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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, drawn to claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 04/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the patentably distinguishing claims 1-8, 9, or 10 could have been addressed and rejected over prior art in one non-final office action. Applicant does not rebut the finding of lack of unity, however. Because examination burden is not a consideration in a 371 application, this argument is not found persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/24/2026.
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:
“information acquisition apparatus” in claim 1, lines 3 and 11-12; structure found in paras. 8, 47, 67, and 72. Therefore, in light of the specification, an “information acquisition apparatus” is best understood as an assembly comprising an input device and output device. In regards to the input and output device, there insufficient linking structure in the disclosure to fully ascertain the scope of the claimed invention. The input and output devices are discussed further below.
“input device” recited in claim 1, line 3; structure found in paras. 47, 67, and 72, according to para. 47, “the input device in the information acquisition apparatus 2 may be configured as several sensors that can detect a signal of a flow of meridian qi in a meridian to be conditioned”. Nonetheless, “a sensor that detects a flow of meridian qi” is not widely recognized in the art, and therefore, it is unclear what type of sensor is functionally capable of detecting a flow of meridian qi.
“output device” recited in claim 1, line 3; the specification does not disclose equivalent structure.
“connection controller” recited in claim 1, line 5 and claim 3, line 5; equivalent structure found in para. 49. Therefore, in light of the specification, a “connection controller” is best understood as a relay, and equivalents thereof.
“electrical apparatus” recited in claim 6, line 8; equivalent structure found in para. 50. Therefore, in light of the specification, an “electrical apparatus” is best understood as a motor or an electrical single pendulum, and equivalents thereof.
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 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 1-8 is 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. An “output device” is mentioned in paras. 47 and 67; however, the specification is silent with regards to the structure that supposedly embodies an “output device”. Therefore, the claim does not meet the written description requirement.
Claims 1-8 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "input device" in line 3. In light of the specification an "input device" is In light of the above factors undue experimentation would be required by any person skilled in the art to practice the full scope of the claim.
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 1-8 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.
Claim limitation “information acquisition apparatus”, “input device” “output device” in claim 1, line 3 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.
An “information acquisition apparatus” is mentioned in paras. 8, 47, 67, and 72; nevertheless, explanatory language designating the structure linked to the claimed “output device” and “input device” is missing. Correspondingly, an “output device” is mentioned in paras. 8, 30, 47, and 67 and an “input device” is mentioned in 47 and 67; however, the specification is silent with regards to the output device’s corresponding structure, and the type of sensor utilized to detect meridian flow with respect to the input device. 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.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “connection manner” in lines 9-10 and 13. It is unclear what a “connection manner” is referring to with regards to the type of linkage and connectivity between apparatus’s components and devices. A “connection manner”, whether denoting an electrical, mechanical, or physical assembly is therefore indefinite.
Claim 1 further recites “at least one magnetic field guider composed of a wedge-shaped conductor” in line 6; sequentially, claim 2 recites “wherein the magnetic field guider is a conical spiral conductor” in lines 1-2. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the magnetic field guider recited in claim 2 is intended to be a separate component, unrelated to the magnetic field guider recited in claim 1, or if the magnetic field guider recited in claims 1 and 2 refers to the same entity.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a front end magnetic field introducer and a terminal end magnetic field introducer” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether “a front end magnetic field introducer” and “a terminal end magnetic field introducer” are imparted by the same structure, or whether “a front end magnetic field introducer” is structurally distinct from “a terminal end magnetic field introducer” and consequently, a different component entirely. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as though the “front end” and “terminal end” magnetic field introducers are different arrangements and therefore implicate/cover different body parts.
Claim 3 further recites the limitation “connection manner” in line 5. It is unclear what a “connection manner” is referring to with regards to the type of linkage and connectivity between apparatus’s components and devices. A “connection manner”, whether denoting an electrical, mechanical, or physical assembly is therefore indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “elastic conical spiral conductor” in line 2. It is unclear if the conductor is an additional conductor, distinct from the previously recited “magnetic field guider” in claims 1-2, or if the “elastic conical spiral conductor” and the “magnetic field guider” are synonymous.
The dependent claims not specifically addressed above are rejected under 34 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) as indefinite due to their dependence from indefinite claims.
In view of the indefinite nature of the claims, no prior art has been applied. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims, it would not be proper to reject such claims on the basis of prior art. As discussed in MPEP 2173.06, a rejection should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. Prior art will be revisited after applicant’s response.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhu (CN 106039574) teaches a control system (Fig. 3, magnetic therapy apparatus controller 3; Fig. 11) comprising a central processing unit (page 5, para. 11, “magnetic therapy apparatus controller 3 comprises…a micro controller”; page 7, para. 8, “microcontroller LPC2214”); an information acquisition apparatus comprising an input device (Fig. 13; page 8, para. 3, “temperature sensor, magnetic field strength sensor, a current sensor”) and an output device (Fig. 15; page 8, para. 5, “LCD liquid crystal display”) wherein the output device is connected to the central processing unit (page 8, para. 5, “FIG. 15 is a connection diagram of the liquid crystal display with the microcontroller”); at least one connection controller (page 5, para. 11, “a relay element” and page 5, para. 13, “two switch quantity output end (D/O) of the microcontroller”); and at least one magnetic field introducer (Fig. 2, wherein the coil 7 and soft magnetic shielding cover 6 is wrapped around a user’s leg); the control system receiving a signal from the information acquisition apparatus through the central processing unit (page 2, para. 11, “the shielding cover with magnetic coil with a magnetic field intensity sensor and a temperature sensor, which transmits the detected magnetic field strength value and temperature value into microcontroller A/D interface is electric signal is sent to the magnetic therapy apparatus controller”). Zhu (CN 106039574) fails to teach at least one magnetic field guider composed of a wedge-shaped conductor having a gradually converging border and connected to the connection controller; and wherein the connection controller controls a connection manner between the magnetic field introducer and the magnetic field guider or controls a connection manner between the different magnetic field introducers; and controlling the connection manner between the magnetic field introducer and the magnetic field guider. Saito (JP 5603788) teaches at least one magnetic field guider composed of a wedge-shaped conductor having a gradually converging border (Fig. 1, coil 1). Park (US 2008/0282437) teaches clothing, such as underwear, socks, gloves, belts, shoes, and hair bands, for emitting a treatment wherein the embedded treatment medium includes a laser, vibration, frequency, electricity, and fragrance designed to treat acupoints of the human body (Abstract). Park does not teach a conductor. Zhao (CN 210830928) teaches a meridian and collateral type induction exercise garment comprising an electromagnetic vibration heating electronic element (Fig. 3-1; Abstract); a control system comprising a CPU (Fig. 4); and an information acquisition apparatus comprising an input device (para. 0004) and an output device (Fig. 1). Zhao does not teach a conductor. Gieras et al. (US 2009/0251112) teaches a permanent magnet electric generator comprising a PM rotor and stator coils (Fig. 4). Gong et al. (CN 211188174) teaches an immersion experience type message clothes system comprising buried wires, wherein the buried wires are connected to an electromagnetic massager and control system (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROGAN R LANDEEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/B.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights