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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 3, line 2 "a user" should be changed to --the user-- to correct antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 and 12-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the brain" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 12, the phrase “may further comprise” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
All remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency of a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (2015/0283022) in view of Schenck (2005/0043655) and Cohen (2010/0320819).
With respect to claim 1, Lee discloses a pain-relieving apparatus (100, fig 1; [0009], lines 1-4), comprising: a housing (30, fig 1); at least one attachment site (hand grip; 31, fig 4) to coupling the housing to a user ([0050], lines 4-5); a haptic motor (vibration motor; 46, fig 6); a stimulating surface (20, fig 3) that is actuated by the haptic motor, the stimulating surface configured to interrupt a user’s pain signals to the brain (stimulus to the skin would distract the user’s brain; [0009]), the stimulating surface comprising a suction ring (ring around 21/24, fig 3 of Lee), but lacks a TENS output connector.
However, Schenck teaches a pain-relieving apparatus (10, fig 1; [0002], lines 1-4) with a TENS output connector (connection of TENS (50) to element 48 in fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Lee to include a TENS connector as taught by Schenck so as to provide additional pain reliving therapies.
Further, the modified Lee lacks the haptic motor configured to generate a plurality of waveform modalities including one or more of sine waves, triangle waves, square waves, and sawtooth waves.
However, Cohen teaches a device (chair; fig 1) comprising a haptic motor (transducer; see [0293]) configured to generate a plurality of waveform modalities (see [0421-423]) including one or more of sine waves, triangle waves, square waves, and sawtooth waves and an interface (control screen; 200, fig 1 and [0297]) to switch between the plurality of waveforms (see [0423] and fig 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the haptic motor and controller (58, fig 7 and display 58 in fig 7 of Lee) to include adjusting a plurality of waveforms through a touchscreen interface as taught by Cohen so as to manually alter the shape of the waves to adjust the massage based on the user’s wants/needs.
With respect to claim 3, the modified Lee shows the haptic motor is configured to be adjustable by a user using a user interface (see modification by Cohen where the display of Lee is used to adjust waveforms; claim 1 above and [0423] of Cohen) on a touchscreen to switch between the plurality of waveform modalities (see [0421-423] of Cohen and modification above).
With respect to claim 5, the modified Lee shows the suction ring comprises a plurality of vacuum apertures (open spaces between 24 and 26 and opening in 21 in fig 3 of Lee) that are evenly spaced in a circular formation (see the openings are spaced circularly around a central axis of the hole 21 in fig 3 of Lee).
With respect to claim 8, the modified Lee shows a second haptic motor (see [0072] “installed on both the opposite sides” of Lee).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Schenck and Cohen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kono (2022/0103051).
With respect to claim 2, the modified Lee shows the haptic motor (see claim 1 above) but lacks the haptic motor comprising a coil frame that houses a voice coil, a rod, a magnet slidable on the rod, a first compression spring, and a second compression spring.
However, Kono teaches a vibration generator (100b, fig 4) comprising a coil frame (110, fig 4) that houses a voice coil (145, fig 4), a rod (130, fig 4), a magnet (143, fig 4) slidable on the rod (see [0044]), a first compression spring (161, fig 4), and a second compression spring (162, fig 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the haptic motor of the modified Lee with the voice coil motor as taught by Kono so as to replace one known haptic motor with another for providing sufficient vibration to a user (see [0009] of Kono).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Schenck and Cohen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Palomaki (2017/0196757).
With respect to claim 4, the modified Lee shows the suction ring (ring around 21/24, fig 3 of Lee) but lacks the ring being an elastomer material.
However, Palomaki teaches a suction device (2, fig 1) with a sealing ring (4, fig 1) made of elastomer (see [0048], lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sealing ring of Lee to be elastomer as taught by Palomaki so as to provide a material that changes the friction between the ring and the skin tissue and a material that improves sealing (see [0048], lines 4-7 of Palomaki).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Schenck and Cohen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Theriot (10,682,508).
With respect to claim 7, the modified Lee shows all the elements as claimed above but lacks a pain relieving patch removably attached to a patch connector.
However, Theriot teaches a therapeutic apparatus (100, fig 1) with a medicinal patch (10, fig 1) attachable to a pain relieving device (TENS device, 20, fig 1 and Abstract, lines 3-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of the modified Lee to include an attachable medicinal patch with as taught by Theriot so as to provide a system that will maximize the release of a pain reliever onto the user’s skin (see col. 2, lines 23-25 of Theriot).
With respect to claim 9, the modified Lee shows all the elements as claimed above but lacks a pain relieving patch comprising lidocaine.
However, Theriot teaches a therapeutic apparatus (100, fig 1) with a medicinal patch (10, fig 1) attachable to a pain relieving device (TENS device, 20, fig 1 and Abstract, lines 3-6) comprising lidocaine (see Abstract, lines 6-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of the modified Lee to include an attachable medicinal patch with as taught by Theriot so as to provide a system that will maximize the release of a pain reliever onto the user’s skin (see col. 2, lines 23-25 of Theriot).
Claim(s) 10-12, 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (2015/0283022) in view of Schenck (2005/0043655), Cohen (2010/0320819), Kono (2022/0103051), and Theriot (10,682,508).
With respect to claim 10, Lee discloses a pain-relieving apparatus (100, fig 1; [0009], lines 1-4), comprising: a housing (30, fig 1); a haptic motor (vibration motor; 46, fig 6); a stimulating surface (20, fig 3) that is actuated by the haptic motor, the stimulating surface comprising a suction ring (ring around 21/24, fig 3 of Lee), but lacks a TENS connector and rechargeable battery port.
However, Schenck teaches a pain-relieving apparatus (10, fig 1; [0002], lines 1-4) with a battery charging port (rechargeable battery; 46, fig 1 would have a charging port to recharge) and a TENS output connector (connection of TENS (50) to element 48 in fig 1).
Further, the modified Lee lacks the haptic motor configured to generate a plurality of waveform modalities.
However, Cohen teaches a device (chair; fig 1) comprising a haptic motor (transducer; see [0293]) configured to generate a plurality of waveform modalities (see [0421-423]) and an interface (control screen; 200, fig 1 and [0297]) to switch between the plurality of waveforms (see [0423] and fig 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the haptic motor and controller (58, fig 7 and display 58 in fig 7 of Lee) to include adjusting a plurality of waveforms through a touchscreen interface as taught by Cohen so as to manually alter the shape of the waves to adjust the massage based on the user’s wants/needs.
Further, the modified Lee lacks the haptic motor comprising a coil frame that houses a voice coil, a rod, a magnet slidable on the rod, a first compression spring, and a second compression spring.
However, Kono teaches a vibration generator (100b, fig 4) comprising a coil frame (110, fig 4) that houses a voice coil (145, fig 4), a rod (130, fig 4), a magnet (143, fig 4) slidable on the rod (see [0044]), a first compression spring (161, fig 4), and a second compression spring (162, fig 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the haptic motor of the modified Lee with the voice coil motor as taught by Kono so as to replace one known haptic motor with another for providing sufficient vibration to a user (see [0009] of Kono).
Lastly, the modified Lee lacks a patch connector.
However, Theriot teaches a therapeutic apparatus (100, fig 1) with a medicinal patch (10, fig 1) attachable to a pain relieving device (TENS device, 20, fig 1 and Abstract, lines 3-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of the modified Lee to include an attachable medicinal patch with as taught by Theriot so as to provide a system that will maximize the release of a pain reliever onto the user’s skin (see col. 2, lines 23-25 of Theriot).
With respect to claim 11, the modified Lee shows the plurality of waveform modalities includes one or more of sine waves, triangle waves, square waves, and sawtooth waves (see [0421-423] of Cohen).
With respect to claim 12, as best understood, the modified Lee shows the stimulating surface may further comprise a suction ring (ring around 21/24, fig 3 of Lee), a vibration stimulator (see [0072] “installed on both the opposite sides” of Lee), a thermal plate (hot/cold unit 40 fig 4 with thermoelement 41, fig 4 of Lee), and a medicinal patch (10, fig 1 of Theriot).
With respect to claim 14, the modified Lee shows the medicinal patch comprises lidocaine (see Abstract, lines 6-8 of Theriot).
With respect to claim 19, the modified Lee shows a second haptic motor (see [0072] “installed on both the opposite sides” of Lee).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Schenck, Cohen, Kono, and Theriot as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Palomaki (2017/0196757).
With respect to claim 13, the modified Lee shows the suction ring (ring around 21/24, fig 3 of Lee) but lacks the ring being an elastomer material.
However, Palomaki teaches a suction device (2, fig 1) with a sealing ring (4, fig 1) made of elastomer (see [0048], lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sealing ring of Lee to be elastomer as taught by Palomaki so as to provide a material that changes the friction between the ring and the skin tissue and a material that improves sealing (see [0048], lines 4-7 of Palomaki).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Schenck, Cohen, Kono, and Theriot as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Baxter (2018/0369064).
With respect to claim 15, the modified Lee shows all the elements as claimed above but lacks a speaker.
However, Baxter teaches a pain-relief device (10, fig 1) with a speaker (46, fig 5B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Lee to include a speaker as taught by Baxter so as to provide sound therapy or warning sounds to the user.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Schenck, Cohen, Kono, and Theriot as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yu (10,589,116).
With respect to claim 16, the modified Lee shows all the elements as claimed above, but lacks a wireless transceiver.
However, Yu teaches a pain management apparatus (10, fig 1) with a wireless transceiver (90, fig 7) for communication with an external device (smartphone; see col. 5, lines 36-41) where user inputs are inputted through a software application on the external device (commands from an external device; see col. 5, lines 36-41 of Yu).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Lee to include a transceiver and external control as taught by Yu so as to provide remote control from the wearer or a clinician in another location.
With respect to claim 17, the modified Lee shows user inputs are inputted through a software application on a phone wirelessly coupled to the wireless transceiver (see modification by Yu above and commands from an external device; see col. 5, lines 36-41 of Yu).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Schenck, Cohen, Kono, and Theriot as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Cheng (2018/0326205).
With respect to claim 18, the modified Lee shows the rechargeable battery port (see claim 10 above) but is silent regarding the port being a USB port.
However, Cheng teaches a pain-relief device (3, fig 1) with a rechargeable battery (B, fig 1H) with a USB port (P5, fig 1D and [0055], lines 1-4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charging port of the modified Lee to be a USB port as taught by Cheng so as to provide a well-known, standard connection for chargers to supply power to the battery for recharging.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (2015/0283022) in view Cohen (2010/0320819) and Weinkle (WO2010/031055).
With respect to claim 20, Lee discloses a method of using a pain-relieving apparatus (100, fig 1; [0009], lines 1-4), comprising: coupling the pain-relieving apparatus via at least one attachment site (hand grip; 31, fig 4) to a painful location on a user ([0050], lines 4-5); initiating a haptic motor (vibration motor; 46, fig 6) within the pain-relieving apparatus; but lacks the haptic motor configured to generate a plurality of waveform modalities including one or more of sine waves, triangle waves, square waves, and sawtooth waves, adjusting between the plurality of waveforms to find a waveform amongst the plurality of waveforms.
However, Cohen teaches a device (chair; fig 1) comprising a haptic motor (transducer; see [0293]) configured to generate a plurality of waveform modalities (see [0421-423]) including one or more of sine waves, triangle waves, square waves, and sawtooth waves and an interface (control screen; 200, fig 1 and [0297]) to switch between the plurality of waveforms (see [0423] and fig 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the haptic motor of Lee to include adjusting a plurality of waveforms as taught by Cohen so as to manually alter the shape of the waves to adjust the massage based on the user’s wants/needs.
Further, the modified Lee is silent regarding the plurality of waveforms providing personalized pain relief.
However, Weinkle teaches a vibrating device system (100, fig 1) with a number of waveforms for treating pain (see [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the adjustable waveforms of the modified Lee for providing personalized pain relief as taught by Weinkle so as to adjust for specific treatment and needs of the user’s pain.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nachum (2020/0188663), Vergara (2019/0053968), Maloney (2018/0000685), and Thomas (9,764,133) are cited to show additional stimulus devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E BALLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4 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, 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.
/KELSEY E BALLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785