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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because line 1 contains legal phraseology "The present invention discloses". A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 2, line 6 "the trajectory groove" should be changed to --the inclined trajectory groove--. 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: linkage driving apparatus in claim 1.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 10-11 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.
In claim 3, lines 1-2 the limitation “an included angle is present between each of the linkage rods and each of the movable sheets” is unclear. It is confusing if the angle is between each of the linkage rods, between each of the movable sheets, or between the linkage rod and a movable sheet.
In claim 10, lines 7-9 and 11 (four instances) the limitation “a pipeline” is unclear if the limitation is referring to the same pipeline in line 5 or are they additional and different pipelines.
In claim 11, line 12 the limitation “a rotary shaft” is unclear if the shaft is the same or in addition to the shaft in line 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo (11,806,306).
With respect to claim 1, Guo discloses a hand-held massager (fig 1), comprising a housing (100, fig 1); two opposite movable sheets (410/420, fig 3) arranged at intervals (see sheets spaced apart in fig 5), each of the movable sheets being at least partially located in an inner cavity of the housing (see col. 9, lines 34-40), so that rotary connection parts of the movable sheets (421, fig 5) are rotatably connected to an inner wall of the housing (connected via 510, fig 3 and 8); and flexible massage sleeves (110, fig 4) covering the movable sheets (see col. 7, lines 15-18), and wherein a driving mechanism (480/470/430/440, fig 8) for driving the two movable sheets to move oppositely is arranged in the inner cavity of the housing (see fig 3 and col. 8, lines 10-32), the driving mechanism comprises a linkage driving apparatus (470, fig 8) and a linear motion piece (430/440, fig 10; see linear arrows of movement), motion control parts (412, fig 8; two instances) of the two movable sheets are respectively in transmission connection with a motion output part of the linear motion piece (433, fig 8; two instances), and the linkage driving apparatus drives the linear motion piece to do a linear reciprocating motion to drive the motion control parts of the movable sheets to swing back and forth (see col. 10, lines 8-16 and 28-60), thereby driving the two movable sheets to swing in opposite directions (‘approaching or moving away from each other, so as to realize the pinching’ col. 7, lines 52-53), so that two opposite side walls of the flexible massage sleeves have a state of being close to each other (approaching) and a state of being away from each other (moving away), thereby performing a pinch type massage (see col. 7, lines 52-53).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Leng (CN108743300).
With respect to claim 10, Guo discloses the housing is internally provided with a suction pump (310, fig 4) and a suction channel (air pipe) communicating with a suction hole in the flexible massage sleeve (with bell shaped cap; col. 14, lines 4-15) but is silent regarding the housing is internally provided with a three-way electromagnetic valve, and a three-way connector.
However, Leng teaches a massage device (fig 1) with a housing (20, fig 1) is internally provided with a three-way electromagnetic valve (15, fig 1), a suction pump (14, fig 1) and a three-way connector (13, fig 1), the housing is provided with an air channel communicating with the outside and a suction channel communicating with a suction hole (cavity of seal cover 2, fig 1), a suction port of the suction pump is connected to a first port of the three-way electromagnetic valve through a pipeline, a first branch pipe of the three-way connector is mounted on the air channel or connected to the air channel through a pipeline, a second port of the three-way electromagnetic valve is connected to the suction channel through a pipeline, an air outlet of the suction pump is connected to a second branch pipe of the three-way connector through a pipeline, and a third port of the three-way electromagnetic valve is connected to a third branch pipe of the three-way connector through a pipeline (see fig 1 and translation of Leng pg. 4).
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 pump and suction of Guo to include an electromagnetic valve with a 3-way connector as taught by Leng so as to control the air pressure within the suction device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 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 3 and 11 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: The closest prior art of record, Guo, does not specifically disclose the claimed device as presented in claim 2. Guo fails to disclose an inclined trajectory groove is formed in a peripheral wall of the rotating shaft, the linear motion piece is parallelly arranged at a side of the rotating shaft, a guide protrusion part is arranged on one side of the linear motion piece facing the rotating shaft, the guide protrusion part is arranged in the trajectory groove and to modify would be improper hindsight.
The closest prior art of record, Guo, does not specifically disclose the claimed device as presented in claim 11. Guo fails to disclose the rotating shaft being spirally provided with a trajectory groove, the linkage rod being drivingly connected to the movable sheets, the linkage rod being provided with an elongated hole, and the linear motion piece being constrained to be movably arranged in the first direction and in a reciprocating manner and to pass through the trajectory groove and the elongated hole and to modify would be improper hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen (2025/0090412), Wang (12,161,598), and He (11,369,545) are cited to show additional swinging and pinching massagers.
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