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 responsive to a preliminary amendment filed on 2/26/2024. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, and 13-18 were amended, and no claims were cancelled nor added. Thus, claims 1-18 are presently pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figs. 1, 3, 4, and 5 contain an assembly having a plurality of parts, some form of connection to indicate that all of the parts are part of the same assembly is missing. A connecting axis or bracket is needed to shows that the plurality of parts are part of the same assembly. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(h)(1).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: the limitation “a sealing element” (claim 6, line 1 and claim 15, lines 2-3, the term “element” is a generic placeholder and the function is “sealing”).
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.
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:
“a sealing element”: sealing element 19 which “may be” in the form of an o-ring, see page 7 of the specification. It is noted that the term “may be” does not limit the sealing element to an o-ring only.
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 10-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “A massage applicator (1) configured for use as the massage applicator (1) in a massage system according to claim 1” (lines 1-3) is unclear and confusing, it is unclear if the limitation is trying to claim another massage applicator by the limitation “A massage applicator” in line 1 of claim 10. Therefore, it is unclear if the claim still requires the massage applicator (1) and the system of claim 1 or not.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a massage system” (line 2) is unclear if this is the same as or different from the massage system being claimed in claim 1, line 1, if they are the same, the limitation should be amended to --the massage system--.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a connector cavity” (line 7) is unclear if the connector cavity is the same as or different from the connector cavity being claimed in claim 1, line 6.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a cavity engagement surface” (line 8) is unclear if the cavity engagement surface is the same as or different from “a cavity engagement surface” being claimed in claim 1, line 11.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “A massage system…according to claim 10” (line 1) is unclear if the massage system is the same as or different from “a massage system” being claimed in claim 1, line 1, it is noted that claim 17 is written as a dependent claim of claim 10, which is dependent on claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “a massage device” (line 1) is unclear if the massage device is the same as or different from “a massage device” being claimed in claim 1, line 3.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “a plurality of massage applicators (1) according to claim 10, the plurality of massage applicators comprising at least two massage applicators (1)” (lines 2-3) is unclear if the massage applicators include the massage applicator being claimed in claim 10, line 1 and/or the massage applicator being claimed in claim 1, line 2.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “the massage device (2) may receive any of the plurality of plurality of massage applicators” (lines 8-9) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, the term “may” can be defined as providing possibilities, therefore, it is unclear if the massage device may or may not receive any of the plurality of massage applicators. Furthermore, the limitation “any of” is indefinite, what is mean by “any of”, does “any of” includes a portion of the massage applicator, or a massage applicator of the plurality of applicators, or does the term “any” include all of the applicators such that the massage device may receive all of the plurality of massage applicators. The term “any” is unclear and is indefinite. Suggest to amend to --the massage device is configured to receive each massage applicator of the plurality of massage applicators--. Regarding claim 18, the limitation “wherein at least one massage applicator (1) of the plurality of massage applicators” (lines 1-2) is unclear if the at least one massage applicator is part of or different from “at least two massage applicators” being claimed in claim 17, line 3.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “at least one other massage applicator” (lines 3-4) is unclear as to what the term “other” is relative to, furthermore, it is unclear if the “at least one other” is other than the at least one massage applicator being claimed in claim 18, line 2 or is relative to “at least two massage applicators being claimed in claim 17, line 3.
Any remaining claims are rejected for their dependency on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10-18 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation “A massage applicator (1) configured for use as the massage applicator (1) in a massage system according to claim 1, wherein the massage applicator (1) is adapted to be removably mounted on the massage device (2) and adapted to be reciprocatingly actuated by the massage device (2) in the axial direction (100), wherein the massage applicator (1) comprises a connector cavity (3), wherein the connector cavity (3) comprises a cavity engagement surface (5), wherein the cavity engagement surface (5) is arranged inclined or normal to the axial direction (100)” (claim 10, lines 1-10) does not further limit subject matter of the claim upon which it depends on, claim 10 does not further limit the structure and the massage system of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 11-18 are dependent on claim 10, which are all written as a dependent form of claim 1, however, claims 10 and 11-18 do not further narrow the massage system of claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wersland (2019/0350793).
PNG
media_image1.png
1175
1285
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Wersland discloses a massage system (100 and 12, fig. 1) comprising, a massage applicator (12, figs. 1-13, paragraphs 0052-0054, the massage applicator can take any form including the massage applicator in figs. 2-4 or 5-7 or 8-10 or 11-13), and a massage device (portion of 100 that reciprocates 102/104, see paragraphs 0053 and 0058) for reciprocatingly actuating the massage applicator in an axial direction with respect to the massage device (see paragraph 0053), wherein the massage applicator (12) is removable from the massage device (see paragraph 0052), wherein the massage applicator comprises a connector cavity (24, figs. 2-3, paragraphs 0054-0055), wherein the massage device comprises a connector protrusion (102, 14, 32, figs. 3-4, paragraphs 0053-0056), wherein the connector protrusion is receivable in the connector cavity (see figs. 2-4 as one example), wherein the connector protrusion comprises a protrusion engagement surface (surface forms by 104 or 14 that engages with the massage applicator, figs. 2-4, paragraphs 0055-0056), wherein the connector cavity comprises a cavity engagement surface (surface of 18 that engages with 104 or surface of 30 that engages with 14, see the annotated-Wersland figs. 3-4 above, paragraphs 0054-0056), which is formed by an inner wall of the connector cavity (see figs. 3-4, the inner wall is 20, figs. 2-4, paragraphs 0054-0056), and wherein the protrusion engagement surface and the cavity engagement surface are configured to engage to transmit an axial massage force from the massage device to the massage applicator (see paragraphs 0053-0056, when 102/14 are attached and engaged with the massage applicator 12, the axial massage force from the massage device would be transmitted to the massage applicator).
Regarding claim 2, Wersland discloses that the protrusion engagement surface is at least partially flat (see surface formed by 104 in the annotated-Wersland fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 3, Wersland discloses that the protrusion engagement surface is located at an axial front surface of the connector protrusion (see the annotated-Wersland fig. 4 above, relatively, the protrusion engagement surface is located at an axial front surface of the connector, front surface being surface of 104 close to 18).
Regarding claim 5, Wersland discloses that the connector protrusion comprises a protrusion centering surface, and wherein the connector cavity comprises a cavity centering surface, wherein the protrusion centering surface and the cavity centering surface are configured to engage with one another such that an orientation of the massage applicator in the axial direction is maintained (see the annotated-Wersland figs. 3-4 above, the protrusion centering surface is formed by the exterior surface of 14 including 32 and the cavity centering surface is the corresponding interior threaded surface of 30 of 20, see paragraphs 0056-0057).
PNG
media_image2.png
924
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Wersland discloses a sealing element is provided in between the protrusion centering surface and a cavity centering surface (the rejection claim 5 is being redefined, see the annotated-Wersland redefined for claim 6 fig. 4 above, as shown, the protrusion centering surface is formed by the exterior surface of 102, 20 and 104 and the cavity centering surface is the corresponding interior surface of 18, while the sealing element is 14, which is formed between 102/104 and 18/20, see paragraphs 0056-0057).
Regarding claim 7, Wersland discloses a suction opening is provided in the connector protrusion (see the opening formed by the valley formed by the thread in the annotated-Wersland fig. 4 above, when 6 is not connected to the connector protrusion (104/102/104), a user can suck through the opening or a vacuum can be used to suck through the opening, therefore, the opening is capable of being a suction opening, it is noted that claim merely claims “a suction opening”, there are no limitations to prevent such interpretation, the term “suction” is intended use for the opening).
Regarding claim 8, Wersland discloses that the massage applicator has a radially outer portion, wherein the massage device comprises a perimeter wall adapted to be arranged radially outside the outer wall portion of the massage applicator, when the massage applicator is arranged on the connector protrusion (102/104), such that the outer wall portion is adapted to be in close alignment with the perimeter wall of the massage device (see the annotated-Wersland figs. 3-4 above and paragraphs 0053-0056).
Regarding claim 9, Wersland discloses that the connector cavity is formed by a protruding cavity wall (the protruding cavity wall is 20) inside the massage applicator (see figs. 3-4, as shown, the protruding cavity wall 20 is inside the massage applicator since 20 is inside of 16, see paragraphs 0053-0056).
Regarding claim 10, Wersland discloses that a massage applicator configured for use as the massage applicator in a massage system according to claim 1, wherein the massage applicator is adapted to be removably mounted on the massage device (see paragraph 0052) and adapted to be reciprocatingly actuated by the massage device in the axial direction (see paragraph 0053), wherein the massage applicator comprises a connector cavity (see the annotated-Wersland figs. 3-4 above), wherein the connector cavity comprises a cavity engagement surface, wherein the cavity engagement surface is arranged inclined or normal to the axial direction (see the annotated-Wersland figs. 3-4 above, as shown, the cavity engagement surface would either be inclined or normal to the axial direction).
Regarding claim 13, Wersland discloses that the cavity engagement surface covers at least one third of an area of a projection of the connector cavity in a plane normal to the axial direction (see the annotated-Wersland figs. 3-4 above, a plane can be defined as normal to the axial direction, and the cavity engagement surface and the projection of the connector cavity can be defined such that the cavity engagement surface covers at least one third of an area of a projection of the connector cavity).
Regarding claim 14, Wersland discloses that the connector cavity is formed by a protruding cavity side wall inside the massage applicator (see the annotated-Wersland figs. 3-4 above, as shown, the protruding cavity side wall is inside the massage applicator).
Regarding claim 15, Wersland discloses that the connector cavity comprises a cavity centering surface and a sealing element is provided in a recess of the cavity centering surface (see the annotated-Wersland figs. 3-4 above, for claim 15, the sealing element can be interpreted as a thread formed on 20, the thread would be a sealing element, alternatively, the sealing element can be 18, see paragraphs 0053-0056).
Regarding claim 16, Wersland discloses that the massage applicator has a hollow portion in between an outer wall portion and the connector cavity (see the annotated-Wersland figs. 3-4 above).
PNG
media_image3.png
988
777
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Wersland discloses that the massage applicator has a hollow portion in between an outer wall portion and the connector cavity (the massage applicator is defined as the applicator shown in figs. 5-7, which comprises a hollow portion between an outer wall portion (formed by 60) and the connector cavity (cavity formed by 20/24), see paragraphs 0059-0061).
Regarding claim 17, Wersland discloses a massage system (entire system shown in fig. 1 with different interface in figs. 2-10 and also having different treatment surfaces) comprising a massage device (portion of 100 that reciprocates 102/104, see paragraphs 0053 and 0058) and a plurality of massage applicators (different massaging surface that are interchangeable/replaceable, see paragraphs 0002-0003, 0052 and 0058-0059) according to claim 10, the plurality of massage applicators comprising at least two massage applicators with different massage application interfaces, respectively (see paragraphs 0002-0003, 0052 and 0058-0059), wherein the massage device is adapted for reciprocatingly actuating the massage applicator in an axial direction (see paragraphs 0052-0053) and wherein each massage applicator of the plurality of massage applicators has a corresponding connector cavity (for example, see the connector cavity in the annotated-Wersland figs. 3-4 above, furthermore, see the cavity formed by 24 in figs. 6-7), such that the massage device may receive any of the plurality of massage applicators (see paragraphs 0002-0003, 0052 and 0058-0059 and paragraph 0065).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wersland (2019/0350793).
Regarding claim 4, Wersland discloses that the protrusion engagement surface is arranged substantially normal to the axial direction (see the annotated-Wersland fig. 4 above, as shown, the engagement surface is arranged substantially normal to the axial direction), but fails to specifically disclose that the protrusion engagement surface is arranged normal to the axial direction. 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 protrusion engagement surface to be arranged normal to the axial direction for the purpose of providing a workable angle (relative to the axial direction) for the protrusion engagement surface, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable value involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II).
Furthermore, if there is doubt that it is obvious to optimize or find a workable value for the angle of the protrusion engagement surface, the feature of choosing to have the protrusion engagement surface to be arranged normal to the axial direction since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wersland (2019/0350793) in view of Andis (1,998,696).
Regarding claim 11, Wersland discloses that the massage applicator can take on different shapes (see figs. 2-13 and paragraphs 0052-0069), but fails to disclose that the massage applicator comprises a negative pressure application cavity that opens towards an axial front of the massage applicator.
PNG
media_image4.png
592
671
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Andis teaches a massage applicator (28, fig. 1) comprising a negative pressure application cavity that opens towards an axial front of the massage applicator (see the annotated-Andis fig. 1 above, page 1, col 2, lines 23-32, Andis discloses a resilient/flexible rubber cup, the cavity can be used as a negative pressure application cavity since a negative pressure effect can be created depending on how the applicator is being applied to the skin).
Therefore, 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 massage applicator of Wersland to have the massage applicator as taught by Andis for the purpose of providing an alternative massage applicator that would provide a different massage effect to the user (see col 2, lines 23-32 of Andis).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wersland (2019/0350793) in view of Anderson (1,830,380).
Regarding claim 11, Wersland discloses that the massage applicator can take on different shapes (see figs. 2-13 and paragraphs 0052-0069), but fails to disclose that the massage applicator comprises a negative pressure application cavity that opens towards an axial front of the massage applicator.
PNG
media_image5.png
625
613
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Anderson teaches a massage applicator (106, 139, 138 in fig. 12) comprising a negative pressure application cavity that opens towards an axial front of the massage applicator (see the annotated-Anderson fig. 12 above, page 4, lines 26-41).
Therefore, 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 massage applicator of Wersland to have the massage applicator as taught by Anderson for the purpose of providing an alternative massage applicator that would provide a different massage effect to the user and for the purpose of treating tenderness of the outer fleshy tissue (see page 4, lines 26-41 of Anderson).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Wersland discloses that a suction through hole is provided in between the connector cavity and the negative pressure application cavity (see the annotated-Anderson fig. 12 above, the suction through hole is formed by interior of the valve 138/139, or the hole of 105 accommodating the valve 138/139 and is relatively between the negative pressure application cavity and the connector cavity of Wersland after the modification, see the annotated-Wersland figs. 3-4 above for reference and see page 4, lines 26-41 of Anderson).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wersland (2019/0350793) in view of Anderson (1,830,380).
Regarding claim 18, Wersland discloses a plurality of massage applicators including one that has a massage application interface with a closed massage application surface (see figs. 2-4, the application surface forms by 16 are relatively closed) and comprises a second massage applicator head (see figs. 5-7 and paragraphs 0002-0003, 0052 and 0058-0059 and paragraph 0065), but fails to disclose that the at least one massage applicator of the plurality of applicators has a massage application interface with a negative pressure application cavity.
However, Anderson teaches a massage applicator (106, 139, 138 in fig. 12) comprising a negative pressure application cavity (see the annotated-Anderson fig. 12 above, page 4, lines 26-41).
Therefore, 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 plurality of massage applicators of Wersland to have the massage applicator as taught by Anderson for the purpose of providing an alternative massage applicator that would provide a different massage effect to the user and for the purpose of treating tenderness of the outer fleshy tissue (see page 4, lines 26-41 of Anderson).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Han (KW 20030006173) is cited to show a massage applicator comprising a negative pressure cavity.
Huang (CN 106074133) is cited to show a massage applicator comprising a cup having suction openings.
Rogozinski (WO 2021/053525) is cited to show an applicator head.
Chen (CN 213666669) is cited to show a massage gun comprising a massage applicator and a connecting protrusion.
Liu (CN 112790966) is cited to show a massage applicator head and a connecting protrusion.
Andres (2,234,102) is cited to show a reciprocating massage head comprising holes.
Westrup (1,198,799) is cited to show a massaging device comprising a projection comprising a suction hole and a massage applicator comprising a negative pressure cavity.
Pfanschmidt (766,970) is cited to show a massage machine comprising a suction cup.
Maione (3,955,563) is cited to show a pneumatic percussor comprising a massage applicator comprising a cup having suction openings.
McGerry (2,076,410) is cited to show a massage instrument comprising a massage applicator comprising a cup having suction openings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU A VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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.
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights