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 electromagnetic induction unit disposed on the upper side of the elevation module of claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It appears that figure 7 may show this configuration, but the reference numbers for the drawing do not clearly show whether the electromagnetic induction unit is located on the elevation module. No new matter should be entered.
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
The specification submitted 05/26/2023 is objected to since OPLA states that incorporations by reference to foreign priority documents when added by amendment at the time of entry to the national stage should be objected to as adding new matter. See MPEP 608.01(p)(I)(B): “an incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a))”. See also MPEP 1893.03(b): An international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and national) with the filing date being the same in both stages. Often the date of entry into the national stage is confused with the filing date. It should be borne in mind that the filing date of the international stage application is also the filing date for the national stage application. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 363 provides that an international application designating the United States shall have the effect, from its international filing date under Article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office.
Similarly, PCT Article 11(3) provides that “...an international filing date shall have the effect of a regular national application in each designated State as of the international filing date, which date shall be considered to be the actual filing date in each designated State.”
It is suggested to remove the incorporation by reference to the foreign priority document.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
There appears to be a typographical error on page 22 line 5 “the third heat-generating unit 633”, which has previously been indicated with reference number 630.
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.
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 limitations are:
A pressure module in claim 1, which is interpreted to be a device that massages the spine (page 10 line 9).
A pressure unit in claim 1, which is interpreted to be the portion of the pressure module that applies pressure to the user via a rotational motion, based on specification page 10 lines 17-20.
A heat-generating unit in claim 1 is interpreted to be a conductive portion of the device which heats in response to the current induced by an electromagnetic induction coil (page 14 lines 7-15)
A driving unit in claim 9, which is interpreted to be a motor based on specification page 11, lines 14-18.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a plurality of conductive units that generate heat by generating an induced current by the electromagnetic induction unit” appears to have a grammatical error. This limitation may be more readily understood by amending to recite: “a plurality of conductive units that generate heat via a current induced by the electromagnetic induction unit”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 and 7 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 5 limitation “surrounds the first heat-generating unit” is unclear, since “surround” is defined as “to enclose on all sides “ (Merriam-Webster). The claim wording is not clear how both a second heat-generating unit and a third heat-generating unit can surround the first heat-generating unit where the second and third heat generating units also each extend from one side of the first heat-generating unit. It appears that the claimed heat-generating units do not surround the first heat generating unit according to the dictionary definition, but instead partially surround the first heat-generating unit, based on figure 11.
Claim 7 limitation “a plurality of second heat-generating units… are formed in a spiral shape” is not clear, since it is not clear whether the heat-generating units are supposed to individually be spiral-shaped, or arranged in a spiral shape. This claim has been interpreted to mean that the plurality of heat-generating units are arranged in a spiral shape, as depicted in fig. 12.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuitsui et al. (JP 2013126456. A1), hereafter Tsuitsui. A machine translation is relied upon to address claims.
Regarding Claim 1, Tsutsui discloses a pressure module (fig. 1, treatment device 21 [0016]), comprising: a pressure unit which has an interior space (fig. 7, massage ball 41 [0033]); a heat-generating unit (fig. 7, heat source portion 42 [0033]) which is inserted in the interior space (fig. 7, 42 is shown inserted into the interior space of 41) and generates heat such that the pressure unit is heated (heat source conducts heat from the power transmission coils [0033]); and an electromagnetic induction unit (fig. 7, power transmission coils 30a-d [0033]; [0035] the coils are electromagnetic) which generates an induced current such that the heat-generating unit generates heat ([0035]).
Regarding Claim 2, Tsuitsui discloses a pressure module of claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic induction unit is inserted into the heat-generating unit (figs. 7 and 8, the power transmission coils 30a-d are inserted into the interior of heat source portion 42).
Regarding Claim 9, Tsuitsui discloses a thermotherapy apparatus (fig. 1, [0020]), comprising: a pressure module for thermotherapy (fig. 1, treatment device 21 [0016]); and a driving unit for moving the pressure module ([0014] driving motor for the massage unit 20 is provided but not shown), wherein the pressure module comprises: a pressure unit which has an interior space (fig. 7, massage ball 41 [0033]); a heat-generating unit (fig. 7, heat source portion 42 [0033]) which is inserted in the interior space (fig. 7, 42 is shown inserted into the interior space of 41) and generates heat such that the pressure unit is heated (as interpreted according to the 112(b) rejection above, heat source is a conductor [0033]); and an electromagnetic induction unit (fig. 7, power transmission coils 30a-d [0033]; [0035] the coils are electromagnetic) which generates an induced current such that the heat-generating unit generates heat ([0035]); and a support unit for supporting the pressure module (fig. 7, arm 22 [0016]), wherein the heat-generating unit rotates relative to the electromagnetic induction unit in a non-rotating state such that the heat-generating unit rotates together with the pressure module (fig. 7, shaft 24 is fixed [0016]; [0034] 42 is fixed to 43 and thus rotates around the fixed electromagnetic induction unit as described in [0023]).
Regarding Claim 10, Tsuitsui discloses a thermotherapy apparatus of claim 9, wherein the outer side surface of the heat-generating unit is in contact with the inner side surface of the pressure unit (fig. 7, 42 is fixedly adhered to roller ball pressing portion 43 [0034]).
Regarding Claim 11, Tsuitsui discloses a thermotherapy apparatus of claim 10, wherein the electromagnetic induction unit is inserted into the heat-generating unit (fig. 7 shows 30a-d inserted within the interior of 42), and wherein a separation space is formed between the heat-generating unit and the electromagnetic induction unit such that heat generated from the heat-generating unit is not directly conducted to the electromagnetic induction unit (figs. 7 and 8, a gap is shown between the coils 30a-d and 42).
Regarding Claim 12, Tsuitsui discloses a thermotherapy apparatus of claim 11, further comprising: a power supply unit for supplying current to the electromagnetic induction unit ([0018] a power supply is present in the invention to supply power to the coils but is not shown), wherein the electromagnetic induction unit is provided with a coil that receives current from the power supply unit to generate an induced current ([0018]).
Regarding Claim 13, Tsuitsui discloses a thermotherapy apparatus of claim 12, wherein the coil is formed in a spiral shape that is wound multiple times (fig. 7, 30a-d are coils that are spiral shaped [0018]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tsuitsui.
Regarding Claim 4, Tsuitsui discloses a pressure module of claim 1, but does not explicitly state whether wherein the pressure unit and the heat- generating unit are integrally formed, and the heat-generating unit is made of a metal material (“integrally formed” is interpreted to mean a single piece, incapable of being easily dismantled without destroying the integrity of the piece; Tsuitsui discloses that the pressure unit, fig. 7 massaging ball 41, is adhesively fixed to heat-generating unit, heat source portion 42 [0034]; but it is not clearly stated if the pieces are integral).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the pressure unit integrally formed with the heat-generating unit, since it has been held that "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected und er 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tsuitsui in view of Choi (KR 101890070 B1), hereafter Choi. A machine translation is relied upon to address claims.
Regarding Claim 5, Tsuitsui discloses a pressure module of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the heat-generating unit comprises: a first heat-generating unit which is spaced apart from the pressure unit; a second heat-generating unit which extends from one side of the first heat-generating unit, surrounds the first heat-generating unit (as best understood based on the 112(b) rejection above, the second heat-generating unit does not fully surround the first heat-generating unit), and contacts the pressure unit; and a third heat-generating unit which extends from the other side of the first heat-generating unit, surrounds the first heat-generating unit, and contacts the pressure unit, wherein the third heat-generating unit is disposed to be spaced apart from the second heat-generating unit.
Choi teaches a heating device which includes a first heat-generating unit (fig. 7, case 110 has a first heat-generating unit portion 111, which surrounds a heating body 120 and conducts heat [0053]); a second heat-generating unit which extends from one side of the first heat-generating unit (fig. 7, the top-most portion of second case 112 [0053]), surrounds the first heat-generating unit (as best understood based on the 112(b) rejection above, the second heat-generating unit does not fully surround the first heat-generating unit; in fig. 7, the second heat-generating unit 112 partially surrounds 111); and a third heat-generating unit which extends from the other side of the first heat-generating unit (fig. 7, the bottom-most portion of second case 112 [0053]), surrounds the first heat-generating unit (the third heat-generating unit 112 partially surrounds 111), wherein the third heat-generating unit is disposed to be spaced apart from the second heat-generating unit (fig. 7, the bottom-most portion of 112 is spaced apart from the top-most portion of 112; see annotated fig. below). This configuration allows for a reduction in the amount of material needed to conduct heat away from the heating body 120, and therefore reduces the amount of power required to heat the device overall ([0053]).
PNG
media_image1.png
517
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of Tsuitsui’s heat-generating unit to that taught by Choi, such that the first heat-generating unit is spaced apart from the pressure unit (as shown in Choi fig. 7, the center portion 11 is in the interior of the device and thus would be spaced apart from the pressure unit when inserted), and the second and third heat-generating units (fig. 7, 112) would contact the pressure unit in the same manner that Tsuitsui’s heat generating unit (fig. 7, 42) contacts the pressure unit to conduct heat to the pressure unit, since the power required to heat the material of Choi’s conductor design would be reduced.
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Tsuitsui discloses a pressure module of claim 5, wherein the third heat-generating unit is disposed symmetrically with the second heat-generating unit (as shown in Choi fig. 7, the second and third heat-generating units are symmetrical).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tsuitsui in view of JP 6651880 B2, hereafter JP’880. A machine translation is relied upon to address claims.
Regarding Claim 7, Tsuitsui discloses a pressure module of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the heat-generating unit comprises: a first heat-generating unit which is spaced apart from the pressure unit; and a plurality of second heat-generating units which extend from the first heat- generating unit to contact the pressure unit, and are formed in a spiral shape that is bent in a direction toward the pressure unit, wherein the plurality of second heat-generating units are disposed to be spaced apart from each other.
However, JP’880 teaches the use of a first heat generating unit (fig. 2, ring-shaped main body 8a [0030]) and a plurality of second heat-generating units (fig. 2, arms 8B [0030]; the ring-shaped main body and arms are made of a metal plate and connect the rotating main body to the non-rotating shaft 3 [0055] and allows for elastic deformation of the arms when heat generating member 4 is heated to avoid thermal stress in the heat generating member [0054]) and are formed (interpreted to mean “arranged” according to the 112(b) rejection above) in a spiral shape (fig. 2, arms 8B are arranged in a spiral direction), wherein the plurality of second heat-generating units are disposed to be spaced apart from each other (fig. 2 shows this configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of Tsuitsui’s heat-generating unit to the configuration taught by JP’880, such that a first heat-generating unit is spaced apart from the pressure unit; and a plurality of second heat-generating units which extend from the first heat- generating unit to contact the pressure unit (since Tsuitsui’s heat-generating unit contacts the pressure unit in order to conduct heat outward toward the user), and are formed in a spiral shape that is bent in a direction toward the pressure unit, wherein the plurality of second heat-generating units are disposed to be spaced apart from each other, since JP’880 teaches that this spirally arranged configuration allows for thermal expansion in the conductive material to avoid damage caused by thermal stress on an inductive heating generating member (JP’880 [0055]).
Claims 3, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tsuitsui in view of Zhang (US 12508192 B2), hereafter Zhang.
Regarding Claim 3, Tsuitsui discloses a pressure module of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the electromagnetic induction unit is disposed outside the heat-generating unit.
Zhang teaches a heated roller having an electromagnetic induction unit disposed outside the heat-generating unit (fig. 6, heated roller 14, electromagnetic induction unit 54, heat-generating unit 61, col. 10 lines 14-23 and lines 41-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuitsui’s electromagnetic induction unit to be positioned outside the heat-generating unit as taught by Zhang for the benefit being able to make the roller smaller since the internal structure is simplified, as well as being able to improve safety by removing electronic components from user-contacting portions of the device, thus avoiding the potential for electric shock in a malfunction, as taught by Zhang (col. 9 lines 11-24).
Regarding Claim 8, Tsuitsui discloses a pressure module of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the heat-generating unit is formed in a spring shape.
Zhang teaches an embodiment of a heated roller (fig. 3(a) , col. 8 line 10) where the heat-generating unit is a wire passing through the roller and conducts heat from an induction unit (the embodiment of fig. 6, col. 10 lines 14-18) in which a heat transfer element conducting the heat from the induction heating element is straight in shape (fig. 6, 61, col. 10 lines 40-47).
Zhang also teaches an embodiment (fig. 3(a)) which uses a heat-generating unit formed in a spring shape (fig. 3(a), heating element 25, col. 9 line 10 and lines 15-16, the heating element is a coil) placed inside the roller to transfer heat to the roller surface to the user (col. 8 lines 8-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuitsui’s electromagnetic induction unit to be positioned outside the heat-generating unit as taught by Zhang for the benefit being able to make the roller smaller since the internal structure is simplified, as well as being able to improve safety by removing electronic components from user-contacting portions of the device, thus avoiding the potential for electric shock in a malfunction, as taught by Zhang (col. 9 lines 11-24), in addition to changing the shape of the heat generating unit, in the form of Zhang’s wire passing through the roller, from the straight shape to the coiled spring shape in Zhang’s fig. 3(a) embodiment, since a change in shape has been found to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant).
Regarding Claim 17, Tsuitsui discloses a thermotherapy apparatus of claim 16, further comprising: an elevation module for elevating the pressure unit (fig. 1, massage mechanism 20 moves the pressure unit vertically [0014]), but is silent on wherein the electromagnetic induction unit is disposed on the upper side of the elevation module while being disposed outside the pressure unit.
However, Zhang teaches a heated roller having an electromagnetic induction unit disposed outside the heat-generating unit (fig. 6, heated roller 14, electromagnetic induction unit 54, heat-generating unit 61, col. 10 lines 14-23 and lines 41-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuitsui’s electromagnetic induction unit to be positioned outside the heat-generating unit as taught by Zhang for the benefit being able to make the roller smaller since the internal structure is simplified, as well as being able to improve safety by removing electronic components from user-contacting portions of the device, thus avoiding the potential for electric shock in a malfunction, as taught by Zhang (col. 9 lines 11-24). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to position the electromagnetic induction unit on the upper side of the elevation module as an obvious matter of design choice by rearrangement of parts, since Zhang teaches that placing the electromagnetic induction unit outside the roller provides the safety benefits described above. 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).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tsuitsui in view of Cho et al. (US 2006/0093414 A1), hereafter Cho.
Regarding Claim 14, Tsuitsui discloses a thermotherapy apparatus of claim 12, but is silent on wherein a heat insulating member is provided on an outer side surface of the electromagnetic induction unit to prevent heat generated from the heat-generating unit from moving to the coil.
Cho teaches an induction heated roller (fig. 3, roller 110 [0028] induction [0025]) that includes a heat insulating member provided on an outer surface of an electromagnetic induction unit (fig. 3, coil unit 114 and insulating layers 113, 114 [0033]).
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 heat insulating member on the outer surface of Tsuitsui’s electromagnetic coils as taught by Cho in order to avoid a current leak between the coils and the roller surface (Cho [0034]). This would protect the user from unintended exposure to leakage current.
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tsuitsui in view of Hyllberg et al. (US 5420395), hereafter Hyllberg.
Regarding Claim 15, Tsuitsui discloses a thermotherapy apparatus of claim 9, but is silent on wherein the heat-generating unit comprises: a plurality of conductive units that generate heat by generating an induced current by the electromagnetic induction unit, and are disposed to be spaced apart from each other; and a plurality of insulation units that are disposed between the plurality of conductive units.
Hyllberg teaches a ceramic heater roller with zoned heating (title) that includes a heat generating unit with a plurality of conductive units (fig. 5, conductive bands 53, 54, 55, 56, col. 7 lines 17-20) that use induction heating (col. 3 line 13 and col. 7 lines 45-55) that are disposed to be spaced apart from each other (fig. 5, gaps 60 separate each conductive band, col., 7 line 23); and a plurality of insulation units disposed between the plurality of conductive units (fig. 7, gaps 60 contain a ceramic layer, which is an insulator, col. 7 line 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuitsui’s heat-generating unit to include a plurality of conductive units disposed to be spaced apart and a plurality of insulation units disposed between the plurality of conductive units as taught by Hyllberg in order to create zones of heating in which various zones of the roller can be selected to heated or not, or maintained at different temperatures (Hyllberg col. 7 lines 56-64).
Regarding Claim 16, the modified Tsuitsui discloses a thermotherapy apparatus of claim 15, wherein the width of the plurality of conductive units is longer than the width of the plurality of insulation units (Hyllberg fig. 5, the gaps 60 are smaller than the conductive units 53-56).
Regarding Claim 18, Tsuitsui discloses a thermotherapy apparatus of claim 16, further comprising: a power supply unit for supplying current to the electromagnetic induction unit ([0018] a power supply is present in the invention to supply power to the coils but is not shown), wherein the electromagnetic induction unit is provided with a coil that receives current from the power supply unit to generate an induced current ([0018]).
Conclusion
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