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. 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. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length and contains legal phraseology. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Objections Claims 11, 16, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: In regards to Claims 11, 16, and 20: “ grooves ” should read -- interior grooves -- and “ ribs ” should read -- exterior ribs --. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-11 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. Specifically in regards to Claim 1 , the claim is an incomplete sentence. As such, the limitations are unclear. The remaining claims inherit the rejection by dependency. 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. Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected, to the degree definite , under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matossian (10925802) in view of Hicken (D886315). In regards to Claim 1 , Matossian teaches a multi-density (core has one density, the rings another density) , customizable segmented massage roller comprising: a cylindrical roller core (Detail 12) ; a plurality of foam massage rings (Detail 14) ; and two hollow retainer caps (Detail 44). While Matossian essentially teaches the invention as detailed, it fails to specifically teach that the hollow retainer caps are externally threaded . Hicken, however, teaches that in similar devices, it is well known to provide externally threaded hollow retainer caps (Figure 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized threading on the caps as taught, so as to better retain the caps in place, and ultimately, the plurality of foam massage rings. In regards to Claim 2 , Matossian teaches the cylindrical roller core has a first end and a second end (Figure 3) . In regards to Claim 3 , Hicken teaches the first end and the second end of the cylindrical roller core are internally threaded (Figure 8) . Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected, to the degree definite , under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matossian and Hicken as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Davis et al (D843001). In regards to Claim 4 , while the combination of Matossian and Hicken essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically teach the cylindrical roller core further comprises a plurality of interior structural supports running longitudinally from the internal threads of the first end to the internal threads of the second end, creating a plurality of interior cavities , all of which Davis teaches (Figures 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the interior structural supports as taught by Davis in the cylindrical roller core of the combination, so as to better support the core during use. In regards to Claim 5 , Matossian teaches the cylindrical roller core further comprises a plurality of exterior ribs (Details 62) running longitudinally from the first end to the second end of the cylindrical roller core. In regards to Claim 6 , Matossian teaches the plurality of foam massage rings are further comprised of a plurality of interior grooves (Details 64) . In regards to Claim 7 , Matossian teaches said plurality of interior grooves slidably connect to said plurality of exterior ribs of the cylindrical roller core, thereby securing the foam massage rings in a specific position on the cylindrical roller core (Column 3, lines 42-54). In regards to Claim 8 , the combination of Matossian and Hicken would teach the two externally threaded retainer caps are connected to the internally threaded first end and second end of the cylindrical roller core, thereby securing the foam massage rings onto the cylindrical roller core , as the end caps of Matossian which retain the rings would be threaded as taught. Claim(s) 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matossian in view of Hicken and Davis et al. In regards to Claim 12 , Matossian teaches a multi-density (core has one density, the rings another density) , customizable segmented massage roller comprising: a cylindrical roller core (Detail 12) ; a plurality of foam massage rings (Details 14) ; two retainer caps (Details 44) ; wherein the cylindrical roller core is comprised of a first end and a second end (Figure 3) ; wherein the cylindrical roller core is further comprised of a plurality of exterior ribs (Details 62) running longitudinally from the first end to the second end of the cylindrical roller core; wherein the plurality of foam massage rings are further comprised of a plurality of interior grooves (Details 64) ; wherein said plurality of interior grooves of the foam massage rings slidably connect to said plurality of exterior ribs of the cylindrical roller core, thereby securing the foam massage rings in a specific position on the cylindrical roller core (Column 3, lines 42-54) . While Matossian essentially teaches the invention as detailed, it fails to specifically teach that the retainer caps are externally threaded. Hicken, however, teaches that in similar devices, it is well known to provide externally threaded retainer caps and internally threaded first and second ends (Figure 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized threading on the caps as taught, so as to better retain the caps in place, and ultimately, the plurality of foam massage rings. While the combination of Matossian and Hicken essentially teaches the invention as detailed it fails to specifically teach a plurality of interior structural supports running longitudinally from the internal threads of the first end to the internal threads of the second end creating a plurality of interior cavities, all of which Davis teaches (Figures 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the interior structural supports as taught by Davis in the cylindrical roller core of the combination, so as to better support the core during use. In regards to the two externally threaded retainer caps being connected to the internally threaded first end and second end of the cylindrical roller core, thereby securing the foam massage rings onto the cylindrical roller core , the combination of Matossian and Hicken would teach the two externally threaded retainer caps are connected to the internally threaded first end and second end of the cylindrical roller core, thereby securing the foam massage rings onto the cylindrical roller core, as the end caps of Matossian which retain the rings would be threaded as taught. In regards to Claim 13 , Matossian teaches the plurality of foam massage rings are further comprised of a plurality of exterior massage patterns (different widths of different rings would have different curvatures, which would be different a different exterior massage pattern). In regards to Claim 16 , Applicant provides no criticality or unexpected results arising from the specific use of four ribs and four grooves, and as such, the choice is considered obvious. Matossian teaches three ribs and three grooves, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be more than capable of determining how many to use, to prevent the rings from rotating around the core. In regards to Claim 17 , Matossian teaches a multi-density (core has one density, the rings another density) , customizable segmented massage roller comprising: a cylindrical roller core (Detail 12) ; a plurality of foam massage rings (Detail 14) ; two retainer caps (Details 44) ; wherein the cylindrical roller core is comprised of a first end and a second end (Figure 3) ; a plurality of exterior ribs (Details 62) running longitudinally from the first end to the second end of the cylindrical roller core; wherein the plurality of foam massage rings are further comprised of a plurality of interior grooves (Details 64) and a plurality of exterior massage patterns (different widths of different rings would have different curvatures, which would be different a different exterior massage pattern) ; wherein said plurality of interior grooves of the foam massage rings slidably connect to said plurality of exterior ribs of the cylindrical roller core, thereby securing the foam massage rings in a specific position on the cylindrical roller core (Column 3, lines 42-54) . While Matossian essentially teaches the invention as detailed, it fails to specifically teach that the retainer caps are externally threaded. Hicken, however, teaches that in similar devices, it is well known to provide externally threaded retainer caps and internally threaded first and second ends (Figure 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized threading on the caps as taught, so as to better retain the caps in place, and ultimately, the plurality of foam massage rings. While the combination of Matossian and Hicken essentially teaches the invention as detailed it fails to specifically teach a plurality of interior structural supports running longitudinally from the internal threads of the first end to the internal threads of the second end creating a plurality of interior cavities, all of which Davis teaches (Figures 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the interior structural supports as taught by Davis in the cylindrical roller core of the combination, so as to better support the core during use. In regards to the two externally threaded retainer caps being connected to the internally threaded first end and second end of the cylindrical roller core, thereby securing the foam massage rings onto the cylindrical roller core , the combination of Matossian and Hicken would teach the two externally threaded retainer caps are connected to the internally threaded first end and second end of the cylindrical roller core, thereby securing the foam massage rings onto the cylindrical roller core, as the end caps of Matossian which retain the rings would be threaded as taught. In regards to Claim 20 , Applicant provides no criticality or unexpected results arising from the specific use of four ribs and four grooves, and as such, the choice is considered obvious. Matossian teaches three ribs and three grooves, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be more than capable of determining how many to use, to prevent the rings from rotating around the core. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 14, 15, 18, and 19 are 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. Claims 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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. See of Record . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4986 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-5559 . 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. /SHAUN R HURLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732