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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 08/01/26. Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10, and 15 have been amended, new claims 16-20 have been added, and claims 11-12 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-10 and 13-20 are presently pending in this application.
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: a plurality of stimulation elements in claims 1, 15, and 18 and balancing device in claims 6, 17, and 20.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“stimulation elements”: LEDs (page 8, paragraph [0045] of the specification)
“balancing device”: two turntables, bearing, battery, and gyroscope (paragraph [0027] of the specification of incorporated reference US 20200315907).
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 § 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) 15-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaduto (4,116,233) in view of Solana (2022/0104995), and Baldwin (WO2021087365).
With respect to claim 15, Scaduto discloses a method of manufacturing (making of the device of Scaduto) a massage therapy device (fig 2, and col. 1, line 5), the method comprising providing a housing (1, fig 2) with a hole (2, fig 2); providing, partially, a spherical structure (7, fig 2) in the hole (see fig 2 and col. 1, lines 41-42), wherein the spherical structure is configured to rotate with respect to the housing, while remaining attached within the housing (see col. 1, lines 37-42), but lacks disposing a plurality of stimulation elements along outer surfaces of the one or more spherical structures, wherein the plurality of stimulation elements are directed in an outward direction from the outer surfaces of the one or more spherical structures.
However, Solana teaches a massage sphere (11, fig 5) comprising a plurality of stimulation elements (light members; 18, fig 6) disposed along outer surface of the massage sphere (see fig 5 and [0037-38]), wherein the plurality of stimulation elements are directed in an outward direction from the outer surface (see [0005] and fig 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer surface of Scaduto to include a plurality of stimulation elements as taught by Solana so as to help speed up the muscle recovery process and help those who struggle with sore and tight muscles or achy bones (see [0003] of Scaduto).
Further, the modified Scaduto lacks the housing includes a wireless charging coil and the one or more spherical structures include one or more respective induction coils, the one or more induction coils being configured to receive power at any angle or orientation through coupling with the electromagnetic field generated by the wireless charging coil due to flow of electric current in the wireless charging coil.
However, Baldwin teaches a massager (300, fig 3C) with a housing (350, fig 3C) wherein the housing a wireless charging coil (577, fig 5B) and the massager includes one or more respective induction coils (575, fig 5B), the one or more induction coils being configured to receive power at any angle or orientation through coupling with the electromagnetic field generated by the wireless charging coil (see [051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the housing and spherical structure of the modified Scaduto to include a charging coil and induction coil, respectively, and necessary power structure as taught by Baldwin so as to provide power to the spherical structure independently from the housing (note the housing provides power to the massager).
With respect to claim 16, the modified Scaduto shows configuring the induction coil to receive power at any angle or orientation of the one or more spherical structures (the modification by Baldwin allows for charging through induction at the direction of the connection of the coils) through coupling with the electromagnetic field generated by the wireless charging coil (see [051] of Baldwin).
With respect to claim 18, Scaduto discloses a massage therapy device (fig 2, and col. 1, line 5), the massage therapy device comprising a housing (1, fig 2) provided with one or more holes (2, fig 2); one or more spherical structures (7, fig 2) provided partially within the one or more respective holes of the housing (see fig 2 and col. 1, lines 41-42), wherein the one or more spherical structures are configured to rotate with respect to the housing, while remaining attached within the housing (see col. 1, lines 37-42); and a stimulation element (vibrator 10, fig 2) but lacks disposing a plurality of stimulation elements along outer surfaces of the one or more spherical structures, wherein the plurality of stimulation elements are directed in an outward direction from the outer surfaces of the one or more spherical structures.
However, Solana teaches a massage sphere (11, fig 5) comprising a plurality of stimulation elements (light members; 18, fig 6) disposed along outer surface of the massage sphere (see fig 5 and [0037-38]), wherein the plurality of stimulation elements are directed in an outward direction from the outer surface (see [0005] and fig 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer surface of Scaduto to include a plurality of stimulation elements as taught by Solana so as to help speed up the muscle recovery process and help those who struggle with sore and tight muscles or achy bones (see [0003] of Scaduto).
Further, the modified Scaduto lacks the housing includes a wireless charging coil and the one or more spherical structures include one or more respective induction coils, the one or more induction coils being configured to receive power at any angle or orientation through coupling with the electromagnetic field generated by the wireless charging coil due to flow of electric current in the wireless charging coil.
However, Baldwin teaches a massager (300, fig 3C) with a housing (350, fig 3C) wherein the housing a wireless charging coil (577, fig 5B) and the massager includes one or more respective induction coils (575, fig 5B), the one or more induction coils being configured to receive power at any angle or orientation through coupling with the electromagnetic field generated by the wireless charging coil (see [051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the housing and spherical structure of the modified Scaduto to include a charging coil and induction coil, respectively, and necessary power structure as taught by Baldwin so as to provide power to the spherical structure independently from the housing (note the housing provides power to the massager).
With respect to claim 19, the modified Scaduto shows configuring the induction coil to receive power at any angle or orientation of the one or more spherical structures (the modification by Baldwin allows for charging through induction at the direction of the connection of the coils) through coupling with the electromagnetic field generated by the wireless charging coil (see [051] of Baldwin).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-10 and 13-14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record, Scaduto (4,116,233) and Solana (2022/0104995), does not specifically disclose the claimed device as presented in claim 1.
Scaduto discloses a massage therapy device (fig 2, and col. 1, line 5), the massage therapy device comprising a housing (1, fig 2) provided with one or more holes (2, fig 2); one or more spherical structures (7, fig 2) provided partially within the one or more respective holes of the housing (see fig 2 and col. 1, lines 41-42), wherein the one or more spherical structures are configured to rotate with respect to the housing, while remaining attached within the housing (see col. 1, lines 37-42); and a stimulation element (vibrator 10, fig 2).
Solana teaches a massage sphere (11, fig 5) comprising a plurality of stimulation elements (light members; 18, fig 6) disposed along outer surface of the massage sphere (see fig 5 and [0037-38]), wherein the plurality of stimulation elements are directed in an outward direction from the outer surface (see [0005] and fig 5).
However, Scaduto and Solana fail to disclose one or more gyroscope sensors provided within each of the one or more spherical structures, wherein each of the one or more gyroscope sensors in each of the one or more spherical structures is configured to disconnect power supply to the plurality of stimulation elements that are directed towards the ambient, when the massage therapy device is in use and to modify would be improper hindsight.
Response to Arguments
The arguments to the newly added claim limitations in claims 15-20 have been addressed in the above rejections.
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 KELSEY E BALLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 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.
/KELSEY E BALLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TU A VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights