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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/21/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 08/21/26. Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 20 have been amended, new claim 21 has been added and claims 5-6 and 10-19 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-4, 7-9, and 20 are presently pending in this application.
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, 7-9, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (2015/0283022) in view of Schenck (2005/0043655), Theriot (10,682,508), 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 motor (vibration motor; 46, fig 6); a plate (40, fig 2) configured to selectively provide heating and cooling therapy (see [0054-56]), and a user interface (50, fig 7) configured to selectively activate one or more pain-relieving modalities of the apparatus (see [0075]); wherein the user interface is configured to permit the user to selectively use the one or more pain-relieving modalities independently or simultaneously (see [0075]) 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.
The modified Lee shows all the elements as claimed above but lacks a pain-relieving patch.
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).
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 7, the modified Lee shows the pain-relieving patch is removably attachable to a patch connector (see modification by Theriot above and Abstract, lines 3-6 and col. 3, lines 22-27 of Theriot).
With respect to claim 8, the modified Lee shows a second haptic motor (see [0072] “installed on both the opposite sides” of Lee).
With respect to claim 9, the modified Lee shows the pain-relieving patch comprising lidocaine (see Abstract, lines 6-8 of Theriot).
With respect to claim 21, 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 motor (vibration motor; 46, fig 6); a plate (40, fig 2) configured to selectively provide heating and cooling therapy (see [0054-56]), and a user interface (50, fig 7) configured to selectively activate one or more pain-relieving modalities of the apparatus (see [0075]); wherein the user interface is configured to permit the user to selectively use the one or more pain-relieving modalities independently or simultaneously (see [0075]) 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.
The modified Lee shows all the elements as claimed above but lacks a patch connector coupled to the housing and configured to removably receive a pain-relieving patch, such that the pain-relieving patch is positionable against the treatment area while the housing is coupled to the user.
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).
Note after the modification the patch is positioned to be in contact with the treatment area of the user for pain relief.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Schenck, Theriot 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, Theriot 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 a 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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Schenck, Theriot and Cohen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 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 the at least one attachment site (hand grip; 31, fig 4) to a painful location on a user ([0050], lines 4-5); initiating the motor (vibration motor; 46, fig 6) within the pain-relieving apparatus; selecting a waveform from the plurality of waveforms ((control screen; 200, fig 1 and [0297] of Cohen) to switch between the plurality of waveforms (see [0423] and fig 6 of Cohen)), but lacks 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.
Response to Arguments
The arguments to the newly added claim limitations in claims 1-4, 7-9, and 20-21 have been addressed in the above rejections.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights