wherein the movable heads are electrically connected to the electromagnetic radiation generator for receiving electromagnetic radiation and applying it on the patient's body (see Fig. 1-2 and page 2 para 8);
a processing unit (controller 14) configured for receiving information from the measurement means and for estimating the effective depth of the treatment on the patient's body (page 3 paragraph 12 and page 4 paragraph 4), the processing unit further configured for determining in real time whether for the effective depth, the applied vertical force is appropriate (page 3 paragraph 12 and page 4 paragraph 4).
Su does not disclose a torque sensor configured for measuring the resistance to rotation of the movable heads on the patient's body to obtain one or more torque measurement values.
However, Ellerman teaches (Fig. 1-4) a massage device comprising a torque sensor (detection unit 14) configured for measuring the resistance to rotation of the movable heads on the patient's body.(detection unit 14 determines a change in current measurement which indicates a load on the massage element, which indicates the resistance to rotation of the movable heads on the patient's body, and therefore is interpreted as a torque sensor, and thus is a torque measurement value. See paragraphs [0015]-[0016] and [0021]-[0022]).
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 massager of Su to include a torque sensor, as taught by Ellerman, for the purpose of allowing for control of the massage elements based on the amount of resistance to rotation detected (i.e. if no resistance detected, element can be turned off to conserve power, paragraph [0021] Ellerman, or if too much resistance detected, element can be turned off to prevent overenergizing of the motor paragraph [0021] Ellerman).
Modified Su is silent regarding the intensity/frequency of the EMG energy, and thus does not disclose the EMG radiation generator generates the EMG radiation with a fixed frequency and intensity.
However, Zipper teaches (Fig. 1-2) a body massage device comprising an EMG generator (light source group, paragraph [0073]) which generate EMG energy (i.e. infrared rays, paragraph [0069]) wherein the EMG generator generate this radiation with a fixed frequency and intensity (controller allows for control of frequency and intensity of light of the individual light sources within a light source group so that while a group can have varying intensities/frequencies, the individual EMG generators have fixed intensities/frequencies, which are selectable and adjustable by an operator based on user therapy required. See paragraphs [0073] and [0152])
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 EMG generator of modified Su to generate the EMG radiation with a fixed frequency and intensity, as taught by Zipper, for the purpose of meeting user’s massage needs (paragraphs [0073] and [0069] Zipper).
Modified Su does not disclose wherein the processing unit comprises a register that stores the one or more vertical force measurement value and the one or more torque measurement values, and the processing unit is configured for determining an effective depth representing a distance that is convenient to reach on the patient’s body with the massage, wherein, said effective depth is determined based at least on the one or more vertical force measurement values, the one or more torque measurement values, and a subcutaneous fat parameter, the subcutaneous fat parameter being patient-dependent and body area-dependent..
However, Giacometti teaches (Fig. 1-5) a compression massage device comprising a processor (“processing circuitry”, paragraph [0062]) that estimates a effective compression depth, representing a distance that is convenient to reach on the patient’s body with the massage (interpreted to mean a depth of patient that is easily achievable by a user), based on force and motion values from a force and motion sensor (paragraph [0062]) as well as a subcutaneous fat parameter (patient fat level, particularly fat on sternum (which is subcutaneous fat) is input in system, which adjusts depth calculation, paragraph [0265] and [0268]) , the subcutaneous fat parameter being patient-dependent and body area-dependent (depends on patient and because patients are of different sizes it is also body area dependent, paragraph [0268]-[0269]). Suh further teaches (Fig. 1) a compression massage robot having a torque sensor (111) wherein the robot is configured to relate a torque value to an effective depth (paragraph [0046]).
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 processor of modified Su such that the processor comprises a register that stores the one or more vertical force measurement value and the one or more torque measurement values, and the processing unit is configured for determining an effective depth representing a distance that is convenient to reach on the patient’s body with the massage, wherein, said effective depth is determined based at least on the one or more vertical force measurement values and the one or more torque measurement values and a subcutaneous fat parameter, the subcutaneous fat parameter being patient-dependent and body area-dependent, as taught by Giacometti and Suh, for the purpose of providing a user with feedback regarding how deep the tissue is being compressed so that therapy can be adjusted accordingly in order to optimize the therapy as well as to prevent injury to a user.
Regarding claim 3, modified Su discloses an indicator for warning if the vertical force, torque and/or temperature is appropriate when within a predetermined vertical force range, a predetermined torque range and/or a predetermined temperature range (Su includes a cue lamp 16 that is on when the power is on, page 4 para 4. Because Ellerman discloses the device is on when the torque is within a usable range, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the lamp would also be on and thus act as an indicator).
Regarding claim 4, modified Su discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to act on the motor if the vertical force or torque is not appropriate (torque sensor 14 of Ellerman determines a change in current measurement which indicates a load on the massage element, which indicates the resistance to rotation of the movable heads on the patient's body, and therefore is interpreted as a torque sensor. See paragraphs [0015]-[0016] and [0021]-[0022] of Ellerman).
Regarding claim 10, modified Su further comprising a power supply (“power supply”, page 1 paragraph 7 Su) for supplying energy to the electromagnetic radiation generation means and to the motor (supplies power to controller, which controls the EMG means and motor, and thus supplies power to these components, page 3 para 13 and page 4 para 1 of Su).
Claim(s) 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (CN 205586230) in view of Ellerman (US 2020/0188211), Zipper (US 2016/0000642), Giacometti (US 2019/0374429) and Suh (US 20190029919), and further in view of Boone III (US 2021/0154093).
Regarding claim 2, modified Su does not disclose a temperature sensor so that the processing unit determines whether the temperature is appropriate when it is within a predetermined temperature range.
However, Boone III teaches (Fig. 1-4) a radiation therapy device including a temrparteur sensor (261) and a processing unit (control unit, paragraph [0091]) that determines whether the temperature is appropriate when it is within a predetermined temperature range (paragraph [0091]).
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 massage device of modified Su to include a temperature sensor so that the processing unit determines whether the temperature is appropriate when it is within a predetermined temperature range, as taught by Boone III, for the purpose of preventing injury to a user due to user’s skin heating up more than appropriate (paragraph [0091] Boone III).
Regarding claim 5, modified Su dislcoses wherein the processing unit is configured for acting on the electromagnetic radiation generator if the temperature is not appropriate (paragraph [0091] Boone).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (CN 205586230) in view of Ellerman (US 2020/0188211), Zipper (US 2016/0000642), Giacometti (US 2019/0374429) and Suh (US 20190029919), and further in view of Ellio (US 5,618,315).
Regarding claim 6, modified Su does not disclose an interface for setting values at least for the frequency and intensity of the electromagnetic radiation.
However, Zipper further teaches (Fig. 1-5) an interface (keypad 403) for setting values at least for the frequency and intensity of the electromagnetic radiation (paragraph [0083]).
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 massage device of modified Su to include an interface for setting values at least for the frequency and intensity of the electromagnetic radiation, as taught by Zipper, for the purpose of allowing user to adjust the device to suit their specific needs (i.e. different light frequencies/intensities have different effects and some users may be more sensitive to specific frequencies/intensities).
Modified Su does not disclose the interface can set values for the torque.
However, Ellio further teaches (Fig. 1-3) a massage device comprising an interface (see interface in Fig. 3) for setting values for the torque (Col. 2 lines 12-17).
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 interface of modified Su to be configured to allow user to set values for the torque, as taught by Ellio, for the purpose of improving customization of massage to a user’s preferences so that discomfort and injury can be prevented and optimal therapy can be achieved.
Claim(s) 7-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (CN 205586230) in view of Ellerman (US 2020/0188211), Zipper (US 2016/000642), Giacometti (US 2019/0374429) and Suh (US 20190029919), and further in view of Johnson (US 2013/0274839).
Regarding claim 7, modified Su discloses EMG radiation is generated, does not disclose wherein the electromagnetic radiation generated is a wave modulated at a frequency value comprised between 10 Hz and 40 KHz.
However, Johnson teaches (Fig. 1-2) a light therapy device that emits infrared plight (paragraph [0042]) and the adiation generated is a wave modulated at a frequency value comprised between 10 Hz and 40 KHz (“deliver light at a pulse width modulation frequency of about 680 Hz”, paragraph [0043]).
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 Su to include the electromagnetic radiation generated is a wave modulated at a frequency value comprised between 10 Hz and 40 KHz, as taught by Johnson, for the purpose of optimizing the light therapy by pulsing and modulating the light to a specific frequency, thereby improving therapeutic outcome of a user.
Regarding claim 8, modfieid Su discloses wherein the modulation is by pulse width (paragraph [0043] Johnson).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (CN 205586230) in view of Ellerman (US 2020/0188211), Zipper (US 2016/0000642), Giacometti (US 2019/0374429) and Suh (US 20190029919), and further in view of Giraud (US 2015/0305969).
Regarding claim 9, modified Su discloses the heads are dome shaped (see Fig. 1 Su), and therefore does not disclose wherein the heads are spherical in shape.
However, Giraud teaches (Figs. 1 and 41-42) a massage device have a handpiece that can be attached to variety of interchangeable massaging tip (1), including a tip having a plurality of spherical shaped massage heads (see embodiment in Fig. 41-42).
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 shape of the massage heads of modified Su to be spherical, as taught by Giraud, for the purpose of improving the rotating massage effect by increasing the surface area of the rolling surface. Furthermore, it has been held that changes in shape, outside evidence of criticality, are a matter of design choice and would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (CN 205586230) in view of Ellerman (US 2020/0188211), Zipper (US 2016/0000642), Giacometti (US 2019/0374429) and Suh (US 20190029919), and further in view of Roberts (US 2015/0119771).
Regarding claim 11, modified Su discloses a power supply (“power supply”, page 1 para 7 Su), but does not explicitly state what this power supply is and thus does not disclose wherein the power supply is housed separately from the handpiece.
However, Roberts teaches (Fig. 1) a massage device comprising a handpiece (100) including massage therapy and light therapy components (Abstract) and includes a power supply housed separated from the handpiece (device of Roberts uses a power cable 160 to connect to an external power source, and thus includes a power supply that is not housed within the handpiece. See Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0058]-[0060]).
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 generic power source of modified Su to be a power cable, which is a power supply is housed separately from the handpiece, as taught by Roberts, for the purpose of providing a well-known and easily controlled power source that is versatile so a user can bring the device where desired, thus increasing portability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the Giacometti reference, applicant argued (page 9 paragraph 1 Remarks) that Giacometti is non-analogous because it is directed a CPR system and not a massage system, and the “depth” measured by Giacometti is physical chest displacement, unrelated to therapeutic depth, and Giacometti does not disclose torque, rotational resistance, movable heads, or a fat based treatment parameter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Giacometti is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Giacometti is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, that being determining a depth of a compression of a user’s skin using force and fat parameters. Thus, Giacometti is deemed analogous.
Regarding not disclosing torque, rotational resistance, and movable heads, these features are taught by the other references. As stated above, Giacometti discloses a fat based treatment parameter.
Applicant further argued (page 9 paragraph 2 Remarks) Suh does not disclose torque associated with rotational movement, correlating torque and vertical force, computing therapeutic treatment depth, or any use of a subcutaneous fat parameter, as Suh is directed to CPR emergencies and does not suggest applying its principles for therapeutic massage with EM treatment, and thus non analogous.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Suh is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Suh is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, that being determining a depth of a compression of a user’s skin torque measurements. Thus, Giacometti is deemed analogous.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “torque associated with rotational movement”, “correlating torque and vertical force”, “therapeutic treatment depth”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Suh not disclosing any use of a subcutaneous fat parameter, this feature is taught by the other references.
Therefore, claims 1-11 remain rejected at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Moreno (US 2016/0128605) discloses utilizing a fat level to adjust operation of a massage device.
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