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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, lines 3 and 4: “intent” should read “indent”
Claim 17, lines 19 and 20: “intent” should read “indent”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6-10, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez et al. 2022/0062089 in view of Giddings et al. US 2019/0008716
Regarding claim 1, Martinez discloses a multifunctional face massaging device (abstract) comprising: a body (1); a thin head (first scraping head section (C)); a rounded tail (Second Scraping end section (D)); a plurality of indents (Figure 1, concave portions (c)); the body comprising a first end and a second end wherein the first end is positioned opposite to the second end across a length of the body (Figure 1 depicts a first end at the top and a second end at the bottom); the thin head extending along the first end (Thin head (C) is located at the top); the rounded tail being positioned along the second end (Rounded section (D) is located at the bottom); the body comprising a first surface and a second surface, wherein the first surface is positioned opposite to the second surface across a thickness of the body (First surface is depicted in figure 1, second surface in figure 2, and both are located on the either side from the other); the plurality of indents traversing into the body (Figure 1 depicts indents (c) going into the body); and the plurality of indents being laterally integrated between the first surface and the second surface (The indents are located between the first and second surfaces as depicted in figures 1 and 2).
Martinez fails to teach the thickness of the body tapering as it extends from the second end towards the first end. Giddings teaches an analogous massage therapy device that does teach the thickness of the body tapering as it extends from the second end towards the first end (Figure 6 depicts a tapering thickness along the length of the device going from one end to the other). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinez with the teachings of Giddings and include a tapering thickness as this allows for the user to grip the device in various ways (0110).
Regarding claim 2, Martinez teaches the multifunctional face massaging device of claim 1, comprising: the plurality of indents comprising a first indent and a second indent (Both sides (A) and (B) have an indent); the first intent being integrated along a first lateral surface of the body (Figure 1 depicts the indent for side (A) along a first lateral surface); the second intent being integrated along a second lateral surface of the body (Figure 1 depicts the indent for side (A) along a second lateral surface); and the first lateral surface being positioned opposite to the second lateral surface across a width of the body (depicted in figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Martinez teaches the multifunctional face massaging device of claim 2, wherein a transverse cross section of the first lateral surface and the second lateral surface is wedge shaped (The indents are formed in the shape of a wedge).
Regarding claim 6, modified Martinez teaches the multifunctional face massaging device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the bottom end is rhomboidal in shape. However, regarding the shape of the bottom end, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. A rhomboidal shape specifically could be used to optimize the massaging effects of the device.
Regarding claim 7, Martinez teaches the multifunctional face massaging device of claim 1, wherein the rounded tail is arched in shape (Bottom tail of figure 1 is in the shape of arch).
Regarding claim 8, Martinez teaches the multifunctional face massaging device of claim 1, comprising: a first region and a second region; the first region being positioned adjacent to the first end; the second region being positioned adjacent to the second end (Annotated figure 2 below); and the first region and the second region being connected seamlessly along the length of the body (Both regions are seamlessly connected to each other as the termination of one region directly leads to the next.).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Martinez teaches the multifunctional face massaging device of claim 8, wherein the second region is used as a face massager (0032 states “and scraping section (E) would adequately treat zones like the cheekbone(s) (8), the chin (6), the jaw (10) and the central part of the neck (11).”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Martinez teaches the multifunctional face massaging device of claim 8, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the first region is used as a shaving gel applicator. However, this limitation is a functional limitation and when the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. Modified Martinez does have the ability for the first region to be used as a shaving gel applicator.
Regarding claim 14, Martinez teaches the multifunctional face massaging device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of indents is concave in shape (The indents are concave shape as depicted in figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, Martinez teaches the multifunctional face massaging device of claim 1, wherein plurality of indents is ergonomic handles (The shape of the indents allows them to be used as ergonomic handles).
Regarding claim 16, Martinez teaches the multifunctional face massaging device of claim 1, wherein perimetrical edges of the second end are blunt (The edge of second end (D) does have a blunt texture as it includes “a tapered perimeter edge with a blunt finish”).
Regarding claim 17, Martinez teaches a multifunctional face massaging device (abstract) comprising: a body (1); a thin head (first scraping head section (C)); a rounded tail (Second Scraping end section (D)); a plurality of indents (Figure 1, concave portions (c)); the body comprising a first end and a second end wherein the first end is positioned opposite to the second end across a length of the body (Figure 1 depicts a first end at the top and a second end at the bottom); the plurality of indents comprising a first indent and a second indent (Both sides (A) and (B) have an indent); the thin head extending along the first end (Thin head (C) is located at the top); the rounded tail being positioned along the second end (Rounded section (D) is located at the bottom); the body comprising a first surface and a second surface, wherein the first surface is positioned opposite to the second surface across a thickness of the body (First surface is depicted in figure 1, second surface in figure 2, and both are located on the either side from the other); the plurality of indents traversing into the body (Figure 1 depicts indents (c) going into the body); the plurality of indents being laterally integrated between the first surface and the second surface (The indents are located between the first and second surfaces as depicted in figures 1 and 2); the first intent being integrated along a first lateral surface of the body (Figure 1 depicts the indent for side (A) along a first lateral surface); the second intent being integrated along a second lateral surface of the body (Figure 1 depicts the indent for side (A) along a second lateral surface); and the first lateral surface being positioned opposite to the second lateral surface across a width of the body (depicted in figure 1).
Martinez fails to teach the thickness of the body tapering as it extends from the second end towards the first end. Giddings does teach the thickness of the body tapering as it extends from the second end towards the first end (Figure 6 depicts a tapering thickness along the length of the device going from one end to the other). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinez with the teachings of Giddings and include a tapering thickness as this allows for the user to grip the device in various ways (0110).
Regarding claim 19, modified Martinez teaches the multifunctional face massaging device of claim 1, comprising: a first region and a second region; the first region being positioned adjacent to the first end; the second region being positioned adjacent to the second end (Annotated figure 2 below), wherein the second region is used as a face massager (0032 states “and scraping section (E) would adequately treat zones like the cheekbone(s) (8), the chin (6), the jaw (10) and the central part of the neck (11).”); and the first region and the second region being connected seamlessly along the length of the body (Both regions are seamlessly connected to each other as the termination of one region directly leads to the next.).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Martinez fails to explicitly teach wherein the first region is used as a shaving gel applicator. However, this limitation is a functional limitation and when the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. Modified Martinez does have the ability for the first region to be used as a shaving gel applicator.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Martinez, in view of Yu et al. WO 2009/096660
Regarding claim 4, modified Martinez teaches the multifunctional face massaging device of claim 2, but fails to teach wherein the second indent is deeper than the first indent. Yu discloses an analogous massage plate that does teach wherein the second indent is deeper than the first (Figure 4 depicts an indent 11 which is deeper than indent 5). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Martinez with the teachings of Yu and include wherein the second indent is deeper than the first indent as this allows for different sized curvatures conforming to different parts of the users face (43).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Martinez, in view of Courtin et al. 4,590,926
Regarding claim 5, modified Martinez teaches the multifunctional face massaging device of claim 2, comprising: a first section, a second section, a third section, and a fourth section; the first section being positioned between the first end and the first indent; the second section being positioned between the first end and the second indent; the third section being positioned between the second end and the first indent; the fourth section being positioned between the second end and the second indent (Depicted in annotated figure below); the first section being a linear segment that is positioned normal to the thin head (The first section has a linear portion after the indent as depicted in the annotated figure below); the second section extending seamlessly from the thin head towards the second indent (the second section extends from the top towards the second indent (c) of (B).); and the second section being arched between the thin head and the second
PNG
media_image2.png
640
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
indent (Second section has an arched section as depicted buy the figure below.).
Martinez fails to teach the third section and the fourth section being linear segments that are positioned normal to the thin head. Courtin teaches an analogous hand-held massager that does teach the third section and the fourth section being linear segments that are positioned normal to the thin head (Figure two depicts a third and fourth sections at the bottom of the massager having a linear portion as it leads towards the bottom end.). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinez with the teachings of Courtin and include the third section and the fourth section being linear segments that are positioned normal to the thin head as this allows for a more convenient grip profile for the user.
Regarding claim 18, modified Martinez teaches the multifunctional face massaging device of claim 2, comprising: a first section, a second section, a third section, and a fourth section; the first section being positioned between the first end and the first indent; the second section being positioned between the first end and the second indent; the third section being positioned between the second end and the first indent; the fourth section being positioned between the second end and the second indent (Depicted in annotated figure below); the first section being a linear segment that is positioned normal to the thin head (The first section has a linear portion after the indent as depicted in the annotated figure below); the second section extending seamlessly from the thin head towards the second indent (the second section extends from the top towards the second indent (c) of (B).); and the second section being arched between the thin head and the second indent (Second section has an arched section as depicted buy the figure below.).
PNG
media_image2.png
640
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Martinez fails to teach the third section and the fourth section being linear segments that are positioned normal to the thin head. Courtin teaches an analogous hand-held massager that does teach the third section and the fourth section being linear segments that are positioned normal to the thin head (Figure two depicts a third and fourth sections at the bottom of the massager having a linear portion as it leads towards the bottom end.). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinez with the teachings of Courtin and include the third section and the fourth section being linear segments that are positioned normal to the thin head as this allows for a more convenient grip profile for the user.
Claims 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Martinez, in view of Sedic et al. 2014/0194900
Regarding claim 11, modified Martinez teaches the multifunctional face massaging device of claim 8, but fails to teach wherein the first region is flexible. Sedic teaches an analogous skin cleanser that does teach wherein the first region is flexible (Figure 3 depicts a first region that has a textured surface that is flexible). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinez with the teachings of Sedic and include a flexible first region as this would allow for the region to adapt to the surface of the skin when contact is made (0036).
Regarding claim 12, modified Martinez teaches the multifunctional face massaging device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the body is made of silicone. Sedic does teach wherein the body is made of silicone (0036 states “where the textured surface is composed of silicone”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinez in view of Sedic and include wherein the body is made of silicone as this allows for the surface to adapt to the contour and shape of the skin (0036).
Regarding claim 13, modified Martinez teaches the multifunctional face massaging device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the rounded tail is harder than the thin head. However, modified Martinez in view of Sedic as taught by claims 11 and 12 would meet the limitations of this claim as once the first region is modified to be flexible and/or include a silicone material, the bottom tail would be harder than the top region.
Regarding claim 20, modified Martinez teaches the multifunctional face massaging device of claim 19, but fails to teach wherein the first region is flexible; wherein the second region is harder than the first region. Sedic does teach wherein the first region is flexible (Figure 3 depicts a first region that has a textured surface that is flexible). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinez with the teachings of Sedic and include a flexible first region as this would allow for the region to adapt to the surface of the skin when contact is made (0036). Once the modification is made and the first region is flexible, modified Martinez would now teach wherein the second region is harder than the first region, as the first region would include the flexible portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROHAN DEEP PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 5:30 AM - 3:00 PM PST.
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, Brandy S Lee can be reached at (571) 2707410. 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.
/ROHAN PATEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785