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
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species of types of handheld relaxation devices:
Species A: The handheld relaxation device shown in Figs. 1, 2a, and 2b.
Species B: The handheld relaxation device shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
Species C: The handheld relaxation device shown in Figs. 5 and 6.
Species D: The handheld relaxation device shown in Figs. 7 and 8.
Species E: The handheld relaxation device shown in Figs. 9, 10a, 10b, and 10c.
The species are independent or distinct because each species requires a mutually exclusive characteristic not required for the other species. Species A has no tapering features, plurality of swirls, or a cap. Species B has a unique tapering style different from Species C. Species D is the only species requiring a plurality of swirls. Species E is the only species requiring a cap. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 1-3, 10, and 11 are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
Species A would require a search in at least CPC A63H33/107, along with a unique text search. Species D would require a search in at least CPC A63H1/02, along with a unique text search. Species B, C, and E would require a search in at least CPC A63H33/084, 088, and 105, along with a unique text search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Maymanat Afshar on 11/7/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Handheld Relaxation Device, Species A, claim 1-4, 10, and 11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 5-9 and 12 – 17 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, “a plurality of nut side” should read “a plurality of nut sides”.
In claim 2, lines 1-2, “wherein material of construction” should read “wherein a material of construction” and “said nut comprise” should read “said nut comprises”.
In claim 4, line 2, “head and nut are in the shape of a hexagon” should read “head and nut are each in the shape of a hexagon”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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 3 improperly mixes statutory classes by reciting both a product and a process of making the product. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and a method step is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). When a product and process are claimed in the same claim it is unclear whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is constructed or when the method of making/using the product is performed. See MPEP 2173.05(p).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Hemingway et al (US 2014/0086704).
Regarding claim 1, Hemingway et al discloses a handheld relaxation device (the embodiment of figures 56-58) comprising a bolt (1113) with a bolt head (1115) and bolt threads (1119). The device further comprises a nut (1101) comprising a plurality of nut sides (1111) and a nut center (1105) wherein said nut is removably attached to said bolt by rotating said nut center to engage said bolt threads of said bolt (paragraph [0145] “shaft 1119 of bolt 1113 is operably inserted by rotation into the bore of nut 1101”) and wherein said bolt threads readily engage threads in said nut center (same citation in [0145]).
Regarding claim 3, Hemingway et al further discloses wherein the method of manufacture for said device comprises three-dimensional (3D) printing or injection molding ([0145] “Nut 1101 is preferably made by three-dimensional printing of a metallic or polymeric material”, at least part of the device of the nut is 3D printed so therefore meets the claim limitation “said device comprises 3D printing”, of note the embodiment of [0155] teaches that both bolt and nut can be 3D printed) .
Regarding claim 10, Hemingway et al discloses where the bolt head and nut are of equal size (figure 56, bolt head (1115 and 1117) and nut peripheral surface (1111) align/are equal size to one another).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Vazquez et al (US 10,086,641).
Regarding claim 1, Vazquez et al discloses a handheld relaxation device (the embodiment of figure 3, column 4, line 55 – column 5, line 11) with a threaded portion (164) that “extends from a proximal end 146 of the elongated body 160”, representing the bolt, that “may include one or more stop ring (168 -2)”, representative of a bolt head. Vazquez et al further discloses a “focusing element 150-1”, representing a nut with sides and a center, that is (column 4, lines 34 – 46) “adapted to be disposed along the length of the elongated body resulting from the rotation by engagement with the helical groove 170, forming a threaded or thread-like engagement. Since the focusing element 150 is threadedly engaged with the helical portion 164, it is suited for rotational advancement along a length of the elongated body 160”, indicating that the nut is removably attached by rotation and engages the bolt threads.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemingway.
Regarding claim 4, Hemingway et al teaches a bolt and nut as described in claim 1 and a nut (1101) in a hexagonal shape (figure 57) with a matching bolt but fails to teach that the bolt is hexagonal. Hemingway et al does teach the bolt is polygonal (paragraph [0145], “A threaded fastener component, more particularly a bolt (1113) has a polygonal head (1115) for engagement by a tool”). It would prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bolt head of Hemingway et al to be hexagonal as Hemingway et al discloses the bolt head can be polygonal and a hexagon is a polygon as well as to match the hexagonal nut.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemingway et al in view of Wolf et al (US Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0236408).
Regarding claim 2, Hemingway et al discloses a device comprising a bolt and nut manufactured from 3D printing and a durable polymeric material (see claim 3 rejection above). However, Hemingway et al fails to teach a specific material to be used for this process, in particular that the material comprises acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), nylon, glycol modified polyethylene terephthalate (PETG), polycarbonate, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), acrylic styrene acrylonitrile (ASA), or any combination thereof. Wolf et al teaches a 3D printing method using polycarbonate, polylactic acid (PLA), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), and nylon (paragraph[0115], “other materials can include but are not limited to polycarbonate/ABS and forms of nylon including nylon and bridge nylon” and “the consumable material that used for building a 3D part can include thermoplastics that have relatively lower melting temperatures (e.g. below 300 degrees such as ABS, polyactide (PLA), or aliphatic polyamides or nylon”). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hemingway et al to incorporate the teachings of Wolf et al to manufacture the bolt and nut of Hemingway with one or a combination of the materials taught by Wolf such as polycarbonate, PLA, ABS, or nylon in paragraph [0115] with a reasonable expectation of success. The 3D printing manufacturing process using one or more of materials taught by Wolf would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a lightweight device of a bolt and nut for low cost.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemingway in view of Voznesensky (US 2002/0168246) and Gundy (US 5490750). Hemingway discloses a bolt and nut. However, Hemingway fails to disclose any size guidelines, in particular 0.67” – 3.44” width and 0.67” – 3.44” length for both the bolt and the nut and 1.51”-6.25” height for the bolt.
Voznesensky teaches (paragraph [0023], fig 1) a bolt with specific diameter dimensions (corresponding with the width and length of the bolt), “the diameter of tapered section 22 decreases from a diameter of D1, which may range from under one-eighth of an inch to three or more inches at the dashed line AB to a diameter of D2 at the end 24”. Voznesensky further teaches (paragraph [0029], fig 8), a nut with specific diameter dimensions (corresponding with the width and length of the nut), “the inner chamber 208 has an inner diameter of D4, which may range from under one-eighth of an inch to over three inches and more, at the end 210 which tapers to an inner diameter of D3, which ranges from under one-eight of an inch to over three inches and more”. However, Voznesensky does not teach a dimension for the height of the bolt.
Gundy teaches (column 5, lines 8-14, figs 2 and 4) a bolt with specific length dimensions, “the length 44 of the anchoring sheath 20 is approximately 5.5 inches to accommodate a 7/8 inch diameter bolt with a 3.25 to 4.25 inch threaded region, while the length 46 of the top region 22 is approximately 2.0 inches”. The disclosed bolt can range from 5.5” to 7.5”.
The claimed ranges for the handheld device would have been obvious over the ranges disclosed in Voznesensky for the width and length for the bolt and nut and Gundy for the height of the bolt because where the claimed range overlap the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima face case of obviousness exists. Additionally, the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Please see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vazquez et al.
Regarding claim 4, Vazquez et al teaches (figure 5), a nut in the shape of a hexagon (150-3). Vazquez fails to teach a bolt head in the shape of a hexagon. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the bolt head of Vazquez to be in the shape of a hexagon as it would perform the same function of preventing travel of the nut off the proximal end of the bolt. Additionally, the configuration of the shape of the bolt head and nut to be hexagonal is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the nut and bolt head was significant. Please see Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04.IV.b.
Regarding claim 10, Vazquez teaches a handheld relaxation device with a bolt, bolt head, and nut. However, Vazquez fails to teach the bolt head and nut are of equal size. Vazquez et al teaches (column 6, lines 36 – 39), “Any suitable shape or size adapted for engaging the helical portion 164, and may be modified for various dexterity levels for a convenient grip”. It is evident that Vazquez recognizes that the nut size should be adapted for engaging the helical portion of the bolt. Therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize the bolt head and nut to be of equal size for ideal engagement of bolt threads and convenience of grip.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vazquez et al in view of Hemingway.
Regarding claim 3, Vazquez et al teaches (column 6, lines 23 – 32, fig 7b) that the helical portion (164) (representing the bolt) could be manufactured using a “deposition process, 3D printing, or molding approach”. However, Vazquez et al does not teach that the focusing element (representing the nut) can be manufactured by 3D printing.
However, Hemingway et al teaches (paragraph 155) both a bolt and nut that are manufactured from 3D printing process, “the bolt and nut are preferably three-dimensionally printed from a hard and durable polymeric or metallic material”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture both the bolt and the nut with a 3D printing process to maximize efficiency and lower manufacturing cost of the focus device. Additionally, using a 3D printing process would create a device that is lightweight and easy to be handled by users.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vazquez et al in view of Hemingway and Wolf.
Regarding claim 2, Vazquez teaches a nut that is manufactured by 3D printing but fails to teach that a bolt is manufactured by 3D printing. However, Hemingway teaches both a bolt and nut that is manufactured by 3D printing (see rejection of claim 3 above). However, both Vazquez and Hemingway fail to teach specific materials used for this process, in particular that the material comprises acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), nylon, glycol modified polyethylene terephthalate (PETG), polycarbonate, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), acrylic styrene acrylonitrile (ASA), or any combination thereof.
Wolf et al teaches a 3D printing method using polycarbonate, polylactic acid (PLA), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), and nylon (paragraph[0115], “other materials can include but are not limited to polycarbonate/ABS and forms of nylon including nylon and bridge nylon” and “the consumable material that used for building a 3D part can include thermoplastics that have relatively lower melting temperatures (e.g. below 300 degrees such as ABS, polyactide (PLA), or aliphatic polyamides or nylon”.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hemingway et al to incorporate the teachings of Wolf et al to manufacture the bolt and nut of Hemingway with one or a combination of the materials taught by Wolf such as polycarbonate, PLA, ABS, or nylon in paragraph [0115] with a reasonable expectation of success. The 3D printing manufacturing process using one or more of materials taught by Wolf would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a lightweight device of a bolt and nut for low cost.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vazquez et al (US 10086641) in view of Brous (US 2019/0105578).
Regarding claim 11, Vazquez et al teaches a fidget device (fig 3) with an elongated shaft with a threaded bore (164) (equivalent to a bolt) and a focusing element that engages the shaft through rotation (150-1) (equivalent to a nut) of equal size (see claim 10 rejection above) but does not indicate any size ranges, let alone the specific size ranges claimed.
In the same field of endeavor of a fidget toy, Brous teaches a spinner toy (figure 2) comprising a threaded spindle (10, equivalent to the threaded shaft/”bolt”) and a spinning nut (20, equivalent to the focus element/”nut”). The size range given for the spindle is 6 – 30 mm (0.23 – 1.18 in) in diameter and 50 – 400 mm (1.96 – 15.7 in) in length or longer (paragraph [0041]). The size range given for the spinning nut is 8 – 40 mm (0.31 – 1.57 in) in diameter and 8- 25 mm (0.31 – 0.98 in) in thickness (paragraph [0046]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vazquez et al to incorporate the teachings of Brous to manufacture the threaded bore and focusing element of Vazquez in the size range as taught by Brous since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.II. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to change the size to the claimed dimensions since a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. A change in size or proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nichols et al (US 10966898) teaches a fidget sleeve in figure 2 where the fidget element comprises a threaded bolt and nut.
Pack (US 2015/0125838) teaches a method and system for hands-on learning that in some embodiments can be for subjects with Attention Deficit Disorder / Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. In figure 3M, Pack discloses an embodiment of a therapeutic and sensory tool that has nut and bolt elements. In table 2 (page 8), there is a method of screwing nuts on and off bolts.
Zoetelief et al (US 2020/037776) teaches a 3D printing method using glycol modified polyethylene terephthalate (PETG) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) in paragraph 51 and claim 31.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIANA JOY LACAY DECASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-8316. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/A.L.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791