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 .
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 12 August 2026. Claims 21-36 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the cancellation of claims 1-20 and the addition of new claims 21-36.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-36 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “in close proximity to each other” in line 9. The term “close proximity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the requisite distance between the first and second stimulation appendages to meet the claim language are not readily determinable.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the vibration motor" in lines 1-2 (and again in line 2). It is not clear which vibration motor is being referred to, as each of the first and second stimulation appendages includes a vibration motor.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the first and second vibration motors" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the stimulation device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This has been interpreted herein as referring to the stimulating device.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "expends" in line 2. It is not clear if this is actually meant to read “expends” (e.g., expends energy or something along these lines), or if this is a typographical error and is meant to read “expands” or “extends.” This has been interpreted herein as reciting “extends.”
Claim 30 recites the limitation “and extending to the base” in line 6. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation; e.g., which component(s) extend to the base?
Claim 30 also recites the limitation "the respective elongated elastic component" in the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "a second operation of the user" in line 2. However, no first operation has been recited. It is not clear if this is intended to implicitly recite a first operation as well (such that there are two operations) or if the term second is arbitrary (such that it is only a single operation).
Claim 35 recites the limitation “a memory device” in line 1. As detailed in the previous Office action, this claim limitation 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. The specification as-filed does not describe what structure or components this memory device comprises. 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.
Claims 22-36 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-36 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: it is known in the prior art to provide a stimulating device comprising first and second stimulation appendages that extend from a base, wherein the appendages are bendable relative to one another and can be simultaneously received within a vagina of a user. For example, Massey et al. (cited in the previous Office action) teaches a pair of flexural actuators that may be inserted within an orifice such as the vagina. Massey also teaches different embodiments where flexural actuators simultaneously stimulate the G-spot and the clitoris. However, Massey does not teach an embodiment wherein the first and second stimulation appendages have a first configuration where they can be simultaneously received within the vagina and a second configuration where one is received in the vagina and the other is positioned outside the vagina and stimulates the clitoris. Similarly, Topolev (U.S. No. 9,119,765 B2; U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0166466 A1) teaches first and second stimulation appendages that extend from a base, wherein the appendages are bendable relative to one another and can be simultaneously received within a vagina of a user, but fails to teach a second configuration where one of the appendages is positioned outside the vagina to stimulate the clitoris. Another Topolev reference (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0167513 A1) teaches a stimulating device comprising first and second stimulation appendages, wherein one appendage may be used to stimulate the clitoris when the stimulating device is inserted into the vagina, but does not teach the recited configurations as the appendages extend away from the insertion direction. None of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests such a stimulating device comprising first and second stimulation appendages that extend from a base wherein the appendages can achieve both the recited first and second configurations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objections to claims 2, 10, and 19, as well as the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 102, and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
