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 .
Claims 1-18, filed 7/11/23, are currently pending.
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 massaging assembly” in claim 1 (comprises a rechargeable lithium battery 210, a control circuit board 220, a charging stand 230, a keypad 240, a first vibration motor 250 and a second vibration motor 260, see [0057] of applicant’s specification).
“a rolling massaging part” in claim 1 (comprises a stretching and rolling connector 121 and a first massaging end 122, see [0048] of applicant’s specification and fig. 1).
“a vibration massaging assembly” in claim 9 (comprises a rechargeable lithium battery 210, a control circuit board 220, a charging stand 230, a keypad 240, a first vibration motor 250 and a second vibration motor 260, see [0057] of applicant’s specification).
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.
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 “charging stand extending out of the first silicone shell” in claim 17 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim since only the plug is shown extending from the first silicone shell in fig. 7. 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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“second massaging end 123” in line 1 of paragraph 52 is suggested to be changed to --second massaging end 113-- for consistency.
“control circuit board 240” in lines 6-7 of paragraph 57 is suggested to be changed to -- control circuit board 220-- for consistency.
“on the one hand, the second vibration motor 260 is firmly fixed, and on the other hand, the second vibration motor 260 is firmly fixed” in lines 9-11 of paragraph 62 appears to be repetitive.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “the main massaging part” in lines 1-2 suggested to be changed to --the main body massaging part-- for consistency.
Claim 3 recites “an other end is” in lines 4-5, suggested to be changed to --an other end of the stretching and rolling connector is-- for consistency. 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 10-17 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 10 recites “the second massaging end” in lines 10-11 and “the first massaging end” in lines 11-12, which lack proper antecedent basis.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on 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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Topolev (2020/0163826).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 6 Topolev discloses a massager (abstract), comprising a silicone body [0041] and a massaging assembly (structure within the silicone body including motors 142 and 160 that provide massage) accommodated in the silicone body; the silicone body comprises a main body massaging part 102 and a rolling massaging part (108 see fig. 3 and 4 [0020] “the arc of the second member rolls out along the straight linear member and acquires the linearity of the first member”) connected with the main body massaging part (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 2, Topolev discloses that the main massaging part 102 is detachably connected to the rolling massaging part (see fig. 6, in the rolled up configuration the rolling massaging part 102 is no longer aligned with the main body massaging part 102 and therefore in this way is detachably connected).
Regarding claim 3, Topolev discloses that the rolling massaging part 108 comprises a stretching and rolling connector (portion of 108 between 114 and 112) and a first massaging end 112; one end of the stretching and rolling connector is detachably connected to the main body massaging part (end of the stretching and rolling connector closest to 114 can be seen as disconnected in fig. 6), and an other end is connected to the first massaging end (end of the stretching and rolling connector closest to 112); wherein when the stretching and rolling connector is stretched (see fig. 4), it approaches the main body massaging part (Fig. 4), and when the stretching and rolling connector is rolled and deformed (Fig. 3 and 6), it is rolled away from the main body massaging part (Fig. 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 4, Topolev discloses that the other end of the stretching and rolling connector is detachably connected to the first massaging end (when rolled out in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Topolev discloses that the first massaging end has at least one of the following massage modes, vibrating massage, stretching massage, rotating massage, and tapping massage.
Regarding claim 6, Topolev discloses that the main body massaging part comprises a second massaging end.
Regarding claim 7, Topolev discloses that the second massaging end has at least one of the following massage modes, vibrating massage [0044], stretching massage, rotating massage, and tapping massage.
Regarding claim 8, Topolev discloses that the main body massaging part further comprises a gripping end 116 and a fixed connector (portion of 102 between 104 and 106); two ends of the fixed connector are respectively connected to the gripping end and the second massaging end (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Topolev discloses that the massaging assembly is a vibration massaging assembly [0044].
Regarding claim 10, Topolev discloses that the vibration massaging assembly comprises: a rechargeable lithium battery (154, see claim 2 of Topolev), a control circuit board 146, a charging stand 156, a keypad (118 and 120), a first vibration motor 142 and a second vibration motor 160; wherein the charging stand is electrically connected to the rechargeable lithium battery [0041], the rechargeable lithium battery is electrically connected to the control circuit board [0041], and the keypad is connected to the control circuit board [0041]; wherein the control circuit board is connected to the first vibration motor and the second vibration motor respectively [0041]; wherein the first vibration motor 142 is accommodated in the second massaging end (104 see fig. 6), and the second vibration motor 160 is accommodated in the first massaging end (112, see fig. 6).
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.
Claims 11-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topolev, as applied to claim 10 above, in further view of Liu et al. (11,801,196)
Regarding claim 11, Topolev discloses that the main body massaging part is formed of silicone [0041], but is silent regarding that the main body massaging part is formed by detachable splicing of a first shell and a second shell. However, in fig. 2 Liu teaches that the main body massaging part is formed by detachable splicing of a first shell 204a and a second shell 204b (Col. 4, ll. 55-Col. 5, ll. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Topolev’s main body massaging part with detachable splicing of a first shell and a second shell, as taught by Lui, for the purpose of providing access to the internal components in case of repair or replacement of any of the internal components (Col. 4, ll. 55-Col. 5, ll. 7 Liu).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Topolev discloses that the first silicone shell and the second silicone shell are detachably connected by a screw assembly (Col. 4, ll. 55-Col. 5, ll. 7 Liu).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Topolev discloses that the first silicone shell is provided with a second accommodation cavity (where 154 resides, fig. 6 Topolev), and one or more of the charging stand, the rechargeable lithium battery (154, fig. 6 Topolev) and the keypad are stored in the second accommodation cavity.
Regarding claim 15, Topolev discloses that the first massaging end is formed of silicone [0041], but is silent regarding that the first massaging end is formed by detachable splicing of a third silicone shell and a fourth silicone shell. However, in fig. 2 Liu teaches that the first massaging end is formed by detachable splicing of a third shell 202a and a second shell 202b (Col. 4, ll. 55-Col. 5, ll. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Topolev’s main first massaging end with detachable splicing of a third shell and a fourth shell, as taught by Lui, for the purpose of providing access to the internal components in case of repair or replacement of any of the internal components (Col. 4, ll. 55-Col. 5, ll. 7 Liu).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Topolev discloses that the third silicone shell and the fourth silicone shell are detachably connected by a screw assembly (Col. 4, ll. 55-Col. 5, ll. 7 Liu).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topolev and Liu, as applied to claim 11 above, in further view of Luettgen et al. (2003/0009116).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Topolev discloses that the first silicone shell defines a first accommodation cavity (where the first vibration motor 142 of Topolev resides), but is silent regarding that the first vibration motor is detachably fixed in the first accommodation cavity. However, Luettgen teaches that a vibration motor 500 is detachably [0103] fixed in an accommodation cavity (see fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Topolev’s first vibration motor’s attachment with a detachably fixed first vibration motor, as taught by Luettgen, for the purpose of providing a replacement of the motor as needed.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topolev and Liu, as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Vandaele (2014/0200399).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Topolev discloses that the charging stand is accommodated in the second accommodation cavity (Fig. 6 Topolev), and one end of the charging stand extending out of the first silicone shell (156 extend out of the shell), but is silent regarding that the one end of the charging stand extending out of the first silicone shell is covered with a waterproof plug. However, in fig. 3 Vandaele teaches a waterproof plug 5 that covers a charging stand [0040-0041]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Topolev’s charging standing extending out of the first silicone shell with the addition of a waterproof plug, as taught by Vandaele, for the purpose of providing waterproof protection to the charging stand as well as accessibility for charging.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topolev, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Shim (2010/0174137).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Topolev discloses assembling of the massaging assembly and the silicone body (see fig. 6 Topolev), but is silent regarding a liquid full-coating. However, Shim teaches a liquid full-coating [0074]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Topolev’s silicone body with a liquid-full coating, as taught by Shim, for sanitary purposes ([0074] Shim). The modified Topolev does not explicitly recite the method step that after assembly of the massaging assembly and the silicone body is completed, a liquid full-coating is carried out. The claimed phrase “after assembly of the massaging assembly and the silicone body is completed, a liquid full-coating is carried out” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the liquid full-coating is carried out after assembly of the massaging assembly and the silicone body is completed. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113. Thus, even though Shim is silent as to when the full-coating is applied, it appears that the product of the modified Topolev would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product is made of a silicone body that has a liquid full-coating.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Murphy (2,852,020) directed to a detachable motor and Tseng (2020/0360221) directed towards a waterproof plug for a charging stand.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1481. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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.
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785