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
The amendments filed 3/13/2026 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-15 remain pending in the current application. The amendments have overcome the 112b rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action dated 12/15/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 2-3 of the remarks that Yamasaki’s “massaging rollers 7” are inconsistent with the claimed term of “massaging points”, noting that the rollers of Yamasaki are axially-elongated cylinders and not a pointed tip of a projecting body. While the Examiner agrees that the massaging rollers of Yamasaki may be structurally different than Applicant’s “massaging points”, the Examiner maintains that the term “massaging point” is broad enough to encompass any structural surface and/or point capable of producing a massaging effect. Furthermore, the Examiner notes Yamasaki’s massaging rollers 7 would therefore provide two massaging contact “points” to the user while the device is in use, and also consist of a projecting body (see massaging roller 7 extending from body 9), therefore consistent with the term “massaging point”.
Applicant also argues on page 3 of the remarks that Yamasaki’s massaging points (rollers 7, Figure 1) are not distinct from, yet extend from, the horizontal support arms (the supporting shafts of rollers 7, Figure 1), and therefore not oriented perpendicularly with one another. The Examiner first notes the claim does not require the massaging points and the horizontal supporting arms to be oriented perpendicularly, rather, the claim only requires the massaging points to be slidably coupled and protrude from the horizontal support arms. Therefore, as Yamasaki’s massaging rollers 7 are slid onto their respective horizontal supporting shafts, the Examiner maintains Yamasaki teaches all the claim limitations.
Applicant also argues on pages 4-5 of the remarks that the reference of Yang does not teach multiple massaging units, or massaging points slidably coupled to and protruding from horizontal support arms, noting Yang’s device only contains a singular massaging unit. The Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Yang reference persuasive. Therefore, the (supplemental) 102 rejection of claim 1 using the Yang reference has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamasaki (4,947,833).
Regarding claim 1, Yamasaki discloses an adjustable physical therapy device (bed-type massaging apparatus comprising rollers which may be adjusted and/or moved transversely along the frame, Abstract and Figure 1), comprising: a massaging frame (bed-type massaging apparatus comprising an elongated frame, Abstract and Figure 1); massaging points (massaging rollers 7, Col. 2 lines 46-50 and Figure 1); wherein the massaging frame comprises: vertical support arms (vertical parallel rails 2, Col. 2 lines 14-15 and Figures 1-3); horizontal support arms (horizontal rollers 7 supported by an intermediate shaft of each translational carriage 8, Col. 2 lines 54-60 and Figures 1-3); the vertical support arms are positioned parallel to each other (vertical parallel rails 2, Col. 2 lines 14-15 and Figures 1-3); the horizontal support arms are slidably coupled to the vertical support arms (the horizontal, intermediate shafts supporting the rollers 7 within the carriages 8 are movably supported for displacement longitudinally along the vertical side rails 2, Col. 2 lines 54-65 and Figures 1-3); and the massaging points are each slidably coupled to and protrude from one of the horizontal support arms in a manner to press against a user when the user is positioned against the massaging frame (the rollers 7 are capable of rollingly contacting and massaging the muscles of the back, the wait, the legs of the user, Col. 3 lines 51-57 and Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Yamasaki further discloses wherein the vertical support arms each comprise a wheel (see vertical rails 2 each comprising a wheel 5, Figure 2 and Col. 2 lines 33-35); the wheel is rotatably coupled to the vertical support arm opposite the horizontal support arms (wheels 5 rotatably coupled to side rails 2 and opposite horizontal rollers 7, Figure 2 and Col. 2 lines 33-35).
Regarding claim 5, Yamasaki further discloses further comprising: a support structure (bed 1 covering, Figure 1 and Col. 3 lines 59-62); wherein the support structure is vertically or horizontally oriented (bed 1 is oriented both vertically and horizontally over the rollers and frame, Col. 3 lines 59-62); the massaging frame is coupled to the support structure (bed 1 is secured relative to the frame, Col. 3 lines 59-62).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (4,947,833) in view of Bove (6,065,210).
Regarding claim 2, Yamasaki teaches the adjustable physical therapy device of claim 1, however is silent wherein one or more of the massaging points comprises a magnet positioned on an end of the massaging point.
However, Bove teaches a back massager apparatus (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising massaging points (massaging rollers 20, Figure 2 and Col. 4 lines 25-27) wherein the massaging points comprise a magnet positioned on its end (magnets 50 may be fitted into the groove 44 of the roller 20, to thereby impart magnetic fields from the rollers 20, Col. 4 lines 58-67 and Figures 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamasaki’s massaging device such that each massaging point includes a magnet, as taught by Bove, as providing a magnetic structure to therefore impart magnetic field stimulation to the user, as the use of magnetic fields may provide additional and/or supplemental therapeutic and restorative treatments to various limbs, organs, and other parts of the body (Col. 1 lines 15-20 of Bove).
Claim(s) 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (4,947,833) in view of McCrae (US 2007/0075109 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yamasaki teaches the adjustable physical therapy device of claim 1, however is silent wherein one or more of the massaging points comprises an electrified end configured to provide pulsed electromagnetic field therapy.
However, McCrae teaches a therapeutic backpack massaging assembly (Abstract and Figure 1) wherein one or more of the massaging points comprises an electrified end configured to provide electromagnetic field therapy to the user (electromagnetic elements 24 configured as a series of electrical leads or contacts, Figure 4 and Paragraph 0046). The Examiner also notes the 112a rejection for this particular claim presented above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamasaki’s massaging device such that each massaging point includes an electrified end configured to provide electromagnetic field therapy, as taught by McCrae, as providing electromagnetic stimulation to the user, in addition to the massaging action, would therefore provide a supplemental therapeutic effect to as electromagnetic stimulation aides in alleviating back tightness and discomfort (Paragraph 0013 of McCrae).
Claim(s) 6-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (4,947,833) in view of Cohen (US 2016/0338901 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yamasaki teaches the adjustable physical therapy device of claim 1, and although Yamasaki further teaches a support structure in the form of a bed covering (bed 1 covering, Figure 1 and Col. 3 lines 59-62), Yamasaki doesn’t explicitly state a support structure, pair of parallel tracks: wherein the support structure is vertically or horizontally oriented; the parallel tracks are affixed to the support structure, the massaging frame slidably traverses the parallel tracks.
However, Cohen teaches a massaging board assembly (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising a massaging frame assembly comprising massaging points (massaging board 13 comprising massager balls 30, Figure 2 and Paragraph 0065) and a vertically oriented support structure comprising a pair of parallel tracks (massaging board is secured to a stand assembly comprising two vertical parallel stand legs 18, tube 19, and metal feet 20, Paragraphs 0065-0066 and Figure 5) wherein the massaging frame slidably traverses the parallel tracks (see Figure 6 showing massaging board 13 slidably engaging with the vertical pair of strand legs 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamasaki’s massaging device such that it includes a supporting structure comprising a pair of parallel tracks, such that the massaging frame slidably engages with the tracks, as taught by Cohen, as providing such a supporting structure for which the massaging frame may engage with allows for the overall assembly to be used in either a horizontal or vertical orientation, as well as making the overall assembly more portable for the user.
Regarding claim 7, Yamasaki in view of Cohen teach the adjustable physical therapy device of claim 6, with Cohen further teaching wherein the support structure is configured to be affixed to a vertical structure; and the vertical structure comprises a wall, a door, and/or a support frame (the support stand comprising mounting brackets 15 allow the device to be coupled to surfaces such as a door or wall, Paragraph 0070 and Figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamasaki’s massaging device such that it includes a supporting structure configured to be affixed to a vertical structure such as a wall or a door, as further taught by Cohen, as providing such a supporting structure configured to affix to a vertical structure such as a wall or a door allows for the overall assembly to be more portable for the user and used in various locations.
Regarding claim 9, Yamasaki in view of Cohen teach the adjustable physical therapy device of claim 6, with Cohen further teaching secondary support beams (see secondary support beams 20 of supporting stand assembly, Figure 5); wherein each secondary support beam is rotatably affixed to a bottom of the support structure proximate to one of the parallel tracks (beams 20 comprise knobs 21 configured to rotate/incline the massaging board 13, therefore rotatably affixed to the bottom of the support structure and proximate to the vertical tracks 18, Figure 5 and Paragraph 0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamasaki’s massaging device such that it comprises secondary support beams rotatably affixed to the bottom of the supporting structure, as further taught by Cohen, as providing such rotatable supporting beams allows for the massaging frame assembly to be adjusted and/or inclined according to the user’s preference.
Regarding claim 10, Yamasaki in view of Cohen teach the adjustable physical therapy device of claim 9, with Cohen further teaching further comprising: a folded state; an unfolded state; wherein in the folded state, the secondary support beams are oriented parallel and positioned proximate to the parallel tracks; and in the unfolded state, the secondary support beams are oriented orthogonal to and are rotated away from the parallel tracks (beams 20 comprise knobs 21 configured to rotate/incline the massaging board 13, therefore rotatably affixed to the bottom of the support structure and proximate to the vertical tracks 18, therefore fully capable of configuring the massaging board 13 and stand assembly in a folded or unfolded state, Figure 5 and Paragraph 0066; see also Figures 8-9 of Yamasaki teaching a folded and unfolded state of the massaging assembly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamasaki’s massaging device such that it includes secondary beams configured to place the assembly in a folded and unfolded state, as taught by Cohen, as this would allow the device to be easily stored away while not in use.
Regarding claim 11, Yamasaki in view of Cohen teach the adjustable physical therapy device of claim 10, with Cohen further teaching footrest selectively coupled to the secondary support beams (see bottom beam 20 in Figure 5 configured to be placed near user’s foot); wherein the footrest comprising: a panel; parallel supports; the panel is selectably and rotatably affixed to parallel supports (bottom beam 20 comprising a panel top surface rotatably affixed to vertical legs 18 via adjustable knob 21, Paragraph 0067).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (4,947,833) in view of Cohen (US 2016/0338901 A1) and in further view of Trevino, JR. (US 2021/0338522 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yamasaki in view of Cohen teach the adjustable physical therapy device of claim 6, however is silent on further comprising the support structure comprises a pully system; and the pully system is functionally coupled to the massage frame.
However, Trevino, JR teaches a back massaging apparatus (Abstract and Figure 1), comprising a massaging frame (see massaging frame comprising massaging points 120, Figure 12) comprising a supporting structure (overhead bracket comprising an affixable bracket 600, Paragraph 0052 and Figure 12), wherein the support structure comprises a pulley system, such that the pulley system is functionally coupled to the massaging frame (see pulley 630 system attached to the massager, Figure 12 and Paragraph 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamasaki’s massaging device such that it comprises a support stricture comprising a pulley system, as taught by Trevino, as using a pulley system to adjust the location of the massaging frame with respect to the support structure, offers several advantages such as obtaining more control of the force applied without the need to press one’s hands against an opposing surface, and avoiding cords or other mechanisms chafing the body as the device is moved up or down (Paragraph 0053 of Trevino).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (4,947,833) in view of Cohen (US 2016/0338901 A1) and in further view of Engel (5,643,182).
Regarding claim 12, Yamasaki in view of Cohen teach the adjustable physical therapy device of claim 11, with Cohen further teaching wherein the massaging frame comprises an adjustable handle (adjustable handle 17 protruding from massaging board 13, Figure 3 and Paragraph 0075) that allows the massaging frame to be selectably positioned along the parallel tracks (see Figure 4 showing handle 17 placement along any of the holes 24 along parallel stand legs), however is silent wherein the adjustable handle comprises: a spring-loaded rod that selectably engages a vertical beam.
However, Engel teaches a massaging apparatus (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising a handle (handle portion 35, Figure 1) such that the handle comprises a spring-loaded rob selectively engaging a vertical beam (see handle 35 comprising a spring loaded tension rod 14, Figures 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamasaki’s massaging device such that it includes an adjustable handle portion comprising a spring loaded rod, as taught by Engel, as providing such a structure would therefore provide more adjustability to the overall device to better suit an individual’s personal preferences.
Claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (4,947,833) in view of Bove (6,065,210) and in further view of McCrae (US 2007/0075109 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Yamasaki discloses an adjustable physical therapy device (bed-type massaging apparatus comprising rollers which may be adjusted and/or moved transversely along the frame, Abstract and Figure 1), comprising: a massaging frame (bed-type massaging apparatus comprising an elongated frame, Abstract and Figure 1); massaging points (massaging rollers 7, Col. 2 lines 46-50 and Figure 1);; wherein the massaging frame comprises: vertical support arms (vertical parallel rails 2, Col. 2 lines 14-15 and Figures 1-3); horizontal support arms (horizontal rollers 7 supported by an intermediate shaft of each translational carriage 8, Col. 2 lines 54-60 and Figures 1-3); the vertical support arms are positioned parallel to each other (vertical parallel rails 2, Col. 2 lines 14-15 and Figures 1-3); the horizontal support arms are slidably coupled to the vertical support arms (the horizontal, intermediate shafts supporting the rollers 7 within the carriages 8 are movably supported for displacement longitudinally along the vertical side rails 2, Col. 2 lines 54-65 and Figures 1-3); and the massaging points are each slidably coupled to and protrude from one of the horizontal support arms in a manner to press against a user when the user is positioned against the massaging frame (the rollers 7 are capable of rollingly contacting and massaging the muscles of the back, the wait, the legs of the user, Col. 3 lines 51-57 and Figures 1-3).
However, Yamasaki is silent on one or more of the massaging points comprises a magnet positioned on an end of the massaging point; and one or more of the massaging points comprises an electrified end configured to provide pulsed electromagnetic field therapy.
However, Bove teaches a back massager apparatus (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising massaging points (massaging rollers 20, Figure 2 and Col. 4 lines 25-27) wherein the massaging points comprise a magnet positioned on its end (magnets 50 may be fitted into the groove 44 of the roller 20, to thereby impart magnetic fields from the rollers 20, Col. 4 lines 58-67 and Figures 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamasaki’s massaging device such that each massaging point includes a magnet, as taught by Bove, as providing a magnetic structure to therefore impart magnetic field stimulation to the user, as the use of magnetic fields may provide additional and/or supplemental therapeutic and restorative treatments to various limbs, organs, and other parts of the body (Col. 1 lines 15-20 of Bove).
Regarding electromagnetic therapy, McCrae teaches a therapeutic backpack massaging assembly (Abstract and Figure 1) wherein one or more of the massaging points comprises an electrified end configured to provide electromagnetic field therapy to the user (electromagnetic elements 24 configured as a series of electrical leads or contacts, Figure 4 and Paragraph 0046). The Examiner also notes the 112a rejection for this particular claim presented above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamasaki’s massaging device such that each massaging point includes an electrified end configured to provide electromagnetic field therapy, as taught by McCrae, as providing electromagnetic stimulation to the user, in addition to the massaging action, would therefore provide a supplemental therapeutic effect to as electromagnetic stimulation aides in alleviating back tightness and discomfort (Paragraph 0013 of McCrae).
Regarding claim 14, Yamasaki in view of Bove and McCrae teach the adjustable physical therapy device of claim 13, with Yamasaki further teaching wherein the vertical support arms each comprise a wheel (see vertical rails 2 each comprising a wheel 5, Figure 2 and Col. 2 lines 33-35); the wheel is rotatably coupled to the vertical support arm opposite the horizontal support arms (wheels 5 rotatably coupled to side rails 2 and opposite horizontal rollers 7, Figure 2 and Col. 2 lines 33-35).
Regarding claim 15, Yamasaki further teaches further comprising: a support structure (bed 1 covering, Figure 1 and Col. 3 lines 59-62); wherein the support structure is vertically or horizontally oriented (bed 1 is oriented both vertically and horizontally over the rollers and frame, Col. 3 lines 59-62); the massaging frame is coupled to the support structure (bed 1 is secured relative to the frame, Col. 3 lines 59-62).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SARAH B LEDERER whose telephone number is 571-272-7274. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached on (571)-270-7410. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARAH B LEDERER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/MARGARET M LUARCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights