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 the amendment filed on 11/20/2025. As directed by the amendment, no claims were canceled, claims 1, 5, 8, and 11-14 were amended, and no claims were newly added. Thus, claims 1-14 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 13 lines 1-2, the term “wherein the control board of the neuromodulation assembly comprising a monitor” should read -- wherein the control board of the neuromodulation assembly comprises a monitor-- for grammatical correctness.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1 line 5, the claims reads “the control board configured to simultaneously regulate both the amplitude and frequency of operation of the electric motor” and regarding claim 11 line 6-7, the claim reads on “and simultaneously regulating the amplitude and frequency of motion of the effector rod”. However, nowhere in the specification is the simultaneous regulation of amplitude and frequency described, and therefore this is new subject matter entered upon the amendment of these claims and thus fails to provide adequate written description of the structure.
Regarding claim 5 lines 1-3, the claim reads as having “the control board comprises a monitor which is configured to measure the position of a shaft in the electric motor so as to simultaneously regulate the amplitude and frequency of motion”. However, nowhere in the specification is the structure of “a monitor” discloses, and therefore this is new subject matter entered upon the amendment of these claims and thus fails to provide adequate written description of the structure. Additionally, nowhere in the specification is the simultaneous regulation of amplitude and frequency described, and therefore this is new subject matter entered upon the amendment of these claims and thus fails to provide adequate written description of the structure. Lastly, the specification fails to provide adequate written description about what exact structure is included and is able to perform a measurement of position. Is there is a position sensor included in the device?
Regarding claim 8 lines 1-2, the claim reads as having “the control board comprises a monitor which is configured to monitor the pressure and position applied to the effector rod during operation”. However, nowhere in the specification is the structure of “a monitor” discloses, and therefore this is new subject matter entered upon the amendment of these claims and thus fails to provide adequate written description of the structure. Additionally, the specification fails to provide adequate written description about what structure is included and is able to perform a pressure reading or is able to monitor pressure, or is able to perform a measurement of position. Is there a pressure sensor and/or position sensor included in the device?
Regarding claim 13 line 2, the claim reads on “the control board of the neuromodulation assembly comprising a monitor, and the method further comprising: monitoring a pressure applied to the user via the effector”. However, nowhere in the specification is the structure of “a monitor” discloses, and therefore this is new subject matter entered upon the amendment of these claims and thus fails to provide adequate written description of the structure. Additionally, the specification fails to provide adequate written description about what structure is included and is able to perform a pressure reading or is able to monitor pressure. Is there a pressure sensor included in the device?
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon 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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Wing (US 4,549,535) in view Epureanu et al. (US 2018/0243153; hereinafter “Epureanu”) and Lerro (US 2013/0138023).
Regarding claim 1, Wing discloses a neuromodulation assembly (see Wing Apparatus 10), comprising:
a power supply (see Wing Power supply 36);
a control board in communication with the power supply (see Wing electronics package 38);
an electric motor in communication with the control board (see Wing Claim 1 “an electronically controlled linear motor”; description of linear motor in Col. 2 lines 39-46).
Wing discloses controlling the amplitude and frequency of operation of the electric motor (see Wing electronics package 38 includes controls: frequency control 25, amplitude control 27), but is silent as to the control board configured to simultaneously regulate both the amplitude and frequency of operation of the electric motor, wherein the amplitude ranges from 0.1mm to 1mm and the frequency is up to 120Hz. However, Epureanu teaches the control board configured to simultaneously regulate both the amplitude and frequency of operation of the electric motor (see Epureanu [0026] “The actuators may apply different frequencies and/or at different amplitudes to multiple parts of the subject simultaneously”; and [0031] “the controller may adjust the frequency and/or amplitude of vibrations generated by the actuators”. Actuators within therapy device 220.). 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 control of amplitude and frequency of Wing with the simultaneous control of amplitude and frequency as taught by Epureanu as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of control setting for the amplitude and frequency for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. apply a therapeutic frequency and amplitude.
Modified Wing is silent as to wherein the amplitude ranges from 0.1mm to 1mm and the frequency is up to 120Hz. However, Lerro teaches the amplitude ranges from 0.1mm to 1mm (see Lerro Massage device 1 with head 83; Claim 5 amplitude is in the range between 1.0 and 0 mm) and the frequency is up to 120Hz (see Lerro Claim 2 frequency is in the range of 1 to 24 Hz). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the amplitude and frequency ranges of modified Wing with the specific 0.1mm to 1mm amplitude and up to 120Hz frequency ranges as taught by Lerro since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Modified Wing discloses an effector rod selectively coupled to the electric motor and configured to extend the vibratory effects of the motor (see Wing soft tip shaft 14 connects to anvil 24 which is struck by main shaft impact tip 11); and
an effector tip coupled to a distal end of the effector rod (see Wing soft tip 12);
wherein operation of the electric motor induces a linear motion through the effector rod at a desired frequency and amplitude (see Wing Col. 3 lines 9-16: adjustment of control 25 controls period of pulse impacting the soft tip 12 upon the body; adjustment of control 27 controls force with which shaft impacts tip 12).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wing discloses the power supply is a rechargeable battery (see Wing Col. 2 lines 30-32 “A power supply 36 may be located in the handle 39 and may be a battery pack either rechargeable and/or replaceable”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Wing discloses a housing configured to extend around the power supply, the control board, the electric motor, and a portion of the effector rod (see Wing overall external structure of apparatus 10, such as housing 20 and handle 39).
Regarding claim 11, modified Wing discloses a method of neuromodulation treatment (see Wing using Apparatus 10), comprising:
obtaining a neuromodulation assembly of claim 1 (see modified Wing see rejection to claim 1 above);
selecting the effector tip in accordance with an area of a user to be in contact with the neuromodulation assembly (see Wing soft tip 12 contacting body of the recipient of treatment);
activating the neuromodulation assembly (see Wing turning on/off trigger switch 34);
contacting the neuromodulation assembly against a surface of the user (see Wing effector tip 12 contacts recipient in order for therapeutic effects).
regulating the amplitude and frequency of motion of the effector rod (see Wing user regulates frequency control 25, amplitude control 27 by which the rods/shafts move).
Modified Wing discloses regulating the amplitude and frequency of motion of the effector rod (see Wing electronics package 38 includes controls: frequency control 25, amplitude control 27), but is silent as to simultaneously regulating the amplitude and frequency of motion of the effector rod, where the amplitude ranges from 0.1mm to 1mm and the frequency is up to 120Hz. However, Epureanu teaches simultaneously regulating the amplitude and frequency of motion of the effector rod (see Epureanu [0026] “The actuators may apply different frequencies and/or at different amplitudes to multiple parts of the subject simultaneously”; and [0031] “the controller may adjust the frequency and/or amplitude of vibrations generated by the actuators”. Actuators within therapy device 220.). 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 control of amplitude and frequency of Wing with the simultaneous control of amplitude and frequency as taught by Epureanu as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of control setting for the amplitude and frequency for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. apply a therapeutic frequency and amplitude.
Modified Wing is silent as to wherein the amplitude ranges from 0.1mm to 1mm and the frequency is up to 120Hz. However, Lerro teaches the amplitude ranges from 0.1mm to 1mm (see Lerro Massage device 1 with head 83; Claim 5 amplitude is in the range between 1.0 and 0 mm) and the frequency is up to 120Hz (see Lerro Claim 2 frequency is in the range of 1 to 24 Hz). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the amplitude and frequency ranges of modified Wing with the specific 0.1mm to 1mm amplitude and up to 120Hz frequency ranges as taught by Lerro since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, modified Wing discloses automatically adjusting the power output of the electric motor (see Wing Col. 3 lines 9-16 from rejection to claim 1 above; controlling force of the shaft impact).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wing in view of Epureanu and Lerro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pepe (US 11,679,058).
Regarding claim 2, modified Wing is silent as to the effector tip is interchangeable. However, Pepe teaches the effector tip is interchangeable (see Pepe multiple massage heads (130, 132, 134, 136, 138, and 140) changeable on universal tip adaptor 100; Col. 4 lines 39-41 “the universal tip adaptor 100 could be interchangeable and used on all types of massagers and accessory tips”). 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 effector tip of modified Wing with the changeable massage heads, or effector tips, as taught by Pepe so as to provide various therapies on specific sized body parts.
Regarding claim 3, modified Wing is silent as to the effector tip is sized in accordance with selected treatment locations. However, Pepe teaches the effector tip is sized in accordance with selected treatment locations (see Pepe variable sized massager heads 130-140 in Figs. 11-16 that would produce different types of treatment due to their size). 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 effector tip of modified Wing with the different sized massage heads, or effector tips, as taught by Pepe so as to specify therapy treatment on various sized body parts.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wing in view of Epureanu and Lerro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang (US 2022/0233397), as best understood.
Regarding claim 5, modified Wing is silent as to the control board comprises a monitor which is configured to measure the position of a shaft in the electric motor so as to regulate the amplitude and frequency of motion. However, Huang teaches the control board comprises a monitor which is configured to measure the position of a shaft in the electric motor so as to simultaneously regulate the amplitude and frequency of motion (see Huang distance sensor 23 [0067] measuring distance between massage head 12 and the human body, positioned with the sliding shaft 51, “ thus transmit the sensed information to the MCU, which controls the operation of the motor 4 according to the received information”. Additionally, [0069] describes a linear acceleration sensor 30 positioned near shaft 51 sensing the force to send to the MCU for controlling striking motion. The sensors of Huang are the monitor. The simultaneous limitation is taught by Wing in view of Epureanu above). 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 internal housing near the motor of modified Wing with the addition of sensors to measure position as taught by Huang so as to increase safety so as not to use the device too strongly against the human body.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wing in view of Epureanu and Lerro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zou et al. (CN 215840352; hereinafter “Zou”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wing discloses an electric motor, comprising “a cylindrical armature responsive to magnetic forces induced by means of electric current flow in two separate solenoid coils in such a way as to be linearly driven in each of two directions such that one direction is linearly opposite to the other. The resulting motion is thus seen to be reciprocating motion,” (see Wing Col. 2 lines 40-46) which seemingly describes the same properties as a voice coil actuator.
Even if modified Wing does not explicitly disclose the claim limitation, however, Zou teaches the electric motor is a voice coil actuator (see Zou Abstract: fascia gun comprising voice coil motor module for performing reciprocating linear motion with transmission shaft). 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 electric motor of modified Wing with the voice coil actuator as taught by Zou as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of electric motor for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. provide motorized reciprocating motion within the device.
Claims 8-10 and 13-14 rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wing in view of Epureanu and Lerro as applied to claim 1 or 11 above, and further in view of Godlasky (US 2023/0414430, with provisional application priority date 06/23/2022).
Regarding claim 8, modified Wing is silent as to the control board comprises a monitor which is configured to monitor the pressure applied to the effector rod during operation. However, Godlasky teaches the control board comprises a monitor which is configured to monitor the pressure applied to the effector rod during operation (see Godlasky [0055] therapy device support 104 supporting therapy device 101 such as a percussion massage gun, and [0115] pressure sensors 301 can be mounted within device support 104, “the sensors 301 are configured to deliver no more than a threshold amount of tactile pressure (e.g. 40 psi, 30 psi, 20 psi, 10 psi, 5 psi, or less), and can monitor the amount of tactile pressure exerted on the patient”. The sensors are the monitor.). 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 housing of modified Wing with the addition of a pressure sensor as taught by Godlasky so as to deliver only a safe amount of pressure to the user using the device.
Regarding claim 9, modified Wing discloses the control board has a threshold of pressure in which it will cease vibration (see Godlasky above [0115] “deliver no more than a threshold amount of tactile pressure”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Wing discloses the claimed invention except for an exact threshold of pressure is 2.5 pounds (see Godlasky above [0115] “5 psi, or less” which does consider a value of 2.5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to deliver a threshold pressure of only 2.5 pounds, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, modified Wing is silent as to wherein the control board of the neuromodulation assembly comprising a monitor, and the method further comprising: monitoring a pressure applied to the user via the effector rod. However, Godlasky teaches the control board of the neuromodulation assembly comprising a monitor, and the method further comprising: monitoring a pressure applied to the user via the effector rod (see Godlasky [0055] therapy device support 104 supporting therapy device 101 such as a percussion massage gun, and [0115] pressure sensors 301 can be mounted within device support 104, “the sensors 301 are configured to deliver no more than a threshold amount of tactile pressure (e.g. 40 psi, 30 psi, 20 psi, 10 psi, 5 psi, or less), and can monitor the amount of tactile pressure exerted on the patient” The sensors are the monitor.). 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 housing of modified Wing with the addition of a pressure sensor as taught by Godlasky so as to deliver only a safe amount of pressure to the user using the device.
Modified Wing is silent as to motor failure at or equal to 2.5 pounds of pressure. However, Godlasky teaches a threshold of pressure around 2.5 pounds (see Godlasky above [0115] “5 psi, or less” which does consider a value of 2.5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to deliver a threshold pressure of only 2.5 pounds, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, modified Wing discloses automatically adjusting the power output upon reaching a pressure threshold (see Godlasky sensors deliver no more than the threshold amount of pressure; the power output would be adjusted to either stay the same or reduce the output to maintain under threshold).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 4 of the remarks, that claims 5, 8, 11, and 13 have been amended to overcome the 112(a) rejections. However, Examiner disagrees in regards to claims 5, 8, and 13, and has additional new matter 112(a) rejections, see 112(a) rejections above. Therefore, the rejections still stand.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 5 of the remarks, with respect to claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on only the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim 1 is now rejection under 35 USC 103, see rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GWYNNETH L HOWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4742. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 M-F.
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, Tim 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.
/GWYNNETH L HOWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785