DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the filing of the application on 9/06/2023. Since the initial filing, no claims have been amended, added or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-10 are pending in the application.
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 .
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 line 1 includes the language “Provided is” which is an implied phrase and should be omitted, as well as being over 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites the term “the central portion” in line 4. Examiner suggests changing to read --a central portion-- in order to have proper antecedent basis.
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: “arm massage unit” in claims 1, 3, 4, and 8; “motion conversion member” in claim 1; “crank connection member” in claim 3; “first leg massage unit” in claims 9 and 10; “second leg massage unit” in claims 9 and 10; “connection module” in claim 9; “leg rotation module” in claim 9.
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.
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 1-10 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 recites the limitation "the skeleton" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the term “the arm massage unit” in lines 11 and 12, in reference to being connected to the motion conversion member, and converting a linear motion of the expandable rod into a rotational motion, respectively. However, the claim earlier provides for “arm massage units respectively arranged on both sides of the body massage unit” in line 4, meaning that there are two arm massage units. Furthermore, line 7 recites “a rotation module rotating the arm massage units” meaning there is only one rotation module being claimed. This appears to be contradictory to the claimed invention, as the specification and drawings show that each arm massage unit has its own rotation module. Thus, it is unclear how a singular rotation module can rotate and connect to both arm rotation actuators at the same time.
Any remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 recites the language “massaging a user’s body” in line 3 and “accommodating both arms of the user” in line 5. These limitations appear to require a human being, which is not patent-eligible subject matter. Examiner recommends using the language “configured to” or “adapted to” to clarify that a human is not being claimed.
Claim 9 recites the language “accommodating one leg of a user” in line 4 and “accommodating the other leg of the user” in line 7. These limitations appear to require a human being, which is not patent-eligible subject matter. Examiner recommends using the language “configured to” or “adapted to” to clarify that a human is not being claimed.
Any remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 as noted in the above Office Action. However, the claims are deemed allowable with respect to the prior art of record, for the following reasons:
The prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to disclose all of the claimed structural and/or functional limitations of independent claim 1. In particular, independent claim 1 recites a body massage device with a main frame, arm massage units on both sides to accommodate the arms and configured to rotate around a rotational shaft, a rotation module rotating the arm massage units, the rotation module comprising an arm rotation actuator with an end connected to the main frame and including an expandable rod that expands in one direction, and a motion conversion member which is connected to the other end of the arm rotation actuator and the arm massage unit, and converts a linear motion of the expandable rod into a rotational motion of the arm massage unit.
The closest prior art of record is: Fujii et al. (US Pub. 2006/0142676) and Yoda et al. (US Pat. 7,381,194).
Fujii discloses a body massage device with a main frame, arm massage units on both sides to accommodate the arms and configured to rotate around a rotational shaft, a rotation module rotating the arm massage units, the rotation module comprising an arm rotation actuator with an end connected to the main frame. Fujii lacks a detailed description of an expandable rod that expands in one direction, and a motion conversion member which is connected to the other end of the arm rotation actuator and the arm massage unit, and converts a linear motion of the expandable rod into a rotational motion of the arm massage unit.
Yoda discloses a body massage device with a main frame, arm massage units on both sides to accommodate the arms and configured to rotate around a rotational shaft, a rotation module rotating the arm massage units, the rotation module comprising an arm rotation actuator with an end connected to the main frame. Yoda lacks a detailed description of an expandable rod that expands in one direction, and a motion conversion member which is connected to the other end of the arm rotation actuator and the arm massage unit, and converts a linear motion of the expandable rod into a rotational motion of the arm massage unit.
Thus, the prior art of record fails to disclose all of the claimed structural and/or functional limitations of the claimed invention. Hence, claims 1-10 are deemed allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Fujii et al. (US Pub. 2006/0142676), Tago et al. (US Pub. 2010/0198120), Tao (US Pub. 2013/0172792), Okamoto (US Pub. 2022/0183923), Le et al. (US Pat. 11,730,662), Yoda et al. (US Pat. 7,381,194), and Le et al. (US Pat. 10,639,230) are cited to show massage chair devices with actuators for delivering arm massage and members for holding the arms in place.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D ZIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-3349. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
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.
/MATTHEW D ZIEGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights