DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 10/13/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all alleged 3 groups would not pose a serious search/examination burden on the USPTO. This is not found persuasive because the examination of invention 2 and 3 would require a complete search of the CPC classification in A61H2205/04 with 10,320 hits; CPC classification in A61B17/1325 with 4,990 hits; wherein the elected group 1 would not. The CPC classification in A61H39/04 contain over 34,040 hits that is not classified in any of the required search area for the non-elected group 2 and 3. Further, with the different groups would require different features, thus requiring different search queries.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/13/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 1-4, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kirsch U.S Pat 4,832,006.
Claim 1: Kirsch discloses a selective pressure application device as best seen in figures 2-3, comprising: three pairs of tips (see fig. 2 with the area 3 and 7), each pair located, relative to the other two pairs of tips, at a vertex in a triangular orientation, wherein each tip of the said three pairs of tips is equidistant in height relative to its respective counterpart tip (it is noted that the pair of wheels 7 located at the vertex of the triangular orientation in the space area 6); and a connector (note a support base 1 with the vertical side 1a and the connection part 1b, figs 1, 2 that is configured to connect each tip to the counter part tip in each pair of the tips, see fig. 1) configured to connect the three pairs of tips. Note that All of the treatment wheels (7) presented here may be modified with regard to their measurements to make them better adapted to the morphology of the individual being treated; All of the spacers(6) presented here may be modified with regard to their measures to make them better adapted to the morphology of the individual being treated. They may be of any diameter, cylindrical, conic, concave, convex or other form deemed necessary for the optimal goals of the invention.The configuration of the present invention utilizes a plurality of treatment rollers, on a plurality of axes, held at a plurality of elevations through the use of a specially designed support base. Through this configuration a highly effective and totally rebalancing massage can be obtained by anyone, even on normally inaccessible regions of the body. The apparatus of this invention is easy to use and economical to manufacture.
(20) In relation to other massage apparatus: (21) the plurality of support axes makes it more convenient to use; (22) the plurality of treatment rollers makes it more polyvalent so that one apparatus can be used to massage and rebalance a complete region of the body, like in this case the back and the vertebral column; (23) the plurality of treatment wheels and spacers allows it to, at the same time, stimulate the circulation of blood and energy and give a deep massage to muscles and tissues; (24) the plurality of elevations allow it to have the optimal penetration of the treatment wheels to flex and slightly stretch the ligaments of cohesion around each joint in the region being treated. (25) In addition, through the configuration of the plurality of treatment wheels and spacers of this invention, both male and female bodies can be treated with the same apparatus. (26) An adaptation of the configuration of this invention enables it to be used to treat other functional regions of the body, such as: the hips, legs and feet; shoulders, arms and hands; the neck, thorax and abdomen (see col. 6, lines 13-26). Alternatively, it would have been obvious that the above description of Kirsch device would show the connector is situated such that there is a pre-determined height differential between an apex of each pair of tips and the connector, the apex of each pair of tips being vertically longer than the height of the connector. Thus, claim 1 is unpatentable over Kirsch.
Claims 2-3: Kirsch discloses wherein each pair of tips comprises different shapes from the other two pairs of tips., wherein each tip in the pair of tips is a mirror image of its respective counterpart tip (see fig. 11 show various treatment wheels 7 on the same axis, see col. 4, lines 37-39, col. 3, lines 48-56).
Claims 4, 7: Kirsch discloses wherein the connector is configured to connect at least two pairs of tips as best seen in fig. 2 wherein each tip comprises material with a lower durometer value than the material that comprises a remainder of the device (see col. 5, lines 44-52).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (6:30-4:30).
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/VI X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771