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 lines 1-3, “further comprising a width extending support of said structure to which is secured an adjustable carriage supporting said robotic unit;” should be changed to – wherein said structure includes a width extending support to which is secured an adjustable carriage supporting said robotic unit.-- in order to improve claim clarity and to correct the typographical error. 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. Claim 2 is 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. Regarding claim 2, the phrase “further comprising said body scanner” in lines 1-2 is unclear as the phrase “further comprising” suggests an additional component but the invention already includes the body scanner. Examiner suggests applicant to amend the phrase “further comprising said body scanner to read -- wherein said body scanner-- in order to improve claim clarity. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Godlasky (US 2023/0414430). Regarding claim 1, Godlasky discloses (Fig. 1-8) a combination software and robotic system for providing therapeutic treatment for a patient, comprising: a processor control (processor 154) incorporating artificial intelligence assisted software algorithms (AI algorithms , paragraph [0096]) communicating with a robotic unit (comprising actuator 120, support arm 102b and 102d, actuator 122, and device support 104) for providing a series of instructions to a probe (therapy device 101) integrated into said robotic unit, a structure (frames 102a and 102c) supporting said robotic unit which is adapted to being positioned in contact with a treatment location of a patient (see Fig. 1A) ; a body scanner (memory and processor utilize AI algorithms to generate body scan data points, paragraph [0096], and then utilize LiDAR, via sensors 131,132 to create a 3D point cloud of patient’s body to map the locations of the anatomy of key skeletal structures and symmetrical muscle groups locations for each predefined mode , paragraphs [0157]-[0159]) incorporated into the processor for conducting an initial body scan of the patient (paragraphs [0096] and [0157]-[0159]) , at which point the processor assembles and outputs each of a detailed scan result and associated treatment protocol (paragraphs [0154] and [0176]) ; and said instructions being provided, according to the scan results and treatment protocol, to said processor control (paragraph [0175]) in order to permit said robotic unit and probe to be controlled remotely (via remote controller 600) for applying treatment to a patient muscle area according input parameters selected from at least one of heat, vibration, pressure and duration (control pressure caused by actuators based on feedback, paragraph [0023], [0116] and [0189]) . Regarding claim 2, Godlasky discloses said body scanner being configured within any of a front, side or downwardly facing location associated with said structure (body scanner configured within downwardly facing location via sensor 131 that facing downwardly of structure 102a,102c, see Fig. 1C) . Regarding claim 3 , Godlasky discloses a width extending support (frame 102c, extending width of structure 102a,102c) of said structure to which is secured an adjustable carriage (movable compartment 112) supporting said robotic unit (see Fig. 1C and paragraph [0062]). 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) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godlasky (US 2023/0414430) in view of Burton (US 2016/0324717) . Regarding claim 4, Godlasky discloses a robotic unit but does not disclose said robotic unit further including a lock lever which engages a first axial interface between first and second overlapping support portions, said first support portion being secured to an underside of said adjustable carriage and said overlapping second portion in turn incorporating an end bearing which rotatably supports a downward suspended main body, with lower projection of said main suspended body supporting said probe head at a lower end of said robotic unit and so that said probe head is repositionable along separate axes of adjustment . However, Burton teaches (Fig. 4-6) a lock lever (handle of locking clamp 29, paragraph [0018]) which engages a first axial interface between first and second overlapping support portions (overlapping portions 27,28) of a massage unit defining a first of said multiple axes of adjustment (see Fig. 3) , said first support portion (27) being secured to an underside of said adjustable carriage (slider plate 5) , said overlapping second portion (2 8 ) in turn incorporating an end bearing (lower portion of 2 8 having annular portion) which supports a downward suspended main body (coupling link 23) , with lower projection of said main suspended body supporting said probe head (see Fig. 4 ) so that said probe head is repositionable along separate axes of adjustment (see Fig. 4 and 6) . Burton does not disclose the end bearing rotatably supports the downward suspended main body , however Mackin teaches (Fig. 9) an end bearing (joint 113) that rotatable supports the downward suspended main body (main body 114 which is attached to probe portion 115). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Godlasky to include a lock lever, as taught by Burton, for the purpose of allowing the angle of the probe to be adjustable to meet a patient’s massaging needs; and to further modify the system of modified Meilus such that the end bearing rotatably supports the downward suspended main body, as taught by Mackin , for the purpose of providing an additional degree of freedom of the massage head. Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godlasky (US 2023/0414430) in view of Burton (US 2016/0324717) and Osuka (US 2009/0248202). Regarding claim 5, modified Godlasky discloses a probe head , but does not disclose a plurality of wires extending from said probe head through said robotic unit including interconnecting interior pathways defined in said overlapping support portions and said end bearing to communicate with said processor control for manipulating said probe . However, Osuka teaches (Fig. 1) wiring extending from a head (end portion 3) through said robotic unit including interconnecting interior pathways defined in said overlapping support portions said end bearing (wiring extends through entirety of robotic unit 1 and thus extends through end bearing, paragraphs [0120] and [0122]) to communicate with said processor control for manipulating said probe (see paragraphs [0120] and [0122]). Regarding the wire being a “plurality of wires”, Osuka discloses “wiring” and is unclear whether this wiring is a single wire or a plurality of wires. In the case that only a single wire is disclosed, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see In re Harza , 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wiring of modified Godlasky to include a plurality of wires extending from said probe head through said robotic unit including interconnecting interior pathways defined in said overlapping support portions said end bearing to communicate with said processor control for manipulating said probe , as taught by Osuka , for the purpose of preventing environmental damage of the wires or accidental unplugging/damage to the wires. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godlasky (US 2023/0414430) in view of Jones (US 4,973,044). Regarding claim 6 , Godlasky discloses a software component incorporating said artificial intelligence assisted software algorithms which interfaces with a touch screen display unit (GUI , paragraphs [0098] and [0153]), but does not disclose the touch screen display unit incorporated with said processor control into a cabinet mounted above said width extending support. However, Jones teaches (Fig. 1-3) a processor control (computer 90) is incorporated into a cabinet (control cabinet 92) mounted within a space located between said top cross member (30) and said lower width extending support (60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor control of Godlasky to be incorporated into a cabinet mounted within a space located between said top cross member and said lower width extending support , as taught by Jones, for the purpose of preventing environmental damage of the control as well as to make the control be located close to the actuator so that only a small amount of wiring for electrical connection is required. Claim 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godlasky (US 2023/0414430) in view of Jones (US 4,973,044), and further in view of Colloca (US 2014/0303670). Regarding claim 7, modified Godlasky discloses a software component , but does not disclose the software component further comprising a login screen and a succeeding treatment set up screen. However, Colloca teaches (Fig. 1) a software component (DSA program) further comprising a login screen (home page for user to login, see paragraph [0071]) and a succeeding treatment set up screen (see paragraphs [0070] and [0233]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software component of modified Godlasky to include a login screen and a succeeding treatment set up screen, as taught by Colloca , for the purpose of preventing the massaging program from activating until a correct username and password is entered (paragraph [0233] Colloca ). Regarding claim 9, modified Godlasky discloses a software component, but does not disclose said software component includes a data extraction protocol to populate medical notes taken by a care provider for communication to any external software system or network device. However, Soyao teaches (Fig. 3) a software component comprising a data extraction protocol (network 10) comprising the ability to extract data (via platform 14, which includes patient data and insights, paragraph [0083]) to populate medical notes (e.g. SOAP notes, paragraph [0083]) taken by a care provider for communication to any external software system or network device (e.g. mobile device, paragraph [0067]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software component of modified Godlasky to include a data extraction protocol to populate medical notes taken by a care provider for communication to any external software system or network device, as taught by Soyao , for the purpose of provided automated note creation to ensure that patient health status is documented during course of therapy. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godlasky (US 2023/0414430) in view of Jones (US 4,973,044), and further in view of Soyao (US 2015/0216413) Regarding claim 8, modified Godlasky discloses a protocol, but does not disclose said system provides the ability to complete SOAP notes. However, Soyao teaches (Fig. 3) a protocol (network 10) that provides the ability to complete SOAP notes (generates at least a portion of a SOAP note to be provided for a physician/clinician for review and/or modification, see paragraph [0254]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Godlasky to include providing the ability to complete SOAP notes, as taught by Soyao , for the purpose of allowing user health to be documented during the process of therapy to see how the therapy progresses over time (paragraph [0083] Soyao ). Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godlasky (US 2023/0414430) in view of Mackin (US 2017/0266077), 10. The combination software and robotic system of claim 1, said processor control further communicating with said robotic unit by any of USB card, SD card, 3D scanning, text messaging application, short range wireless communication, Near Field Communication or loud based protocol. Regarding claim 10, modified Godlasky discloses the processor control further communicating with said robotic unit ( paragraph [0076] Godlasky ), but does not disclose at least one of a short range wireless communication, Near Field Communication or Cloud based protocol communicated to said processor control in order to permit said robotic unit to be controlled remotely. However, Mackin teaches (Fig. 1-19) a massage robot comprising at least one of a short range wireless communication, Near Field Communication or Cloud based protocol (cloud protocol 312, paragraph [0066]) communicated to said processor control (controller 304) in order to permit said robotic unit to be controlled remotely (remote control, e.g. a clinician or technician can control massage robot from another location, see paragraph [0066]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Godlasky to include at least one of a short range communication system, Near Field Communication or Cloud based protocol communicated to said processor control in order to permit said robotic unit to be controlled remotely, as taught by Mackin , for the purpose of allowing the massage robot to controlled by either a user or trained professional, which allows users with little experience to receive proper massage from a trained professional (paragraph [0066]). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Forsythe (US 2019/0167512) discloses a massage therapy system having a probe and control system. Zhang (US 2017/0079871) disclose a mobile robot massage system. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MATTHEW R MOON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2554 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm . 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 Timothy Stanis can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /MATTHEW R MOON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /TIMOTHY A STANIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785