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 “electro-mechanical mechanism” of claim 24 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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. Claim Objections Claims 14, 16, 19 and 21 objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 14 “ configured to drive the roller head by an electro-mechanical mechanism ” should read ---configured to be driven by an electro-mechanical mechanism--- In claims 16, 19 and 21 “moisturisation” should read ---moisturization---. 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 is: electro-mechanical mechanism in claim 14 and 24. 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 § 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. Claim s 14-24 a re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benjamin (WO 2019243844 A1) in view of H eng l ( US 4,721,100 A ) . Regarding claim 14, Benjamin discloses a roller head for a skin treatment device configured to be driven by an electro-mechanical mechanism (abstract) , the roller head comprising; a drum (#6 fig 1-2, 4-5) ; and a plurality of projections that extend radially from the drum (formed by #8/10 fig 1-5) ; wherein the plurality of flaps each comprise a first surface (#8 fig 1-5) and a second surface (#10 fig 1-5) , and in use, the first surface contacts the skin when the roller head is rotated in a clockwise direction and the second surface contacts the skin when the roller head is rotated in an anticlockwise direction (abstract) . Benjamin is silent to the projections being flaps wherein the plurality of flaps are configured to flex so that the first and second surfaces contact the skin depending on the direction the roller rotates. Hengl discloses a skin treatment device (massage roller brush, abstract) with a drum having a plurality of flaps configured to flex ( #5/5a fig 3 , col 3 ln 15 “flexibility of the fingers 5a” ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize flexible flaps as taught by Hengl for the projections of Benjamin as doing so allows for the opposite surface to be prevented from contacting the skin as it is folded/facing away from the skin due to the flap flexibility. Regarding claim 15, modified Benjamin discloses the roller head of claim 14. Benjamin further discloses the first surface differs from the second surface, the first surface configured to provide a first treatment benefit and the second surface configured to provide a second treatment benefit (abstract) . Regarding claim 16, modified Benjamin discloses the roller head of claim 15. Benjamin further discloses the first and second treatment benefits comprise removal of hard skin, skin smoothing, exfoliation, massaging, moisturi z ation and lubrication (abstract) . Regarding claim 17, modified Benjamin discloses the roller head of claim 14. Benjamin further discloses the roller head is configured to remove hard skin, and wherein the first surface has a first roughness and the second surface has a second roughness (abstract) . Regarding claim 18, modified Benjamin discloses the roller head of claim 14. Benjamin further discloses an additional surface (#12 fig 4b-4c) configured to provide an additional treatment benefit (abstract) . Regarding claim 19, modified Benjamin discloses the roller head of claim 18. Benjamin further discloses the additional treatment benefit comprises removal of hard skin, skin smoothing, exfoliation, massaging, moisturization and lubrication (pg 5 ln 9-10) . Regarding claim 20, modified Benjamin discloses the roller head of claim 18. Benjamin further discloses the additional surface differs from the first surface and the second surface (see fig 4b, 4c) . Regarding claim 21, modified Benjamin discloses the roller head of claim 18. Benjamin further discloses the additional surface is configured to provide lubrication or moisturi z ation (pg 5 ln 9-10) . Regarding claim 22, modified Benjamin discloses the roller head of claim 18. Benjamin further discloses the additional surface is located on the radial facing surface of a flap (see fig 4b-4c) . Regarding claim 23, modified Benjamin discloses the roller head of claim 14. Benjamin further discloses the roller head comprises 3 to 15 flaps (see fig 4a-4c showing 5 protrusions) . Regarding claim 24, Benjamin discloses a skin treatment device (abstract) , comprising: an electro-mechanical mechanism (abstract) configured to drive a drum (#6 fig 1-2, 4-5) of a roller head; and a plurality of protrusions that extend radially from the drum of the roller head (formed by #8/10 fig 1-5) ; wherein the plurality of protrusions each comprise a first surface (#8 fig 1-5) and a second surface (#10 fig 1-5) , and in use, the first surface contacts the skin when the roller head is rotated in a clockwise direction and the second surface contacts the skin when the roller head is rotated in an anticlockwise direction (abstract) . Benjamin is silent to the projections being flaps wherein the plurality of flaps are configured to flex so that the first and second surfaces contact the skin depending on the direction the roller rotates. Hengl discloses a skin treatment device (massage roller brush, abstract) with a drum having a plurality of flaps configured to flex (#5/5a fig 3, col 3 ln 15 “flexibility of the fingers 5a”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize flexible flaps as taught by Hengl for the projections of Benjamin as doing so allows for the opposite surface to be prevented from contacting the skin as it is folded/facing away from the skin due to the flap flexibility. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 866019 A US 4046142 A US 20050020948 A1 US 20060224092 A1 US 20070083135 A1 US 20110230804 A1 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KIRA B DAHER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0190 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8am-5pm . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Brandy Lee can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /KIRA B DAHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /BRANDY S LEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785