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:
“a rotational attachment component” of claim 1 line 21 and claim 9 lines 9-10
“a cushion cover” of claim 8 line 2 and claim 20 line 2
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.
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. In the Abstract the word “comprise” in lines 1, 3, 4, and 5 is considered legal phraseology.
Claim Objections
Claims, 1-2, 9-10, 12, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, and 18, the use of formatting such as “a.”, “b.”, or “i.” should read --(a)--, --(b)--, or --(i)--, omitting the period at the end so as to provide clarity regarding starts and ends of sentences in the claim.
Regarding claim 9 line 5, the term “the main pole (130)” should read --the main pole (120)-- to use the correct reference number if reference numbers are used in the claims.
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:
“a base component” of claim 1 line 2 and claim 12 line 2
“a vibration component” of claim 1 line 9 and claim 10 line 4
“an attachment component” of claim 1 line 12 and claim 10 line 7
“a rotation component” of claim 1 line 19 and claim 9 line 7
“a rotational attachment component” of claim 1 line 21 and claim 9 line 9-10
“an additional vibration component” of claim 2 line 4 and claim 18 line 4
“one or more vibrating massage components” of claim 9 line 3
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6 and claim 15, the language that “the angle that the leg support pole (115) extends from the base component (110) is 30 to 60 degrees relative to the base component (110)” is not clear in the drawings or specification of the invention. For example, in Fig. 1 the leg support pole 115 appears to point at an upward angle relative to the base component 110, making an angle between the two greater than 90 degrees. The specification fails to provide adequate written description about what exact structure or plane the angle measurement is performed from.
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 1-20 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 line 6, the term “each massage component” is unclear as to if this is referring back to “one or more massage components” in the line. A change to --each massage component of the one or more massage components” or equivalent is recommended for clarity. Regarding 1 line 13 and claim 10 line 8, the term “a pole” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “a main pole” of line 5 or “a leg support pole” of line 3. Is this a new pole? In line 14 and line 17, the term “a massage component” is unclear as to if these are two newly claimed massage components, or if they are the same or different than “one or more massage components” of line 6. The same change as in line 6 is recommended for clarity. In line 18, the term “a user’s” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “a user’s” of line 15.
Regarding claims 2-8 line 1 and claims 10-20 line 1, the term “A device (100)” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “A configurable self-massaging device (100)” of claim 1 line 1 and claim 9 line 1 respectively.
Regarding claims 2 and 18 in full, the term “each massage component further comprises…” is misdescribed. Does each massage component comprise the addition cushion and addition vibration component? Are individual massage components still used, or only doubled?
Regarding claim 6 and 15 in full, the term “the angle that the leg support pole (115) extends from the base component (110) is 30 to 60 degrees relative to the base component (110)” is unclear how the angle is measured between the base component and the leg support pole. Is the base component representing ground level, and the angle being measured is extending from an axis parallel to the ground level at the point of contact between the leg support pole and the base? This is unclear. Examiner is interpreting the invention as measuring the angle between an axis parallel to the base component at the point of connection between the leg support pole and main pole.
Regarding claim 9 line 10, the term “the at least one massage component” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13 line 1, the term “a massage component” is unclear as to if this is the same or different structure than line 3 of claim 9 “one or more vibrating massage components”.
Regarding claim 18 line 1, the term “each massage component” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 9, 12-13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunter et al. (US 2019/0274914; hereinafter “Hunter”).
Regarding claim 9, Hunter discloses a configurable self-massaging device (see Hunter free standing system 300 for manipulating muscle and fascia) comprising:
a. a main pole (see Hunter center vertical frame member 308; also labeled “main pole” in annotated Fig. 3 below);
b. one or more vibrating massage components (see Hunter electromechanical tissue manipulation device 302 labeled portion “massage component” in annotated Fig. 3 below … the casing may be configures to contain one or more vibratory elements. And [0054] “the mechanical force or motion may comprise… vibrations”), wherein at least one vibrating massage component of the one or more vibrating massage components are configured to be attached to a point on the main pole (see Hunter annotated Fig. 3 attachment component); and
c. a rotation component coupled to the main pole (see Hunter analogous electromechanical tissue manipulation devices 302, 402 in Figs. 3 and 4, with Fig. 4 showing the detail of upward/downward rotation via pivot point 416 attached to frame member mount 410), wherein the massage component attached to the main pole is attached to the rotation component by a rotational attachment component such that the massage component attached to the main pole is configured to rotate on an axis defined by the rotational attachment component (see Hunter pivot point 416 attached to frame member mount 410).
Regarding claim 12, Hunter discloses
a base component (see Hunter base component 306 with legs 307), wherein the main pole extends vertically from the base component (see Hunter center vertical frame member 308; also labeled “main pole” in annotated Fig. 3 below);
a leg support pole extending from the base component at an angle relative to the base component (see Hunter electromechanical tissue manipulation device 302 labeled portion “leg support pole” in annotated Fig. 3 below).
Regarding claim 13, Hunter discloses wherein a massage component attached to the leg support pole allows for massaging of a user’s legs and feet (see Hunter [0063] “To this end, a user may be able to choose where to position the device with respect to his or her height and body location”; Fig. 3 shows device 302 at a high arrangement, but the device 302 could travel down the frame 308 to reach legs, feet).
Regarding claim 15, Hunter discloses the angle that the leg support pole extends from the base component is 30 to 60 degrees relative to the base component (see Hunter Fig. 3 if a line was drawn parallel to ground level/base component level, the angle between the base component and the extending leg support pole [see annotated Fig. 3 above] is between 30-60 degrees).
Regarding claim 19, Hunter discloses a hand support pole removably disposed on the main pole (see Hunter annotated Fig. 3 above “hand support pole” clamped onto the vertical frame 308, doubled closer to the bottom of the frame as well, showing how the pole can be positioned according to choice), extending at a 90 to 115 degree angle relative to the main pole (see Hunter annotated Fig. 3 hand support pole is at a 90 degree angle relative to vertical frame 308).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter in view of Neff (US 2007/0208283) and Beck (US 2021/0100717).
Regarding claim 1, Hunter discloses a configurable self-massaging device (see Hunter free standing system 300 for manipulating muscle and fascia) comprising:
a base component (see Hunter base component 306 with legs 307);
a leg support pole extending from the base component at an angle relative to the base component (see Hunter electromechanical tissue manipulation device 302 labeled portion “leg support pole” in annotated Fig. 3 below);
a main pole extending vertically from the base component (see Hunter center vertical frame member 308; also labeled “main pole” in annotated Fig. 3 below);
one or more massage components (see Hunter electromechanical tissue manipulation device 302 labeled portion “massage component” in annotated Fig. 3 below).
Hunter discloses each massage component being made of a flexible material (see Hunter [0056] head attachment casing or body may be manufactured of a flexible polymer), but is silent as to explicitly that each massage component comprises:
a cushion.
However, Neff teaches each massage component (see Neff vibration unit 1) comprising: a cushion (see Neff vibration cushion 11). 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 massage component casing or outer body of Hunter with the cushion material as taught by Neff so as to provide a comfortable, soft material to contact the skin, and as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of outer casing/body of the massage component for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. vibrational massage the body of the user.
Modified Hunter discloses each massage component comprising:
a vibration component (see Hunter [0051] “a manipulating head attachment”, which is the electromechanical tissue manipulation device 302 labeled portion in annotated Fig. 3 “massage component”… the casing may be configures to contain one or more vibratory elements. And [0054] “the mechanical force or motion may comprise… vibrations”) attached to the cushion (see Hunter modified by Neff to have outer cushion 11 of Neff, wherein the vibrations of Hunter vibrate the head attachment of 302), wherein actuating the vibration component causes vibration of the cushion (see Hunter [0060-61] vibratory motor within casing of device 302 transfers vibration to user’s body via head, now modified to include cushion of Neff); and
an attachment component configured to secure the massage component to a point on a pole (see Hunter annotated Fig. 3 attachment component);
wherein a massage component attached to the leg support pole allows for massaging of a user’s legs and feet (see Hunter [0063] “To this end, a user may be able to choose where to position the device with respect to his or her height and body location”; Fig. 3 shows device 302 at a high arrangement, but the device 302 could travel down the frame 308 to reach legs, feet); and
a rotation component coupled to the main pole (see Hunter analogous electromechanical tissue manipulation devices 302, 402 in Figs. 3 and 4, with Fig. 4 showing the detail of upward/downward rotation via pivot point 416 attached to frame member mount 410), wherein the massage component attached to the main pole is attached to the rotation component by a rotational attachment component such that the massage component attached to the main pole is configured to rotate on an axis defined by the rotational attachment component (see Hunter pivot point 416 attached to frame member mount 410).
Modified Hunter discloses a massage component attached to the main pole allows for massaging of a user’s hands, wrists, back, buttocks, chest, face, neck, and head (see Hunter device 302 attached to vertical frame 308, and wherein [0063] “To this end, a user may be able to choose where to position the device with respect to his or her height and body location”), but is silent as to this massage component as well as the previously claimed massage component (i.e., two massage components). However, Beck teaches a main pole comprising two massage components (see Beck Figs. 29-34 two massage brackets 50 positioned at varying positions along the pole pieces, 42, 44, 70). 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 pole and massage component attachment of modified Hunter with the addition of two massage components attached at one time as taught by Beck so as to provide more massage at one time to two different parts of the body.
PNG
media_image1.png
709
397
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified Hunter discloses each massage component comprises a cushion and a vibration components, except for the additional features an additional cushion; and an additional vibration component attached to the additional cushion, wherein actuating the additional vibration component causes vibration of the additional cushion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the massage component’s cushion and vibration component, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See “Duplication of Parts” MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hunter seemingly discloses the main pole is telescopically attached to the base component (see Hunter [0071] “a frame assembly of the present invention may comprise a base component to stabilize and secure the frame member during use” and in Fig. 3, the base 306 appears to receive frame 304). Even if modified Hunter fails to disclose this limitation, however, Beck teaches the main pole is telescopically attached to the base component (see Beck base 30 receives pole 40), and is a similar and analogous structure to both the main pole and base component of modified Hunter. 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 attachment between the main pole and base of modified Hunter with the telescopic attachment as taught by Beck as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of attachment between a pole and base for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. securely attach the pole to the base.
Regarding claim 4, modified Hunter discloses a material of the main pole comprises metal (see Hunter [0049] frame members (such as vertical frame member 304) as part of the device may be made of cast metal). In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the main pole out of a sturdy material such as metal, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hunter discloses the angle that the leg support pole extends from the base component is 30 to 60 degrees relative to the base component (see Hunter Fig. 3 if a line was drawn parallel to ground level/base component level, the angle between the base component and the extending leg support pole [see annotated Fig. 3 above] is between 30-60 degrees).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hunter discloses a hand support pole removably disposed on the main pole (see Hunter annotated Fig. 3 above “hand support pole” clamped onto the vertical frame 308, doubled closer to the bottom of the frame as well, showing how the pole can be positioned according to choice), extending at a 90 to 115 degree angle relative to the main pole (see Hunter annotated Fig. 3 hand support pole is at a 90 degree angle relative to vertical frame 308).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hunter discloses each massage component further comprises a cushion cover (see Hunter modified by Neff to include Neff cushion 11, where Fig. 2 shows the top curved surface of cushion 11 that comes in contact with the user, acting as a cover to the vibratory elements, and [0033] of Neff mentions a cushioning of leather).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter in view of Neff and Beck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baida et al. (US 2023/0329955; hereinafter “Baida”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hunter discloses the leg support pole, but is silent as to further comprises an auxiliary pole extending from the leg support pole at a right angle relative to the leg support pole. However, Baida teaches a support pole (see Baida internal and external arm bar 52, 50, attached to “main pole” in the form of external and internal support bar 56, 60) further comprises an auxiliary pole extending from the support pole at a right angle relative to the support pole (see Baida head extender 44 extending from external arm bar 50 at a 90 degree angle). 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 leg support pole of modified Hunter with the addition of an auxiliary pole extending from the leg support pole as taught by Baida so as to provide another location for a massage component to attach and give the user more options for personalizing massage.
Claims 10, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Neff.
Regarding claim 10, Hunter discloses each massage component being made of a flexible material (see Hunter [0056] head attachment casing or body may be manufactured of a flexible polymer), but is silent as to explicitly that each massage component comprises:
a cushion.
However, Neff teaches each massage component (see Neff vibration unit 1) comprising: a cushion (see Neff vibration cushion 11). 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 massage component casing or outer body of Hunter with the cushion material as taught by Neff so as to provide a comfortable, soft material to contact the skin, and as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of outer casing/body of the massage component for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. vibrational massage the body of the user.
Modified Hunter discloses each massage component comprising:
a vibration component (see Hunter [0051] “a manipulating head attachment”, which is the electromechanical tissue manipulation device 302 labeled portion in annotated Fig. 3 “massage component”… the casing may be configures to contain one or more vibratory elements. And [0054] “the mechanical force or motion may comprise… vibrations”) attached to the cushion (see Hunter modified by Neff to have outer cushion 11 of Neff, wherein the vibrations of Hunter vibrate the head attachment of 302), wherein actuating the vibration component causes vibration of the cushion (see Hunter [0060-61] vibratory motor within casing of device 302 transfers vibration to user’s body via head, now modified to include cushion of Neff); and
an attachment component configured to secure the massage component to a point on a pole (see Hunter annotated Fig. 3 attachment component).
Regarding claim 18, Hunter discloses each massage component comprises a cushion and a vibration components, except for the additional features an additional cushion; and an additional vibration component attached to the additional cushion, wherein actuating the additional vibration component causes vibration of the additional cushion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the massage component’s cushion and vibration component, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See “Duplication of Parts” MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 20, Hunter discloses each vibrating massage component further comprises a cushion cover configured to encapsulate the cushion (see Hunter modified by Neff to include Neff cushion 11, where Fig. 2 shows the top curved surface of cushion 11 that comes in contact with the user, acting as a cover to the vibratory elements, and [0033] of Neff mentions a cushioning of leather).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Beck.
Regarding claim 11, Modified Hunter discloses a massage component attached to the main pole allows for massaging of a user’s hands, wrists, back, buttocks, chest, face, neck, and head (see Hunter device 302 attached to vertical frame 308, and wherein [0063] “To this end, a user may be able to choose where to position the device with respect to his or her height and body location”), but is silent as to this massage component as well as the previously claimed massage component (i.e., two massage components). However, Beck teaches a main pole comprising two massage components (see Beck Figs. 29-34 two massage brackets 50 positioned at varying positions along the pole pieces, 42, 44, 70). 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 pole and massage component attachment of modified Hunter with the addition of two massage components attached at one time as taught by Beck so as to provide more massage at one time to two different parts of the body.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Baida.
Regarding claim 14, Hunter discloses the leg support pole, but is silent as to further comprises an auxiliary pole extending from the leg support pole at a right angle relative to the leg support pole. However, Baida teaches a support pole (see Baida internal and external arm bar 52, 50, attached to “main pole” in the form of external and internal support bar 56, 60) further comprises an auxiliary pole extending from the support pole at a right angle relative to the support pole (see Baida head extender 44 extending from external arm bar 50 at a 90 degree angle). 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 leg support pole of modified Hunter with the addition of an auxiliary pole extending from the leg support pole as taught by Baida so as to provide another location for a massage component to attach and give the user more options for personalizing massage.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Beck.
Regarding claim 16, Hunter seemingly discloses the main pole is telescopically attached to the base component (see Hunter [0071] “a frame assembly of the present invention may comprise a base component to stabilize and secure the frame member during use” and in Fig. 3, the base 306 appears to receive frame 304). Even if modified Hunter fails to disclose this limitation, however, Beck teaches the main pole is telescopically attached to the base component (see Beck base 30 receives pole 40), and is a similar and analogous structure to both the main pole and base component of modified Hunter. 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 attachment between the main pole and base of modified Hunter with the telescopic attachment as taught by Beck as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of attachment between a pole and base for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. securely attach the pole to the base.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter.
Regarding claim 17, Hunter discloses a material of the main pole comprises metal (see Hunter [0049] frame members (such as vertical frame member 304) as part of the device may be made of cast metal). In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the main pole out of a sturdy material such as metal, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Yang (US 2011/0218465), Sutherland (US 2024/0058208), and Bailey et al. (US 2020/0060927) are cited to show massage apparatus with a standing frame and extended massage component.
Anzelmo (US 2023/0136480) is cited to show a vibrating massage component on an upward extending pole from a base.
Harvel (US 2016/0058656) is cited to show a multiple level massage system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GWYNNETH L HOWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4742. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 M-F.
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, Justine Yu can be reached at (571) 272-4835. 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.
/GWYNNETH L HOWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785