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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “retention rims” of claim 1 line 8 and “pin heads” of claim 1 line 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner notes the specification says Figs. 6A-C show the “retention rims”, however it is unclear what structure in the figure shows the “retention rims” and there is no reference number . Additionally, the specification says Fig. 14 and 14A-B show the “pin heads”, however it is unclear what structure in the figure shows the “pin heads” and there is no reference number. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 1 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 1 line 3 , the term “each end segment” is unclear as to if these are the same or different segments as in “two end segments” in line 2. The “two end segments” should be referenced again for continuity. In line 5 , the term “the pin heads” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis. In line 5-6 , the term “the end segments” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis. In line 7 , the term “the middle segment roller balls” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis. In line 7 , the term “inner and outer handle grips” is unclear as to if the structure is the same or different than “a handle grip” in line 3-4. In line 8 , the term “anchors” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “an anchor” in line 3. In lines 7-8 , the term “ wherein the middle segment roller balls, inner and outer handle grips, anchors, and retention rims ” is unclear as to the claim language with listening structures after the term “wherein” not being clear as to where the structures are within. In line 8, the end of the claim is marked with “. .” indicated two periods when only one should be used if the claim is ending. Lastly, in line 9, the term “2.” is unclear as to why the number is listed at the end of the claim, or why a claim does not follow the listing of a second claim. 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 being anticipated by Potesak (US 2022/0015985). Regarding claim 1 , Potesak discloses a mobility staff ( Spinal adjustment apparatus 10 ) comprising a middle segment ( rod 12) and two end segments ( rod first end 14, second end 16; where handles 28 are disposed on the ends) ; wherein each end segment features an end ball ( outer cap portions 36) , an anchor ( inner cap portions 32) , and a handle grip ( medial grip portion 34) ; wherein the middle segment is designed to receive the pin heads of the end segments ( Fig. 4 engagement portions 18 align to engage with threaded handle aperture 30 of handles 28) , allowing for secure attachment ( [0023] alignment of the pieces prevents undesired disengagement) ; wherein the middle segment roller balls ( massage balls 22) , inner and outer handle grips ( portions of medial grip portions 34 closer to and further away from ends, or Fig. 1 outer handles being medial grip portions 34 and inner handles being greppable portion of rod 12 not contacted by balls 22) , anchors ( inner cap portions 32) , and retention rims ( threaded structure of rod 12; texture provides more retention). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. Nicholson (US 2008/0103421) , Fitzmaurice (US 2015/0150751), L’Homme et al. (US 2011/0245741), Bertram et al. (US 2013/0096472), Perez (US 2006/0142677), Gardner et al. (US 5,577,996), Indermill et al. (US 2014/0114221), and Hall et al. (US 2012/0310125) are cited to show a massage staff with roller balls /structures and handles. Wang (US 2017/0143581) and Ishibashi (US 10,799,420) are cited to show a massage stick with detachable/attachable handles via pins on the ends. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GWYNNETH L HOWELL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4742 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30-4:30 M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Justine Yu can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-4835 . 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. /GWYNNETH L HOWELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /RACHEL T SIPPEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785