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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the filing of the application on 8/17/2023. Since the initial filing, no claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Thus, claims 1-10 are pending in the application.
Priority
2. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority regarding 18/451,752 (filing date of 08/17/2023), the foreign priority document CN202321994285.6 was not received and could not be retrieved by the office (See unsuccessful retrieval request issued 12/27/24). Therefore, the current application will presently be assigned the effective filing date of 08/17/2023.
Claim Interpretation- 35 USC § 112 – Sixth Paragraph/35 USC § 112(f)
3. 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.
At present, no claims are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the yaw shaft (8A) of the yaw wheel (8) and one end connected with the yaw arm (11) form a yaw slope (8B)” (In 18-19) renders the claim unclear because it does not clearly identify which component includes the recited “one end.” It is unclear whether the claim refers to one end of the yaw shaft, one end of the yaw wheel, one end of the yaw arm, or another structure. Because the claim does not clearly identify the structural relationship of the components that form the yaw slope (8B), the metes and bounds and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the bottom of one end of the yaw arm,” (In 20) renders the claim unclear because it does not clearly identify which reference is the recited “the bottom.” It is unclear and fails to clearly identify which structural surface or portion is being referenced. Because the claim does not clearly identify the structural relationship specifics, the metes and bounds and bounds of the claim cannot be determined for reasonable certainty.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the other end of one end of the yaw arm,” (In 23) renders the claim unclear because it does not clearly identify which reference is the recited “the other end” without previously introducing a corresponding first end of the yaw arm. It is unclear and fails to clearly identify which structural surface or portion is being referenced. Because the claim does not clearly identify the structural relationship specifics, the metes and bounds and bounds of the claim cannot be determined for reasonable certainty.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “in a sleeving mode” specifically the term “mode” (In 12, 18, & 2) does not clearly describe a relationship between components, but instead suggests an operational or functional condition. The phrase “in a sleeving mode” appears to describe a fitted or mounting relationship (e.g., one component being disposed around or fitted over another), the terminology lacks clarity (In 12, 18, & 2) and should be recite the structural relationship more clearly, such as —disposed around or fitted around—in place of “in a sleeving mode.”
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “eccentric wheel (7),” “the yaw wheel (8)” and “the yaw arm (11)” (In 18-19) is in singular form after previously introducing plural structures including limitation “eccentric wheel (7),” “the yaw wheel (8)” and “the yaw arms (11).” Therefore, it is unclear whether the subsequently recited limitations apply to one of the plural structures, each of the plural structures, or the plural structures collectively. Because the claim cannot be determined for certain, the metes and bounds and bounds of the claim cannot be determined for reasonable certainty.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the eccentric wheel (7),” (In 3) is unclear which eccentric wheel the claim is referring to. Therefore, it is unclear whether the subsequently recited limitations apply to one of the plural structures, each of the plural structures, or the plural structures collectively. Because the claim cannot be determined for certain, the metes and bounds and bounds of the claim cannot be determined for reasonable certainty.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a first massage seat (11D) extending from the yaw arm (11) to one side of a free end of the ejector rod (10) and a second massage seat (11E) extending from the other side” (In 12-14) renders the claim unclear because the phrase “the other side” refers to the other side of the free end of the ejector rod, the other side of the yaw arm, the other side of the first massage seat, or another structure. Therefore, the relationship between the first massage seat (11D), the second massage seat (11E), the yaw arm (11), and the ejector rod (10) are not clearly defined.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “in a sleeving mode” specifically the term “mode” (In 18) does not clearly describe a relationship between components, but instead suggests an operational or functional condition. The phrase “in a sleeving mode” appears to describe a fitted or mounting relationship (e.g., one component being disposed around or fitted over another), the terminology lacks clarity (In 18) and should be recite the structural relationship more clearly, such as —disposed around or fitted around—in place of “in a sleeving mode.”
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the eccentric wheel, the ejector rod and the yaw arm are respectively provided with a plurality of oil storage grooves” (In 20-21) renders the claim unclear because claim 1 recites eccentric wheels (7) in a plural form including “two eccentric wheels,” while claim 8 recites “the eccentric wheel” in singular form; this also applies to “ejector rod (10)” and “yaw arm (11).” It is unclear whether the plurality of oil storage grooves is required on one eccentric wheel or on each of the eccentric wheels, ejector rods, and yaw arms. Because the claim does not clearly identify the structural relationship specifics, the metes and bounds and bounds of the claim cannot be determined for reasonable certainty.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the driven gear (5C), the eccentric wheels (7) and the yaw wheels (8) are limited by “limiting pins” without clearly identifying the number, structure, or relationship of the limiting pins to the previously recited limiting holes (6A). It is unclear whether each of the driven gear, eccentric wheels, and yaw wheels are limited by a separate limiting pin, by a shared limiting pin, or by some other arrangement. Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Regarding claim 1, Kasai (20030032903) discloses a shoulder belt massage machine core, comprising:
a brushless motor (In 3) (FIG. 13 depicts a motor 210),
a circuit board (In 3) (FIG. 22 depicts a circuit board),
a gear transmission group (In 3) (FIGS. 14 & 15 depicts a group of gear transmissions 216 & 217),
a long rotating shaft (In 3-4) (FIG. 15 depicts a rotating shaft 205),
eccentric wheels (In 4) (FIGS. 14 & 15 depicts eccentric wheels 215),
ejector rods (In 4) (FIG. 11 depicts ejector rod/support members 203R and 203L),
yaw arms (In 5) (FIG. 11 & 12 depicts arms 202R and 202L)
and massaging assemblies (In 5) (FIG. 6 depicts the massage assembly 201A and 201B);
the brushless motor, the gear transmission group and the long rotating shaft are arranged inside the housing (In 5-6) (FIGS. 14 & 15 depicts all components in the housing)
connected with the circuit board, the brushless motor is connected with the circuit board , the gear transmission group is connected with an output shaft of the brushless motor, the long rotating shaft is connected with the gear transmission group, the two eccentric wheels are fixedly arranged on both sides of the long rotating shaft corresponding to the gear transmission group, the ejector rod, is arranged on the eccentric wheel in a sleeving mode one end of the ejector rod connected with the eccentric wheel is limited on the housing by an ejector rod pull tab (In 7-14) (FIG. 22 depicts circuit board that provides voltage to motor, FIG. 13, 14, & 15 depicts gear transmission 214 connected to rotating shaft 205 which are connected to the motor, FIG. 15 depicts rod support members 203R and 203L is arranged beside the eccentric wheels which are fixed on both ends of the shaft, and FIG. 16 depicts a tab sleeve 208R and 208L in the housing of the unit).
However, Kasai does not explicitly disclose a shoulder belt massage machine core, comprising yaw wheels and yaw wheel covers (In 4) with the yaw wheels are fixedly arranged outside the long rotating shaft corresponding to the two eccentric wheels, a side of the yaw wheel facing away from the eccentric wheel is provided with a yaw shaft, one end of the yaw arm is provided with a yaw hole corresponding to the yaw shaft, the yaw hole is arranged on the yaw shaft in a sleeving mode, the yaw shaft of the yaw wheel and one end connected with the yaw arm form a yaw slope, the bottom of one end of the yaw arm connected with the long rotating shaft is provided with a guide block, the guide block is movably disposed in a guide groove of the housing, the yaw hole is disposed corresponding to the yaw slope, the other end of the yaw arm is provided with a massage seat, the massage assembly is mounted on the massage seat, the yaw wheel cover is arranged on the long rotating shaft in a sleeving mode and fixed with an outer end surface of the yaw shaft of the yaw wheel (In 14-26).
Therefore, since Kasai and the prior art of record does not disclose all the claimed limitations, claim 1 contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEROME PRATT whose telephone number is (571)272-8454. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7:00-4:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Stanis can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LEROME PRATT/
Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights