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 .
Status of Claims
The present Office action is responsive to the application as filed on 02-08-2023. As directed, claims 1-6 are currently pending examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1, line 1, it is suggested that a colon be added following “comprising”.
At claim 1, lines 2, it is suggested that the acronym “MCU” be written out to make clear what Applicant is claiming.
At claim 2, line 2, it is suggested that “wraps” be replaced with “is configured to wrap” for clarity.
At claim 5, line 4, it is suggested that “the number” be replaced with “a number” as the limitation has not been previously introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that the term “flexible leather” is being interpreted relative to page 3 of the instant specification to refer to a flexible material such as flexible plastic, silica gel, and/or rubber, rather than an actual leather material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “the flexible leather sheath (1) is made of a flexible material” renders the claim indefinite because the sheath seems to already be set forth to be made of “flexible leather”, but claim 4 refers to a separate “flexible material”. It is unclear what Applicant intends to construct the sheath from, as both the limitations “flexible leather” and “flexible material” are set forth.
For the purposes of examination, as set forth above, the term “flexible leather” will be interpreted as a flexible material such as flexible plastic, silica gel, and/or rubber, rather than an actual leather material.
In order to overcome this rejection, Examiner suggests replacing the term “flexible leather sheath” with “flexible sheath” in the claims, and suggests further amending claim 4 to include any or all of the list of alternative materials outlined at page 3 of the instant specification such that claim 4 would read:
4. The permanent magnet-propelled air compression massager according to claim 1, wherein the flexible which includes flexible plastic, silica gel, or rubber.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 already sets forth that the sheath is made from flexible leather, thus the claim 4 iteration of “flexible material” seems to more broadly construe the material of the sheath. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
In order to overcome this rejection, Examiner suggests replacing the term “flexible leather sheath” with “flexible sheath” in the claims, and suggests further amending claim 4 to include any or all of the list of alternative materials outlined at page 3 of the instant specification such that claim 4 would read:
4. The permanent magnet-propelled air compression massager according to claim 1, wherein the flexible which includes flexible plastic, silica gel, or rubber.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2022/0015983) in view of Huang (CN 106074133).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a permanent magnet-propelled air compression massager (10) (paragraph 19, lines 1-3; paragraph 28, lines 1-5; Fig. 1), comprising:
a massager body (1) (paragraph 19, lines 1-3; Fig. 1), wherein the massager body (1) is provided with an MCU and a peripheral control circuit (6+control module) (paragraph 24, lines 1-10; Fig. 2), the MCU and peripheral control circuit (6+control module) are connected to a coil (41) (paragraph 24, lines 1-10; Fig. 2), a permanent magnet (39) is disposed inside the coil (41) (paragraph 28, lines 1-5; Fig. 3A), and a flexible leather sheath (36) is connected to an upper end of the permanent magnet (39) (paragraph 21, lines 14-18, 29-33; Figs. 3A-4; note paragraph 21, lines 48-50 for “elastically deformable” vibrating head 3 which contains element 36).
Li fails to disclose wherein the MCU and a positive electrode and a negative electrode of the peripheral control circuit are respectively connected to two ends of the coil.
However, Huang teaches a permanent magnet (4) wound by a coil (5) for propelling the device (page 4: “Further, the electromagnetic drive device of the invention comprises an electromagnet 4 and a coil 5,wherein coil 5 is spirally wound on the electromagnet 4 inner wall of the push rod 3 from the coil 5; Fig. 1), wherein a MCU and a positive electrode and a negative electrode of the peripheral control circuit (controller and connecting line 6) are respectively connected to two ends of the coil (5) (pages 4-5: “and the connecting wire 6 is connected as preferred, coil 5, connecting line 6 of the two ends are respectively connected with the controller of the positive electrode and the negative electrode. When working, firstly sends electric signal by the controller, the coil 5 and the electromagnet 4 is electrified to generate a magnetic field, push rod 3 pushes downwards the pressing pump 2 is pressed under the action of the magnetic field, then the controller controls the positive and negative electrodes conversion direction, coil 5 in the current direction is changed, is changed by the magnetic field direction generated by the electromagnet 4 and the coil 5, a push rod 3 under the action of magnetic field to move upwards, so as to drive the pressing pump 2 is reset. controller via repeatedly changing the positive and negative electrodes, to alternately change the magnetic force direction, finally realizing the push rod 3 of the reciprocating pressing action; see Fig. 1 where connecting line 6 connects to two sides of the coil 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection between the MCU and peripheral circuit such that the MCU and a positive electrode and a negative electrode of the peripheral control circuit are respectively connected to two ends of the coil, as taught by Huang, as a known method of connecting the coil to the control circuitry for generating the current in the coil, and thus the magnetic field for propelling the device.
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of Huang disclose the permanent magnet-propelled air compression massager according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Li further discloses wherein the permanent magnet (39) is collinear with a center of the coil (41) (see Fig. 3A, where magnet 39 is disposed at the center of coil 41, such that the magnet 39 and the center of coil 41 are collinear).
Regarding claim 3, Li in view of Huang disclose the permanent magnet-propelled air compression massager according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Li further discloses wherein the flexible leather sheath (36) wraps the permanent magnet (39), and a lower end of the permanent magnet is unwrapped for exposure (paragraph 21, lines 14-18, 29-33; Figs. 3A-4, note the aperture at the lower end of 36 in Fig. 4 which would “unwrap” the permanent magnet 39).
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Huang disclose the permanent magnet-propelled air compression massager according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Li further discloses wherein the flexible leather sheath (36) is made of a flexible material (paragraph 21, lines 48-50 for “elastically deformable” vibrating head 3 which contains element 36).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2022/0015983) in view of Huang (CN 106074133), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Kuphaldt “Lessons in Electrical Circuits”.
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Huang disclose the permanent magnet-propelled air compression massager according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Li further discloses wherein the coil (41) is formed by winding a conductive material (paragraph 22, lines 1-20, note “winding” and “current”).
Modified Li fails to disclose wherein maximum magnetic field intensity is adjusted by controlling a size and a shape of a winding cross-section and the number of turns of the coil.
However, Kuphaldt teaches that maximum magnetic field intensity (“inductance”) of a system is adjusted by controlling a size and a shape of a winding cross-section and the number of turns of the coil (see page 491: “number of wire wraps or “turns” in the coil”, “coil area”, “coil length” under the heading “Factors affecting inductance”, where the coil length and the coli area together change the size, shape, and section of the coil).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the maximum magnetic field intensity could be adjusted by controlling a size and a shape of a winding cross-section and the number of turns of the coil, as taught by Kuphaldt, since these factors are known physical phenomena that change the inductance of a coil.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2022/0015983) in view of Huang (CN 106074133), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Zegenhagen (US 2021/0038470).
Regarding claim 6, Li in view of Huang disclose the permanent magnet-propelled air compression massager according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Li fails to disclose wherein the permanent magnet (3) is made of neodymium, rare earth metal praseodymium, pure iron, aluminum, or a boron-iron alloy material.
However, Zegenhagen teaches a permanent magnet (7) for use in a negative pressure massager (abstract, lines 1-16; paragraph 75, lines 1-3), wherein the permanent magnet (7) is comprised of neodymium and boron-iron alloy in order to generate strong magnetic field with low weight (paragraph 75, lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the permanent magnet of modified Li from neodymium and boron-iron alloy, as taught by Zegenhagen, in order to generate strong magnetic field with low weight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAIGE K. BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785