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 .
This action is in response to the filing on 5/27/2026. Since the previous filing, claims 1-19 have been cancelled, claims 20-32 have been added and no claims have been amended. Thus, claims 20-32 are pending in the application.
In regards to the previous 112 Rejections, Applicant has cancelled the claims at issue and they are therefore withdrawn with new rejections entered below.
In regards to the previous 1013 Rejections, Applicant has cancelled the claims at issue and they are therefore withdrawn with new rejections entered below.
Claim Objections
Claims 24 and 29-30 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 line 1: change “the the” to “the”
Claim 29 line 1: change “claim 1” to “claim 20”
Claim 30 line 1: change “claim 1” to “claim 20)
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.
Claim 21 is 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. The claim recites the limitation of “a RFID modulator” in line 3. There is no mention of this feature in the instant specification. Based upon the previous claims and the instant specification, Examiner presumes this is intended to read “transponder” and this rejection may be overcome by amending “modulator” to reach “transponder” as seen in the specification.
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 23 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.
Claim 23 recites the limitation of “a touch screen” on line 1-2. The claims are unclear as to whether this is a different touch screen than that which was previously introduced in claim 20. As the descriptions of the two touch screens in the claims is identical in placement and the specification does not support two touch screens on the handheld device, and for the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting this as the same touch screen as previously introduced.
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.
Claim(s) 20, 22-24, 27-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz (US 2023/0080370) in view of Meisinger (US 2024/0108537) and Riveron (US 2020/0390632).
In regards to claim 20, Katz discloses a handheld treatment head that includes: an elongate body (upper body portion 112) having a distal end and a proximal end (Fig 1); a stylus disposed on the distal end of the elongate body (applicator heads); an actuator for driving the stylus in a linear direction (paragraph 79 and 95); and an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (paragraph 278), the stylus being slidably, releasably retained in the impulse treatment head and extending outwardly at the distal end thereof and being releasably coupled to the actuator (paragraph 107 and 123-125).
Katz does not disclose a touch screen disposed on the proximal end of the elongate body, the touch screen for displaying target alignment data and actual alignment of the patient and for displaying adjusted alignment data in response to moving the treatment head to a target treatment position for the patient.
However, Meisinger teaches a handheld treatment device (therapy device 10) having a touch screen disposed on the proximal end of the elongate body (touch screen 18), the touch screen for displaying device and treatment data and for displaying adjusted data in response use of the device (touch screen 18 shows real time adjustable parameters, paragraph 46 and 50-52).
Further, Riveron teaches wherein a treatment interface is a touch screen (tablet computer 200) configured to display control information (paragraph 113), such control data including location and alignment data (position and angle of application controlled, paragraph 16 and 48-50).
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 Katz to have a touch screen disposed on the proximal end of the elongate body, the touch screen for displaying target alignment data and actual alignment of the patient and for displaying adjusted alignment data in response to moving the treatment head to a target treatment position for the patient as taught by Meisinger and Riveron as this would ensure that the therapy is applied in the correct and most effective manner to a patient.
In regards to claim 22, Katz in view of Meisinger and Riveron teaches the device of claim 20 and Katz further discloses wherein the treatment head further comprises firmware, the firmware in electronic communication with the IMU and configured to determine an orientation of the stylus and calculate a difference between the orientation and an angle of attack (firmware, paragraph 298, IMU, 295-297).
In regards to claim 23, Katz in view of Meisinger and Riveron teaches the device of claim 20 and the combination further teaches wherein the treatment head includes a touchscreen on its proximal end for adjusting and displaying an angle for applying a treatment with the device (Meisinger: touch screen 18 shows real time adjustable parameters, paragraph 46 and 50 and 52-52; Riveron: position and angle of application controlled, paragraph 16 and 48-50).
In regards to claim 24, Katz in view of Meisinger and Riveron teaches the device of claim 20 and Katz further discloses wherein the impulse treatment head is releasably attachable to a holding arm by a release mechanism close to its proximal end (paragraph 123-125).
In regards to claim 27, Katz in view of Meisinger and Riveron teaches the device of claim 20 and the combination further teaches the device of claim 20 (see Claim 20 Rejection above) as part of a kit, the kit comprising a plurality of stylus tips (Katz: paragraph 123-125).
In regards to claim 28, Katz in view of Meisinger and Riveron teaches the device of claim 27 and Katz further discloses wherein the plurality of stylus tips are selected from single tip having diameter from 5 to 8 mm, a flattened tip with a diameter than is greater than 1 cm, a rounded tip with a diameter that is greater than 1 cm, a dual tip and a triple tip (paragraph 123-125).
In regards to claim 29, Katz in view of Meisinger and Riveron teaches the device of claim 20 and the combination further teaches wherein the touchscreen displays icons allowing a user to control operation of the treatment by touching an icon (Meisinger: paragraph 52).
In regards to claim 30, Katz in view of Meisinger and Riveron teaches the device of claim 20 and the combination further teaches wherein the touchscreen comprises a treatment vector dial for aligning a treatment vector with a target vector for the patient (Meisinger: touch screen may have dials for control purposes, paragraph 10 and 47; Riveron: position and angle of application controlled, paragraph 16 and 48-50).
In regards to claim 31, Katz discloses an treatment system comprising a handheld impulse treatment head (massage applicator 100), a computing device (tablet computer 200) and a stylus (applicator heads), the impulse treatment head including a proximal end, a distal end, an actuator for driving the stylus in a linear direction (Fig 1), firmware, and an IMU in electronic communication with the firmware (firmware, paragraph 298, IMU, 295-297), wherein the firmware is configured to record and report a treatment vector to the computing device (paragraph 279); the computing device includes software which is configured for calibrating or training the firmware and is in wired or wireless communication with the firmware in the impulse treatment head (paragraph 279); and the stylus is slidably and releasably retained in the impulse treatment head and extends outwardly at the distal end and is releasably coupled to the actuator (paragraph 107 and 123-125).
Katz does not disclose a touchscreen in electronic communication with the firmware, the touchscreen disposed on the proximal end, the touch screen for displaying target alignment data and actual alignment of the patient and for displaying adjusted alignment data in response to moving the treatment head to a target treatment position for the patient.
However, Meisinger teaches a handheld treatment device (therapy device 10) having a touch screen disposed on the proximal end of the elongate body (touch screen 18), the touch screen for displaying device and treatment data and for displaying adjusted data in response use of the device (touch screen 18 shows real time adjustable parameters, paragraph 46 and 50-52).
Further, Riveron teaches wherein a treatment interface is a touch screen (tablet computer 200) configured to display control information (paragraph 113), such control data including location and alignment data (position and angle of application controlled, paragraph 16 and 48-50).
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 Katz to have a touch screen disposed on the proximal end of the elongate body, the touch screen for displaying target alignment data and actual alignment of the patient and for displaying adjusted alignment data in response to moving the treatment head to a target treatment position for the patient as taught by Meisinger and Riveron as this would ensure that the therapy is applied in the correct and most effective manner to a patient.
In regards to claim 32, Katz teaches a method of treating a patient with an impulse treatment system, the system comprising the handheld impulse treatment head (massage application 100), a stylus (applicator heads) and a computing device (tablet computer 200), the handheld impulse treatment head including: a body having a distal end; a proximal end (Fig 1); an actuator for driving the stylus in a linear direction (paragraph 79 and 95); an internal inertial measurement unit (IMU) (paragraph 278), firmware (paragraph 289) and a wireless radio (paragraph 216); the stylus is slidably, releasably retained in the handheld impulse treatment head and extends outwardly at the distal end and is releasably coupled to the actuator (paragraph 107); and the computing device includes a database of patient treatment vectors and is in wireless communication with the firmware in the handheld impulse treatment head, wherein: the computing device provides a treatment vector to the firmware in the handheld impulse treatment head; a user positions the handheld impulse treatment head on the patient (paragraph 279); the user aligns the treatment vector by viewing the display on the touchscreen of the handheld impulse treatment head and adjusting the position of the handheld impulse treatment head (paragraph 290); the user selects a treatment protocol; and the patient is thereby treated (paragraph 220 and 270).
Katz does not disclose a touch screen on the proximal end, the touch screen for displaying target alignment data and actual alignment of the patient and for displaying adjusted alignment data in response to moving the treatment head to a target treatment position for the patient.
However, Meisinger teaches a handheld treatment device (therapy device 10) having a touch screen disposed on the proximal end of the elongate body (touch screen 18), the touch screen for displaying device and treatment data and for displaying adjusted data in response use of the device (touch screen 18 shows real time adjustable parameters, paragraph 46 and 50-52).
Further, Riveron teaches wherein a treatment interface is a touch screen (tablet computer 200) configured to display control information (paragraph 113), such control data including location and alignment data (position and angle of application controlled, paragraph 16 and 48-50).
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 Katz to have a touch screen disposed on the proximal end of the elongate body, the touch screen for displaying target alignment data and actual alignment of the patient and for displaying adjusted alignment data in response to moving the treatment head to a target treatment position for the patient as taught by Meisinger and Riveron as this would ensure that the therapy is applied in the correct and most effective manner to a patient.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz (US 2023/0080370) in view of Meisinger (US 2024/0108537) and Riveron (US 2020/0390632) and in further view of Giraud (EP 2922518) and Kargl (US 2011/0215158).
In regards to claim 21, Katz in view of Meisinger and Riveron teaches the device of claim 20.
Katz does not disclose wherein the impulse treatment head further comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader and the stylus further comprises an RFID tag and an RFID modulator.
However, Giraud teaches wherein the impulse treatment head further comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader and the stylus further comprises an RFID tag (paragraph 81 and 113 and 142).
Further, Kargl teaches wherein RFID systems comprise modulators (paragraph 5 and 27).
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 Katz wherein the impulse treatment head further comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader and the stylus further comprises an RFID tag and an RFID modulator as taught by Giraud and Kargl as this is a known construction of RFID devices and would ensure that only the appropriate styluses would be attached to the head.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz (US 2023/0080370) in view of Meisinger (US 2024/0108537) and Riveron (US 2020/0390632) and in further view of Giraud (EP 2922518).
In regards to claim 26, Katz in view of Meisinger and Riveron teaches the device of claim 20.
Katz does not disclose wherein the stylus has a radio frequency identification tag (RFID), wherein the RFID is read by an RFID reader and through which a number of treatments, types of treatment, an age of the stylus and/or patient identification are tracked for each stylus.
However, Giraud teaches wherein the stylus has a radio frequency identification tag (RFID), wherein the RFID is read by an RFID reader and through which a number of treatments, types of treatment, an age of the stylus and/or patient identification are tracked for each stylus (treatment is controlled by the identifier on the head, paragraph 81 and 113 and 142).
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 Katz wherein the stylus has a radio frequency identification tag (RFID), wherein the RFID is read by an RFID reader and through which a number of treatments, types of treatment, an age of the stylus and/or patient identification are tracked for each stylus as taught by Giraud as this would help ensure that the device operates as best suits the patient.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz (US 2023/0080370) in view of Meisinger (US 2024/0108537) and Riveron (US 2020/0390632) and in further view of Leathers (US 2011/0224580).
In regards to claim 25, Katz in view of Meisinger and Riveron teaches the device of claim 20.
While Katz does disclose different colored LEDs used to indicate different status’ (paragraph 88), firmware use to control the device (paragraph 298), Katz does not disclose further comprising: light emitting diodes housed in the treatment head, the light emitting diodes for illuminating the stylus with different colors under control of firmware, with one color indicating a higher than acceptable force, a second color indicating appropriate force and a third color indicating lower than acceptable force, when force is applied to a subject via the stylus.
However, Leathers teaches a handheld therapy device that uses LEDs housed in the treatment head which indicate various force levels and their relation to a target (paragraph 25 and 31 and 35)
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 Katz further comprising: light emitting diodes housed in the treatment head, the light emitting diodes for illuminating the stylus with different colors under control of firmware, with one color indicating a higher than acceptable force, a second color indicating appropriate force and a third color indicating lower than acceptable force, when force is applied to a subject via the stylus as taught by Leathers as this would be an effective means by which to allow the user to monitor therapy application to best provide treatment to the patient.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the arguments concerning the combination, these arguments are partially addressed in the new rejections entered above.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Further, Applicant’s arguments focus on a failure of individual references to completely teach all aspects of the instant invention. Examiner notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2145(IV). While Examiner concedes that the individual references do not teach all limitations of the claims, they respectfully disagree that it is unreasonable or nonobvious to combine a handheld massage device (Katz) with another handheld massage device having a touch screen user interface (Meisinger) and further combine with the position control features of another massage device (Riveron) as seen in the new rejections entered above. Further, with respect to the specific arguments regarding the teaching of Meisinger, Applicant argues as to the specific controls offered by Meisinger, which do not include alignment or positioning. As stated above, Meisinger is called on to teach the touchscreen and the nature of the control interface, not specific controls offered. Alignment and position control is taught using Riveron and, as outlined above, Examiner considers it reasonable and obvious to combine a control interface (Meisinger) and the precise control offered for analogous devices (Riveron).
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 Arielle Wolff whose telephone number is (571)272-8727. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00.
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.
/ARIELLE WOLFF/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights