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 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in function language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or how the result is achieved. The specification does not describe how the output jet would be adjustable to change the location of where the outflow is directed to. Based on the claims and specification, the examiner is interpreting that the device would just be assembled in one manner during manufacturing to have the output structure in one place to meet the adjustable limitation.
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 9, 13 and all claims dependent thereon is 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.
Regarding claim 9, the term “secondary hydraulic actuator” renders the term unclear. There is no first hydraulic actuator limitation in any previous claims. It should be clarified if the applicant intends the “reciprocating piston” in claim 1 to be the primary hydraulic actuator.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the sealed compartment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended the dependency of this claim be on claim 12 as that is where the sealed compartment is initially claimed.
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(s) 1-4, 5-6, 8-9, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murison (US 2021/0161757) in view of Seith (US 9845794)
Regarding claim 1, Murison teaches a device comprising:
a reservoir for a hydraulic fluid; (paragraph [0136] “A “reservoir” as used herein, and throughout this disclosure, refers to a region within the fluidic circuit within a FLUDEV which holds fluid. A reservoir may include, but not be limited to, a “balloon”, a fluidic actuator, a region around an EL-PUMP defined by a scaffold/casing around the EL-PUMP, and a dedicated element within the fluidic circuit.” The examiner notes FLUDEV stands for fluidic device.)
a diaphragm covering at least a portion of the reservoir; (paragraph [0143] “The positive pressure portion of the fluidic circuit is contained by the shell/scaffold (e.g. plastic) around the EL-PUMP (motor) and the diaphragm (wall section 240) then the only inlet to this chamber is the outlet valves,”; paragraph [0140] “the wall portion 240 may have one or more fluidic actuators disposed within it such that in addition to an overall vibratory effect arising from the EL-PUMP the wall portion 240 may impart a second frequency component of vibration” The examiner notes that fluidic actuators is a reservoir which may be covered by diaphragm (element 240).)
providing a pair of input/output (IO) ports for pumping the hydraulic fluid within the reservoir, each IO port arranged at respective ends of the pump (paragraph [0211] “first inlet/outlet element 2940A, second inlet/outlet element 2940B” The examiner notes that the pump is element 2940C.);
outflow of the hydraulic fluid from the at least one IO port causes a vibration of the diaphragm (paragraph [0211] “additional fluidic channels may extend from the wall portion 240 along the shaft portion of the FLUDEV between the shell and the skin such that with EL-PUMP providing pulsed fluidic pumping into the wall portion 240 to provide clitoral region stimulation the additional fluidic channels, for example tubes or rings, under the skin similarly vibrate whilst the actuators coupled to the manifold, as described and depicted below, expand—contract and/or pulse based upon the overall control provided from the valves within the manifold disposed between the actuators and the wall portion 240.”)
However, Murison fails to teach a dual sided reciprocating pump comprising a reciprocating piston within a chamber and an output structure arranged about at least one of the IO ports to direct an outflow of the hydraulic fluid from the at least one IO port to cause a vibration of the diaphragm.
Seith teaches a hydraulic pump with a reciprocating piston in a chamber. (column 2, line 40 “he reciprocal movement of the piston causing alternating expansion of the first and second flexible diaphragms,” column 5, line 64 “Each of the pump chambers 122, 124 also communicates with an outlet manifold, or fluid outlet 208, 210.” The examiner notes the outlet manifolds as the output structure.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Murison to have the reciprocating pistons and outlet structures as taught by Seith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that this would be a simple substitution of the electromagnetic pump taught in Murison. Further, even Murison suggests that a reciprocating pump may be used in their system as a substitute for the electromagnetic pump. See paragraph [0247] – [0249] of Murison (“other pumps may be employed within embodiments of the invention including, but not limited to:…Reciprocating-type positive displacement pumps such as piston pumps, plunger pumps or diaphragm pumps;”).
Regarding claim 2, Murison and Seith teaches the device of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the output structure comprises an output jet having a reduced-size opening directed at the diaphragm.
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the openings of the additional fluidic channels to be reduced in size. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that each user would require personal settings for the preferred stimulation the device could provide. Further, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Please see MPEP 2144.04, section IV, A; Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 3, Murison and Seith teaches the device of claim 2 and teaches wherein the output jet is adjustable to change a location on the diaphragm that the outflow is directed to. In manufacture/assembly the output jet can be modified to direct the outflow in many directions/locations.
Regarding claim 4, Murison teaches the device of claim 2 but fails to teach wherein the output structure comprises a one-way valve to allow an inflow of the hydraulic fluid.
Seith teaches the use of one-way valves to release excess pressure. (column 5, line 66 “Check valves 212, 214 ensure that the fluid 204, 206 being pumped moves only from the inlet manifold 200, 202 toward the outlet manifold 208, 210 when an appropriate amount of vacuum pressure is stored within the respective motive fluid chamber 126, 128” The examiner notes that the valves are one way since the fluid can only move in one direction.
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the valve taught by Murison to be one-way as taught by Seith . One of ordinary skill would have been able to recognize that for proper function and safety of the device the fluid would need to only flow one way to prevent the back flow of fluid into the chamber and malfunction of the device.
Regarding claim 5, Murison and Seith teach the device of claim 1 and Seith further teaches that the device further comprises a second output structure arranged at the other IO port. (The examiner notes two outlet manifolds in figure 3, elements 208 and 210.)
Regarding claim 6, Murison and Seith teach the device of claim 5 and Seith further teaches an output structure comprising an input one-way valve, an output one-way valve, and a directing structure for directing the outflow from the output one-way valve. (The examiner notes that in figure 3, check valve 212 serves as in an input one-way valve, check valve 214 serves as one-way outlet valve, and element 210 directs the outflow from the output one-way valve.)
Regarding claim 8, Murison and Seith teach the device of claim 1, and Seith further teaches wherein the reservoir is split into a plurality of sections. (Column 6, line 6 “within the pump chambers 122, 124” The examiner notes two sections in figure 3, elements 122 and 124.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the reservoir in Murison in view of Seith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that this is a known technique in hydraulic pumps to oscillate fluid between multiple sections.
Regarding claim 9, Murison and Seith teach the device of claim 1 and Murison further teaches a pump device further comprising a secondary hydraulic actuator powered by the reciprocating pump. (paragraph [0010] “comprising a plurality of fluidic actuators coupled to a fluidic pump”)
Regarding claim 14, Murison and Seith teach the device of claim 1 and wherein the device is a personal massager. (paragraph [0108] “Such FLUDEVs may include, but not be limited to, toys, massagers”)
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Murison and Seith teach the device of claim 1, and Murison further teaches wherein the device is a sexual stimulation device (of claim 15) (paragraph [0012] “device for sexual stimulation”) and wherein the sexual stimulation device is phallic-style sexual stimulation device (of claim 16). (paragraph [0208] ““phallic” ends for use by two people or one”)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murison in view of Seith further in view of Faulkner (US 2005/0049453).
Regarding claim 7, Murison and Seith teach the device of claim 6, but fails to teach wherein each of the output structures comprise a tube connecting the respective input one-way valve to an opposite end of the pump.
Faulkner teaches a vibrating massager with a tube connecting a valve back to the hydraulic actuator. (paragraph [0051] “The last pressure relief valve in the sequence allows a volume of fluid approximately equal to the injected fluid volume to return to the hydraulic actuator by a separate, relatively low pressure hydraulic hose.” The examiner is modifying each output structure to have a tube transferring the fluid back to the pump.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Cross in view of Faulkner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that this design of a hydraulically driven vibrating dildos would achieve a wave-like deformation that is highly suggestive of a male orgasm. See paragraph [0051] of Faulkner.
Claim(s) 10-11is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murison in view of Seith further in view of Cross (WO 2017/141037)
Regarding claim 10, Murison and Seith teach the device of claim 9 but fail to teach further comprising a pressure reservoir coupled to at least one output structure by a one-way valve to allow pressure to build within the fluid reservoir.
Cross teaches a stimulation device comprising a pressure reservoir. (pg 4, par 3“The diaphragm 1500 is flexible yet robust such that when the drive rod 122 reciprocates, the diaphragm reciprocates in turn, causing an increase in pressure on one side of the chamber followed by an increase in pressure on the other side of the chamber. Similar to pressure outlets 106, 108 on piston pump 100, the chamber 1514 contains pressure outlets 1502, 1504 to which a receiver 130 or additional accessories such as a pulsating inflatable stimulation” The examiner notes here that the chamber as two sides where pressure builds on one side, making that side the pressure reservoir.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the reservoir taught in embodiment in figs 21-22 to have a pressure reservoir coupled to the output structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that this would be a simple substitution so that where a pump chamber includes a reciprocating diaphragm or similar piston assembly, both halves of the stroke, that is, both sides of the working chamber, can be used to pump air or other fluid to respective assemblies (independently of each other and without performance loss associated with running accessories in parallel on the same side of the pump), such that additional accessories to the receiver can be added. See pg 3, paragraph 1 of Cross.
Regarding claim 11, Murison, Seith, and Cross teach the device of claim 10, and Cross further teaches (pg 4, par 5 “Control of the pump operation by remote control 140 can, for example, be by use of wireless or wired electrical signals providing both switching of the various components and additionally variation of the various parameters including motor speed, any pressure release systems of the type described below and so forth” The examiner notes here that pressure release systems include valves, making the valve electrically controllable.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the valve to be controlled electronically. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that a user would like to determine the stimulation pattern occurring when wanted and would therefore make it conveniently operated via remote control.
Claim(s) 12-13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murison in view of Seith further in view of Murison (US 2014/0088468), herein referred to as Murison 2.
Regarding claim 12, Murison and Seith teach the device of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising control electronics located in a sealed compartment separate from the reservoir.
Murison 2 teaches a hydraulic driven adult device that houses electronics separate from the reservoir. (paragraph [0339] “it would also be evident that other embodiments of the invention can be configured to house a predetermined portion of the pump(s), valve(s), power supply, and control electronics within a separate module to that containing the fluidic actuators.”)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Murison and Seith in view of Murison 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that for safety purposes the electronic and circuitry components should be kept away from pressure and fluids.
Regarding claim 13, Murison and Seith teach the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the sealed compartment further comprises a power circuit.
Murison 2 teaches a hydraulic driven adult device that houses electronics separate from the reservoir. (paragraph [0339] “it would also be evident that other embodiments of the invention can be configured to house a predetermined portion of the pump(s), valve(s), power supply, and control electronics within a separate module to that containing the fluidic actuators.”)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Murison and Seith in view of Murison 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that for safety purposes the electronic and circuitry components should be kept away from pressure and fluids.
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Murison and Seith in view of Murison 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that for safety purposes the electronic and circuitry components should be kept away from pressure and fluids.
Regarding claim 17, Murison and Seith teach the device of claim 15, but fails to teach wherein the sexual stimulation device has is a wand-style sexual stimulation device.
Murison 2 teaches an adult device in a wand style. (paragraph [0339] “However, alternate embodiments of devices can be configured in so-called wand type constructions”)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Murison and Seith to be wand style as taught in Murison 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that the shape of the () is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Please see MPEP 2144.04, section IV, B; In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lehrke (US 2004/0086398) teach similarly designed hydraulic pumps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIANA JOY LACAY DECASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-8316. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/A.L.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights