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 .
Response to amendments
The amendments dated 8/29/25 overcome the specification and drawing objections. The claim amendments overcome the 112(b) rejections and the previous objection to claim 6.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 8 refer to “the belly button.” In order to avoid any appearance of claiming a human or part of a human body, these claims should be amended to recite e.g. “the device is configured to be located at a predetermined location in front of a belly button of a user.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skille et al. [US Pat. 5101810, hereinafter “Skille”] in view of Hyde et al. [US 20100166613 A1, hereinafter “Hyde”]
Re. claims 1 and 2, Skille discloses: A low-frequency sonic wave emitter [Fig 3], at least comprising:
a low-frequency sonic [Col. 1 line 63] wave emitter [5, Fig. 4], configured to emit a low-frequency sonic wave with a predetermined frequency [Col. 3 lines 21-29];
a low-frequency sonic waveguide [8’]; and
PNG
media_image1.png
466
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the low-frequency sonic wave
Skille fails to teach the plant essential oil carrier. However, Hyde teaches, in combination with a low frequency sound emitter [Par. 0138], the use of plant essential oils which in at least one instance necessitate a carrier [Par. 0122, using aerial diffusion at least requires some type of essential oil carrier]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Skille by adding, to the health care device of Skille, a plant essential oil carrier having a plant essential oil as taught by Hyde in order to provide an aromatherapeutic effect [Hyde Par. 0122].
Regarding the essential oil carrier being located between the wave emitter and waveguide, (1) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above apparatus to combine the wave emitter/waveguide and essential oil carrier into one body in order to minimize the number of parts in the apparatus, and (2) given that it would have been obvious to combine these into one body, the location of the essential oil carrier amounts to selecting one from a limited list of location options [before the frequency emitter, after the waveguide, between the two, or beside them] and thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, with the carrier being placed after the frequency emitter having the added benefit that the emitter may help disperse the essential oil.
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skille in view of Hyde and Lord as applied to claim 3 and further in view of Chung et al. [US 2022/0339062 A1, hereinafter “Chung”].
Re. claim 4, the modified Skille fails to teach the claimed frequency. However, Chung teaches a health care device which imparts low frequency sonic vibrations overlapping with the claimed range [down to 1 Hz, Par. 0043, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.27 Hz to 1.81 Hz]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of the modified Skille by configuring the device to have a frequency down to the order of 1 Hz as taught by Chung because this allows for the device to overlap with the “natural resonance wave of a human organ” [Chung Par. 0003] which can, in turn, “generate harmonious resonance, which directly affects brain waves, heart rate, and breathing rhythm of the receiver and cause body cells to generate mild resonance, and make the receiver feel substantiated and soothed” [Chung Par. 0004]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
PNG
media_image2.png
259
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 5, Skille discloses the waveguide comprises a column part [Annotated Fig 4]. Regarding the accommodating space for the plant oil carrier being in the column part, given the above teachings, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus to place the accommodating space and carrier in the column part as claimed because this amounts to selecting one from a limited list of more detailed placement options (given the above constraints, it may be in the conical area or columnar area, or else to the left of them).
Re. claim 6, Skille further discloses the health care device is installed on a frame [Annotated Fig. 3]
PNG
media_image3.png
293
408
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding the location of the frame re. the belly button of a user and the distance: Skille discloses the health care device may be located above the belly button of a user [see Fig. 3; the user is indicated at 1] and, depending on the size of the person, is capable of being located at a predetermined location in front of a belly button of a user with a predetermined distance, and the predetermined distance is 5 cm to 8 cm, as claimed [see Claim Interpretation, above]
Re. claim 7, Skille further discloses the low-frequency waveguide is located at the predetermined location [Fig. 3].
Re. claim 8, Skille further discloses the system is capable of performing the function of, after the energy of the low-frequency sonic wave is focused in the low-frequency waveguide and then is emitted out from the low-frequency waveguide, the low-frequency wave propagates toward the belly button, and then reaches the belly button [Fig. 3, in the case where the user’s belly button is placed below the waveguide].
Claim(s) 9, 12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skille in view of Hyde as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Tsai [US 2022/0401299].
Re. Claim 9, Skille as modified by Hyde discloses the health care device as set forth with respect to claim 1 above, and further teaches a health care method, comprising:
using a health care device located at located at a predetermined location in front of a belly button of a user [Fig. 3] with a predetermined distance [predetermined by the geometry of the device and the human body being acted on] to emit a low-frequency sonic wave with a predetermined frequency [Col. 3 lines 21-29].
Skille-Hyde fails to teach the predetermined distance being 5-8 cm. However, Tsai teaches, in a health care method of applying waves to a human body, positioning the wave emitter at a distance of 5 cm from the human body [Par. 0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the modified Skille by placing the device a distance of 5 cm from the user’s body as taught by Tsai in order to provide effective treatment while minimizing damage to the organs [Tsai Par. 0032].
Re. Claim 12, Skille as modified by Hyde discloses the health care device as set forth with respect to claim 2 above (and thus inherently discloses the method of using it)
Re. Claim 14, Skille as modified discloses the health care device as set forth with respect to claim 5 above (and thus inherently discloses the method of using it).
Re. Claim 15, Skille as modified discloses the health care device as set forth with respect to claim 7 above (and thus inherently discloses the method of using it).
Re. Claim 16, Skille further discloses after the energy of the low-frequency wave is focused in the low-frequency waveguide, and then the low-frequency wave is emitted out from the low-frequency waveguide, the low-frequency wave propagates toward the belly button, and then reaches the belly button [Fig. 3 and claim 9, above].
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skille in view of Hyde and Tsai as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Chung.
Re. Claims 10 and 11, Skille as modified discloses the health care method of claim 9, as well as the frequency (taught by Chung) taught with respect to claim 4 above. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. This is the case for both the range of claim 10 and the value of claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 has been amended only to change “low frequency” to “low-frequency sonic.” This change is not distinguishing over Skille, which explicitly discloses a low-frequency sonic wave/waveguide as set forth above.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "wherein the low-frequency sonic waveguide comprises a column part and a conical portion, and the column part is formed with an accommodating space therein, and the accommodating space accommodates the plant essential oil carrier; wherein the low-frequency sonic wave is transmitted from a bottom surface of the column part to the plant essential oil carrier and a top surface of the column part opposite to the bottom surface of the column part, and the low-frequency sonic wave is further transmitted from a bottom surface of the conical portion to a vertex of the conical portion narrower than the bottom surface of the conical portion such that the energy of the low-frequency sonic wave is concentrated as it is transmitted to the vertex," ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). While Applicant may have intended to amend the claims as such, the examiner must respond to the amendments on record and not hypothetical amendments.
Regarding the argument that Skille cannot effectively gather energy, or that Skille “is silent that the energy of the low-frequency sonic wave is concentrated,” the examiner respectfully disagrees as Skille explicitly discloses concentrating the sonic energy in Col. 9, lines 55-60.
The fact that the purpose of Skille’s invention is different from the instant invention are irrelevant (noting, of course, that Skille’s invention is from a similar field of endeavor relating to medical treatments). Design differences are relevant only insofar as they are represented by claimed structural differences. Skille, as set forth above, teaches the amended claim language.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN MCGRATH whose telephone number is (571)270-0674. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm ET.
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, JACKIE HO can be reached at (571) 272-4696. 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.
/ERIN MCGRATH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights