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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “are made” should apparently read --is made--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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 1 recites the limitation "the sacral region" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the metes and bounds of this limitation are not clear; e.g., which specific body portions are included within “the sacral region”?
Claim 3 recites the limitation “an adornment mount connected to the sacral stem in the sacral region of the person” in lines 1-2. Does this meant that the recited connection is intended to be within the person (“in the sacral region”) or does the sacral region also comprise an area that is external of the person?
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the adornment resembles a tail.” The metes and bounds of “resembles a tail” are not clear.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the opposite end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitations “the curved shape” in line 2, “the curvature” in line 2, and "the anus" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the intergluteal cleft" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “one of a tail-like feature, jewelry, and costume accessory” in lines 1-2. It is not clear if this is intended to recite that each of the feature, the jewelry, and the costume accessory must be tail-like, or if only the feature is tail-like.
Claims 2-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the sacral stem extends from the insertion device to the sacral region of the person” in lines 3-4. This positively recites the human body. Suggested language would be --wherein the sacral stem is configured to extend
Claim 3 recites the limitation “an adornment mount connected to the sacral stem in the sacral region of the person” in lines 1-2. This positively recites the human body. Suggested language would be --an adornment mount configured to be connected to the sacral stem in the sacral region of the person--.
Claim 15 recites “The insertion device of claim 1” in line 1. It is not clear if this is meant to recite “The ornamentation device of claim 1” (as in all of the other dependent claims) or only the insertion device. If this is intended to claim only the insertion device, this would raise various other issues (such as a rejection under 112(d)).
Claims 2-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0222034 A1), in view of Raab et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0201279 A1; hereinafter known as “Raab”).
Regarding claim 1, Takashima discloses a device (Abstract; Figs. 3-7, 9), comprising: an insertion device 61 configured for inserting into an anal cavity of a person, and a sacral stem 66 connected to the insertion device, wherein the sacral stem extends from the insertion device to the sacral region of the person ([0031]; [0036]-[0039]; [0042]-[0044]; [0047]; e.g., the GV1 acupoint between the anus and the coccyx is taken to be within the sacral region; also teaches that the sacral stem is adjustable so as to provide flexibility in positioning). Takashima fails to disclose an adornment connected to the sacral stem. Raab discloses a similar ornamentation device (Abstract; Figs. 1, 6) comprising an insertion device 12 configured for inserting into an anal cavity of a person ([0013]) and an adornment 40/140 in order to provide role play in a secure and detachable manner ([0001]-[0002]; [0012]; [0023]-[0027]). 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 invention of Takashima with an adornment connected to the sacral stem, as taught by Raab, in order to provide role play in a secure and detachable manner, wherein the adornment is adjustably positioned.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Takashima and Raab discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Takashima further discloses an insertion device stem 64 connected to the insertion device on a first end of the insertion device stem and connected to the sacral stem on a second end of the insertion device stem (Fig. 6; there are multiple other ways to interpret Takashima’s device to meet this claim language as well; e.g., the insertion device stem could be the portion of the body portion shown below the portion marked 61 that connects to 64 and 68; the insertion device stem could be 68; etc.).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the combination of Takashima and Raab discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Raab further discloses an adornment mount 20/46 connected to the sacral stem in the sacral region of the person ([0012]; [0018]; [0024]).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the combination of Takashima and Raab discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Raab further discloses that the adornment resembles a tail or is a tail (Fig. 5; [0012]; [0023]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Takashima and Raab discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Takashima further discloses that the insertion device is tapered on one end and the opposite end is egg shaped (Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Takashima and Raab discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Takashima further discloses that the sacral stem has a curved shape (Figs. 3, 6, 7, 9).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the combination of Takashima and Raab discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Takashima further discloses that the curved shape of the sacral stem is configured to conform to the curvature between the anus and the sacral region, wherein the sacral stem is configured to reside within the intergluteal cleft ([0039]-[0040]; [0046]; capable of such intended use based upon the adaptable shapes/curves, the use of flexible materials, and the location of the GV1 acupoint).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Takashima and Raab discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Takashima further discloses that the adornment is one of a tail-like feature, jewelry, and costume accessory (Fig. 5; [0012]; [0023]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Takashima and Raab discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Takashima further discloses that at least one of the insertion device, the insertion stem, and the sacral stem are made of silicone ([0046]; while the cited paragraph says “silicon,” this is taken to be a typographical error that is meant to read silicone; silicon is not a suitable material for such a device, whereas silicone is extremely typical in this field).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the combination of Takashima and Raab discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Takashima further discloses that the insertion device, the insertion stem, the sacral stem, and an adornment mount are integral components (Fig. 3A; e.g., the insertion device can be 32, the insertion stem 33, the sacral stem 36, and an adornment mount 34).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima and Raab as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aneros (https://www.aneros.com/pages/choosing-an-aneros-prostate-massager; retrieved on 18 May 2026; backdated to at least 17 October 2022 via https://web.archive.org/web/20221017225915/https://www.aneros.com/pages/choosing-an-aneros-prostate-massager). The combination of Takashima and Raab discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose that the insertion device comprises an integrator vibrator. Aneros discloses a similar device (based directly upon Takashima) that includes an integrated vibrator in order to provide enhanced stimulation (“Vibrating Models”. 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 combination of Takashima and Raab with an integrated vibrator, as taught by Aneros, in order to provide enhanced stimulation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takashima (U.S. No. 5,797,950) teaches a similar device comprising an insertion device for insertion into an anal cavity and a stem that may extend to a sacral region of a person (Figs. 13-15). Benson (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0094163 A1) teaches an anal plug that may be attached to an elongated portion that sits between the buttocks (in the intergluteal cleft), wherein the elongated portion may be provided with extensions/attachments simulating the tail of an animal. Thomas (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0027811 A1) teaches an anal plug and a stem that rests against the intergluteal cleft.
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
Prosecution Insights