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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on November 2, 2023. As directed by the amendment: claim 6 has been amended, no claims have been canceled, and new claims 15-17have been added. Thus, claims 1-17 are presently pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Fig. 9A, reference character "226" has no lead line pointing to its location (should be pointing to the guide pin in guide hole 227)
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
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 the phrase “The present disclosure relates to” in line 1 which is a phrase that can be implied
it contains the phrase “according to the present disclosure” in line 2, which is a phrase that can be implied.
it uses form and phraseology often used in patent claims, rather than being narrative in form:
it contains the term “means” in line 10 which is considered claim terminology that should be avoided.
it appears to simply list the elements of claim 1 as one long sentence, so as to read like a claim.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 7 recites "control unit 50 " which appears to be a typographical error that should read --control unit --.
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:
“locking unit” in claims 1 and 12-14, which is described in the specification in accordance with 2 embodiments (and equivalents thereof):
Embodiment 1: Figs. 8-10: locking unit includes: a protrusion 210 on one of the unit bracket 130 or coupling bracket 140, and a locking plate 220 having a protrusion insertion hole 221 on the other of the unit bracket 130 and coupling bracket 140, and a locking actuator (such as motor 231 and cam 232) for moving the locking protrusion 210 in or out of the protrusion insertion hole (see paragraphs [141]-[153])
Embodiment 2: Figs. 11-13: locking unit includes: a locking structure such as a locking pin 251 or protrusion installed on a first of the unit bracket 130 or coupling bracket 140, a locking hole 250 formed on the other of the unit bracket 130 or coupling bracket 140, and a pin actuator (such as solenoid actuator 260 in Figs. 11-12 or motor 271, rotary member 272,and pin operating member 273 in Fig. 13) for moving the locking pin/protrusion 251 in or out of the locking hole 250 any other known structural equivalents to these two locking unit embodiments
The “locking unit” of claims 2-11 and 15-17 are not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because the locking unit includes sufficient structure to perform the claimed locking function
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 1-17 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.
Claim 1, recites the limitation "the control unit" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-17 are rejected based on their dependency to rejected claim 1.
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 1-17 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, positively recites "a user's body part" in line 8. Examiner suggests amending the language to read --a sample member rotatably installed on the unit bracket, configured to apply
Claims 2-17 are rejected based on their dependency to rejected claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Miki (US 2005/0096571) and Imazaike et al. (US 6,190,339) represent the closest prior art to the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, Miki discloses a hybrid massage module (massaging unit 20, Fig. 1) of a massage device (massage machine 1, Fig. 1) comprising:
a module base (bracket 12) installed in the massage device 1 (Fig. 1, Fig. 4A, paragraphs [0027]-[0028]);
an actuator (massaging motor 83) installed on the module base 12, and providing at least one of powers for vibration, linear motion, rotational motion, and position adjustment for body massage 9Fig. 11A, paragraph [0062]);
a coupling bracket (arm supporting member 31, 32) connected to the actuator 83 to transmit the power of the actuator 83 (Figs. 7A-7B, paragraph [0035]);
a unit bracket (ball supporting arm 28, 29) installed on the coupling bracket 31, 32 to be rotatable around a hinge shaft (51, 52, Figs. 7A-7B, paragraph [0035]);
an elastic member (coil spring 59, 591) supporting the unit bracket 28, 29 elastically relative to the coupling bracket 31, 32 (Figs. 7A-7B, paragraph [0058]);
a sample member (massage ball 27) rotatably installed on the unit bracket 28, 29, applying pressure to a user's body part while rolling (Figs. 7A-7B, paragraph [0035]).
Miki further discloses a stopper 53, 54 for limiting the range of rotary motion between the unit bracket 28, 29 and the coupling bracket 31, 32 (stopper 53, 54 is a protrusion on the unit bracket that stops movement of the unit bracket 28, 29 when the stopper 53, 54 contacts an edge of coupling bracket 31, 32 (see Figs. 7A-7B, paragraph [0035]), but does not disclose, nor does the prior art of record render obvious, a locking unit which, based on a control signal applied from the control unit of the massage device, fixes or releases the unit bracket relative to the coupling bracket.
As to claim 1, Imazaike discloses a hybrid massage module (components within device body 101, Fig. 1) of a massage device 101 comprising:
a module base (shown in Fig. 14 with screw heads attaching the components to the body 101) installed in the massage device 101 (Fig. 14, paragraphs []);
an actuator (motor 105, Fig. 14) installed on the module base 12, and providing at least one of powers for vibration, linear motion, rotational motion, and position adjustment for body massage (Fig. 14, paragraphs []);
a coupling bracket (rocking block 132, Fig. 14) connected to the actuator 105 to transmit the power of the actuator 105 (Figs. 14 and 18(a)-(c), col. );
a unit bracket (second massage arm 113) installed on the coupling bracket 132, 32 to be rotatable around a hinge shaft (link plate fulcrum shaft 131, (Figs 18(a)-18(c), col.);
an elastic member (tension spring 134) supporting the unit bracket 113 elastically relative to the coupling bracket 132 (Figs. 18(a)-(c). col. );
a sample member (roller 140) rotatably installed on the unit bracket 113 applying pressure to a user's body part while rolling (Fig. 14, col. ), and
a locking arrangement which, fixes or releases the unit bracket 113 relative to the coupling bracket 132 (Figs. 15(a)-15(b) and 18(a)-18(c); col. 13, ln. 15-56: an engaging pin 133 attached to unit bracket/second massage arm 113 at link plate 130, selectively engages one of a plurality of grooves 136 in coupling bracket/rocking block 132, the pin 133 is held in a groove through tension spring 134 and fixing member 137 and can be released from a groove 136 by squeezing engagement canceling member 139, see also col. 14, ln. 61 – col. 11, ln. 55).
However, Imazaike does not disclose, nor does the prior art of record render obvious, a locking unit which, based on a control signal applied from the control unit of the massage device, fixes or releases the unit bracket relative to the coupling bracket.
Thus, claims 1-17 are 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.
Chen (US 2005/0010144), Miki et al. (US 2003/0216673), Shimizu et al. (US 2004/0171972), Fujii et al. (US 2006/0142676), Wang (US 2022/0241135), Pan (US 2019/0053971), and Marcantoni (US 6,083,181), each disclose a massage device having massage devices rotatably coupled to a rotating bracket.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALERIE L WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1479. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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, KENDRA CARTER can be reached on 571-272-9034. 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.
/VALERIE L WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights