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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on 12/20/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN202341087119 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: the reference numerals “406” and “409” in fig. 4A and “406” in fig. 4B are missing from the specification. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "211" and "310" have both been used to designate the remote-control unit in fig. 2D and fig. 3.
Furthermore, the drawings are objected to because the photographs 2B-4B are unclear due to the light and dark shading. The photographs include light and dark shading making the details of the invention difficult to ascertain. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent application. Drawings should be used when the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by drawing. See MPEP 37 C.F.R. 1.84(b).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology, (i.e., the term “comprising” in line 1 of the abstract). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains “<<FIG. 2A>>” in the last line of the abstract, it is unclear if “<<FIG. 2A>>” is meant to be included in the abstract or not. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraphs 0016, 0027 and 0028, reference numeral “211” is being used to designate the “pendulum motion unit” (see paragraph 0016), the “remote-control unit” (see paragraph 0027) and the “vertical movement rod” (see paragraph 0028).
Furthermore, the term “chord 217” in paragraph 0028 is suggested to be changed to --cord 217-- in order to fix typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, the term “control unit 201” is suggested to be changed to --control unit (201)-- in order to clarify that 201 is a reference for the claimed limitation and is not part of the claim. The terms “fluid heater unit 202” (line 3), “fluid container unit 203” (line 4), “fluid container 203” (line 7), “motor unit 204” (line 9), “fluid container unit 203” (line 9), “fluid dispenser unit 205” (lines 9-10), “fluid dispenser unit 205” (line 11), “pendulum motion unit 206” (line 14), “fluid dispenser unit 205” (line 14), “a head rest unit 207” (line 17), “dispenser unit 205” (line 18), “fluid collection unit 208” (line 20), “fluid dispenser unit 205” (lines 20-21), “pump unit 209” (line 22), “fluid collection unit 208” (line 22), “fluid container unit 203” (line 23), “fluid heater unit 202” (line 23), “fluid dispenser unit 205” (line 24), “power unit 210” (line 25), “shirodhara device 200” (line 26), “remote-control unit 211” (line 27), “shirodhara device 200” (line 27), and “shirodhara device 200” (line 29) are being objected to for the same reason.
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: the limitations “a control unit 201 to control the entire operation of the device” (claim 1, line 2, the term “unit” is a generic placeholder and the function is “control” and “to control the entire operation of the device”), “a motor unit 204 to pump the warmed fluid from the fluid container unit 203 to a fluid dispenser unit 205” (claim 1, lines 9-10, the term “unit” is a generic placeholder, and the function is “to pump the warmed fluid from the fluid container unit 203 to a fluid dispenser unit 205”, it is noted that the term “motor” is not sufficient structure to perform the function of “to pump the warmed fluid from the fluid container unit 203 to a fluid dispenser unit 205, since a motor by itself is not a pump), “a pendulum motion unit 206 makes the fluid dispenser unit 205 to allow the fluid flow either perpendicularly or across or in a rhythmic pendulum motion on the subject’s forehead” (claim 1, lines 14-16, the term “unit” is a generic placeholder and the function is “pendulum motion” and “makes the fluid dispenser unit 205 to allow the fluid flow either perpendicularly or across or in a rhythmic pendulum motion on the subject’s forehead”), “a fluid collection unit 208 used to collect the fluid that flows from the fluid dispenser unit 205 above the subject’s forehead” (claim 1, lines 20-21, the term “unit” is a generic placeholder and the function is “fluid collection” and “to collect the fluid that flows from the fluid dispenser unit 205 above the subject’s forehead”), and “a power unit 210 provides power from the external sources to activate the entire operation of the portable shirodhara device 200” (claim 1, lines 25-26, the term “unit” is a generic placeholder and the function is “power” and “provides power from the external sources to activate the entire operation of the portable shirodhara device 200”).
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 control unit”: control unit 201 with control touch panel, see paragraph 0028 of the specification.
“a motor unit”: motor unit 204 with stepper motor 213 in paragraphs 0016, 0020, 0028 of the specification, however, the corresponding structure to perform the function of “to pump the warmed fluid from the fluid container unit 203 to a fluid dispenser unit 205” cannot be determined because a motor/stepper motor by itself cannot perform the function of “to pump”, see the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
“a pendulum motion unit”: pendulum motion unit 211 in paragraph 0016 or pendulum motion unit 206 in paragraph 0022 of the specification, the corresponding structure of the pendulum motion unit cannot be determined, see the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
“a fluid collection unit”: fluid collection unit 208 with collection tray 218, see paragraph 0028 of the specification.
“a power unit”: power unit 209 with power chord 217, paragraph 0028 of the specification.
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 is 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).
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a fluid dispenser unit 205 flows the warmed fluid on the adjusted forehead just four fingers (4 Angola ~ approximately. 6 inches) above the subject’s forehead…a pendulum motion unit 206 makes the fluid dispenser unit 205 to allow the fluid flow either perpendicularly or across or in a rhythmic pendulum motion on the subject’s forehead…a fluid collection unit 208 used to collect the fluid that flows from the fluid dispenser unit 205 above the subject’s forehead” (lines 11-13, 14-16, and 20-21) appears to positively claiming human body parts. Applicant is suggested to use --for--, --adapted to--, --configured to-- or --whereby-- clause in order to avoid positively claiming the human body parts.
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 1 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.
The limitation “a motor unit 204 to pump the warmed fluid from the fluid container unit 203 to a fluid dispenser unit 205” (claim 1, lines 9-10) invokes 112(f), however, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure(s) to perform the function of “to pump the warmed fluid from the fluid container unit 203 to a fluid dispenser unit 205”. The specification discloses motor unit 204 with stepper motor 213 in paragraphs 0016, 0020, 0028, however, there is no corresponding structure to perform the function of “to pump”, the stepper motor 213 or the “motor” by itself cannot perform the function of “to pump the warmed fluid from the fluid container unit 203 to a fluid dispenser unit 205”, therefore, 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.
The limitation “a pendulum motion unit” (claim 1, lines 14-16) invokes 112(f), however, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure(s) of the pendulum motion unit. Paragraph 0016 discloses “a pendulum motion unit 211”, paragraph 0022 discloses “The pendulum motion unit 206”, and paragraphs 0014, 0031, 0032, 0033, 0034, and 0035 discloses the term “pendulum motion unit”, however, there is no disclosure on the corresponding structure(s) of the pendulum motion unit, therefore, the claim 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.
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.
Claim 1 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the entire operation of the device” (lines 2 and 28) lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear as to what “the entire operation” is referring to.
Regarding claim 1, The limitation “with a temperature and a timer sensor” (line 3) is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim a single sensor or if the applicant is trying to claim a temperature sensor and a timer sensor, the usage of “a temperature and a timer sensor” is unclear and confusing. In light of the specification and for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as --with a temperature sensor and a timer sensor--.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “preferably 38+ or -5 °C” (line 5) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, is the limitation following the term “preferably” is being positively claimed or not, the term “preferably” is indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “maintains the same temperature till the entire process of treatment” (lines 5-6) is unclear because the limitation “the same temperature” and “the entire process of treatment” lacks proper antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear and confusing as to what is meant by “till the entire process of treatment”, is the intention of the limitation is to claim --during an entire treatment period-- or --until the end of a treatment period--, if so, suggest to amend to --during an entire treatment period-- or --until the end of a treatment period--.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a fluid container unit 203” (line 7) is unclear if the fluid container unit 203 is the same as or different from “a fluid container unit 203” being claimed in claim 1, line 4.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a selected fluid” (line 7) is unclear if the selected fluid is the same as or different “a selected fluid” being claimed in claim 1, line 3-4.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “usually oil or combination of oils, milk, buttermilk or water based on the subject’s body requirements and condition” (lines 7-8) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, because the term “usually” is indefinite, it is unclear if the limitation following the term “usually” is being positively claimed or not.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “the subject’s body requirements and condition” (line 8) and “the adjusted forehead…the subject’s forehead…the subject’s forehead…the subject’s head…the subject’s forehead…the subject’s forehead” (lines 11, 12, 15-16, 17, 19, and 21 respectively) lack proper antecedent basis. Furthermore, is the subject’s forehead the same as or different from “the adjusted forehead”. Suggest to amend to --a subject’s body requirements and condition-- (line 8) and --a forehead of the subject…the subject’s forehead…the subject’s forehead…a head of the subject…the subject’s forehead…the subject’s forehead-- (lines 11, 12, 15-16, 17, 19, and 21 respectively).
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a fluid dispenser unit 205” (line 11) is unclear if the fluid dispenser unit 205 is the same as or different from “a fluid dispenser unit 205” being claimed in claim 1, line 9-10.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the warmed fluid on the adjusted forehead just four fingers (4 Angola ~ approximately. 6 inches) above the subject’s forehead” (lines 11-12) is unclear what is “four fingers…above the subject’s forehead” referring to, a particular person’s fingers or another structure being referenced to by the term “fingers”, the limitation is too relative and indefinite. Furthermore, it is unclear if the limitation in the parentheses is being positively claimed or not, furthermore, it is unclear as to what is “4 Angola”, furthermore, it is unclear if “~ approximately. 6 inches” is the same as 4 Angola, furthermore, it is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim --approximately 6 inches-- or --approximately 0.6 inches-- since there is a period.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a pendulum motion unit 206 makes the fluid dispenser unit 205 to allow the fluid flow” (line 14) is unclear and confusing what is meant by “a pendulum motion unit 206 makes the fluid dispenser unit 205 to allow”. The limitation appears to be claiming the pendulum motion unit 206 is responsible for making the fluid dispenser since the term “makes” and “to allow” are confusing. Suggest to amend to --a pendulum motion unit (206) is configured to move the fluid dispenser unit (206), the movement of the fluid dispenser unit (206) is configured to allow the fluid exiting the fluid dispenser unit (206) to flow-- or --a pendulum motion unit (206) is configured to make the fluid dispenser unit (206) move such that the fluid flow exiting the fluid dispenser unit (206) is configured to flow--.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a rhythmic pendulum motion” (line 15) is unclear if the rhythmic pendulum motion in line 15 is the same as or different from “a rhythmic pendulum motion” being claimed in claim 1, lines 12-13. Furthermore, the limitation “in a rhythmic pendulum motion in lateral direction; a pendulum motion unit 206 makes the fluid dispenser unit 206 to allow the fluid flow either perpendicularly or across or in a rhythmic pendulum motion” (lines 12-15) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation because first the claim requires rhythmic pendulum motion then further makes it optional via the usage of the limitation “to allow the fluid flow either perpendicularly or across or in a rhythmic pendulum motion”, therefore, it is unclear if the rhythmic pendulum motion is optional or not. For examination purposes, the limitation “a rhythmic pendulum motion” is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “just four fingers (4 Angola ~ approximately. 6 inches) above the subject’s forehead” (lines 18-19) is unclear what is “four fingers…above the subject’s forehead” referring to, a particular person’s fingers or another structure being referenced to by the term “fingers”, the limitation is too relative and indefinite. Furthermore, it is unclear if the limitation in the parentheses is being positively claimed or not, furthermore, it is unclear as to what is “4 Angola”, furthermore, it is unclear if “~ approximately. 6 inches” is the same as 4 Angola, furthermore, it is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim --approximately 6 inches-- or --approximately 0.6 inches-- since there is a period. Furthermore, is the “four fingers” in line 18 the same as or different from “four fingers” being claimed in claim 1, lines 11-12.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the external sources” (line 25) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “is used to achieve a minimizing usage of the fluids and man power for the procedure of shirodhara treatment” (lines 29-30) is unclear as to how to define the metes and bounds of the limitation “to achieve a minimizing usage of the fluids and man power for the procedure of shirodhara treatment”, specifically, it is unclear as to what the term “minimizing” is relative to.
Claim limitations “a motor unit 204 to pump the warmed fluid from the fluid container unit 203 to a fluid dispenser unit 205” (claim 1, lines 9-10) and “a pendulum motion unit” (claim 1, lines 14-16) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding the motor unit to pump the warmed fluid, the specification discloses motor unit 204 with stepper motor 213 in paragraphs 0016, 0020, 0028, however, there is no corresponding structure to perform the function of “to pump”, the stepper motor 213 or the “motor” by itself cannot perform the function of “to pump the warmed fluid from the fluid container unit 203 to a fluid dispenser unit 205”,
Regarding the pendulum motion unit, paragraph 0016 discloses “a pendulum motion unit 211”, paragraph 0022 discloses “The pendulum motion unit 206”, and paragraphs 0014, 0031, 0032, 0033, 0034, and 0035 discloses the term “pendulum motion unit”, however, there is no disclosure of the corresponding structure(s) of the pendulum motion unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 3158311 in view of JP 3180261, Griffin (7,530,961), and Adaie (8,827,936), and alternatively in view of Attwal (2024/0218646), Trischler (2024/0149009) and Kim (KR 20080095021).
Regarding claim 1, JP 3158311 discloses a portable shirodhara device (entire device in fig. 1, JP 3158311 discloses in paragraph 0021 that the device has adjuster 64 for height adjustment and vibrating damping, and casters 65 for movement, therefore, the device is portable, furthermore, JP 3158311 discloses in paragraph 0001 that the invention related to a heated liquid flow device used in Shirodhara) comprising: a control unit (controller 71, fig. 3, paragraph 0038) to control the entire operation of the device; a fluid heater unit (41, figs. 1 and 3, paragraphs 0038-0039) configured with a temperature and a timer sensor (see paragraph 0038 regarding the timer, see paragraph 0025 regarding the control device 71 being configured to control the heating unit 41 to reach a desired temperature, and that liquid is not supplied unless it reaches a predetermined temperature, therefore, to be able to determine when the liquid has reach a predetermined temperature, there must be some form of temperature sensor), warms up a selected fluid administered into a fluid container unit constantly to desirable temperature and maintains the same temperature till the entire process of treatment (see paragraph 0025, JP 3158311 discloses that the heating unit 41 is controlled by the control device 71 so that temperature of the liquid inside reaches a desired temperature and that liquid is not supplied unless it reaches a predetermined temperature, therefore, the fluid heater unit warms up a selected fluid administered into a fluid container unit constantly to desirable temperature and maintains the same temperature till the entire process of treatment); a fluid container unit (31, fig. 3, paragraphs 0042-0043) with a selected fluid usually oil based on the subject’s body requirements and condition (see paragraphs 0001-0002, 0039 and 0042); a motor unit (motor unit of pump 52, fig. 3, paragraphs 0025-0027, 0038, and 0039) to pump the warmed fluid from the fluid container unit to a fluid dispenser unit (the motor unit in combination with a pump unit of 52 would pump the warmed fluid from the fluid container unit to a fluid dispenser unit (95, 93, 53b)); a fluid dispenser unit (95, 93, 53b, figs. 1-3, paragraphs 0029, 0036, 0037, and 0048) flows the warmed fluid on the adjusted forehead just four fingers above the subject’s forehead in a rhythmic swinging motion in lateral direction (see movement of 93/95/14, figs. 2 and 5-8, paragraphs 0031-0033, furthermore, see fig. 1, the warmed fluid on the adjusted forehead roughly four fingers, fingers come in different sizes, furthermore, the claim does not state what the fingers are, are the fingers referring to human fingers or fingers formed by cutting a stick into different fingers, therefore, the distant shown can be just four fingers, depending on how one would divide a stick into the number of fingers of a particular length to be between the end of the nozzle 95 and the forehead of the subject, alternatively, fingers come in different sizes, a stream of continuous fluid would have fluid positioned within the stream just four fingers away from the user’s head); a swinging motion unit makes the fluid dispenser unit to allow the fluid flow across on the subject’s forehead (see swinging motion unit formed by 14, 91, 14a, 14b, 83, 88, 82, 86, 84, 85 in figs. 3-4, or the swinging motion unit formed by 14, 81, 85, 84, 91, 14a, 96c, 96a in fig. 8, paragraphs 0031-0037 and 0047-0048); a head rest unit (portion of 23 comprising 23a, fig. 1, paragraph 0022) where the subject’s head is rested for the fluid to flow from the fluid dispenser unit on the forehead just four fingers above the subject’s forehead (see the four fingers explanation above); a fluid collection unit (portion of 21 comprising 22 and 24 and 25, figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 0022, 0023, 0027, 0028, 0029, and 0050) used to collect the fluid that flows from the fluid dispenser unit above the subject’s forehead; a pump unit (pump unit of 52, figs. 1 and 3, paragraphs 0025-0027, 0038, and 0039) used to pump the collected fluid from the fluid collection unit back to the fluid container unit which gets warmed again by the fluid heater unit and pumped to the fluid dispenser unit (see figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 0025-0027, 0038, and 0039, since the pump unit of 52 operate in a close circuit system, the water it pumps toward the nozzle 95 would be pumped to the collection unit 21/24/25, which would then go back to the fluid container unit 31 to be warmed by heater 41); a remote-control unit (72, fig. 3, paragraph 0038) configured to control the entire operation of the device remotely (fig. 3 and paragraph 0038, relatively, 72 is remoted from the shirodhara device), wherein the portable shirodhara device is used to achieve a minimizing usage of fluids and man power for the procedure of shirodhara treatment (see full disclosure, paragraphs 0001-0056, relatively, the shirodhara as disclosed is used to achieve minimizing usage of fluids and man power since the device is automatic), but fails to disclose the fluid dispenser unit flows the warmed fluid on the adjusted forehead in a rhythmic pendulum motion in lateral direction, and a pendulum motion unit, a power unit provides power from the external sources to activate the entire operation of the portable shirodhara device, and a remote-control unit connected to the portable shirodhara device through Bluetooth or WIFI to control the entire operation of the device remotely.
However, JP 3180261 teaches a fluid dispenser unit (70 and 80, figs. 1-5) flows a fluid on a subject in a rhythmic pendulum motion in lateral direction, and a pendulum motion unit (96, 92b, 93, 93a, 92a, 95, 94, figs. 1-5) makes the fluid dispenser unit to allow the fluid flow in a rhythmic pendulum motion on the subject (see paragraphs 0012, 0015, 0035-0041, and 0049).
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 swinging motion unit and the fluid dispenser unit of JP 3158311 to have the pendulum motion unit as taught by JP 3180261 for the purpose of providing an alternative motion that would provide a therapeutic effect to the subject (see paragraphs 0001, 0012, 0015, 0035-0041, and 0049 of JP 3180261).
The modified JP 3158311 fails to disclose a power unit provides power from the external sources to activate the entire operation of the portable shirodhara device.
However, Griffin teaches a power unit (42, fig. 5, col 4, lines 1-5) provides power from the external sources to activate the entire operation of the device (10, fig. 1).
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 device of the modified JP 3158311 to have the power unit as taught by Griffin for the purpose of providing a well-known means of powering the device of the modified JP 3158311 and for the purpose of providing a power unit that can plug into any typical A/C power source (see col 4, lines 1-5 of Griffin).
The modified JP 3158311 discloses a remote-control unit (72 of JP 3158311), but fails to disclose that the remote-control unit connected to the portable shirodhara device through Bluetooth or WIFI to control the entire operation of the device remotely.
However, Adaie teaches a remote-control unit connected to a device through Bluetooth or WIFI to control the entire operation of the device remotely (see col 4, line 63 to col 5, line 3, Adaie discloses a smart phone for controlling the device, see device in col 3, lines 30-34).
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 remote-control unit of the modified JP 3158311 to have the remote-control unit as taught by Adaie for the purpose of providing a smart system that can be controlled via a user’s smart phone (see col 4, line 63 to col 5, line 3 of Adaie).
Furthermore, if there is any doubt that the control unit (71 of JP 3158311) is equivalent to the control unit of the claimed invention. Attwal teaches a control unit that is a touch screen interface (see paragraphs 0205 and 0327).
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 control unit of the modified JP 3158311 to have the touch screen as taught by Attwal for the purpose of providing a local control interface that is readily available for the user to access and utilized to control the device (see paragraphs 0205 and 0327 of Attwal).
Furthermore, if there is any doubt that the modified JP 3158311 discloses a temperature sensor. Trischler teaches a temperature sensor for maintaining a temperature of a liquid (paragraphs 0049 and 0081-0082, Trischler discloses a temperature sensor and a control unit for determining when the operating temperature has been reached).
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 control unit and the heater unit of the modified JP 3158311 to have the temperature sensor as taught by Trischler for the purpose of providing a means to determine when an operating temperature has been reached (see paragraphs 0049 and 0081-0082 of Trischler).
Furthermore, if there is any doubt that the modified JP 3158311 discloses a motor unit attached to a pump unit of pump 52 of JP 3158311.
Kim teaches a pump (11) comprising a motor unit attached to a pump unit for pumping liquid to a dispensing unit (12, fig. 2, see page 9 of the English translation, Kim discloses that 11 is a conventional motor pump unit, which would have a pump unit attached to a motor unit).
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 pump 52 of the JP 3158311 to be a conventional motor pump unit comprising a motor unit and a pump unit as taught by Kim for the purpose of providing a well-known pump that would be capable of pumping liquid within a fluid container unit to a fluid dispenser unit.
Furthermore, if there is any doubt that the modified JP 3158311 discloses that the fluid is four fingers above the subject’s forehead.
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 fluid to be four fingers above the subject’s forehead for the purpose of providing a distance that would allow the subject to experience the stream of fluid above the subject’s forehead and a distance that would perform equally well relative to the distance between the fluid dispenser unit and the subject’s forehead of the modified JP 3158311 (see length/height of line “L” in fig. 1 of JP 3158311), 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)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 3162041 is cited to show a shirodhara device.
Uebaba (JP 2003019203) is cited to show a shirodhara device.
JP 2001520084 is cited to show a shirodhara device.
Kageyama (JP H11221261) is cited to show a shirodhara device.
Tada (JP 2024149721) is cited to show a liquid dispenser comprising basin and liquid dispenser.
Matsunaga (JP 2003111613) is cited to show a liquid dispenser comprising a tilting mechanism.
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
