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. This office action is in response to the claims filed 10/4/23. Claims 1-18 are pending in the instant application. Claim Objections Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the language “a battery” (line 2-3) is objected to as claim 6 line 2 already sets forth “a battery” (line 2); Examiner suggests amending to read –the battery--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation 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. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “display module” in claims 10 and 15 (see Fig. 2, display 211 which is a display screen and information receiver, see para. 0067); “wireless signal transmission module” in claim 11 (see para. 0070, Bluetooth, Wi- Fi protocols and the like). Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 1-18 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. Regarding claim 1, the claim sets forth “A physiotherapeutic apparatus receptacle” and appears to claim that this receptacle is for a physiotherapeutic apparatus; however, the claim appears to positively claim elements of the apparatus and it is not clear as to whether Applicant is intending to claim the combination of both the receptacle and apparatus or merely the receptacle and thus the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained. Regarding claims 2-18, the claims use the language “The physiotherapeutic apparatus receptacle of claim …”; however, it is not clear whether Applicant is intending to claim merely the receptacle or the combination of the receptacle and the apparatus (see above discussion of this regarding claim 1). Thus, it is not clear if the noted dependent claims positively require the apparatus or are merely referring back to only the receptacle. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the display module" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim limitation “sound control module” (claim 18 line 3) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. FILLIN "Explain why there is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function or why there is no clear linkage between the structure, material, or acts and the function." \d "[ 2 ]" The disclosure does not set forth sufficient corresponding structure for the sound control module, but merely refers to 'a sound control module' without further description Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. 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) 1-5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marton et al. (2023/0084903) in view of van den Dries et al. (2018/0079572) . Regarding claim 1, Marton discloses a physiotherapeutic apparatus receptacle applicable to accommodating a physiotherapeutic apparatus including a first drive portion and a first patch, the first patch being positioned on a side of the first drive portion and movably integrally formed with the first drive portion (see Marton Fig. 1-8 and para. 0004, 0046, and 0049, first drive portion 140 and first patch 110). Marton is silent as to providing the apparatus to be accommodated in a receptacle including a housing, a base arranged at an opening of an accommodation chamber defined in the housing, the base recessed towards an interior of the accommodation chamber to define first and second accommodation troughs; wherein the first and second accommodation troughs are arranged adjacent to each other, and when connected to each other, the first drive portion and the first patch are simultaneously received in the first and second accommodation troughs, respectively. However, van den Dries discloses a therapeutic apparatus receptacle including these features (see van den Dries Fig. 1-5 showing the receptacle 101 which houses various therapeutic devices 600, 700 and accessories 146, 147; housing 120 with base 110 and additional base 115 received in accommodation chamber there of , para. 0040; plural accommodation troughs 181, 162, 172; the devices 600, 700 capable of being received in the troughs in multiple positions, Fig. 1C and 1A ). Thus , 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 Marton device’s physiotherapeutic apparatus to be accommodated/stored in a receptacle, as taught by van den Dries, in order to provide a portable storage assembly for the device(s). Van den Dries shows devices being capable of being received in accommodation troughs in multiple positions/configurations (see Fig. 1A and C) and it would have also been obvious to configure the modified Marton receptacle to store the device(s) of Marton in a particular configuration (Fig. 1-8 with the length/longest dimension being in a vertical configuration) in order to provide desired configuration for the modified Marton to enclose multiple devices in a receptacle with a smaller footprint and would thus provide a first trough for the control unit and a second trough for the patch . See also MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B (Changes in size/proportion and shape). Regarding claim 2, shape and dimension of the first accommodation trough match the shape and dimension of the first drive portion, the shape and dimension of the second accommodation trough match the shape and dimension of the first patch; and wherein a width of the second accommodation trough is greater than a width of the first accommodation trough, and a thickness of the second accommodation trough is less than a thickness of the first accommodation trough (see van den Dries Fig. 1A and C, modified Marton storing devices of Marton in Fig. 1-8 in a vertical configuration and thus the troughs matching the shapes of their respective elements being housed/received therein and having the shape and dimensions as claimed) . Regarding claim 3, the modified Marton device further comprises a second drive portion and a second patch, the second patch being positioned on a side of the second drive portion and movably integrally formed with the second drive portion; and the base is recessed towards the interior of the accommodation chamber to define a third accommodation trough; wherein the third accommodation trough is adjacently arranged on a side, far away from the first accommodation trough, of the second accommodation trough; and wherein when the first drive portion and the second drive portion are respectively received in the first accommodation trough and the third accommodation trough, the first patch and the second patch are attached to each other and both received in the second accommodation trough (see van den Dries Fig. 1A and C, plural therapy devices 600, 700, thus obvious to duplicate Marton device of Fig. 1-8 for multiple areas of use on the body concurrently, providing a third trough for the additional control unit 140, using the second accommodation cavity for storage of first and second patches, see MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B and VI B ) . Regarding claim 4, the modified Marton device’s shape and dimension of the third accommodation trough match the shape and dimension of the second drive portion, a width of the third accommodation trough is less than a width of the second accommodation trough, and a thickness of the third accommodation trough is greater than a thickness of the second accommodation trough (see van den Dries Fig. 1A and C, modified Marton storing devices of Marton in Fig. 1-8 in a vertical configuration and thus the troughs matching the shapes of their respective elements, two Marton devices, being housed/received therein and having the shape and dimensions as claimed) . Regarding claim 5, the modified Marton device includes a first spacer is defined between the first accommodation trough and the second accommodation trough; and a second spacer is defined between the second accommodation trough and the third accommodation trough; wherein the first spacer is configured to be inserted between the first drive portion and the first patch, and the second spacer is configured to be inserted between the second drive portion and the second patch (see van den Dries Fig. 1A and C showing spacers between troughs, the modified Marton device being stored in vertical configuration with matching troughs providing material between trough for accommodating the control unit and the trough for the patch and thus defining spacers) . Regarding claim 17, the modified Marton is a system including both the receptacle (van den Dries) and the physiotherapeutic apparatus (Marton Fig. 1-8), wherein the physiotherapeutic apparatus is received in the receptacle (see Marton Fig. 1-8, providing this apparatus to be stored in a receptacle taught by van den Dries configured for closely housing the apparatus of Marton in a vertical configuration). Claim(s) 6- 9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marton and van den Dries as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Tai (2022/0087896) . Regarding claim 6, the modified Marton device is silent as to including a first printed circuit board, a battery, and a second printed circuit board successively arranged in the accommodation chamber with the battery electrically connected to the circuit boards corresponding to the respective troughs and including first and second magnetically-attachable charge structures arranged in the respective troughs and connected to respective printed circuit boards . H owever, Tai teaches a similar physiotherapeutic device and receptacle including a battery, printed circuit board and magnetically-attachable charge structures as claimed (see Tai Fig. 1 showing receptacle 2 and apparatus 1, Fig. 3, battery 22, PCB 25, magnetic charging element 24; see para. 0019, 0023-0025, see also title and abstract). Thus , 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 modified Marton device to include a battery, printed circuit boards, and magnetically-attachable charging elements, as taught by Tai, in order to provide the receptacle with the ability to charge the physiotherapeutic devices housed therein (Tai title and abstract, para. 0019). The configuration of modified Marton including two of the Marton devices accommodated in the receptacle in the vertical configuration (see above discussion regarding claim 1 and 3) would be such that the configuration of the battery, PCBs, and magnetically-attachable charging elements as claimed. See also MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B and VI B. Regarding claim 7, the modified Marton device is such that the first printed circuit board and the second printed circuit board are symmetrically arranged on two sides of a battery. The configuration of modified Marton including two of the Marton devices accommodated in the receptacle in the vertical configuration (see above discussion regarding claim 1 and 3) would be such that the configuration of the battery, PCBs, and magnetically-attachable charging elements as claimed. See also MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B and VI B. Regarding claim 8, the modified Marton device is such that a dimension of the first printed circuit board matches a distance between the first accommodation trough and the housing, a dimension of the second printed circuit board matches a distance between the third accommodation trough and the housing. Note that the dimensional values for the PCBs in relation to the troughs, housing would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and one would expect the modified Marton device to perform equally as well. See also MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B. Regarding claim 9, the modified Marton device is such that the first printed circuit board, the battery, and the second printed circuit board are successively vertically arranged in the accommodation chamber. The configuration of modified Marton including two of the Marton devices accommodated in the receptacle in the vertical configuration (see above discussion regarding claim 1 and 3) would be such that the configuration of the battery, PCBs, and magnetically-attachable charging elements as claimed. See also MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B and VI B. Regarding claim 12, the modified Marton device’s base is provided with an extension portion, the extension portion being extended to the interior of the accommodation chamber and configured to secure the first printed circuit board, the battery, and the second printed circuit board (see Tai Fig. 3 showing extension portion 21 in the form of a column) . Regarding claim 13, the modified Marton device’s extension portion is arranged on the base, and the shape of the extension portion is a columnar shape or a plate shape, and wherein the extension portion is vertically arranged in the accommodation chamber (see Tai Fig. 3 showing extension portion 21 in the form of a column) . Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marton, van den Dries, and Tai as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Moon et al. (2021/0402198) . Regarding claim 10, the modified Marton device is silent as to including a display module and a key are arranged on a side of the housing, the display module and the key being respectively electrically connected to the first printed circuit board and the second printed circuit board, the display module being configured to display state information of the first drive portion and the second drive portion, the key being configured to control the first drive portion and the second drive portion . H owever, Moon teaches a similar device/receptacle which includes this feature (see Moon Fig. 1-3, display module 20 is a touch screen and thus includes a key; see para. 0052, 0056). Thus 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 modified Marton device to include a display module and key , as taught by Moon, in order to provide a display/control feature for the system on the receptacle (Moon para. 0052, 0056). Regarding claim 11, the modified Marton device is silent as to the PCBs being provided with a wireless signal transmission module, the wireless signal transmission module being configured to transmit wireless signals to respectively control the first drive portion and the second drive portion of the physiotherapeutic apparatus ; however, Moon teaches a similar device/receptacle which includes this feature (see Moon para. 0038, 0043-0044, 0052-0054, 0057, 0070-0071, 0075). Thus 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 modified Marton device to include wireless communication modules, as taught by Moon in order to provide wireless communication/control ability between the receptacle and the physiotherapeutic devices (see above noted citations of Moon). Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marton and van den Dries as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brown (2023/0172803) . Regarding claim 14, the modified Marton device includes a flip cover over the accommodation chamber rotatably connected to the housing and magnetically attached thereto (see van den Dries Fig. 3, flip cover 130 , para. 0041, 0044-0045), but is silent as to being connected via a metal shaft; however, Brown discloses a similar receptacle with a lid connected via a metal shaft (see Brown Fig. 2 and para. 0017, “metal hinges” which include shafts). Thus 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 modified Marton device’s lid to be connected via a metal shaft, as taught by Brown, as this is a well-known type of rotatable element and would have been obvious to try or obvious substitution. Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marton, van den Dries, and Brown as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Moon . Regarding claim 15, the modified Marton device includes at least one magnet on the flip cover ( see van den Dries Fig. 3, flip cover 130 , para. 0041, 0044-0045 ), but is silent as to including a magnetic force sensor being arranged at a position, corresponding to the magnet, of the base; wherein the magnetic force sensor is configured to detect opening or closing of the flip cover ; however, Moon teaches a similar device/receptacle which includes this feature (see Moon para. 0060-0064) . Thus 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 modified Marton device to include a magnetic force sensor, as taught by Moon, in order to provide the ability to detect a position of the lid and to provide the controller/system with functionality based thereon (see Moon para. 0060-0064). Regarding claim 16, the modified Marton device is silent as to including a display module is configured to operate when the flip cover is opened, and related information of the physiotherapeutic apparatus being displayed on a display screen of the display module, wherein the related information comprises one or more of an operating mode, an output current intensity and a power balance of the physiotherapeutic apparatus ; however, Moon teaches a similar device/receptacle which includes this feature (see Moon Fig. 1-3, display module 20 is a touch screen and thus includes a key; see para. 0052, 0056). Thus 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 modified Marton device to include a display module and key, as taught by Moon, in order to provide a display/control feature for the system on the receptacle (Moon para. 0052, 0056). The modified Marton device including magnetic sensor for providing detection of lid position and the display for displaying functionality. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marton and van den Dries as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (2024/0122793) . Regarding claim 18, the modified Marton system includes at least one drive portion (Marton Fig. 1-8, drive portion 140), but is silent as to the drive portion being provided with a sound control module configured to receive sound control information; however, Yang teaches a similar therapy device which includes a sound control module to receive sound control information (see Yang para. 0317 and 0562). Thus 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 modified Marton device to include a sound control module, as taught by Yang, in order to provide the ability to control the device via a user’s voice commands (Yang para. 0317 and 0562). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Olson, JR. et al. (2023/0128152), Hochman et al. (7,577,476), Denyes (2002/0188233), and Mallory (2016/0074273) disclose receptacles for physiotherapeutic devices including troughs/indentions for housing components therein securely. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7490 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 9-5 . 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. /COLIN W STUART/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785