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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the filing of the application on 2/13/2023. Since the initial filing, no claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Thus, claims 1-13 are pending in the application.
Priority
2. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority regarding KR 10-2022-0052407 (filing date of 04/27/2022), KR10-2021-0056442 (filing date of 04/30/2021), and KR 10-2021-0021671 (filing date of 3/10/2021). However, only KR 10-2022-0052407 provides sufficient support for the subject matter of claims 1-13. Therefore, the current application will be assigned the effective filing date of 04/27/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "a back frame connected to the seat frame to be rotatable" renders the claim indefinite because it” is unclear because it does not specify what structure is rotatable relative to what structure. It is therefore unclear whether the back frame is rotatable relative to the seat frame or whether some other component is intended to rotate. A possible clarification would be: --a back frame connected to the seat frame to be rotatable relative to the seat frame--.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “the support unit has one end connected to the seat frame to be rotatable and the other end connected to the back frame to be rotatable” is unclear because the claim does not specify the structures relative to which the ends are rotatable. A possible clarification would be: --the support unit has one end connected to the seat frame to be rotatable relative to the seat frame, and the other end connected to the back frame to be rotatable relative to the back frame--.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “the guide roller” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 10 also recites “the massage module”, which likewise lacks antecedent basis because neither element has been previously introduced.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “the other surface of the rail” lacks antecedent basis because the claim does not first identify a first surface and a second surface of the rail.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Interpretation- 35 USC § 112 – Sixth Paragraph/35 USC § 112(f)
5. 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.
6. 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:
“driving unit” (claim 13, In. 1);
“massage module” (claim 10, ln. 4; claim 11, ln. 1; claim 12, In. 1).
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. The following is the corresponding structure for these limitations:
“driving unit” - “Referring back to FIG. 3, the massage device 100 may include a driving unit. The driving unit may be an actuator.” ([179]); When the first driving unit 150 is driven, the back frame 130 may be tilted with respect to the seat frame 110. When the first driving unit 150 is a cylinder device, the back frame 130 may rotate about the central axis AX due to the change in the length of the cylinder ([110]).
“massage module” – “The body massage unit 1000 may provide massage to at least a part of the user's body. The body massage unit 1000 may include a massage module 1400 providing at least a part of user's body with a massaging function ([46]); See Figs. 3-4 for an illustration of the massage module 1400.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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 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.
8. Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inada et al. (2012/0215143).
Regarding claim 1, Inada discloses a massage device (Fig. 1, massage machine 1) comprising:
a seat frame supporting a user’s body (Fig. 1, footrest 5 is configured to supports the upper legs of the user and thus considered a “seat frame”);
a back frame connected to the seat frame to be rotatable relative to the seat frame (Fig. 3, backrest part 4 and seat part 3 form a “back frame” portion of the massage device that rotatable relative to footrest 5 about rotation shaft C1);
a rail extending along the seat frame and the back frame and connecting the seat frame and the back frame to each other (Figs. 2-3, left and right guide rails 7a extend across the seat frame (i.e. footrest 5) and the back frame (i.e. backrest part 4 and seat part 3);
a support unit connected to the seat frame and the back frame and supporting the rail (Figs. 1-3, supporting members 7d and link members 7f supporting guide rails 7a and associated frame components are considered a “support unit”).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Inada discloses that the support unit has one end connected to the seat frame to be rotatable relative to the seat frame and the other end connected to the back frame to be rotatable relative to the back frame (Annotated Fig. 1 depicts the support unit having two ends that allow relative rotation between the footrest 5 and the back frame 3,4).
Regarding claim 3, Inada discloses the support unit comprising a first link connected to the seat frame, a second link connected to the back frame, and a connection link connecting the first link 3, and the link connected to each other (See annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
500
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Inada discloses an elongated hole within the linkage structure associated with the guide rail support system (Annotated Fig. 4 depicts an elongated hole).
PNG
media_image3.png
427
667
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Inada discloses a bent connection link in the linkage structure (Annotated Fig. 3 below labels the “bent shape” of the connection link).
PNG
media_image4.png
547
723
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Inada discloses a reinforcing member that is attached to one side of the rail and has a shape changing along with the rail when the back frame is rotated (Guide rails 7a have thicker portions that are considered “reinforcing members” that are attached to the rails that guide the massage device. The shape of these reinforcing members changes along the rail because the guide rails follow a curved profile across the transition between the seat and back portions of the chair body. See also annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
445
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Inada discloses that the rail-supporting structure includes portions having differing rigidity (Fig. 2 the belt-like body supporting part 8 has flexibility different from the surrounding structural members supporting guide rails 7a).
Regarding claim 11, Inada discloses that the moving path of the massage mechanism is set by the guide rails extending along both the seat and back portions of the chair body (Fig. 2 massage module 3 travels along guide rails 2 across seat part 3 and backrest part 4).
Regarding claim 13, Inada discloses a driving device configured to drive movement of treatment elements and associated structural components of the chair (Fig. 2 the driving unit 9 operates to control rotational movement of the massage mechanism relative to the chair structure).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 6, 7, 10, and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 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 prior art of record, including Inada, does not disclose or suggest the claimed guide roller arrangement recited in these claims. Accordingly, these claims appear to contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEROME PRATT whose telephone number is (571)272-8454. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7:00-4:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Stanis can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LEROME PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
