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 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 2-3 states “the bottom of the chair” shall be corrected to “a bottom of the chair” for clarity.
Claim 2, line 2, states “the front side of the chair” shall be corrected to “a front side of the chair” 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: “a power source” 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In Claim 2, line 2, it states “wherein the leg massager has the massaging member protruding from the front side of the chair, and other portions are located under the chair.”. The claim fails to meet the requirements of enablement as the drawings and specifications don’t provide support for the “other portions” being under the chair.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 1 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 positively recites “the user sits on the chair and leans the inner sides of legs” and “the massage wheels press the inner sides of legs”. It is suggested that the language be amended to read ‘a user is configured to sit on the chair and lean an inner side of the user’s legs on the massage wheels.” and “the massage wheels are configured to press the inner side of the user’s legs”.
Claims 2-3 are rejected based on their dependency to rejected claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wu (US 20210290479 A1), in view of Kang (KR 20230153897 A) and further in view of Wu (US 20200206070 A1).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding Claim 1, Wu (US 20210290479 A1) discloses a massaging member (massaging member 20), has a pivot frame (assembling portions 31)at the bottom thereof, and a massage motor is installed in the massaging member, and each of two lateral sides of the massage motor (motor 24) is connected to a massage wheel massage wheel (massage roller 23); each of two lateral sides of the power motor (motor 11) is connected to a rocker arm (first link rod 12), and the rocker arm is pivotally connected to a push-pull rod (second link rod 13), and the push-pull rod is pivotally connected to the pivot frame (assembling portions 31); the power motor is adapted to drive and rotate the rocker arms, and the rocker arms drive the push-pull rods to push and pull the pivot frame, so that the massaging member swings back and forth, and the massage wheels press the inner sides of legs to achieve the massage effect (“So that the motor 11 is able to continue to rotate forward to generate the reciprocating swing movements of the member 20 and there is no need to install limit switches to control the forward and reverse rotation of the motor, which not only reduce the structure assembly cost and improve the convenience of the structure assembly, but also avoid the motor 11 from damage.”). (Fig. 2; [0015-0018])
Wu (‘479) fails to disclose an attachable leg massager for chair comprising a leg massager and a chair; wherein the leg massager has a fixed base which is connected to the bottom of the chair, and the fixed base comprises a power source and a pivot base; the pivot frame is pivotally connected to the pivot base, and a power motor is installed in the power source; when in use, the user sits on the chair and leans the inner sides of legs on the massage wheels;
However, Kang teaches an attachable leg massager (leg massager unit 1300) for chair (body message unit 1110) comprising a leg massager and a chair; wherein the leg massager has a fixed base (main frame 210) which is connected to the bottom of the chair, and the fixed base comprises a power source (driving means 230) and a pivot base (side main frame 213) ; the pivot frame (side wall 223) is pivotally connected to the pivot base, and a power motor is installed in the power source ([0015] and [0146]. (Figs. 1, 5, and 7; [0016], [0035-0036], [0102-0146])
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 leg massager of Wu (US 20210290479 A1) with an attachable leg massager for chair comprising a leg massager and a chair; wherein the leg massager has a fixed base which is connected to the bottom of the chair, and the fixed base comprises a power source and a pivot base; the pivot frame is pivotally connected to the pivot base, and a power motor is installed in the power source, as taught by Kang, in order to be a leg massaging device that can operate separately from the chair and provide a driving force for the leg massager ([0016] and [0143-0146]).
Wu (US 20200206070 A1) further teaches when in use, the user sits on the chair and leans the inner sides of legs on the massage wheels (Figs. 8-13; [0027]).
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 leg massager of Wu (US 20210290479 A1) so that when in use, the user sits on the chair and leans the inner sides of legs on the massage wheels, as taught by Wu (US 20200206070 A1), to allow the massage device to massage along the feet, ankles, calves, back of the knees and thighs to achieve a lower limb circulation massage [0027].
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20210290479 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 6599261 B1).
Regarding Claim 2, Wu discloses the attachable leg massager of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Wu fails to disclose wherein the leg massager has the massaging member protruding from the front side of the chair, and other portions are located under the chair.
However, Chen teaches wherein the leg massager has the massaging member protruding from the front side of the chair, and other portions are located under the chair (Figs. 4 and 6).
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 attachable leg massager for chair of Wu, wherein the leg massager has the massaging member protruding from the front side of the chair, and other portions are located under the chair, as taught by Chen (Figs. 4 and 6).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20210290479 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Winterhalter (US 10743670 B2).
Regarding Claim 3, Wu discloses the attachable leg massager of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Wu fails to disclose wherein the chair is a folding chair.
However, Winterhalther teaches a chair (chair 100) that is a folding chair (Fig. 1; [62]) for storage and transport.
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 attachable leg massager for chair of Wu wherein the chair is a folding chair, as taught by Winterhalter, so that the chair may fold for easy storage and transport [62].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu (US 20200206069 A1) is cited for its rotatable leg massage structure. (Fig. 2)
Wu (TW I745222 B) is cited for its rotatable leg message structure (Fig. 2)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIRAH WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-1946. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 6:45AM-4:15PM F: 6:45AM-3:15PM.
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 S 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.
/AMIRAH WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights