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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/03/2026 was filed is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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(s) 1-20 is/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.
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 12 recites in lines 10-15, in lines 7-13, the following: “each of the first projections in the first set having a similar first structure to each of the other first projections in the first set, each of the second projections in the second set having a similar second structure to each of the other second projections in the second set, and each of the third projections in the third set having a similar third structure to each of the other third projections in the third set; the similar first structure, the similar second structure, and the similar third structure being distinct from each other.”
However, examiner is unable to find support from disclosure for “a similar first structure, a similar second structure, and a similar third structure”.
First, it is unclear what is “similar” in first, second and third structure being defined? Is it suppose to be one or more similarity in textured surface, contoured surface, overall shape, width, length, height, alignment or arrangement, placement density, or any particular combination(s) of any of above.
Meanwhile, it remains unclear how the similar first structure, the similar second structure, and the similar third structure being distinct from one another.
Furthermore, it is confusing because “similar” is opposite to “distinct”, but nevertheless, yet defined for the similar first structure, the similar second structure, and the similar third structure being distinct from each other.
Meanwhile, it remains confusing whether the so-called distinctness is related to differences in textured surface, shape, width, length, height, alignment or arrangement, or placement density or a combination of any of above.
Meanwhile, it remains confusing and unknown what in in textured surface, contoured surface, overall shape, width, length, height, alignment or arrangement, placement density is/are considered “similar” traits or features for the “projections”, while what in in textured surface, contoured surface, overall shape, width, length, height, alignment or arrangement, placement density is/are considered “distinct” traits or features for the “projections”.
Adding to the confusion, examiner submits that since “similar” does not equate to “identical or same”, therefore, the degree of similarity among textured surface, contoured surface, overall shape, width, length, height, alignment or arrangement, placement density are ambiguous, indefinite, subjective or unclear in view of instant disclosure as a whole.
For the sake of compact prosecution, examiner submits the following for further consideration: referring to Figs 1, 2, 3A, 3C, 3D, 3E, and 3G of instant application, as best understood and careful interpretation by examiner, specific tangible examples of similar but distinct sets for multiple sets of projections in these abovementioned figures are expressly shown. As a result, applicant(s) would need to make a statement in forthcoming remarks that the so-called “similar first structure, similar second structure and similar third structure” which are recited in claims 1, 10 and 12 are expressly shown and limited by the degree of similarity of structures in sets of projections shown in Figs 1, 2, 3A, 3C, 3D, 3E, and 3G, and the so-called “similar structure” would not be additionally interpreted to further expand to include other potentially arguably subjective and/or disputable similar but nondisclosed structures. By doing so, current rejections to Claim(s) 1, 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on lines 10-15, in lines 7-13, the following: “each of the first projections in the first set having a similar first structure to each of the other first projections in the first set, each of the second projections in the second set having a similar second structure to each of the other second projections in the second set, and each of the third projections in the third set having a similar third structure to each of the other third projections in the third set; the similar first structure, the similar second structure, and the similar third structure being distinct from each other.” may then be withdrawn upon further consideration.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 20 depend upon rejected base claim 1, and dependent claim 11 depend on rejected base claim 10, and dependent claims 13-19 depend upon rejected base claim 12, thus are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon base claims.
Claim 13 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph based on the following: Referring to claim 13, which recites in part: “wherein each of the first structure, the second structure and the third structure are selected from a group comprising projections ….. having a substantially uniform width and substantially uniform height and being disposed in a linear manner, (c) having a substantially uniform width and substantially uniform height and being disposed as a plurality of concentric circular segments, or (d) having a substantially uniform width and substantially uniform height and being disposed as a plurality of coupled linear segments”.
However, examiner remain confused as to what is meant by “substantially uniform width”. The actual value of uniform width remains unclear and unknown, and examiner remain confused as to what is meant by “substantially uniform height”, what is that defined to be ? These appear to be very subjective terms for “substantially uniform width” and “substantially uniform height”, and of which a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret differently according to personal taste or preference or needs. Upon careful review of specification and disclosure as a whole, it appears that the descriptions for uniform height and minor variation in height appear to be very subjective and ambiguous since there is no exact quantified value to clearly define the boundary between what is deemed uniform width and nonuniform width, and between uniform height and nonuniform height. No actual values or range of numbers or data are provided for distinguishing between uniform width and nonuniform width, and between uniform height and nonuniform height to be found in instant disclosure as originally filed.
For example, for the sake of discussion, if someone is asked in view of instant disclosure, as to what is deemed to be uniform width, one person can say that is any width at values between 2.00 mm, 2.01 mm, 2.02 mm, 1.99 mm, 1.98 mm, while, another person can say that “uniform width” is any width between 2.00 mm, 2.05 mm, 2.12 mm, 1.90 mm, 1.87 mm. Meanwhile, no one can properly determine who is right or wrong, because the assessment criteria for “uniform” is very subjective, and does not have an objective standard.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10 and 12 contain allowable subject matter. Although claims 1, 10 and 12 contain allowable subject matter, nevertheless, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as previously discussed herein above, thus applicant's reply must either comply with all formal and statutory requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with.
None of cited prior art in previous office action disclose or teach “wherein the plurality of projections are disposed within the perimeter wall” of claim 1, “wherein the second portion is distinct from the first portion and physically separated from the first portion by a connecting region” of claim 10, and “wherein the perimeter height varies along a width of the bottom surface, such that the perimeter height along one long edge of the bottom surface has a first value, and the perimeter height along a second long edge of the bottom surface opposite the first long edge has a second value, the second value being greater than the first value” of claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hayward (US 7077015B2) discloses an apparatus to reproduce tactile sensations. Cohen (US 11925591B1) discloses a tactile therapeutic device.
Toole (US 20220193365) discloses a tactile stimulus relaxation platform.
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 DING Y TAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4271. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am MT--5:00pm MT. 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DING Y TAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights