Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 5/23/2026. As directed by the
amendment, claims 1, 5, 10, and 14 have been amended, and no claims have been canceled.
Thus, claims 1-18 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
4. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 recites “the sleeve is a collapsible sleeve” (ln. 1-2). However, claim 1 already recites the sleeve as “collapsible.” Therefore, claim 2 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
6. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 9-11, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taylor (US 11,969,388 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Taylor discloses a therapeutic massage roller sleeve comprising: a substrate material configured as a collapsible, standalone sleeve to hold and removably fit onto a user's existing cylindrical beverage container, wherein the sleeve is structurally independent of any particular beverage container and is configured to be placed onto and removed from the beverage container (Col. 2 line 65-66, The base layer 122 overlays the outer surface 116 of the body, Col. 4 line 18-19, the base layer 122 could be made from natural or synthetic rubber, Col. 5 line 41-42, the removable foam covering is a slip-
over sleeve (slipped over the bottle 102) as a sleeve is capable of being slipped over any bottle and would be collapsable); and a layer of resilient material affixed to the substrate material and comprising a pattern of protuberances defining a therapeutic roller surface (Col. 4 line 5-6, plurality of nubs 124 protrudes from the base layer 122 in a direction radially away, Col. 4 line 13-14, Preferably, each nub is made of relatively dense synthetic foam., Fig. 8, nubs 124).
Regarding claim 2, Taylor discloses a massage roller sleeve as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sleeve is a collapsible sleeve (Col. 5 line 41-42, the removable foam covering is a slip-over sleeve (slipped over the bottle 102. Col. 6 ln. 15-18, as a standalone structure soft slip over sleeve would be collapsible and not provide very much myofascial release).
Regarding claim 7, Taylor discloses a massage roller sleeve as claimed in claim 1, wherein the substrate material comprises a stretchable material (Col. 4 line 18-19, the base layer 122 could be made from natural or synthetic rubber).
Regarding claim 9, Taylor discloses a massage roller sleeve as claimed in claim 1, wherein the protuberances comprise at least ridges and/or knobs (Col. 4 line 5-6, plurality of nubs 124 protrudes from the base layer 122 in a direction radially away, Fig. 8, nubs 124).
Regarding claim 10, Taylor discloses a method of making a therapeutic massage roller sleeve, the method comprising: forming a substrate material configured as a collapsible, standalone sleeve to hold and removably fit onto a user's existing cylindrical beverage container, wherein the sleeve is structurally independent of any particular beverage container and is configured to be placed onto and removed from the beverage container (Col. 2 line 65-66, The base layer 122 overlays the outer surface 116 of the body, Col. 4 line 18-19, the base layer 122 could be made from natural or synthetic rubber, Col. 5 line 41-42, the removable foam covering is a slip-over sleeve (slipped over the bottle 102) as a sleeve is capable of being slipped over any bottle and would be collapsable); and a layer of resilient material affixed to the substrate material and comprising a pattern of protuberances defining a therapeutic roller surface(Col. 4 line 5-6, plurality of nubs 124 protrudes from the base layer 122 in a direction radially away, Col. 4 line 13-14, preferably, each nub is made of relatively dense synthetic foam., Fig. 8, nubs 124).
Regarding claim 11, discloses a method of making a massage roller sleeve as claimed in claim 10, wherein the sleeve is a collapsible sleeve (Col. 5 line 41-42, the removable foam covering is a slip-over sleeve (slipped over the bottle 102. Col. 6 ln. 15-18, as a standalone structure soft slip over sleeve would be collapsible and not provide very much myofascial release).
Regarding claim 16, discloses a method of making a massage roller sleeve as claimed in claim 10, wherein the substrate material comprises a stretchable material (Col. 4 line 18-19, the base layer 122 could be made from natural or synthetic rubber).
Regarding claim 18, discloses a method of making a massage roller sleeve as claimed in claim 10, wherein the protuberances comprise at least ridges and/or knobs (Col. 4 line 5-6, plurality of nubs 124 protrudes from the base layer 122 in a direction radially away, Fig. 8, nubs 124).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 11969388 B2) in view of Bostian (US 20150290520 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Taylor discloses the massage roller sleeve according to claim 1, wherein the sleeve includes an open end (Col. 5 line 41-42, the removable foam covering is a slip-over sleeve (slipped over the bottle 102), but is silent on a closed end opposite the open end.
However, Bostian teaches a collapsible sleeve for holding a beverage container (para. 12) which includes a closed end (para. 24, base 108 may completely close off one end of the sleeve 106, Fig. 4, base 108).
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 sleeve of Taylor to have a closed base as taught by Bostian to create a massage sleeve which would better prevent a beverage holder (e.g., a can or bottle) from passing completely through the sleeve.
Regarding claim 12, Taylor discloses the massage roller sleeve according to claim 10, wherein the sleeve includes an open end (Col. 5 line 41-42, the removable foam covering is a slip-over sleeve (slipped over the bottle 102), but is silent on a closed end opposite the open end.
However, Bostian teaches a collapsible sleeve for holding a beverage container (para. 12) which includes a closed end (para. 24, base 108 may completely close off one end of the sleeve 106, Fig. 4, base 108).
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 sleeve of Taylor to have a closed base as taught by Bostian to create a massage sleeve which would better prevent a beverage holder (e.g., a can or bottle) from passing completely through the sleeve.
11. Claim(s) 4-6 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 11969388 B2), in view of Bostian (US 20150290520 A1), and in further view of Bertram et al. (US 20130090220 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Taylor device discloses the therapeutic massage roller of claim 3, but is silent on the sleeve further including a longitudinal slit therein extending from the open end towards the closed end.
However, Bertram teaches a cover wrap for turning objects into massage roller (for the myofascial release of a predetermined body part, Bertram para. 18) which includes a longitudinal slit therein extending from the open end towards the closed end (Figure 1, see slit between Ends 28 & 30), as well as, a device for closing the slit (Bertram para. 23, The first end 28 can include a piece of fabric hook and loop fastener 32 extending along the length of the wall 14 in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis "A" of the roller wrap 10. The second end 30 can also include a corresponding piece of
the fabric hook and loop fastener. The roller wrap 10 can then be secured using the fabric hook and loop fasteners., Fig. 1, Ends 28 & 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the sleeve of Taylor to include the longitudinal slit and fastening device as taught by Taylor in order to make an easy to attach and de-tach device that offers effective fastening on the water bottle when in use.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Taylor device discloses the therapeutic massage roller of claim 4, wherein the sleeve further includes a closure element comprising a zip fastener or a hook-and-loop fastener to selectively close the longitudinal slit when the sleeve is fit onto the cylindrical beverage container (Bertram para. 23, The first end 28 can include a piece of fabric hook and loop fastener 32 extending along the length of the wall 14 in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis "A" of the roller wrap 10. The second end 30 can also include a corresponding piece of the fabric hook and loop fastener. The roller wrap 10 can then be secured using the fabric hook and loop fasteners., Fig. 1, Ends 28 & 30).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Taylor device discloses the therapeutic massage roller of claim 5, wherein the fastening device comprises at least one of a zip fastener or a hook-and-loop fastener
(Bertram para. 23, The first end 28 can include a piece of fabric hook and loop fastener 32 extending along the length of the wall 14 in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis "A" of the roller wrap 10. The second end 30 can also include a corresponding piece of the fabric hook and loop fastener. The roller wrap 10 can then be secured using the fabric hook and loop fasteners., Fig. 1, Ends 28 & 30).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Taylor device discloses the therapeutic massage roller of claim 12, but is silent on the sleeve further including a longitudinal slit therein extending from the open end towards the closed end.
However, Bertram teaches a cover wrap for turning objects into massage roller (for the myofascial release of a predetermined body part, Bertram para. 18) which includes a longitudinal slit therein extending from the open end towards the closed end (Figure 1, see slit between Ends 28 & 30), as well as, a device for closing the slit (Bertram para. 23, The first end 28 can include a piece of fabric hook and loop fastener 32 extending along the length of the wall 14 in a direction parallel to the
longitudinal axis "A" of the roller wrap 10. The second end 30 can also include a corresponding piece of the fabric hook and loop fastener. The roller wrap 10 can then be secured using the fabric hook and loop fasteners., Fig. 1, Ends 28 & 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the sleeve of Taylor to include the longitudinal slit and fastening device as taught by Taylor in order to make an easy to attach and de-tach device that offers effective fastening on the water bottle when in use.
Regarding claim 14, the modified sleeve of Taylor discloses a method of making a massage roller sleeve as claimed in claim 13, wherein providing a closure element comprising a zip fastener or a hook-and-loop fastener device to selectively close the longitudinal slit when the sleeve is fit onto the cylindrical beverage container (Bertram para. 23, The first end 28 can include a piece of fabric hook and loop fastener 32 extending along the length of the wall 14 in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis "A" of the roller wrap 10. The second end 30 can also include a corresponding piece of the fabric hook and loop fastener. The roller wrap 10 can then be secured using the fabric hook and loop fasteners., Fig. 1, Ends 28 & 30).
Regarding claim 15, the modified sleeve of Taylor discloses a method of making a massage roller sleeve as claimed in claim 14, wherein the fastening device comprises at least one of a zip fastener or a hook-and-loop fastener (Bertram para. 23, The first end 28 can include a piece of fabric hook and loop fastener 32 extending along the length of the wall 14 in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis "A" of
the roller wrap 10. The second end 30 can also include a corresponding piece of the fabric hook and loop fastener. The roller wrap 10 can then be secured using the fabric hook and loop fasteners., Fig. 1, Ends 28 & 30).
12. Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 11969388 B2) in view of Nichols (US 20200146928 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Taylor discloses a massage roller sleeve as claimed in claim 7, but is silent on the stretchable material comprising neoprene.
However, Nichols teaches a slide on massage roller with a hollow roller body made of neoprene (Nichols, para. 12, para. 53).
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 substrate material of Taylor to be Neoprene as taught by Nichols in order to offer a material which is firm enough to deliver deep tissue massage on a user, but not too firm so as to be capable of harming the user during massage (Nichols, para. 53).
Regarding claim 17, Taylor discloses a massage roller sleeve as claimed in claim 16, but is silent on the stretchable material comprising neoprene.
However, Nichols teaches a slide on massage roller with a hollow roller body made of neoprene (Nichols, para. 12, para. 53).
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 substrate material of Taylor to be Neoprene as taught by Nichols in order to offer a material which is firm enough to deliver deep tissue massage on a user, but not too firm so as to be capable of harming the user during massage (Nichols, para. 53).
Response to Amendment
13. Applicant's arguments filed 5/23/2026 with respect to claims 1-18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicants remarks on the 35 U.S.C. 112(f), “Fastening device” in original claims 5 and 14 has been replaced by claim limitation “closure element” (claim 5 ln. 2; claim 14 ln. 2) which is accompanied by structure of “a zip fastener or a hook-and-loop fastener” (claim 5 ln. 2-3; claim 14 ln. 2-3). Therefore, after amendment claims 5 and 14 are found to no longer incite 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
With respect to applicant’s arguments towards rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(2) - Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 9-11, 16 and 18: Applicant alleges that Taylor’s foam covering “does not exist, and was never contemplated to exist, as a standalone, structurally independent article” (Applicants remarks). Applicant alleges that use of a “slip-over sleeve” embodiment (Col. 5, ln. 41-42) is an incorrect comparison.
This argument is found not persuasive.
A review of Taylor’s “slip-over sleeve” embodiment finds the wording “Removeable foam covering is a slip-over sleeve” (Col. 5, ln. 41-42). Use of the word “removeable” means separable from the bottle 102. Even if designed for the intention of “slipping over the bottle 102” (col. 5, ln. 42-43), such a product could be slipped over any bottle of similar size or measurement and provide similar “myofascial release” (col. 6, ln. 8).
Applicant’s arguments to “separate article of manufacture” (Applicants remarks) are not applicable as nothing in relation to “manufacture” is being positively recited in claim language.
Applicant’s argument to a lack of “portability and compactness” (Applicants remarks) are not found persuasive. Applicant does not have any claim language positively reciting “portability and compactness” so this intended use of device has no bearing on prior art being applied. Furthermore, Taylor’s device is “portable” and “compact.”
Applicant’s arguments to a lack of “hygiene” (Applicants remarks) are not found persuasive. Applicant does not have any claim language positively reciting “hygiene” or “sanitation” so this intended use/benefit of device has no bearing on prior art being applied.
Therefore, 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(2) rejections for claim(s) 1-2, 7, 9-11, 16 and 18 are maintained.
With respect to applicant’s arguments towards rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 - Claim(s) 3, 4-6, 8, 12-15, and 17: Applicant alleges due to an incorrect application of Taylor as the base art that these rejections should be dropped. This has already been refuted so these rejections are also maintained.
With respect to Secondary Considerations of Non-obviousness: Applicant’s evidence for there being a “long felt but unmet need” MPEP 2145 is not found persuasive. Furthermore, the device of Taylor would provide the need of “the ability to perform effective therapeutic self-massage in remote or travel settings without carrying a bulky foam roller. Taylor’s device is configured to utilize the user’s own existing beverage container as a structural frame for its collapsible foam roller.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
15. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEC ROBERT WAHL whose telephone number is (571)272-9880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m..
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.
/A.R.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
