DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-17, drawn to a combination of first and second massage roller assemblies, classified in A61H 2015/0007.
II. Claims 18-20, drawn to a subcombination of a massage roller comprising a handle, support arm, first axle, second axle, first roller element and second roller element, classified in A61H 15/0092.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination does not require the handle having a first end and a second end, with a support arm extending from the handle, with the first axle rod and second axle rod extending in opposite directions from the support arm. The subcombination has separate utility such as being used to massage a body part other than a limb, as a massage roller with a pair of rollers extending from first and second axles could be applied to the back, torso, or face (i.e., a cosmetic roller and/or ointment applicator).
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have different fields of search. For example, Invention I would require search queries for a plurality of massage assemblies configured to surround a limb in a resilient manner with a crossbar to apply massage to opposing sides of the arm/leg, while Invention II would require search queries for a handle that supports two massage roller elements, which would require searching for back massagers and cosmetic/beautification massage rollers that are configured for spreading ointment or applying massage to the face.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Jennifer Hamilton on February 3, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute Invention I, claims 1-17. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 11, 13-14, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7 recites “comprises of a” and Examiner suggests deleting “of” as it is unnecessary. For example, --comprises a--.
Claim 1, line 8 recites “comprises of a” and Examiner suggests deleting “of” as it is unnecessary. For example, --comprises a--.
Claim 1, the penultimate line recites “a user’s body” and Examiner suggests --the user’s body-- because a user’s body has already been recited in line 1.
Claim 3, line 2 recites “comprise of at” and Examiner suggests deleting “of” as it is unnecessary. For example, --comprise at--.
Claim 3, line 2 recites “comprises of at” and Examiner suggests deleting “of” as it is unnecessary. For example, --comprises at--.
Claim 3, line 4 recites “comprises of a” and Examiner suggests deleting “of” as it is unnecessary. For example, --comprises a--.
Claim 5, line 1 recites “comprises of a” and Examiner suggests deleting “of” as it is unnecessary. For example, --comprises a--.
Claim 6, line 1 recites “comprises of a” and Examiner suggests deleting “of” as it is unnecessary. For example, --comprises a--.
Claim 11, line 8 recites “comprise of at” and Examiner suggests deleting “of” as it is unnecessary. For example, --comprise at--.
Claim 13, line 1 recites “comprises of a” and Examiner suggests deleting “of” as it is unnecessary. For example, --comprises a--.
Claim 14, line 2 recites “comprise of at” and Examiner suggests deleting “of” as it is unnecessary. For example, --comprise at--.
Claim 14, line 2 recites “comprises of at” and Examiner suggests deleting “of” as it is unnecessary. For example, --comprises at--.
Claim 14, line 4 recites “comprises of at” and Examiner suggests deleting “of” as it is unnecessary. For example, --comprises at--.
Claim 16, line 1 recites “comprises of a” and Examiner suggests deleting “of” as it is unnecessary. For example, --comprises a--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are 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 1, lines 8-9 recite “at least one roller element” which is confusing because line 7 already recites “at least one roller element.” Examiner suggests distinguishing the at least one roller element of the first massage roller assembly and the at least one roller element of the second massage roller assembly.
Claim 1, the penultimate line recites “may be positioned” and the phrase “may be” renders the claim indefinite as it raises a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Examiner suggests --is configured to be positioned--.
Claim 8, line 3 recites “the height” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 11, the penultimate line recites “may be positioned” and the phrase “may be” renders the claim indefinite as it raises a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Examiner suggests --is configured to be positioned--.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence from a rejected base 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(s) 11-12, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nelson (2014/0228722).
Regarding claim 11, Nelson discloses a massage roller (Fig. 9) for massaging a massageable portion of a user's body (massageable portion 15, shown to be the leg, see Fig. 1), the massage roller comprising:
a cross member (cross member 40, Fig. 9) having a first end (first cross member end 43, Fig. 9), a middle portion (the portion of member 40 centrally located between ends 43, 44, see Figs. 8-9. Second end 44 is unlabeled in Fig. 9, but clearly illustrated in Fig. 8), and a second end (second cross member end 44, see Figs. 8-9), where the middle portion of the cross member is flexible (“cross member sufficiently resiliently flexible to allow a pair of handles to be drawn apart” see para. [0018] and see the dashed line illustrating the “open condition” 42 which has the middle portion of the cross member 40 straightening as the handles are drawn apart in Fig. 9);
first and second massage roller assemblies (massage roller assemblies 2, 3, including handles 29, 30, and handle supports 50, 51, 56, 57, Fig. 9), where the first massage roller assembly (2, 29, 50, 56, Fig. 9) is positioned on the first end of the cross member (positioned on first end 43 via handle supports 50, 56, see Fig. 9), and where the second massage roller assembly (3, 30, 51, 57, Figs. 8-9) is positioned on the second end of the cross member (positioned on second end 44 via handle supports 51, 57, see Figs. 8-9), and where the first and second massage roller assemblies (massage roller assemblies 2, 3, including handles 29, 30, and handle supports 50, 51, 56, 57, Fig. 9) each comprise of at least one roller element (each massage roller assembly comprises four roller elements 4, see Fig. 9), where the massageable portion of a user's body (massageable portion 15, shown to be the leg, Fig. 1) may be positioned between the at least one roller elements of the first and second massage roller assemblies (see Fig. 1 and lines 1-8 of [0044]).
Regarding claim 12, Nelson discloses where the middle portion of the cross member (central portion of 40, Fig. 9) flexes upon forcible urging (“cross member sufficiently resiliently flexible to allow a pair of handles to be drawn apart” see para. [0018] and see the dashed line illustrating the “open condition” 42 which has the middle portion of the cross member 40 straightening as the handles are drawn apart in Fig. 9) to increase the distance between the at least one roller element of the first massage roller assembly and the at least one roller element of the second massage roller assembly (the handles are “drawn apart” as stated in para. [0018], and this will increase the distance between the sets of roller elements 4, so that a limb can be inserted between the rollers in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 14, Nelson discloses where the first and second massage roller assemblies (massage roller assemblies 2, 3, including handles 29, 30, and handle supports 50, 51, 56, 57, Fig. 9) each comprise of at least two roller elements (each massage roller assembly has four roller elements 4, see Fig. 9), where the first massage roller assembly comprises of at least a first roller element (the roller 4 that is directly adjacent axle support 37 of roller assembly 2 is considered the “first roller element,” see Fig. 9) and a second roller element (the roller 4 that is directly adjacent axle support 38 of roller assembly 2 is considered the “second roller element,” see Fig. 9) and where the second massage roller assembly comprises of at least a third roller element (the roller 4 that is directly adjacent axle support 37 of roller assembly 3 is considered the “third roller element,” see Fig. 9) and a fourth roller element (the roller 4 that is directly adjacent axle support 38 of roller assembly 3 is considered the “fourth roller element,” see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 15, Nelson discloses where the first and second roller elements (roller assembly 2: roller element 4 adjacent axle support 37, and roller element 4 adjacent axle support 38, Fig. 9) are in spaced relationship to one another (they are spaced apart, see Fig. 9) and where the third and fourth roller elements (roller assembly 3: roller element 4 adjacent axle support 37, and roller element 4 adjacent axle support 38, Fig. 9) are in spaced relationship to one another (they are spaced apart, see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 17, Nelson discloses where the longitudinal axis of rotation of the first and second roller elements is misaligned from one another (see Fig. 9, the axle 5 has a curvature 14 and thus the longitudinal axis of rotation of the first and second roller elements is misaligned; see lines 4-6 of [0024]) and where the longitudinal axis of rotation of the third and fourth roller elements is misaligned from one another (see Fig. 9, the axle 5 has a curvature 14 and thus the longitudinal axis of rotation of the third and fourth roller elements is misaligned; see lines 4-6 of [0024]).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (2014/0228722) in view of Dagan (2015/0374576).
Regarding claim 1, Nelson discloses a massage roller (Fig. 9) for massaging a massageable portion of a user's body (massageable portion 15, shown to be the leg, see Fig. 1), the massage roller comprising:
a cross member (cross member 40, Fig. 9) having a first end (first cross member end 43, Fig. 9) and a second end (second cross member end 44, Figs. 8-9. Second end 44 is unlabeled in Fig. 9, but clearly illustrated in Fig. 8); and
first and second massage roller assemblies (massage roller assemblies 2, 3, including handles 29, 30, and handle supports 50, 51, 56, 57, Fig. 9), where the first massage roller assembly (2, 29, 50, 56, Fig. 9) is coupled to the first end of the cross member (handle supports 50, 56, are coupled to the first end 43, see Fig. 9) and the second massage roller assembly (3, 30, 51, 57, Figs. 8-9) is coupled to the second end of the cross member (handle supports 51, 57, are coupled to the second end 44, see Figs. 8-9), and where the first massage roller assembly (2, 29, 50, 56, Fig. 9) comprises of a first handle (handle 29, Fig. 9) and at least one roller element (four roller elements 4, Fig. 9) and where the second massage roller assembly (3, 30, 51, 57, Figs. 8-9) comprises of a second handle (handle 30, Fig. 9) and at least one roller element (four roller elements 4, Fig. 9), where the massageable portion of a user's body (massageable portion 15, shown to be the leg, Fig. 1) may be positioned between the at least one roller elements of the first and second massage roller assemblies (see Fig. 1 and lines 1-8 of [0044]).
Nelson is silent regarding the first massage roller assembly being detachably coupled, and the second massage assembly being detachably coupled. However, it is noted that it has been held that if it is considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a removed part, it would be obvious to make the part removable for that purpose (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)).
Furthermore, Dagan teaches a related massage roller assembly (body segments 11a, 11b, including roller mechanism 5, see Fig. 7) wherein a first massage roller assembly (roller mechanism 5, Fig. 7) is detachably coupled (via releasable locking mechanism 20, see Figs. 7-8 and para. [0048] listing various examples of potential locking mechanisms) to a first end of a body (the end with releasable locking mechanism 20, Figs. 7-8). This allows the massage roller (5) to be used independently if desired (see Fig. 9 and para. [0047]), and provides an expected result of more convenient storage (see the last three lines of [0037]). Although Dagan has only one massage roller assembly (5), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be beneficial to apply this detachability to each of the massage roller assemblies of Nelson so the device can be more easily stored, and to allow separate usage of the first and second roller assemblies.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second massage roller assemblies of Nelson to each be detachably coupled to the first and second ends of the cross member, respectively, as generally taught by Dagan so the device can be more easily stored, and to allow separate usage of the first and second roller assemblies. It is reiterated that it has been held obvious to make a part removable if it is considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a removed part (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Nelson/Dagan device discloses where the cross member (40, Nelson) flexes upon forcible urging (“cross member sufficiently resiliently flexible to allow a pair of handles to be drawn apart” see para. [0018] and see the dashed line illustrating the “open condition” 42 which has the middle portion of the cross member 40 straightening as the handles are drawn apart in Fig. 9 of Nelson) to increase the distance between the at least one roller element of the first massage roller assembly and the at least one roller element of the second massage roller assembly (the handles are “drawn apart” as stated in para. [0018], and this will increase the distance between the sets of roller elements 4, so that a limb can be inserted between the rollers in Fig. 9 of Nelson).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Nelson/Dagan device discloses where the first and second massage roller assemblies (massage roller assemblies 2, 3, including handles 29, 30, and handle supports 50, 51, 56, 57, Fig. 9 of Nelson) each comprise of at least two roller elements (each massage roller assembly has four roller elements 4, see Fig. 9 of Nelson), where the first massage roller assembly comprises of at least a first roller element (the roller 4 that is directly adjacent axle support 37 of roller assembly 2 is considered the “first roller element,” see Fig. 9 of Nelson) and a second roller element (the roller 4 that is directly adjacent axle support 38 of roller assembly 2 is considered the “second roller element,” see Fig. 9 of Nelson) and where the second massage roller assembly comprises of at least a third roller element (the roller 4 that is directly adjacent axle support 37 of roller assembly 3 is considered the “third roller element,” see Fig. 9 of Nelson) and a fourth roller element (the roller 4 that is directly adjacent axle support 38 of roller assembly 3 is considered the “fourth roller element,” see Fig. 9 of Nelson).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Nelson/Dagan device discloses where the first and second roller elements (roller assembly 2: roller element 4 adjacent axle support 37, and roller element 4 adjacent axle support 38, Fig. 9) are in spaced relationship to one another (they are spaced apart, see Fig. 9) and where the third and fourth roller elements (roller assembly 3: roller element 4 adjacent axle support 37, and roller element 4 adjacent axle support 38, Fig. 9) are in spaced relationship to one another (they are spaced apart, see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Nelson/Dagan device discloses where the longitudinal axis of rotation of the first and second roller elements is misaligned from one another (see Fig. 9 of Nelson, the axle 5 has a curvature 14 and thus the longitudinal axis of rotation of the first and second roller elements is misaligned; see lines 4-6 of [0024]) and where the longitudinal axis of rotation of the third and fourth roller elements is misaligned from one another (see Fig. 9 of Nelson, the axle 5 has a curvature 14 and thus the longitudinal axis of rotation of the third and fourth roller elements is misaligned; see lines 4-6 of [0024]).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Nelson/Dagan device discloses where the position of the at least one roller element (roller element(s) 4, on the first roller assembly 2, Fig. 9 of Nelson) of the first massage roller assembly mirrors the position of the at least one roller element (roller element(s) 4, on the second roller assembly 3, Fig. 9 of Nelson) of the second massage roller assembly along a plane that extends along the height (the roller elements 4, 4, are mirrored along a plane that extends along “the height” which is considered the longitudinal dimension substantially along the direction of the axles 5, see Fig. 9 of Nelson) and directly between the at least one roller element of the first massage roller assembly and the at least one roller element of the second massage roller assembly (see Fig. 9, the roller elements 4 of the first roller assembly 2 are mirrors of the position of the roller elements 4 of the second roller assembly 3).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Nelson/Dagan device discloses where the first massage roller assembly detaches from the first end (43, Fig. 9 of Nelson) of the cross member (40, Nelson) by actuating a first release button (releasable locking mechanism 20, Figs. 7-8 of Dagan, which may be “a single button” as stated in para. [0048]), and where the second massage roller assembly detaches from the second end (44, Figs. 8-9 of Nelson) of the cross member (40, Nelson) by actuating a second release button (in the modified device, each of the handles 29, 30, of Nelson are detachably connected to the first end and second end of the cross member, respectively, by a releasable locking mechanism 20 as taught by Dagan. Dagan states this may be “a single button” in para. [0048]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Nelson/Dagan device discloses where the first massage roller assembly includes a cavity (in the modified device, the first massage roller assembly includes a cavity that communicates with at least one hole 22 as seen in Fig. 8 of Dagan, the cavity being configured to receive the end with locking mechanism 20) for receiving the first end of the cross member (the first end 43 of the cross member in the modified device includes at least one projecting element such as releasable locking mechanism 20, Figs. 7-8 of Dagan, which is selectively inserted into the cavity of the corresponding massage roller assembly) and where the second massage roller assembly includes a cavity (in the modified device, the second massage roller assembly includes a cavity that communicates with at least one hole 22 as seen in Fig. 8 of Dagan, the cavity being configured to receive the end with locking mechanism 20) for receiving the second end of the cross member (the second end 44 of the cross member in the modified device includes at least one projecting element such as releasable locking mechanism 20, Figs. 7-8 of Dagan, which is selectively inserted into the cavity of the corresponding massage roller assembly).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (2014/0228722) in view of Dagan (2015/0374576) as applied to claim 4 and claim 15 above, and further in view of Levi (2022/0354732).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Nelson/Dagan device discloses a first axle rod (axle 5, Fig. 9 of Nelson) with the first roller element rotatably coupled to the first axle rod (“annular member (18) can be in secured fixed relation to the hub element (21) such that rotation of the hub element (21) about one of the pair of axles (5)(6) generates a corresponding rotation in the annular member (18)” see para. [0026] of Nelson), but is silent regarding where the first massage roller assembly comprises of a first axle rod and a second axle rod that extends away from the first axle rod, and the second roller element is rotatably coupled to the second axle rod.
Levi teaches a related massage roller device (Fig. 1) where a first massage roller assembly (the four rollers 10, 11, located on first arm 2, Fig. 1) comprises of a first axle rod and a second axle rod that extends away from the first axle rod (each roller 10, 11, has its own stem 15, as seen in Fig. 11. The stem of the bottom left roller 10 in Figure 7 is considered the “first axle rod” while the stem of the bottom right roller 10 in Figure 7 is considered the “second axle rod.” As seen in Figure 7, the first and second axle rods extend away from each other), where the first roller element (bottom left roller 10, Fig. 7) is rotatably coupled to the first axle rod and the second roller element (bottom right roller 10, Fig. 7) is rotatably coupled to the second axle rod (“as the roller body 12 is pressed against the user's body and rotates, the roller stem 15 also rotates with the roller body 12 ... both the roller body 12 and the roller stem 15 are free to rotate.” See Fig. 11 and para. [0022]). The angled, rotatable spherical rollers provide an expected result of helping to facilitate rotation against the curvature of the user’s body (see the penultimate sentence of [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first massage roller assembly and second massage roller assembly of Nelson/Dagan to each have a first axle rod and a second axle rod that extends away from the first axle rod, with roller elements rotatably coupled as taught by Levi because this roller arrangement provides an expected result that the angled rotatable spherical rollers help facilitate improved rotation against the curvature of the user’s body.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Nelson/Dagan/Levi device discloses where the second massage roller assembly comprises of a third axle rod and a fourth axle rod that extends away from the third axle rod (in the modified device, the second massage roller assembly includes the angled, spherical massage rollers taught by Levi. The stem of the top left roller 10 in Figure 7 is considered the “third axle rod” while the stem of the top right roller 10 in Figure 7 is considered the “fourth axle rod.” As seen in Figure 7, the third and fourth axle rods extend away from each other), where the third roller element is rotatably coupled to the third axle rod and the fourth roller element is rotatably coupled to the fourth axle rod (“as the roller body 12 is pressed against the user's body and rotates, the roller stem 15 also rotates with the roller body 12 ... both the roller body 12 and the roller stem 15 are free to rotate.” See Fig. 11 and para. [0022] of Levi).
Regarding claim 16, Nelson discloses a first axle rod (axle 5, Fig. 9) with the first roller element rotatably coupled to the first axle rod (“annular member (18) can be in secured fixed relation to the hub element (21) such that rotation of the hub element (21) about one of the pair of axles (5)(6) generates a corresponding rotation in the annular member (18)” see para. [0026]), but is silent regarding where the first massage roller assembly comprises of a first axle rod and a second axle rod that extends away from the first axle rod.
Levi teaches a related massage roller device (Fig. 1) where a first massage roller assembly (the four rollers 10, 11, located on first arm 2, Fig. 1) comprises of a first axle rod and a second axle rod that extends away from the first axle rod (each roller 10, 11, has its own stem 15, as seen in Fig. 11. The stem of the bottom left roller 10 in Figure 7 is considered the “first axle rod” while the stem of the bottom right roller 10 in Figure 7 is considered the “second axle rod.” As seen in Figure 7, the first and second axle rods extend away from each other), where the first roller element (bottom left roller 10, Fig. 7) is rotatably coupled to the first axle rod and the second roller element (bottom right roller 10, Fig. 7) is rotatably coupled to the second axle rod (“as the roller body 12 is pressed against the user's body and rotates, the roller stem 15 also rotates with the roller body 12 ... both the roller body 12 and the roller stem 15 are free to rotate.” See Fig. 11 and para. [0022]). The angled, rotatable spherical rollers provide an expected result of helping to facilitate rotation against the curvature of the user’s body (see the penultimate sentence of [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first massage roller assembly and second massage roller assembly of Nelson/Dagan to each have a first axle rod and a second axle rod that extends away from the first axle rod, with roller elements rotatably coupled as taught by Levi because this roller arrangement provides an expected result that the angled rotatable spherical rollers help facilitate improved rotation against the curvature of the user’s body.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (2014/0228722) in view of Forostenko (2020/0222271).
Regarding claim 13, Nelson is silent regarding where the cross member (40) comprises of a core material that thins out in the middle portion to provide flexibility.
Forostenko teaches a related massage roller device (Fig. 1) where a cross member (hinge region 24, Fig. 1) comprises of a core material (i.e., an essential material) that thins out in the middle portion to provide flexibility (“inconstant cross section is arranged to provide differing degrees of flexibility along the frame member such that the region about the base of the U is relatively more flexible than the remaining portions of the U” see the first two sentences of [0011], the first two sentences of [0043], and hinge region 24, Figs. 1-5. The hinge region 24 “being thinner in the relevant dimension than the remainder of the frame” see the second sentence of [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cross member of Nelson to comprise a core material that thins out in the middle portion to provide flexibility as taught by Forostenko because this is an alternative, equivalent mechanism to allow the cross member to be urged to an open position to allow the rollers to be arranged on opposing sides of a limb.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Holmstrom (1,400,547) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of rollers to roll against opposing sides of a limb. Luzzi (1,999,939) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of rollers that are angled relative to each other and carried by a handle. Cone (2,091,131) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of rollers to roll against opposing sides of a limb. Landis (3,583,396) discloses a related massage roller with a plurality of misaligned massage rollers. Iwahashi (4,493,315) discloses a related massage device with a central, core material that thins out to provide flexibility. Triggianese (2022/0409477) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of rollers to roll against opposing sides of a limb. Cross et al. (2018/0280229) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of rollers to roll against opposing sides of a limb. Kramer (2017/0056284) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of rollers to roll against opposing sides of a limb. Penn (2021/0030617) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of rollers to roll against opposing sides of a limb. Holdorf (2013/0018290) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of rollers to roll against a limb. Nash (2020/0368101) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of rollers to roll against opposing sides of a limb. Cheong (2021/0145689) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of rollers to roll against opposing sides of a limb. Sakamoto et al. (2005/0159688) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of rollers to roll against opposing sides of a limb. Cross (2019/0274915 and 2016/0296415 and 5,792,081) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of rollers to roll against opposing sides of a limb. Nelson (2019/0099323) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of rollers to roll against opposing sides of a limb. Meisch (2021/0369546) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of massagers to press against opposing sides of a limb, with the massagers having a cavity to receive a protrusion from the first and second ends of a cross member. Kim et al. (2020/0390642) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of rollers to roll against opposing sides of a limb. Nelson (2020/0246214) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of rollers to roll against opposing sides of a limb. Matsushita (D924,416) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of rollers to roll against opposing sides of a limb. Chen (D915,615) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of rollers to roll against opposing sides of a limb. Engel (5,643,182) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of rollers to roll against opposing sides of a limb. Xu (11,446,533) discloses a related massaging device with a plurality of rollers and a quick release button.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1473. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30 (Eastern).
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MILLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785