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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
This office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 03/18/2026. As directed by the amendments: 1 – 17 & 21 are pending, claim 21 has been added, claims 18 – 20 have been cancelled & claim 1 has been amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Liu fails to teach or render obvious the claimed limitations, however, the examiner considers even though the functionality of the device is not exactly the same the reference is able to be modified to fit the claim limitations.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Yang should not be used to modify Liu as it does not include the same mechanical characteristics of the irradiation head of Liu, however, it is not necessary for the reference to have all of the mechanical characteristics just that the modification must not take away from the functionality of the device. Based on this, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Zhuang cannot be used as the functionality is different, however, it is clear in the office action what is being focused on is the modification of the location of the already existing coil and magnet of Liu. Also, the modification of a linear alternator which helps with the generation of a strong magnetic field. Based on this, the rejection still stands.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Schall cannot be used because of its electrical input is different, however, clearly all that is being used is the location of where the magnet is found in the massage head as the magnetic field can act without interference. Based on this, the rejection still stands.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the modifications could not work together as the references are different in the way they work and functionality, however, it is clear the rule of examination discloses the primary reference can be modified by analogous references that are able to not disrupt the functionality of the device but adds benefits to it. Based on the modifications it is clear this is the case. The applicant discloses one of the main issues is that the magnet is fixed in Liu; however, Liu does not have to be permanently fixed as explained in Page 8, second to last paragraph. Based on this, the modifications are possible and still stand.
It is recommended for the applicant to include any specific functions of the device to the claims in order to create distinction between prior arts as when finding modifications as the device does not need to have the same exact functions and can be used based on any individual parts that read on the limitation.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues claims 2-6 & 8-9 are patentable for at least the same reasons as claim 1, however, the rejection to claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues claims 7, 10, 12 & 14 are patentable due to the fact that Wersland has a different functionality with the way the electric energy is generated, however, Wersland is only used to modify the way the battery is charged which provides benefits to the functionality of the device and does not affect the way the electricity works in the device.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues claim 11 is patentable for at least the same reasons as claim 1, however, the rejection to claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the reference Nichitake used to modify the limitation of claim 15 “a pressure sensor located at a front end of the irradiation head configured to directly measure stiffness by detecting pressure applied against the user’s body”, however, claim 15 does not disclose said amendment as it discloses “a pressure sensor configured to measure the stiffness in the body of a user”. Based on this, the rejection still stands as the broadness of the claims does not claim where the pressure sensor is located or how the pressure sensor measures the stiffness.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues claim 16 has been amended and is not disclosed by Wersland, however, it is clear by the claims submitted on 03/18/2026 that claim 16 has not been amended. Because of this the argument does not stand and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues claim 17 cannot be modified by the reference used as they disclose mechanical parts that receive outside electrical energy, however, that is not included in the claims and it would be obvious to modify as any electricity is able to make the mechanical pats work as its electric energy regardless.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 have been considered but are moot because the claim contains new matter and must be fixed in order to be considered.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The limitations in claim 21, line 4 “a housing defining an internal cavity” has no description in the specifications. While the figures somewhat disclose the “housing” a description is necessary for a clear understanding of the limitation.
The limitation in claim 21, lines 5 – 6 “a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) disposed on an exterior surface of the housing” has no description in the specifications. While the figures somewhat disclose the “housing” a description is necessary for a clear understanding of the limitation.
The limitation in claim 21, line 9 ”a hollow cylindrical body fixed within the housing” has no description in the specifications. While the figures somewhat disclose the “housing” a description is necessary for a clear understanding of the limitation.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 113116699 A) in view of Yang et al. (US 20200390644 A1), Zhuang et al. (TW 1656870 B), Wersland et al. (20200368482 A1) & Schall et al. (DE 102012100183 A1).
Regarding claim 1, An irradiation head 20, the irradiation head 20 is configured to reciprocate in forward and backward motion imparted by the massage gun 100 (Abstract), the irradiation head 20 comprising:
one or more irradiation sources 222 (Note: the working circuit can be a light emitting module) (Page 7, First two paragraphs); and
a converter 21 (Note: the converted is considered to be the coil) configured to convert the forward and backward motion of the irradiation head 20 into electrical energy (Abstract).
wherein the one or more irradiation sources 222 are configured to be activated solely by the converted electrical energy without receiving any electrical energy from the massage gun 20 (Note: the examiner considers the broadest reasonable interpretation to be the irradiation source can receive energy from different forms of electrical energy and when it is received from the coil it is not received from the massage gun / Page 7, Paragraphs 2-3).
Liu discloses a magnet 11 disposed and reciprocating within the hollow cylindrical body 20 in response to the forward and backward motion. (Page 4, Paragraph 5 discloses the magnet works based on the forward and backward movement of the body)
Liu discloses the coil is inside the irradiation head (Figure 1) and the magnet is set at one end of the massage head 20 connected with the machine body. (Page 6, Paragraph 3)
Liu does not expressly disclose wherein the coil and the magnet are both housed entirely within the irradiation head.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the location of the coil and magnet in regards to the massage head, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05. Even though the figure shows the limitation, the specification does not disclose the criticality of why the magnet must be in the massage head. Based on the device and description, it does not disclose any functionality affected by the location.
Liu does not disclose the irradiation head is adapted to be detachably attached to a massage gun.
Yang discloses the head adapted to be detachably attached to a massage gun. (Paragraph 0066)
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Liu to include a head adapted to be detachably attached to a massage gun in order to ensure the massage head can be interchanged by another to provide a different massage. This would provide more vibration and also more percussion. (Paragraph 0066)
Modified Liu does not disclose comprising a plurality of light-emitting diodes configured to emit therapeutic radiation.
Wersland does discloses comprising a plurality of light-emitting diodes configured to emit therapeutic radiation. (Paragraph 0020)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Liu to have the irradiation sources to include a plurality of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) as it is a therapy treatment for several conditions that uses varying wavelengths of light, including red and blur, to stimulate skin and tissue beneath. (Paragraph 0042)
Modified Liu discloses the converter disposed entirely within the irradiation head 20. (Figure 1 / Abstract)
Modified Liu does not disclose wherein the converter includes a coil based linear alternator, disposed entirely within the irradiation head, the coil based linear alternator including:
a coil wrapped around a hollow cylindrical body.
Zhuang discloses wherein the converter includes a coil based linear alternator 5, the coil based linear alternator 5 including:
a coil 52 wrapped around a hollow cylindrical body 51
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the connection between the magnet and coil in Lui where the converter includes a coil based linear alternator, the coil based linear alternator including a coil wrapped around a hollow cylindrical body, and a magnet disposed within the hollow cylindrical body in order to ensure the coil interacts with the permanent magnet to generate electromagnetic field. (Page 5, Paragraph 3) As described by Liu, the closeness between the coil and the magnet is what makes the intensity stronger. By having a linear alternator it would ensure constant closeness within both. (Liu, Page 6, Second to last paragraph)
Modified Liu does not disclose a magnet freely disposed and reciprocating within the hollow cylindrical body in response to the forward and backward motion.
Schall discloses a magnet freely disposed within the hollow cylindrical body (Abstract)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Liu to have the magnet freely disposed within the hollow cylindrical body as it would allow the magnetic field generated exclusively by movement can act without interference. (Page 3, last paragraph / Page, First paragraph)
Claims 2 – 6 & 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 113116699 A) in view of Yang et al. (US 20200390644 A1), Zhuang et al. (TW 1656870 B), Wersland et al. (20200368482 A1) & Schall et al. (DE 102012100183 A1) as claimed in claim 1, KHETERPAL et al. (WO 2015140536 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Liu discloses the irradiation head as claimed in claim 1.
Modify Liu discloses wherein the converter is connected with the one or more irradiation sources
Modified Liu does not disclose a bridge rectifier.
KHETERPAL discloses a bridge rectifier. (Claim 22)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Liu to connect the converter with one or more irradiation sources via a bridge rectifier as this would rectify the output that the coils have created. (Claim 22)
Regarding claim 3, Modified Liu Modified Liu discloses the irradiation head as claimed in claim 2.
Modified Liu does not disclose further comprising an energy storage device adapted to store electrical energy generated by the converter, downstream of the bridge rectifier.
KHETERPAL discloses further comprising an energy storage device adapted to store electrical energy generated by the converter 3. (Page 8, Paragraph 3 – 5 ) and the energy storage device being downstream of the bridge rectifier. (Claim 22)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Liu to include an energy storage device adapted to store electrical energy generated by the converter in order to maintain more regular voltage output and therefore more efficient charging. (Page 9, Paragraph 4) Also, it would have been obvious to have the energy storage be downstream of the bridge rectifier as it would allow the bridge rectifier to rectify the output from the coils and then transport that energy to the energy storage. (Claim 22) Furthermore, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C. This would be considered a design choice as the function would not change based on where the energy storage device is located as all it needs to be is connected in order to receive the necessary voltage. The position of the bridge rectifier does not change the function as it only needs to be connected to the energy storage in order to output the converted energy.
Regarding claim 4, Modified Liu Modified Liu discloses the irradiation head as claimed in claim 3.
KHETERPAL further discloses wherein the energy storage device is a capacitor (Claim 23)
Regarding claim 5, Modified Liu Modified Liu discloses the irradiation head as claimed in claim 3.
KHETERPAL further discloses wherein the energy storage device is a battery. (Claim 23)
Regarding claim 6, Modified Liu Modified Liu discloses the irradiation head as claimed in claim 5.
KHETERPAL further discloses wherein the battery is selected from a group consisting of Lithium-ion batteries and Nickel-Metal-Hydride batteries. (Claims 23 – 24)
Regarding claim 7, Modified Liu Modified Liu discloses the irradiation head as claimed in claim 5.
Modified Liu discloses a battery. (as claimed in claim 5)
Modified Liu does not disclose the battery is configured to be charged wirelessly through a wireless charger.
Wersland (WO 2022236162 A1) discloses wherein the battery is configured to be charged wirelessly through a wireless charger. (Paragraph 00104)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Liu wherein the battery is configured to be charged wirelessly through a wireless charger that allows the battery to be charged and is able to charge with a force meter that is able to obtain force magnitude data proportional to a force an attachment of the device is exerting on the user. (Paragraph 0013 & 00104)
Regarding claim 8, Modified Liu Modified Liu discloses the irradiation head as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Liu does not disclose wherein the massage gun includes a user interface adapted to receive signals for modification of characteristics of the reciprocating motion of the irradiation head.
Zhuang discloses wherein the massage gun includes a user interface adapted to receive signals for modification of characteristics of the reciprocating motion of the irradiation head. (Page 6, last paragraph – 7, first paragraph)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Liu wherein the massage gun includes a user interface adapted to receive signals for modification of characteristics of the reciprocating motion of the irradiation head as it would allow the user to have the power to modify or select many parameters desired for the massage. (Page 6, last paragraph – 7, first paragraph)
Regarding claim 9, Modified Liu Modified Liu discloses the irradiation head as claimed in claim 8.
Zhuang further discloses wherein the characteristics of the reciprocating motion include speed, stroke length, time interval and momentum transfer (Note: momentum transfer is considered as how the massage will go based on the parameters chosen which can be selected based on selecting the speed and length desired). (Page 6, last paragraph – 7, first paragraph)
Regarding claim 10, Modified Liu discloses the irradiation head as claimed in claim 8.
Modified Liu does not disclose wherein the user interface includes a plurality of push buttons.
Wersland discloses wherein the user interface includes a plurality of push buttons. (Paragraph 0102)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Liu wherein the user interface includes a plurality of push buttons as it can control different modes, intensities, etc. that can be used for controlling the device. It can include an up button, a down button, and a select button that can be used for scrolling or toggling through various modes, going up and down in intensity or mode and selecting the modes or modules or turning different function. (Paragraph 0033 & 0102)
Regarding claim 12, Modified Liu discloses the irradiation head as claimed in claim 8.
Modified Liu does not disclose wherein the user interface includes a communication interface included in a control unit.
Yang discloses wherein the user interface includes a communication interface included in a control unit. (Paragraph 0015 & 0075)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Liu wherein the user interface includes a communication interface included in a control unit. As it ensures that instructions can be delivered to the device in order to manipulate various aspects of the device. (Paragraph 0015)
Regarding claim 14, Modified Liu discloses the irradiation head as claimed in claim 12.
Modified Liu does not disclose wherein an external handheld device is configured to communicate with the communication interface through wired or wireless means.
Yang discloses wherein an external handheld device is configured to communicate with the communication interface through wired or wireless means.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Liu wherein an external handheld device is configured to communicate with the communication interface through wired or wireless means as it allows the information to be delivered directly to the device. (Paragraph 0047) This is a well-known way to deliver information between two different devices.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 113116699 A) in view of Yang et al. (US 20200390644 A1) , Zhuang et al. (TW 1656870 B), Schall et al. (DE 102012100183 A1), Wersland et al. (20200368482 A1) & KHETERPAL et al. (WO 2015140536 A1) as claimed in claim 8, in further view of Crunick et al. (WO 2021026088 A2).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Liu discloses the irradiation head as claimed in claim 8.
Modified Liu does not disclose wherein the user interface includes a touchscreen.
Crunick discloses wherein the user interface includes a touchscreen 1000. (Paragraph 00162)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Liu wherein the user interface includes a touchscreen as this would allow for the screen to provide more boxes or icons that would make the selection for the patient much easier. (Paragraph 00162)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 113116699 A) in view of Yang et al. (US 20200390644 A1) , Zhuang et al. (TW 1656870 B), Schall et al. (DE 102012100183 A1), Wersland et al. (20200368482 A1) & KHETERPAL et al. (WO 2015140536 A1) as claimed in claim 1, in further view of Nichitake et al. (JP 7620316 B2)
Regarding claim 15, Modified Liu discloses the irradiation head as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Liu does not disclose further comprising a pressure sensor configured to measure the stiffness in the body of a user.
Nichitake discloses further comprising a pressure sensor configured to measure the stiffness in the body of a user.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Liu further comprising a pressure sensor configured to measure the stiffness in the body of a user as it allows the device to detect where stiffness in the body occurs and obtain physical information. (Page 5, Paragraph 1)
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 113116699 A) in view of Yang et al. (US 20200390644 A1), Zhuang et al. (TW 1656870 B), Wersland et al. (20200368482 A1) & Schall et al. (DE 102012100183 A1) as claimed in claim 1, in further view of Wersland et al. (WO 2022236162 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Liu discloses the irradiation head as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Liu discloses one or more irradiation sources
Wersland does discloses a plurality of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Liu to have the irradiation sources to include a plurality of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) as it is a therapy treatment for several conditions that uses varying wavelengths of light, including red and blur, to stimulate skin and tissue beneath.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 113116699 A) in view of Yang et al. (US 20200390644 A1), Zhuang et al. (TW 1656870 B), Wersland et al. (20200368482 A1) & Schall et al. (DE 102012100183 A1) as claimed in claim 1, in further view of Zhang et al. (CN 206304231 U) & Suenaga et al. (JP 2016144546 A)
Regarding claim 17, Modified Liu discloses the irradiation head as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Liu discloses further configured to provide additional modes of therapy using the converted electrical power (KHETERPAL)
Modified Liu does not disclose wherein the additional modes are selected from a group consisting of heating, Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) therapy, Pulsed Electro-Magnetic Field (PEMF) therapy and cooling.
Wersland discloses cooling and heating therapy (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Liu to include the temperature element of Wersland that controls the temperature and can provide cooling and heat therapy as it would allow the user to receive the massage therapy and at the same time receive the benefits of the cooling and heat treatment. (Abstract)
Zhang discloses Pulsed Electro-Magnetic Flied (PEMF) therapy. (Abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Liu to include a microcontroller circuit control pulse signal from Zhang and use the coil disclosed in Liu to stimulate the earth resonance frequency to create Pulsed Electro-Magnetic Flied therapy to help stimulate the human body in the affected area in order to reach good treatment effect. (Abstract)
Suenaga discloses Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) therapy. (Page 2, Paragraph 2 – 3)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Liu to include Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) therapy by having a conductor be added to the Liu massage head. This therapy stimulates the peripheral nerves from the body’s percutaneous electricity and make the conductors conduct a low frequency pulse current under the skin. (Page 2, Paragraph 2 – 3)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 113116699 A) in view of Nichols et al. (US 20190262607 A1), Zhuang et al. (TW 1656870 B), & Schall et al. (DE 102012100183 A1).
Regarding claim 21, An irradiation head adapted to be detachably attached to a massage gun, the irradiation head is configured to reciprocate in forward and backward motion imparted by the massage gun, the irradiation head 20 comprising:
a housing (Note: this is considered the solid part of the irradiation head) defining an internal cavity (Note: this is considered the hollow part of the head);
a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 222
thereby generating alternating electrical current within the coil 21 by electromagnetic induction (Abstract);
wherein the plurality of LEDs 222 are configured to be powered solely by the alternating electrical current generated by the coil 21 without receiving any electrical energy from the massage gun. (Page 7, Paragraph 3)
Liu does not disclose the plurality of LEDs configured to emit therapeutic radiation for light therapy and the LEDs disposed on an exterior surface of the housing.
Nichols discloses comprising the plurality of LEDs configured to emit therapeutic radiation for light therapy (Paragraph 0022 discloses the different therapies each color of LED light offers) and the LEDs disposed on an exterior surface of the housing (see annotated Figure 6). (Paragraph 0038)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Liu to have the irradiation sources to include a plurality of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) as it is a therapy treatment with different light colors (i.e. blue and red) which offer different benefits such as help with acne in the skin and treat skin wrinkles. (Paragraph 0022) By having the LED light be on the outside of the housing as it would form an internal chamber with an opening covered by a lens to allow the light to shine on the skin. (Paragraph 0033, 0037 & 0038)
PNG
media_image1.png
588
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 6: Annotated Figure 6 of Nichols et al. (US 20190262607 A1)
Modified Liu discloses a coil 21 (Note: the converted is considered to be the coil) disposed within the internal cavity (Note: this is considered the hollow part of the head) (Figure 1)
Modified Liu does not disclose a coil-based linear alternator the coil-based linear alternator comprising:
a hollow cylindrical body fixed within the housing;
a coil wrapped around the hollow cylindrical body, the coil formed of an electrically conductive material; and
Zhuang discloses a coil-based linear alternator 5, the coil-based linear alternator 5 comprising:
a hollow cylindrical body 51 fixed within the housing 54 (Page 5, Paragraph 3);
a coil 52 wrapped around the hollow cylindrical body 51 (Page 5, Paragraph 3), the coil formed of an electrically conductive material
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the connection between the magnet and coil in Lui a coil-based linear alternator the coil-based linear alternator comprising a hollow cylindrical body fixed within the housing and a coil wrapped around the hollow cylindrical body in order to ensure the coil interacts with the permanent magnet to generate electromagnetic field. (Page 5, Paragraph 3) As described by Liu, the closeness between the coil and the magnet is what makes the intensity stronger. By having a linear alternator it would ensure constant closeness within both. (Liu, Page 6, Second to last paragraph)
Modified Liu does not disclose a magnet freely disposed within the hollow cylindrical body, the magnet is configured to reciprocate freely within the hollow cylindrical body in response to the forward and backward motion of the irradiation head
Schall discloses a magnet freely disposed within the hollow cylindrical body (Abstract)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Liu to have a magnet freely disposed within the hollow cylindrical body, the magnet is configured to reciprocate freely within the hollow cylindrical body in response to the forward and backward motion of the irradiation head as it would allow the magnetic field generated exclusively by movement can act without interference. (Page 3, last paragraph / Page, First paragraph)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 12, but
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closes prior art is: Burton et al. (CN 112998650 B) & Cisneros et al. (US 20230277410 A1).
Regarding claim 13, none of the prior art discloses or suggest wherein the control unit is further configured to measure blood flow in a region of the body of user through diffraction pattern of the Infrared (IR) radiation emitted by the one or more irradiation sources.
The limitations of claim 13 require the blood flow to be measured through diffraction pattern of the Infrared (IR) radiation that is emitted from the irradiation sources. The prior art establishes that blood flow is able to be measured, but specifically forms a sensor that verify the amount of oxygen content in the user’s blood. None can directly use the diffraction patterns of the IR to measure the blood flow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 CST.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. 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.
/GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights