DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 14 April 2026. Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 17-19, 22-24 and 26-28 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 23 and 24, as well as the cancellation of claims 6 and 21.
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 8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: at line 17 of claim 8, “protrudes” should apparently read –protrude--; and at line 21 of claim 10, “sliding vane slide” should apparently read –sliding vane slides--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 8 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. Claim 8 has been amended at lines 17-18 to recite “wherein two opposite ends of the massage head protrudes out of the movement space via the first opening”. While the specification as originally filed has support for two opposite ends of the massage head protruding out of the movement space via respective openings, the disclosure does not support both opposite ends protruding out of the movement space via one (first) opening. Therefore, the claim constitutes new matter.
6. 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.
7. Claims 5, 10 and 17-19 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.
8. Claim 5 at line 3 recites the limitation "the opposite outer ends of the massage head". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A suggested amendment is –the opposite outer ends and the massage head--.
9. Claim 10 at line 5 recites the limitation "the insertion direction of the shell". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A suggested amendment is –the insertion direction--.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 1, 7, 22-24 and 26-28 are allowable over the prior art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 1, 7, 22 and 23, while the prior art teaches a massage module comprising: a head portion configured to be inserted into a vagina along an insertion direction so as to provide a first stimulus to the vagina,
a handle, wherein the handle is hollow and defines a cavity therein; and
a connecting portion connected between the head portion and the handle, and the connecting portion comprising a sub-massage portion configured to be inserted into the vagina following with an insertion action of the head portion and configured to provide a second stimulus to the vagina, the sub-massage portion comprising:
a housing;
a recess formed in the housing and concaved in a thickness direction of the housing, the recess defining a movement space and a first opening intercommunicating the movement space to an exterior space outside of the housing,
a driving device received in the cavity defined in the handle, the cavity communicating with the movement space; and
a massage head accommodated in the movement space, wherein at least a portion of the massage head protrudes out of the movement space via the first opening, and the driving device includes a first shaft which at least partly received in the movement space and is coupled to the massage head, wherein the first shaft is configured for moving reciprocally parallel to a linear direction in the movement space and driving the at least a portion of the massage head to reciprocally and linearly move parallel to a linear trajectory in the linear direction in the movement space, so as to generate the second stimulus, wherein the recess penetrates through the housing at an upper side of the housing and at a lower side of the housing, so as to form the first opening at the upper side of the housing and a second opening at the lower side of the housing, and the massage head partly protrudes out of the housing from each of the first opening and the second opening,
the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a massage module as claimed by Applicant, wherein the recess further defines a second opening, and both of the first and the second opening intercommunicate the movement space to an exterior space outside of the housing, wherein two opposite ends of the massage head protrude out of the movement space via the first opening and the second opening respectively, and wherein the two opposite ends of the massage head and driven to reciprocally and linearly move parallel to the linear trajectory.
11. Regarding claims 24 and 26-28, while the prior art teaches a
massage module comprising:
a head portion configured to be inserted into a vagina,
a handle;
a middle portion extending from the handle to the head portion, wherein the middle portion has a configuration which defines a movement space between the head portion and the handle,
a motor;
a massage head accommodated in the movement space;
a shaft at least partly received in the movement space, wherein the shaft is coupled to the motor and the massage head;
wherein at least a portion of the massage head protrudes out of the movement space from a lateral side of the middle portion, and the motor drives the at least a portion of the massage head to do a reciprocating motion in the movement space without directly connecting opposite side surfaces of the movement space which extend along the length of the moving movement space,
the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a massage module as claimed by Applicant, further comprising a screw coupled to the motor and rotatable by driving of the motor, and a slider sliding on the screw and movable linearly along a length of the movement space, wherein the shaft is coupled to the slider and moves together with the slider.
12. Claims 10 and 17-19 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.
13. Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant’s arguments filed 14 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 10 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered, however new rejections are presented above in light of the amendments.
15. Applicant’s arguments filed 14 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) citing Huang (‘710) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-9058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 4:00 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, Charles A Marmor, II can be reached on (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights