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 a preliminary amendment filed on 2/14/2023. As directed by the preliminary amendment, no claims were canceled, claims 1-15 were amended, and no new claims were added. Thus, claims 1-15 are pending for this application.
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 2, 4-8, 10, 12, 14 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 claims 2, 4-7, 10, 12, 14, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “the housing” in line 5 is unclear because applicant has claimed two different structures that are referenced as “housing” that are part of the main body, and thus it is not clear which “housing” is being referenced in this limitation.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "said fastening means" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependence on rejected base claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Specifically, claim 15 claims “a main body for a skin care device according to claim 13”, however claim 13 includes more than a main body, and thus claim 15 does not further limit claim 13, from which claim 15 depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-3, 8, 10-11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giraud (EP 2821048).
Regarding claim 1, Giraud discloses (Fig. 1 and 4-11) a skin care device comprising:
- at least one massage head (massage heads 11, 12, 13),
- a main body (body 2) to which said massage head is intended to be removably attached, said main body comprising a housing (gripping zone 21) forming a manual gripping area (paragraph [0027]) and a motor (motor M) for actuating the massage head (paragraph [0032]), and
a temporary mechanical coupling system (comprising driving end 51, specifically the embodiment shown in Fig. 11, and mechanical connection 113) between the massage head and the main body for transmitting to the massage head a rotational movement of a shaft driven by the motor (paragraph [036]), said mechanical coupling system comprising a first coupling member (driving end 51) and a second coupling member (mechanical connection 113), which belong respectively to the main body and the massage head (see Fig. 4), one of said coupling members constituting a male coupling member (driving end 51), the other of said coupling members constituting a female coupling member (mechanical connection 113) intended to receive the male coupling member therein in order to cooperate with it in a form-fitting manner (see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0029]),
the first coupling member (driving end 51) being mounted in a purely rotational manner relative to the housing (mounted to and rotated by motor M, and thus rotates relative to housing 21) of the main body, said male coupling member having a general conical or frustoconical shape (see frustoconical shape in Fig. 11) and including a plurality of fins (see fins in Fig. 11) distributed around an axis of rotation of the male coupling member, said fins having free edges (see hypotenuse edges in Fig. 11) that define said general conical or frustoconical shape.
Regarding claim 2, Giraud discloses wherein said plurality of fins comprises at least four fins (at least four fins shown in Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 3, Giraud discloses wherein the male coupling member comprises a base (base portion 5 shown in Fig. 11 Giraud), from a surface of which the fins extend between a base end and an opposite free end (see Fig. 11), each fin having a thickness that decreases from the base end towards the free end of said fin (see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 8, Giraud discloses wherein the main body defines a housing (portion of housing fixed to motor situated above housing 21, see Fig. 6) shaped and configured to removably receive the massage head (via cavity 22), said device omprising rotational blocking and position indexing means (indexing means 23), along the axis of rotation of the first coupling member of the massage head within the housing of the main body (see Fig. 4-5).
Regarding claim 10, Giraud discloses wherein the fins of the male coupling member together form a monolithic part (fins 51 converge to form monolithic part as shown in Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 11, Giraud discloses wherein the main body extends longitudinally along an axis of parallel extension or coincident with the axis of rotation of the first coupling member (first coupling member 51 is centered within main body with rotation axis center of first coupling member 51, therefore main body also extends longitudinally along the axis parallely/coincidentally).
Regarding claim 13, Giraud discloses wherein the first coupling member constitutes said male coupling member, while the second coupling member
Regarding claim 15, Giraud discloses a main body (body 2) for a skin care device according to claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above).
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) 4-7 are 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giraud (EP 2821048).
Regarding claim 4, Giraud discloses wherein the free edges of the fins define a generally frustoconical shape (see Fig. 11), having a large circular base (lower disk of base 5 in Fig. 11) with a diameter (D1) (see Fig. 11), and a small circular base (upper disc of base 5 in Fig. 11) with a diameter (D2), but does not disclose the large diameter comprised between 4 mm and 40 mm, and preferably comprised between 5 mm and 15 mm, and the small circular base with a diameter (D2) comprised between 2 mm and 30 mm, and preferably comprised between 3 mm and 8 mm. However, outside evidence of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to try the large diameter comprised between 4 mm and 40 mm, and preferably comprised between 5 mm and 15 mm, and the small circular base with a diameter (D2) comprised between 2 mm and 30 mm, and preferably comprised between 3 mm and 8 mm for the purpose of providing sufficient surface area for supporting the fins, since discovering the optimum value only involves routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Giraud discloses wherein the fins of the male coupling member have, along the axis of rotation of the male coupling member, a height (H1), but does not disclose the height comprised between 4 mm and 20 mm, preferably comprised between 5 mm and 12 mm, even more preferably comprised between 7 mm and 9 mm. However, outside evidence of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to try the height comprised between 4 mm and 20 mm, preferably comprised between 5 mm and 12 mm, even more preferably comprised between 7 mm and 9 mm for the purpose of providing sufficient height for the fins to be able to effectively removably lock into a massage head, since discovering the optimum value only involves routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, Giraud discloses wherein the general conical or frustoconical shape of the male coupling member has a taper angle (see angle of hypotenuse of ribs 51 in Fig. 11), but does not disclose the taper angle between 150 and 450, preferably comprised between 250 and 350, even more preferably equal to 290±20. However, outside evidence of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to try the taper angle between 150 and 450, preferably comprised between 250 and 350, even more preferably equal to 290±20 for the purpose of providing sufficient angle for the ribs for tight fitting into the female coupling member, since discovering the optimum value only involves routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Giraud discloses which has a total torque transmission surface by contact between the first and second coupling members (see surface of contact between male and female coupling member in Fig. 4), but does not disclose the surface is comprised between 20 mm2 and 140 mm2, preferably comprised between 30 mm2 and 90 mm2, and even more preferably comprised between 35 mm2 and 80 mm2. However, outside evidence of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to try the total torque transmission surface comprised between 20 mm2 and 140 mm2, preferably comprised between 30 mm2 and 90 mm2, and even more preferably comprised between 35 mm2 and 80 mm for the purpose of providing sufficient securement between the female and male components, since discovering the optimum value only involves routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Giraud discloses wherein said female coupling member has a general conical or frustoconical shape (though not shown in Fig. 4, the male coupling member of Fig. 11 couples to a female member similar to that of Fig. 4, and thus must be conical/frustonconical due to the shape of the male coupling member being so) having a taper angle, but does not disclose the taper angle comprised between 5 degree and 30 degree, preferably comprised between 10 degree and 20 degree, and even more preferably equal to 15 degree ±2 degree. However, outside evidence of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to try taper angle comprised between 5 degree and 30 degree, preferably comprised between 10 degree and 20 degree, and even more preferably equal to 15 degree ±2 degree for the purpose of providing sufficient angle for the female coupling member to receive the male coupling member, since discovering the optimum value only involves routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giraud (EP 2821048) in view of Ouchi (WO 2012035952)
Regarding claim 9, Giraud discloses fins having free edges, but does not disclose the free edges are rounded.
However, Ouchi teaches (Fig. 18) a massage device having fins (fitting protrusions 82a) for receiving a massage head that include a free edge that is rounded (see rounded outer edge in Fig. 18).
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 free edges of Giraud to be rounded, as taught by Ouchi, for the purpose of reducing wear on the massage head due to the edge being round as opposed to sharp. Furthermore, it has been held that held, outside evidence of criticality, that changes in shape are a matter of design choice and would therefore be obvious and routine and conventional to have this particular configuration. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giraud (EP 2821048) in view of Ouchi (WO 2012035980, hereinafter Ouchi ‘980).
Regarding claim 12, Giraud discloses a main body and massage head, but does not disclose the device comprises removable snap-on attachment means of the massage head to the main body; said fastening means comprise at least one part with elastically deformable pin(s), preferentially integral with the main body, and at least one corresponding notch shaped and configured to receive said pin, said notch being preferentially formed in a surface of the massage head.
However, Ouchi ‘980 teaches (Fig. 8) removable snap-on attachment means of the massage head (head 61) to the main body (base 62); said fastening means comprise at least one part with elastically deformable pin(s) (extending portion 63b) and at least one corresponding notch (through hole 61b) shaped and configured to receive said pin (see Fig. 8).
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 Giraud to include removable snap-on attachment means of the massage head to the main body; said fastening means comprise at least one part with elastically deformable pin(s), preferentially integral with the main body, and at least one corresponding notch shaped and configured to receive said pin, said notch being preferentially formed in a surface of the massage head, as taught by Ouchi ‘980, for the purpose of allowing for the massage head to be easily removable and replaceable to the main body to allow for users to easily adjust device to their desired treatment plan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Revive (US 2014/0330289) discloses a massage device having interchangeable heads.
Thomassen (US 2017/0049278) discloses a massage device having interchangeable 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, 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.
/MATTHEW R MOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JUSTINE R YU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785