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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a speed reduction assembly” in claim 1. “Speed reduction” is the functional language, and “assembly” is the nonce term. This limitation is interpreted according to the original disclosure to include the structure of the embodiments of figures 7 and 9, including a worm wheel with circular shaft and worm connected to power source, and a transmission pair, where the transmission pair includes a driving pulley mounted to a circular shaft, a driven pully mounted on the rotating shaft, a belt between the driving pulley and the driven pulley (as described on page 3 and fig. 7) or, the transmission pair is a driven gear and a driving gear (as described on page 13 and in fig. 9)
“a transmission mechanism” in claim 1, where “transmission” is the functional language and “mechanism” is the nonce term. This limitation is interpreted to include the structure which transmits power to the telescopic shaft (page 6 of the original specification), which includes a connecting rod, a rotating block, with a hinge shaft and rotating shaft (specification page 9 and fig. 3).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as unpatentable over TW M605090 U, hereafter TW’090. A machine translation is relied upon to address claims.
Regarding Claim 1. TW’090 discloses a hand-held massage machine (fig. 1, 1, abstract), comprising: a handle (fig. 1, housing 10, page 2 last para.); a massage unit mounted on the handle (fig. 1, 18, page 3, fourth full para.) by means of a telescopic shaft (fig. 1, piston actuation structure, page 3, fourth full para.); a power source mounted in the handle (fig. 1, battery 15, page 3, first full para.); and a transmission mechanism (fig. 1, 120, 122, 124, page 3, sixth full para.) being in transmission connection between the power source and the telescopic shaft (fig. 1, the transmission components connect to power source 15 via motor 11, page 3 first full para. and 6th para.) so as to drive the telescopic shaft to stretch out and draw back on the handle (fig. 4, page 3 6th para.), wherein the transmission mechanism is provided with a counterweight portion (fig. 2, 122, page 3 6th para.) and the counterweight portion is linked to the transmission mechanism (figs. 1 and 2, counterweight portion 122 is part of the transmission mechanism).
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW’090 in view of Lev et al. (US 2003/0028134), hereafter Lev.
Regarding Claim 2, TW’090 discloses a hand-held massage machine according to claim 1, wherein the transmission mechanism comprises: a connecting rod (fig. 2, drive connecting rod 13, page 2 last para.), one end of which is hinged to the telescopic shaft (fig. 2, 13 is connected to 14 via a pin connection, page 2 last line to page 3 first 2 lines); a rotating block (fig. 2, pivot portion 120, page 3 6th para.) being rotationally mounted inside the handle (fig. 1, rotating block is located inside housing 10) by means of a rotating shaft (fig. 2, rotating shaft extending from the top of motor 11, page 3 6th para.), the rotating block being provided with a hinge shaft (fig. 2, eccentric hole 124, page 2 last para.), the hinge shaft being eccentrically arranged with relative to the rotating shaft (fig. 2 shows 120 and 124 eccentrically arranged, page 2 last para.), and the other end of the connecting rod being hinged to the rotating block by means of the hinge shaft (fig. 2, 13 is connected to 124 via pin connection, page 3 6th para.), , wherein the counterweight portion is fixedly connected to the rotating block (fig. 2, the counterweight portion 122 is integral with the rotating block portion of counterweight plate 12, page 2 last para.).
However, TW’090 is silent on a speed reduction assembly being in transmission connection between the power source and the rotating block so as to drive the rotating block to rotate around the rotating shaft.
Lev teaches a speed reduction assembly (fig. 6, ancillary transmission [0043]) being in transmission connection between a power source (fig. 6, ancillary transmission actuation member 112 engages with motor output shaft 54 [0043] which receives power from the cord shown in fig. 1) and a rotating block (fig. 4a, crank arm 56 [0031]) so as to drive the rotating block to rotate around the rotating shaft (fig. 4a, motor output shaft 54; [0043] the ancillary transmission is engaged with the motor output shaft 54; crank arm 56 is eccentrically affixed to a connecting rod; the bottom portion of crank arm acts as a counterweight [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a speed reduction assembly being in transmission connection between TW’090’s power source and rotating block so as to drive the rotating block to rotate around the rotating shaft, in the manner taught by Lev, for the benefit of allowing the user to reduce the rotation from a motor for a percussive massage effect (Lev [0050]).
Regarding Claim 3, TW’090 discloses a hand-held massage machine according to claim 2, wherein the counterweight portion and the rotating block are integrally formed (fig. 2, see annotated fig, the counterweight portion 124 and rotating block portion containing 124 are a single piece), and the counterweight portion and the hinge shaft are located on two sides of the rotating shaft respectively (fig. 2, counterweight portion 122 is located on the left side and hinge shaft 124 is located in the center and thus are on two sides of the rotating shaft).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, TW’090 as modified discloses a hand-held massage machine according to claim 3, wherein the speed reduction assembly (as taught by Lev) comprises: a worm wheel (Lev figs. 6 and 7, 128 [0047]) rotationally mounted inside the handle (as modified, the speed reduction assembly is located inside TW’090’s housing 10) by means of a circular shaft (Lev figs. 4a and 6, 128 rotates around a circular shaft in order for the gear to rotate [0047]); a worm (Lev fig. 6, 126 [0046]) connected to a power output end of the power source (Lev fig. 6, worm drive 126 is indirectly connected to the motor output shaft [0052]), wherein the worm wheel is meshed with the worm (Lev fig. 6 [0046]); and a transmission pair (Lev fig. 7, 122 and 120 [0046]).
The modified device is silent on the transmission pair being in transmission connection between the circular shaft and the rotating shaft (Lev fig. 6, the transmission pair 120, 122 is in transmission connection with the circular shaft connecting 128 and a rotating shaft, crank arm 56 [0052], which is analogous to TW’090’s rotating shaft; but, the modified device is silent on whether the transmission pair is in transmission connection between the circular shaft of 128 and TW’090’s rotating shaft located at 124, fig. 2).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to rearrange the speed reduction assembly taught by Lev by positioning the transmission pair as claimed in order to achieve the goal of reducing the motor speed to achieve percussive motion as taught by Lev ([0050]) as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claims 7, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over TW’090 in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0247271 A1), hereafter Lee.
Regarding Claim 7, TW’090 discloses a hand-held massage machine according to claim 1, but is silent on a weight ratio of the counterweight to the massage unit.
Lee teaches a percussive massage device (fig. 4, percussive mode [0030]) also having a counterweight (fig. 4, 56 [0036]) that should be adjusted to provide a weight balance such that when the percussion head is activated, the device produces percussion with a minimal amount of vibration, making the device more comfortable to use ([0036]).
It has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A). Optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over prior art (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the weight ratio of TW’090’s counterweight by making the ratio of the counterweight portion to the massage unit is n: 1, wherein 0.6<n<2 as a matter of routine optimization 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).
Regarding Claim 12, TW’090 discloses a hand-held massage machine according to claim 1, but is silent on a weight ratio of the counterweight to the massage unit.
Lee teaches a percussive massage device (fig. 4, percussive mode [0030]) also having a counterweight (fig. 4, 56 [0036]) that should be adjusted to provide a weight balance such that when the percussion head is activated, the device produces percussion with a minimal amount of vibration, making the device more comfortable to use ([0036]).
It has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A). Optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over prior art (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the weight ratio of TW’090’s counterweight by making the ratio of the counterweight portion to the massage unit is n:1, wherein 1<n<2 as a matter of routine optimization 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).
Regarding Claim 17, TW’090 discloses a hand-held massage machine according to claim 1, but is silent on a weight ratio of the counterweight to the massage unit.
Lee teaches a percussive massage device (fig. 4, percussive mode [0030]) also having a counterweight (fig. 4, 56 [0036]) that should be adjusted to provide a weight balance such that when the percussion head is activated, the device produces percussion with a minimal amount of vibration, making the device more comfortable to use ([0036]).
It has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A). Optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over prior art (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the weight ratio of TW’090’s counterweight by making the weight ratio of the counterweight portion to the massage unit is n: 1, wherein n=1.5 as a matter of routine optimization 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).
Claims 8-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over TW’090 and Lev, further in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 8, TW’090 as modified discloses a hand-held massage machine according to claim 2, but is silent on a weight ratio of the counterweight to the massage unit.
Lee teaches a percussive massage device (fig. 4, percussive mode [0030]) also having a counterweight (fig. 4, 56 [0036]) that should be adjusted to provide a weight balance such that when the percussion head is activated, the device produces percussion with a minimal amount of vibration, making the device more comfortable to use ([0036]).
It has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A). Optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over prior art (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the weight ratio of TW’090’s counterweight by making the ratio of the counterweight portion to the massage unit is n: 1, wherein 0.6<n<2 as a matter of routine optimization 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).
Regarding Claim 9, TW’090 as modified discloses a hand-held massage machine according to claim 4, but is silent on a weight ratio of the counterweight to the massage unit.
Lee teaches a percussive massage device (fig. 4, percussive mode [0030]) also having a counterweight (fig. 4, 56 [0036]) that should be adjusted to provide a weight balance such that when the percussion head is activated, the device produces percussion with a minimal amount of vibration, making the device more comfortable to use ([0036]).
It has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A). Optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over prior art (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the weight ratio of TW’090’s counterweight by making the ratio of the counterweight portion to the massage unit is n: 1, wherein 0.6<n<2 as a matter of routine optimization 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).
Regarding Claim 10, TW’090 as modified discloses a hand-held massage machine according to claim 5, but is silent on a weight ratio of the counterweight to the massage unit.
Lee teaches a percussive massage device (fig. 4, percussive mode [0030]) also having a counterweight (fig. 4, 56 [0036]) that should be adjusted to provide a weight balance such that when the percussion head is activated, the device produces percussion with a minimal amount of vibration, making the device more comfortable to use ([0036]).
It has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A). Optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over prior art (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the weight ratio of TW’090’s counterweight by making the ratio of the counterweight portion to the massage unit is n: 1, wherein 0.6<n<2 as a matter of routine optimization 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).
Regarding Claim 11, TW’090 as modified discloses a hand-held massage machine according to claim 6, but is silent on a weight ratio of the counterweight to the massage unit.
Lee teaches a percussive massage device (fig. 4, percussive mode [0030]) also having a counterweight (fig. 4, 56 [0036]) that should be adjusted to provide a weight balance such that when the percussion head is activated, the device produces percussion with a minimal amount of vibration, making the device more comfortable to use ([0036]).
It has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A). Optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over prior art (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the weight ratio of TW’090’s counterweight by making the ratio of the counterweight portion to the massage unit is n: 1, wherein 0.6<n<2 as a matter of routine optimization 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).
Regarding Claim 13, TW’090 discloses a hand-held massage machine according to claim 2, but is silent on a weight ratio of the counterweight to the massage unit.
Lee teaches a percussive massage device (fig. 4, percussive mode [0030]) also having a counterweight (fig. 4, 56 [0036]) that should be adjusted to provide a weight balance such that when the percussion head is activated, the device produces percussion with a minimal amount of vibration, making the device more comfortable to use ([0036]).
It has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A). Optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over prior art (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the weight ratio of TW’090’s counterweight by making the ratio of the counterweight portion to the massage unit is n:1, wherein 1<n<2 as a matter of routine optimization 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).
Regarding Claim 14, TW’090 discloses a hand-held massage machine according to claim 4, but is silent on a weight ratio of the counterweight to the massage unit.
Lee teaches a percussive massage device (fig. 4, percussive mode [0030]) also having a counterweight (fig. 4, 56 [0036]) that should be adjusted to provide a weight balance such that when the percussion head is activated, the device produces percussion with a minimal amount of vibration, making the device more comfortable to use ([0036]).
It has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A). Optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over prior art (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the weight ratio of TW’090’s counterweight by making the ratio of the counterweight portion to the massage unit is n:1, wherein 1<n<2 as a matter of routine optimization 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).
Regarding Claim 15, TW’090 discloses a hand-held massage machine according to claim 5, but is silent on a weight ratio of the counterweight to the massage unit.
Lee teaches a percussive massage device (fig. 4, percussive mode [0030]) also having a counterweight (fig. 4, 56 [0036]) that should be adjusted to provide a weight balance such that when the percussion head is activated, the device produces percussion with a minimal amount of vibration, making the device more comfortable to use ([0036]).
It has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A). Optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over prior art (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the weight ratio of TW’090’s counterweight by making the ratio of the counterweight portion to the massage unit is n:1, wherein 1<n<2 as a matter of routine optimization 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).
Regarding Claim 16, TW’090 discloses a hand-held massage machine according to claim 6, but is silent on a weight ratio of the counterweight to the massage unit.
Lee teaches a percussive massage device (fig. 4, percussive mode [0030]) also having a counterweight (fig. 4, 56 [0036]) that should be adjusted to provide a weight balance such that when the percussion head is activated, the device produces percussion with a minimal amount of vibration, making the device more comfortable to use ([0036]).
It has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A). Optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over prior art (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the weight ratio of TW’090’s counterweight by making the ratio of the counterweight portion to the massage unit is n:1, wherein 1<n<2 as a matter of routine optimization 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).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over TW’090 in view of Harris et al. (US 2002/0161315 A1), hereafter Harris.
Regarding Claim 18, Harris discloses a hand-held massage machine according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the massage unit is provided with a soft rubber sleeve in a sleeving manner.
Harris discloses a percussive massage device (fig. 2, abstract) which has a massage unit (fig. 2, 20 [0015]) with a rubber covering (fig. 3, 15 [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a soft rubber sleeve in a sleeving manner over the massage unit as taught by Harris in order to provide the user with a comfortable massage head to deliver a safe and effective massage to the user as taught by Harris ([0015]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding Claim 5, TW’090 as modified discloses a hand-held massage machine according to claim 4, but is silent on wherein the transmission pair comprises: a driving pulley mounted on the circular shaft; a driven pulley mounted on the rotating shaft; and a belt connected between the driving pulley and the driven pulley, wherein the belt, the driving pulley and the driven pulley form belt transmission.
While Lev includes a driving pulley (fig. 7, 120 [0045]), a driven pulley (fig. 7, 122 [0046]), and a belt connected between the driving pulley and the driven pulley (fig. 7, 124 [0046]), the driving pulley is not mounted on the circular shaft, nor is the driven pulley mounted on the rotating shaft.
There does not appear to be prior art of record which includes a transmission pair comprising a driving pulley mounted on the circular shaft, i.e., the same shaft on which the worm wheel is mounted in addition to a driven pulley being mounted on the rotating shaft, i.e., the same shaft as the rotating block of the counterweight and the connecting rod.
Regarding Claim 6, TW’090 as modified discloses a hand-held massage machine according to claim 4, wherein the transmission pair comprises: a driving gear (as modified by Lev fig. 7, worm gear 129 [0047]); and a driven gear (Lev fig. 7, 130 [0047]), wherein the driven gear is meshed with the driving gear (fig. 7 [0047]).
However, the driving gear of the modified device is not mounted on the circular shaft, i.e., the same shaft as the worm wheel, in addition to the driven gear not being mounted on the rotating shaft, i.e., the same shaft as the rotating block of the counterweight and the connecting rod.
There does not appear to be prior art of record which includes the arrangement of these structures including all the requirements of the intervening claims 1-4.
Thus, claim 5 and claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, including all of the limitations of the base claim and intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 20110045877 A1 discloses a reciprocating percussion massage device having an eccentric shaft (fig. 2, 27), a worm and worm gear (fig. 2, 25) to transmit motion from the motor (fig. 2, 23), and a transmitting member (fig. 2, 28; “Background of the Invention” para.).
US 2017/0156974 fig. 4 shows an arrangement of a drive pulley ([0028]).
US 2010/0010399 A1 fig. 6 shows a transmission arrangement for a linear motion massage apparatus.
US 2015/0148592 A1 fig. 52d discloses a worm, worm gear, and a reciprocating arm [0096]).
EP 1649845 fig. 6 discloses a counterweight (51) with a geared transmission and pulley (43, 47).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA K. TOICH whose telephone number is (703)756-1450. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30 am - 4:30 pm, every other F 7:30-3:30 ET.
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 S. Lee can be reached at (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 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.
/SARA K TOICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785