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
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7: “into the roller .” should read “into the roller.” to remove the extra space after “roller”.
Claim 6, line 2: “and rotatable together” should read “and is rotatable together” for clarity.
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: “air injection member” 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 § 103
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomba & Gloerfeld (EP 2329806 A1; hereinafter “Lomba”) in view of Hall et al. (US 20120310125 A1; hereinafter “Hall”).
Regarding claim 1, Lomba discloses a roller assembly for massage (Fig. 4; [0024], see provided translation), the roller assembly comprising:
a roller (2; Fig 4) having one side surface (outer-most surface of 8; Fig. 4; [0034], see provided translation) coupled to a first frame (6; Fig. 4), and another side surface (outer-most surface of 7; Fig. 4; [0034], see provided translation) coupled to a second frame (5; Fig. 4); and
an air injection member (8,12; Fig. 4) tightly attached to the first frame ([0034], lines 5-6, see provided translation) and having an air injection part (17; Fig. 4) disposed at an outer side of the air injection member (see Fig. 4; fourth sentence of [0036], see provided translation), the air injection part being configured to receive air therethrough to inject the air into the roller ([0036], lines 12-14, see provided translation).
While Lomba further discloses the use of known rolling or sliding bearings to realize the rotational movement of the pressure element (2) relative to the handle element (3; Fig. 3; [0031], see provided translation), Lomba fails to explicitly disclose a central shaft penetrating a center of the roller.
However, Hall teaches an analogous roller massage tool (Fig. 2; Abstract; [0014]) with an inner shaft (202; Fig. 2) that extends through an inflatable roller (102; Fig. 2; [0014]) and connects to two end caps (206; Fig. 2) on each end of the inflatable roller (see Fig. 2), where the two end caps (206) act as bearing to facilitate the rotation of the inflatable roller (102) about the inner shaft ([0028]; [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pressure element, taught by Lomba, with the two end caps, taught by Hall above, as two bearings on either end of the pressure element (7 and 8 respectively; Fig. 4) connected to the inner shaft, as taught by Hall above (Hall Fig. 2) to provide a smooth rotational movement of the pressure element (2) relative to the handle element (3; [0031], see provided translation; Hall [0028] and [0041]).
Regarding claim 2, Lomba as modified teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the air injection member (8,12) has therein an air injection chamber configured to communicate with an inside of the roller (chamber formed in 8 and 12 containing 17, see Annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
190
313
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Regarding claim 4, Lomba as modified teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 2, wherein the first frame has an air hole, and the air hole is configured to communicate with the air injection chamber and the inside of the roller (see Annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
198
313
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Regarding claim 5, Lomba as modified teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the air injection part (17) has a nipple (part of 17 extending out of 8, see Annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
187
237
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Regarding claim 6, Lomba as modified teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the air injection member (8, 12) is fixedly coupled to the central shaft (8 and 12 coupled to Hall 202 by one of Hall 206, see claim 1 above) and rotatable together with the central shaft ([0031], see provided translation; Hall [0028] and [0041]; see claim 1 above), and wherein the roller (2) is rotatable about the central shaft together with the first frame and the second frame ([0031], see provided translation; Hall [0028] and [0041]; see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, Lomba as modified teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the first frame (6) has an outer wheel portion (see Annotated Fig. 4 below), and the outer wheel portion surrounds an outer-diameter portion of the air injection member (8,12; see Annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
203
360
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Regarding claim 8, Lomba as modified teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the roller has a rubber-based material ([0025], see provided translation).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomba (EP 2329806 A1) in view of Hall (US 20120310125 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and supported by Velling (Velling, Andreas. “Types of Bearings.” Fractory, 22 Sept. 2020. Internet Archive, https://web.archive.org/web/20200922163249/https://fractory.com/types-of-bearings/.).
Regarding claim 3, Lomba as modified teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the roller and the first frame are connected by a fixing bead.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the two bearings taught by Hall (Hall 206, see claim 1 above) as ball bearing, as ball bearings are one of the most common types of bearing classes (Velling pg. 4). Hence, the roller (2) and the first frame (6) are connected by the rolling elements, or bearing balls, of the ball bearing (Hall 206) to ensure a smooth rotation of the pressure element (2) while decreasing friction during rotation (Velling pg. 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhang et al. (CN 211835292 U): Regarding a massage wheel with an inflatable air bag within the wheel to facilitate a massage.
Ruan et al. (CN 218012611 U): Regarding a roller with an inflatable air bag within the roller, and an air pump for said air bag fixed to a connecting plate at an end of the roller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAYLE DALE whose telephone number is (571)272-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:45am to 5:45pm ET.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/ABIGAYLE DALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights