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 .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 12, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 3 recites “a user’s limb” and the Examiner suggests –the user’s limb—to clarify the antecedent basis from claim 1, the last line.
Claim 4, line 3 recites “a user’s limb” and the Examiner suggests –the user’s limb—to clarify the antecedent basis from claim 1, the last line.
Claim 12, line 3 recites “a user’s limb” and the Examiner suggests –the user’s limb—to clarify the antecedent basis from claim 10, line 11.
Claim 18, line 3 recites “a user’s limb” and the Examiner suggests –the user’s limb—to clarify the antecedent basis from claim 17, line 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Corcoran (11,116,690).
Regarding claim 1, Corcoran discloses a muscle stretching and rolling device (Fig. 4) comprising:
a rack (apparatus 10, Fig. 4) having a plurality of feet (plurality of ground-interfacing materials 26, Fig. 4) and a pair of opposing arms (side supports 30, 32, Fig .4);
a plurality of polygonal roller holders (fully closed cutouts 50, 52, and open cutouts 56, 58, Fig. 2; “fully closed cutouts 50, 52 or the open cutouts 56, 58 may also have other designs, such as square cutouts, hexagonal cutouts, cutouts with other linear or non-linear outlines, or any combination thereof” see col. 5, lines 25-28); and
a plurality of rollers (cylindrical bars 60, Fig. 3A; Figs. 6-11);
wherein said pair of opposing arms (30, 32) having said plurality of polygonal roller holders (the cutouts 50, 52, 56, 58, are part of the opposing arms 30, 32, see Figs. 1-4);
wherein said plurality of polygonal roller holders (50, 52, 56, 58) comprising a plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders (see Figures 1-4, each cutout 50, 52, 56, 58, has an opposing pair in the respective arm 30, 32);
wherein each pair of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders having a different height (see Fig. 2, see Fig. 5, each pair of cutouts 50, 52, 56, 58, is at a different height) and
further wherein a selected at least one of said plurality of rollers mounted in at least one of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders (see Figs. 3A-3C; Figs. 6-11) for moving a user’s limb thereover (see Figs. 6-11; see col. 7, lines 20-44).
Regarding claim 3, Corcoran discloses wherein a selected at least three of said plurality of rollers mounted in at least three of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders for moving a user’s limb thereover (“at least four substantially cylindrical bars” see col. 11, line 20 through col. 12, line 20; there are four pairs of cutouts 50, 52, 56, 58, to receive at least three rollers, and the user is able to move their limb over the rollers as illustrated in Figs. 6-11).
Regarding claim 4, Corcoran discloses wherein a selected at least four of said plurality of rollers mounted in at least four of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders for moving a user’s limb thereover (“at least four substantially cylindrical bars” see col. 11, line 20 through col. 12, line 20; there are four pairs of cutouts 50, 52, 56, 58, to receive at least three rollers, and the user is able to move their limb over the rollers as illustrated in Figs. 6-11).
Regarding claim 5, Corcoran discloses wherein each of said plurality of rollers having an outer surface selected from the group consisting of a smooth outer surface, a textured outer surface, and a scalloped outer surface (the rollers necessarily are either “smooth” or “textured.” Furthermore, Corcoran states that the cylindrical bars 60 “may have any type of padding, surface texturing, be constructed from any type of material” see col. 6, lines 59-62).
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (2013/0035217) in view of Olschansky et al. (2017/0231862).
Regarding claim 1, Beck discloses a muscle stretching and rolling device (Fig. 1, see title) comprising:
a rack (support frame 150, Fig. 1) having a plurality of feet (left and right wide bases 154, 164, Fig. 1) and a pair of opposing arms (upper portions 153, 163, Fig. 1);
a plurality of polygonal roller holders (plurality of upper slots 182, 183, which are shown to be substantially rectangular in Fig. 3); and
at least one roller (lateral roller 110, Fig. 1);
wherein said pair of opposing arms (153, 163) having said plurality of polygonal roller holders (182, 183, Fig. 1);
wherein said plurality of polygonal roller holders (plurality of upper slots 182, 183) comprising a plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders (plurality of upper slots 182 form opposing pairs with plurality of upper slots 183, see Figure 1);
wherein each pair of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders (182, 182, Fig. 1) having a different height (see Fig. 1, the pairs of 182, 183, are vertically arranged to have different heights for the user to select); and
further wherein a selected at least one of said roller(s) is mounted in at least one of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders (roller 110 is shown mounted in at least one of the opposing pairs of slots 182, 183, in Figure 1, Figure 3) for moving a user’s limb thereover (this is a recitation of intended use, and the user is able to move their limb over the roller at least as seen in Fig. 9-10).
Beck is silent regarding a plurality of rollers. However, it is noted that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See MPEP 2144.04.
Furthermore, Olschansky teaches a related frame for providing self-massage (Fig. 1, see title) wherein the device includes a plurality of rollers (at least four rolling assemblies 170, 200, 230, 230, Fig. 1) provided in slots (i.e., cradles 111, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, Fig. 2A; para. [0042]-[0044]) in opposing arms (arms 14, 15, Fig. 1) of the frame. The user can place the rollers in the slots (cradles) as desired and roll their body against it, such as rolling their leg along the apparatus (see lines 5-8 of [0125]), and thus provide a rolling massage to a greater surface area simultaneously with the plurality of massage rollers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rack of Beck to include additional rollers (such as four rollers) as generally taught by Olschansky because this is a mere duplication of working parts, and since this allows the user to place the plurality of rollers in the slots as desired, to roll their limb(s) along the rollers to massage a greater surface area simultaneously.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Beck/Olschansky device discloses wherein a selected at least three of said plurality of rollers mounted in at least three of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders for moving a user’s limb thereover (Beck’s frame in Figure 1 has at least twelve pairs of polygonal roller holders 182, 183, and has been modified by Olschansky to duplicate Beck’s roller 110 to include at least four rollers to allow the user to roll their limb along the plurality of rollers. See the claim 1 rejection statement above).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Beck/Olschansky device discloses wherein a selected at least four of said plurality of rollers mounted in at least four of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders for moving a user’s limb thereover (Beck’s frame in Figure 1 has at least twelve pairs of polygonal roller holders 182, 183, and has been modified by Olschansky to duplicate Beck’s roller 110 to include at least four rollers to allow the user to roll their limb along the plurality of rollers. See the claim 1 rejection statement above).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Beck/Olschansky device discloses wherein each of said plurality of rollers (110 of Beck, as modified by Olschansky to have four of these rollers) having an outer surface selected from the group consisting of a smooth outer surface, a textured outer surface, and a scalloped outer surface (the rollers necessarily are either “smooth” or “textured.” Furthermore, Beck states “lateral roller 110, or a sleeve 120 placed over the lateral roller 110, may comprise a plurality of raised bumps, ridges, fingers, or similar protrusions to further facilitate massage” see the last two sentences of [0038]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (2013/0035217) in view of Olschansky et al. (2017/0231862) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mangino (10,492,975).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Beck/Olschansky device is silent regarding wherein said plurality of feet (154, 164, Beck) and said pair of opposing arms (153, 163, Beck) are foldable.
Mangino teaches a related rack (apparatus 100, Fig. 1) for holding a plurality of massage rollers (upper massage roller 160, lower massage roller 150, Fig. 1), with the device including a plurality of feet (i.e., left rear support member 130, right rear support member 140, Fig. 1) and a pair of opposing arms (left front support member 110, right front support member 120, Fig. 1) that are foldable for improved storage and transport (the feet and opposing arms are pivotally connected via hinged brackets 142, 144, Fig. 1, so that the entire device can be pivoted to a folded configuration, see Fig. 4; see col. 4, lines 27-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of feet and pair of opposing arms of Beck/Olschansky to be foldable such as with hinged brackets as taught by Mangino because this allows provides improved storage and transport.
Claim(s) 6-10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (2013/0035217) in view of Olschansky et al. (2017/0231862) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yu (2024/0315914).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Beck/Olschansky device is silent regarding wherein each of said plurality of rollers (110 of Beck, as modified by Olschansky to have four of these rollers) having opposing polygonal mounting ends for mating with one pair of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders for securing said plurality of rollers between said pair of opposing arms.
Yu teaches a related massage roller (roller 10, Figs. 3-4) that has opposing polygonal mounting ends (“fitting portions 52 formed at both end portions of the bearing coupling portion 51” see Figs. 3-4; para. [0080]; a “hexagonal” shape as seen in Figs. 3-4 and stated in the last two sentences of [0078]) for mating with one pair of opposing polygonal roller holders (holders 30 each include an insertion hole 31 “formed in a shape corresponding to a cross section of a fitting portion 52 of the support shaft … a hexagonal cross section” see para. [0078] and Figs. 3-4) for securing the roller (10) between a pair of opposing arms (pair of holders 30, Figs. 3-4). The roller additionally includes an internal bearing (bearings 55, 55, Fig. 3) such that the polygonal mounting ends (52) are stably inserted into the polygonal roller holders (31), but the roller is allowed to freely rotate due to the bearings (“bearings 55 installed on the support shaft 50 to rotatably support the foam roller part 10” see the first sentence of [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of rollers and the pair of opposing arms of Beck/Olschansky to have opposing polygonal mounting ends for mating with one pair of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders for securing said plurality of rollers between said pair of opposing arms as taught by Yu because this provides an expected result that the central shaft(s) of the massage rollers will be stably supported by the polygonal mount connections, while still providing a freely rotatable massage roller due to the internal bearings.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Beck/Olschansky/Yu device discloses wherein each of said plurality of rollers (110 of Beck, as modified by Olschansky and Yu) having internal bearings (bearings 55, Figs. 3-4 of Yu) for turning said plurality of rollers after securing said plurality of rollers between said pair of opposing arms (see the first sentence of [0076] of Yu).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Beck/Olschansky/Yu device discloses wherein each of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders (holders 30, 30, Yu) having a shape selected from the group consisting of a pentagon, a hexagon, a heptagon, and an octagon (hexagon, see the last two sentences of [0078] of Yu).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Beck/Olschansky/Yu device discloses wherein each of said opposing polygonal mounting ends (fitting portions 52, 52, Figs. 3-4 of Yu) having a shape selected from the group consisting of a pentagon, a hexagon, a heptagon, and an octagon (hexagon, see the last two sentences of [0078] of Yu).
Regarding claim 10, Beck discloses a muscle stretching and rolling device (Fig. 1, see title) comprising:
a rack (support frame 150, Fig. 1) having a plurality of feet (left and right wide bases 154, 164, Fig. 1) and a pair of opposing arms (upper portions 153, 163, Fig. 1);
a plurality of polygonal roller holders (plurality of upper slots 182, 183, which are shown to be substantially rectangular in Fig. 3); and
at least one roller (lateral roller 110, Fig. 1);
wherein said pair of opposing arms (153, 163) having said plurality of polygonal roller holders (182, 183, see Fig. 1);
wherein said plurality of polygonal roller holders (plurality of upper slots 182, 183) comprising a plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders (plurality of upper slots 182 form opposing pairs with plurality of upper slots 183, see Figure 1);
wherein each pair of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders (182, 182, Fig. 1) having a different height (see Fig. 1, the pairs of 182, 183, are vertically arranged to have different heights for the user to select);
wherein a selected at least at least one of said roller(s) is mounted in at least one of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders (roller 110 is shown mounted in at least one of the opposing pairs of slots 182, 183, in Figure 1, Figure 3) for moving a user’s limb thereover (this is a recitation of intended use, and the user is able to move their limb over the roller at least as seen in Fig. 9-10); and
Beck is silent regarding a plurality of rollers, wherein at least two of said plurality of rollers mounted in at least two of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders; further wherein each of said plurality of rollers having opposing polygonal mounting ends for mating with one pair of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders for securing said plurality of rollers between said pair of opposing arms. However, it is noted that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See MPEP 2144.04.
Furthermore, Olschansky teaches a related frame for providing self-massage (Fig. 1, see title) wherein the device includes a plurality of rollers (at least four rolling assemblies 170, 200, 230, 230, Fig. 1) provided in slots (i.e., cradles 111, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, Fig. 2A; para. [0042]-[0044]) in opposing arms (arms 14, 15, Fig. 1) of the frame. The user can place the rollers in the slots (cradles) as desired and roll their body against it, such as rolling their leg along the apparatus (see lines 5-8 of [0125]), and thus provide a rolling massage to a greater surface area simultaneously with the plurality of massage rollers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rack of Beck to include additional rollers (such as four rollers) as generally taught by Olschansky because this is a mere duplication of working parts, and since this allows the user to place the plurality of rollers in the slots as desired, to roll their limb(s) along the rollers to massage a greater surface area simultaneously. Thus, at least two of the rollers would be mounted in at least two of the opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders (182, 183).
The modified Beck/Olschansky device is still silent regarding wherein each of said plurality of rollers having opposing polygonal mounting ends for mating with one pair of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders for securing said plurality of rollers between said pair of opposing arms.
Yu teaches a related massage roller (roller 10, Figs. 3-4) that has opposing polygonal mounting ends (“fitting portions 52 formed at both end portions of the bearing coupling portion 51” see Figs. 3-4; para. [0080]; a “hexagonal” shape as seen in Figs. 3-4 and stated in the last two sentences of [0078]) for mating with one pair of opposing polygonal roller holders (holders 30 each include an insertion hole 31 “formed in a shape corresponding to a cross section of a fitting portion 52 of the support shaft … a hexagonal cross section” see para. [0078] and Figs. 3-4) for securing the roller (10) between a pair of opposing arms (pair of holders 30, Figs. 3-4). The roller additionally includes an internal bearing (bearings 55, 55, Fig. 3) such that the polygonal mounting ends (52) are stably inserted into the polygonal roller holders (31), but the roller is allowed to freely rotate due to the bearings (“bearings 55 installed on the support shaft 50 to rotatably support the foam roller part 10” see the first sentence of [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of rollers and the pair of opposing arms of Beck/Olschansky to have opposing polygonal mounting ends for mating with one pair of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders for securing said plurality of rollers between said pair of opposing arms as taught by Yu because this provides an expected result that the central shaft(s) of the massage rollers will be stably supported by the polygonal mount connections, while still providing a freely rotatable massage roller due to the internal bearings.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Beck/Olschansky/Yu device discloses wherein a selected at least three of said plurality of rollers mounted in at least three of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders for moving a user’s limb thereover (Beck’s frame in Figure 1 has at least twelve pairs of polygonal roller holders 182, 183, and has been modified by Olschansky to duplicate Beck’s roller 110 to include at least four rollers to allow the user to roll their limb along the plurality of rollers. See the claim 1 rejection statement above).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Beck/Olschansky/Yu device discloses wherein each of said plurality of rollers (110 of Beck, as modified by Olschansky to have four of these rollers) having an outer surface selected from the group consisting of a smooth outer surface, a textured outer surface, and a scalloped outer surface (the rollers necessarily are either “smooth” or “textured.” Furthermore, Beck states “lateral roller 110, or a sleeve 120 placed over the lateral roller 110, may comprise a plurality of raised bumps, ridges, fingers, or similar protrusions to further facilitate massage” see the last two sentences of [0038]).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Beck/Olschansky/Yu device discloses wherein each of said plurality of rollers (110 of Beck, as modified by Olschansky to have four of these rollers) having internal bearings (bearings 55, Figs. 3-4 of Yu) for turning said plurality of rollers after securing said plurality of rollers between said pair of opposing arms (see the first sentence of [0076] of Yu).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Beck/Olschansky/Yu device discloses wherein each of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders (holders 30, 30, Yu) having a shape selected from the group consisting of a pentagon, a hexagon, a heptagon, and an octagon (hexagon, see the last two sentences of [0078] of Yu).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Beck/Olschansky/Yu device discloses wherein each of said opposing polygonal mounting ends (fitting portions 52, 52, Figs. 3-4 of Yu) having a shape selected from the group consisting of a pentagon, a hexagon, a heptagon, and an octagon (hexagon, see the last two sentences of [0078] of Yu).
Regarding claim 17, Beck discloses a method of using a muscle stretching and rolling device (device of Fig. 1), the method comprising the steps of:
providing a rack (support frame 150, Fig. 1) having a plurality of feet (left and right wide bases 154, 164, Fig. 1) and a pair of opposing arms (upper portions 153, 163, Fig. 1), a plurality of polygonal roller holders (plurality of upper slots 182, 183, which are shown to be substantially rectangular in Fig. 3), and at least one roller (lateral roller 110, Fig. 1), wherein said pair of opposing arms (153, 163) having said plurality of polygonal roller holders (182, 183, see Fig. 1), wherein said plurality of polygonal roller holders (plurality of upper slots 182, 183) comprising a plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders (plurality of upper slots 182 form opposing pairs with plurality of upper slots 183, see Figure 1), further wherein each pair of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders (182, 182, Fig. 1) having a different height (see Fig. 1, the pairs of 182, 183, are vertically arranged to have different heights for the user to select);
mounting a selected at least one roller (110) in at least one of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders (roller 110 is shown mounted in at least one of the opposing pairs of slots 182, 183, in Figure 1, Figure 3);
moving a user’s limb over said at least one of said plurality of rollers (the user moves their limb over the roller at least as seen in Fig. 9-10);
mating each roller with at least one of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders (roller 110 is shown mounted in at least one of the opposing pairs of slots 182, 183, Figure 1, Figure 3); and
securing said at least one roller between said pair of opposing arms (by mounting the roller 110 in the opposing pairs of slots 182, 183, which are in the opposing arms 153, 163).
Beck is silent regarding a plurality of rollers, wherein each of said plurality of rollers having opposing polygonal mounting ends for mating with one pair of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders. However, it is noted that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See MPEP 2144.04.
Furthermore, Olschansky teaches a related frame for providing self-massage (Fig. 1, see title) wherein the device includes a plurality of rollers (at least four rolling assemblies 170, 200, 230, 230, Fig. 1) provided in slots (i.e., cradles 111, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, Fig. 2A; para. [0042]-[0044]) in opposing arms (arms 14, 15, Fig. 1) of the frame. The user can place the rollers in the slots (cradles) as desired and roll their body against it, such as rolling their leg along the apparatus (see lines 5-8 of [0125]), and thus provide a rolling massage to a greater surface area simultaneously with the plurality of massage rollers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rack of Beck to include additional rollers (such as four rollers) as generally taught by Olschansky because this is a mere duplication of working parts, and since this allows the user to place the plurality of rollers in the slots as desired, to roll their limb(s) along the rollers to massage a greater surface area simultaneously.
The modified Beck/Olschansky method is still silent regarding wherein each of said plurality of rollers having opposing polygonal mounting ends for mating with one pair of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders.
Yu teaches a related massage roller (roller 10, Figs. 3-4) that has opposing polygonal mounting ends (“fitting portions 52 formed at both end portions of the bearing coupling portion 51” see Figs. 3-4; para. [0080]; a “hexagonal” shape as seen in Figs. 3-4 and stated in the last two sentences of [0078]) for mating with one pair of opposing polygonal roller holders (holders 30 each include an insertion hole 31 “formed in a shape corresponding to a cross section of a fitting portion 52 of the support shaft … a hexagonal cross section” see para. [0078] and Figs. 3-4) for securing the roller (10) between a pair of opposing arms (pair of holders 30, Figs. 3-4). The roller additionally includes an internal bearing (bearings 55, 55, Fig. 3) such that the polygonal mounting ends (52) are stably inserted into the polygonal roller holders (31), but the roller is allowed to freely rotate due to the bearings (“bearings 55 installed on the support shaft 50 to rotatably support the foam roller part 10” see the first sentence of [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of rollers and the pair of opposing arms of Beck/Olschansky to have opposing polygonal mounting ends for mating with one pair of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders for securing said plurality of rollers between said pair of opposing arms as taught by Yu because this provides an expected result that the central shaft(s) of the massage rollers will be stably supported by the polygonal mount connections, while still providing a freely rotatable massage roller due to the internal bearings.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Beck/Olschansky/Yu method discloses wherein a selected at least two of said plurality of rollers mounted in at least two of said plurality of opposing pairs of polygonal roller holders for moving a user’s limb thereover (Beck’s frame in Figure 1 has at least twelve pairs of polygonal roller holders 182, 183, and has been modified by Olschansky to duplicate Beck’s roller 110 to include at least four rollers to allow the user to roll their limb along the plurality of rollers. See the claim 1 rejection statement above).
Claims 11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (2013/0035217) in view of Olschansky et al. (2017/0231862) and Yu (2024/0315914) as applied to claim 10 and claim 18 above, and further in view of Mangino (10,492,975).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Beck/Olschansky/Yu device is silent regarding wherein said plurality of feet (154, 164, Beck) and said pair of opposing arms (153, 163, Beck) are foldable.
Mangino teaches a related rack (apparatus 100, Fig. 1) for holding a plurality of massage rollers (upper massage roller 160, lower massage roller 150, Fig. 1), with the device including a plurality of feet (i.e., left rear support member 130, right rear support member 140, Fig. 1) and a pair of opposing arms (left front support member 110, right front support member 120, Fig. 1) that are foldable for improved storage and transport (the feet and opposing arms are pivotally connected via hinged brackets 142, 144, Fig. 1, so that the entire device can be pivoted to a folded configuration, see Fig. 4; see col. 4, lines 27-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of feet and pair of opposing arms of Beck/Olschansky/Yu to be foldable such as with hinged brackets as taught by Mangino because this allows provides improved storage and transport.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Beck/Olschansky/Yu method discloses wherein each of said plurality of rollers having an outer surface selected from the group consisting of a smooth outer surface, a textured outer surface, and a scalloped outer surface (the rollers necessarily are either “smooth” or “textured.” Furthermore, Beck states “lateral roller 110, or a sleeve 120 placed over the lateral roller 110, may comprise a plurality of raised bumps, ridges, fingers, or similar protrusions to further facilitate massage” see the last two sentences of [0038]). The modified device is silent regarding wherein said plurality of feet (154, 164, Beck) and said pair of opposing arms (153, 163, Beck) are foldable.
Mangino teaches a related rack (apparatus 100, Fig. 1) for holding a plurality of massage rollers (upper massage roller 160, lower massage roller 150, Fig. 1), with the device including a plurality of feet (i.e., left rear support member 130, right rear support member 140, Fig. 1) and a pair of opposing arms (left front support member 110, right front support member 120, Fig. 1) that are foldable for improved storage and transport (the feet and opposing arms are pivotally connected via hinged brackets 142, 144, Fig. 1, so that the entire device can be pivoted to a folded configuration, see Fig. 4; see col. 4, lines 27-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of feet and pair of opposing arms of Beck/Olschansky/Yu to be foldable such as with hinged brackets as taught by Mangino because this allows provides improved storage and transport.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Beck/Olschansky/Yu/Mangino method discloses wherein each of said plurality of rollers (110 of Beck, as modified by Olschansky and Yu) having internal bearings (bearings 55, Figs. 3-4 of Yu) for turning said plurality of rollers after securing said plurality of rollers between said pair of opposing arms (see the first sentence of [0076] of Yu).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Murphy (2,638,089) discloses a related massage roller stand with a plurality of notches to receive the opposing ends of the massage roller. Anderson (2,007,737) discloses a related massage roller stand that is foldable. Mercer (2017/0143580) discloses a related massage roller stand with a plurality of rollers. McClorey (2010/0063429) discloses a related massage roller stand with a plurality of rollers and the rollers include internal bearings. Jones (2015/0133271) discloses a related massage roller stand with notches to receive opposing ends of the roller. Chou (2020/0330318) discloses a related massage roller stand with notches that receive opposing ends of the roller. Vallo et al. (2016/0129302) discloses a related massage roller stand that is foldable. Shannon (2017/0020771) discloses a related massage roller stand with a plurality of massage rollers having different properties, that are interchangeably attached to the massage stand, and the massage rollers have internal bearings. Cheong (2018/0103808) discloses a related massage roller stand that has polygonal mounts to receive polygonal opposing ends of the massage roller. Olschansky et al. (2019/0231636) discloses a related massage roller stand with a plurality of massage rollers. McDonald (2021/0267841) discloses a related massage roller that is mounted to a detachable stand. Cromie (2010/0145240) discloses a related frame with a plurality of massage rollers, and states that the sidewalls can have hinges to be folded to a compact configuration. Ryan et al. (6,419,650) discloses a related massage roller stand for a plurality of rollers. Bock (3,787,048) discloses a related stand to support a massage roller. Fitzsimons (4,070,743) discloses a related massage roller stand that has polygonal mounts to receive polygonal opposing ends of the massage roller. Kirsch (4,832,006) discloses a related massage roller stand with a plurality of massage rollers, provided at different heights. Yoon (KR 20220163594 A) discloses a related rack with a pair of opposing arms having a plurality of mounts to removably receive the ends of a massage roller, the massage roller having internal bearings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1473. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30 (Eastern).
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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MILLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
