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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because all of the lead lines, reference numerals and drawing outlines in figs. 1-2 are faded/dotted making it hard to view and understand the figures. Every line must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. Additionally, the weight of all lines must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. See PCT Rule 11.13(a) and (e).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains over 150 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-9 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 3, the term “an object” is suggested to be changed to --the object-- in order to clarify the claim since claim 1 claims “an object” in line 9. The term “an object” in claims 3, 4, 6, 8-9 and 11 are being objected to for the same reason.
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 limitation(s) is/are: the limitations “a body massage unit for providing a massage to a user’s back or thighs” (claim 1, line 2, the limitation “unit” is a generic placeholder and the function is “body massage” and “for providing a massage to a user’s back or thighs”), “a leg massage unit…the leg massage unit providing a massage to the user’s legs” (claim 1, lines 3 and 6, the limitation “unit” is a generic placeholder and the function is “leg massage” and “providing a massage to the user’s legs”), “a power unit” (claim 1, line 4, the limitation “unit” is a generic placeholder and the function in the current context is “power”), “a control unit..wherein the control unit controls operations of the body massage unit and the leg massage unit” (claim 1, lines 4-5 and 13-14, the limitation “unit” is a generic placeholder and the function is “control” and “controls operations of the body massage unit and the leg massage unit”), “the leg massage unit” (claims 3, 4 and 8), and “the control unit” (claims 3-12).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
A body massage unit: body massage unit 2100 may include a massage module 2170, the massage module 2170 may include a ball massage unit or a roller massage unit, but is not limited thereto, paragraphs 45 and 56.
A leg massage unit: leg massage unit 2300 may include a foot massage actuator that operates the foot massage module, see paragraph 83.
A power unit: corresponding structure(s) cannot be determined.
A control unit: control unit 300, maybe be a mainboard, see paragraph 0116 of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, the limitation “a power unit” (line 4) invokes 112(f), however, the disclosure fails to disclose the corresponding structure of the power unit. Paragraphs 6, 31 and 116 of the specification filed on 8/6/2023 discloses the term “power unit” but do not disclose the corresponding structure of the power unit.
Any remaining claims are rejected for their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a seat portion” (line 12) is unclear as to what is the structural relationship between the seat portion and the massage device.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, the limitation “the upper surface” (claim 2, lines 2-3 and claim 9, line 2) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “a predetermined threshold angle” (lines 2-3) is unclear if the predetermined threshold angle in claim 4 is the same as or different from the predetermined threshold angle being claimed in claim 3, lines 2-3.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, the limitation “the movement” (claim 4, line 4 and claim 6, line 6) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, the limitation “the screen” (claim 5, lines 3 and 5, claim 7, line 2) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “other buttons other than the alarm release button” (line 6) and claim 7, the limitation “the other buttons” (line 8) is unclear as to what is meant by “other” in “other buttons”. The term “other” is indefinite. Furthermore, for claim 5, it is unclear as to what structure the limitation “other buttons” are a part of.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, the limitation “the movement” (claim 9, line 3 and claim 11, line 6) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “other buttons other than the alarm release button” (lines 6-7) and claim 12, the limitation “the other buttons” (line 2) is unclear as to what is meant by “other” in “other buttons”. The term “other” is indefinite. Furthermore, for claim 10, it is unclear as to what structure the limitation “other buttons” are a part of.
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 12, the limitation “the alarm release button” (claim 10, lines 5 and 6-7, claim 11, lines 4 and 5, claim 12, line 1) lacks proper antecedent basis. It is noted that claim 10 is dependent on claim 9 and is not dependent on claim 5.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the limitation “the alarm signal” (claim 10, line 3 and claim 11, line 1) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, the limitation “the screen” (claim 10, line 3 and claim 12, line 2) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim limitation “power unit” (claim 1, line 4) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure fails to disclose the corresponding structure of the power unit. Paragraphs 6, 31 and 116 of the specification filed on 8/6/2023 discloses the term “power unit” but do not disclose the corresponding structure of the power unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Any remaining claims are rejected for their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20160053130) in view of Fukuyama (2011/0077563) and Kamba (2008/0030053).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a massage device (entire device 1 shown in figs. 1-5, paragraph 0028 of the English translation) comprising: a body massage unit (20, 40, and 50, figs. 1-5, see paragraphs 0037-0042 of the English translation) for providing a massage to a user’s back, and including a receiving portion (see figs. 1-5, the area of the body massage that receives the leg massage unit is the receiving portion, which are formed by mat 70, portion of 20 and 10) for a leg massage unit (30, figs. 1-5, paragraph 0032) to accommodate the leg massage unit therein (paragraphs 0032-0033 and figs. 1-5); an electric box (10, figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 0028-0029) supporting the body massage unit and including a power unit and a control unit (see figs. 1-5, paragraphs 0028-0029, Kim discloses that the base 10 includes power supply and control circuit board, the control unit is interpreted as control unit 2 and control circuit board inside 10, see paragraphs 0051-0052 regarding the control unit 2); and the leg massage unit providing a massage to the user’s legs (see paragraphs 0032-0033), and rotating relative to the body massage unit (see figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 0032-0035), wherein the receiving portion of the leg massage unit includes a first detection sensor (pinch detection 74 or alternatively perimeter entry detection sensor 72 or both 72/74, paragraphs 0010, 0045-0049), which is positioned to face the leg massage unit to detect whether an object exists in the receiving portion of the leg massage unit (see paragraph 0047), wherein the control unit (control circuit board and control unit 2) controls the body massage unit and the leg massage unit (see paragraphs 0028-0029 and 0051-0052), but fails to disclose that the leg massage unit rotating around a rotary shaft relative to the body massage unit, the leg massage unit includes a posture sensor for measuring an angle between the leg massage unit and a seat portion.
However, Fukuyama teaches a leg massage unit rotating around a rotary shaft relative to a body unit (fig. 1, see paragraphs 0052 and 0054, Fukuyama discloses that the leg-rest portion 3 (leg massage unit) is rotatably attached to the horizontal support shaft 51 and can be rotated about the center line of the support shaft 51 with the movable frame 11 (body unit)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the leg massage unit and the body massage unit of Kim to have the leg massage unit of Kim to be rotating around a rotary shaft as taught by Fukuyama for the purpose of providing an alternative mechanism that would provide the predictable result of allowing the leg massage unit to be rotated relative to the body massage unit (see paragraphs 0052 and 0054 of Fukuyama).
The modified Kim fails to disclose that the leg massage unit includes a posture sensor for measuring an angle between the leg massage unit and a seat portion.
However, Kamba teaches a leg massage unit includes a posture sensor for measuring an angle between the leg massage unit and a seat portion (see paragraphs 0037-0043, Kamba discloses that the angle of the seat 20, backrest 30 or leg portion 40 can be detected, for example, by a limit switch or encoder, see angle K in fig. 7, wherein the leg massage unit is 40 and the seat portion is 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the massage device of the modified Kim to have the posture sensor as taught by Kamba for the purpose of allowing the massage chair to be adjusted at different reclining angles, thereby, providing comfort and adjustability to the user (see paragraphs 0037-0043 of Kamba).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20160053130) in view of Fukuyama (2011/0077563) and Kamba (2008/0030053) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 20210006584).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Kim discloses that the first detection sensor includes an ultrasonic sensor (pinch detection 74 or alternatively perimeter entry detection sensor 72 or both 72/74, paragraphs 0010, 0045-0049 of Kim), the modified Kim further discloses a rear surface of the electric box that is below the back massage unit (see the annotated-Kim fig. 5 above), but fails to disclose a second detection sensor located on the upper surface of the electric box to detect whether an object is placed on the upper surface of the electric box, wherein the second detection sensor includes a tact switch, a capacitive touch sensor, or a pressure sensor.
However, Lee teaches a detection sensor (33, 11A, 11B, 21, 22, 23, figs. 2-3B) located on an upper surface of an electric box (10/31, fig. 3a) of the chair below a back massage unit (15 and B, figs. 3A-3B, as shown, the detection sensor is on an upper surface of the electric box, see fig. 2 for reference), configured to detect whether an object is placed on the upper surface, the detection sensor is a pressure sensor (see paragraphs 0013- 0019 of the English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rear surface of the electrical box of the modified Kim to have the detection sensor as taught by Lee for the purpose of providing safety to people and pet around the massage device by allowing the massage device to stop the movement of the massage device when an object is detected (see paragraphs 0013- 0019 of Lee).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Kim discloses that the second detection sensor detects an object on the upper surface of the electric box, the control unit controls the massage device to stop the movement (see paragraphs 0016 and 0019 of Lee).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20160053130) in view of Fukuyama (2011/0077563), Kamba (2008/0030053) and Lee (KR 20210006584) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Inada (2017/0348177).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Kim fails to disclose a massage device control device for the user to control the massage device, wherein the control unit controls to display the alarm signal on the screen of the massage device control device, and wherein the control unit controls to display the alarm release button on the screen of the massage device control device and controls to deactivate other buttons other than the alarm release button.
However, Inada teaches a massage device control device (20 and 21, fig. 3) for the user to control the massage device (paragraphs 0031-0033 and 0036 and figs. 4-8), wherein a control unit (17, fig. 3, paragraphs 0026-0032) controls to display the alarm signal on the screen of the massage device control device and wherein the control unit controls to display an alarm release button on the screen of the massage device control device and controls to deactivate other buttons other than the alarm release button (see figs. 4-8 and paragraphs 0055-0056, the alarm signal is the signal that shows what is shown in fig. 8, such as the concerned health check (stiff shoulder) and the question in fig. 8, the alarm release button is “END (SYMPTOM LIST)”, the buttons being deactivated are buttons that are not shown in the screen in fig. 8, such as “END (NEXT)” in fig. 5 and “NEXT” in fig. 6, alternatively, the alarm can be “26” in fig. 5, see “YOUR BLOOD PRESSURE HAS RISEN”, the alarm release button is “END (NEXT)” and the other buttons are “NEXT” in fig. 6 and “END (SYMPTOM LIST)” in fig. 8 and/or “YES” and “NO” in fig. 8, furthermore, the “other” buttons can be the treatment course buttons in fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the massage device of the modified Kim to have the massage device control device and the control unit as taught by Inada for the purpose of a smart massage chair that allows the treatment protocol to be adjusted based on the user’s body information (see paragraphs 0007-0012 and 0026-0033 of Inada).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Kim discloses that the alarm signal is output (see the rejection for claim 10 above), the control unit determines whether both first and second detection sensors have detected an object, wherein when neither the first sensor nor the second detection sensor has detected an object, the control unit determines whether the alarm release button has been pressed by the user, and wherein when the alarm release button has been pressed by the user, the control unit controls the massage device to resume the movement (see paragraphs 0010, 0045-0049 of Kim, see paragraphs 0013- 0019 of Lee, and the modification with Inada, after the modification with Lee, the control unit would determines whether both first and second detections sensors have detected an object (see the modification with Lee above), furthermore, after the modification, when no objects are detected, the device would work as normal, therefore, would have the control unit determines whether the alarm release button has been pressed, and when the alarm release button has been pressed by the user, the control unit controls the massage device to resume the movement, see paragraphs 0055-0056 of Inada, for this scenario, the NEXT button in fig. 6 is the alarm release button, by clicking NEXT, the blood circulation improvement treatment course is recommended as a suitable treatment course, which if the user press would operate the massage unit).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20160053130) in view of Fukuyama (2011/0077563), Kamba (2008/0030053), Lee (KR 20210006584) and Inada (2017/0348177) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Mizuguchi (2016/0320924).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Kim discloses a main menu in fig. 4 of Kim comprises a plurality of buttons (see buttons in fig. 4 and paragraphs 0041-0051 and 0056 of Kim), but fails to disclose that that when the alarm release button is pressed by the user, the control unit controls to reactivate the other buttons on the screen of the massage device control device.
However, Mizuguchi teaches a back arrow button to allow the user to return to a main menu (see paragraphs 0098-0099, figs. 8A-8C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the massage device control device of the modified Kim to have every page of the modified Kim to have the back arrow button to bring the user back to the main menu as taught by Mizuguchi for the purpose of providing a quick way to return to the main menu, thereby, providing navigability and controllability to the user (see paragraphs 0098-0099 of Mizuguchi).
After the modification with Mizuguchi, the back arrow is the alarm release button, which would bring the screen back to the main menu having other buttons (different treatment courses buttons in fig. 4, paragraphs 0061 and 0075 of Kim, see figs. 8A-8C and paragraphs 0098-0099 of Mizuguchi).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 are allowable over the prior art.
Claims 3-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record Kim (KR 20160053130), Fukuyama (2011/0077563) and Kamba (2008/0030053) do not specifically disclose the claimed apparatus as presented in the claims 3-8.
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses a massage device (entire device 1 shown in figs. 1-5, paragraph 0028 of the English translation) comprising: a body massage unit (20, 40, and 50, figs. 1-5, see paragraphs 0037-0042 of the English translation) for providing a massage to a user’s back, and including a receiving portion (see figs. 1-5, the area of the body massage that receives the leg massage unit is the receiving portion, which are formed by mat 70, portion of 20 and 10) for a leg massage unit (30, figs. 1-5, paragraph 0032) to accommodate the leg massage unit therein (paragraphs 0032-0033 and figs. 1-5); an electric box (10, figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 0028-0029) supporting the body massage unit and including a power unit and a control unit (see figs. 1-5, paragraphs 0028-0029, Kim discloses that the base 10 includes power supply and control circuit board, the control unit is interpreted as control unit 2 and control circuit board inside 10, see paragraphs 0051-0052 regarding the control unit 2); and the leg massage unit providing a massage to the user’s legs (see paragraphs 0032-0033), and rotating relative to the body massage unit (see figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 0032-0035), wherein the receiving portion of the leg massage unit includes a first detection sensor (pinch detection 74 or alternatively perimeter entry detection sensor 72 or both 72/74, paragraphs 0010, 0045-0049), which is positioned to face the leg massage unit to detect whether an object exists in the receiving portion of the leg massage unit (see paragraph 0047), wherein the control unit (control circuit board and control unit 2) controls the body massage unit and the leg massage unit (see paragraphs 0028-0029 and 0051-0052).
Fukuyama teaches a leg massage unit rotating around a rotary shaft relative to a body unit (fig. 1, see paragraphs 0052 and 0054, Fukuyama discloses that the leg-rest portion 3 (leg massage unit) is rotatably attached to the horizontal support shaft 51 and can be rotated about the center line of the support shaft 51 with the movable frame 11 (body unit)).
Kamba teaches a leg massage unit includes a posture sensor for measuring an angle between the leg massage unit and a seat portion (see paragraphs 0037-0043, Kamba discloses that the angle of the seat 20, backrest 30 or leg portion 40 can be detected, for example, by a limit switch or encoder, see angle K in fig. 7, wherein the leg massage unit is 40 and the seat portion is 20).
However, Kim, Fukuyama, and Kamba fail to disclose that a signal from the posture sensor indicates that the angle formed between the leg massage unit and the seat portion exceeds a predetermined threshold angle, the control unit controls the first detection sensor to detect an object, and wherein when the signal from the posture sensor indicates that the angle formed between the leg massage unit and the seat portion is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold angle, the control unit controls the first detection sensor not to detect an object. Therefore, to modify Kim, Fukuyama, and Kamba to arrive at the claimed invention would not have been obvious and would be based upon improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kumagai (JP 2001095872) is cited to show a massage chair comprising a pressure sensor configured to stop operation of the massage chair when an object is being detected.
Sinn (KR 102144542) is cited to show a massage chair comprising object detector.
Paz (2006/0260041) is cited to show a massage chair comprising a sensor for sensing an object that is underneath the massage chair.
Inada (2017/0348179) is cited to show a massage chair having a control interface device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU A VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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.
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights