DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 6-15 and 17-25 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 1-15, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 23-25.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 at lines 1-2 recites the limitation "the changing the intensity of the predetermined action". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 6-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0104996) in view of Fung et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0168919). Regarding claim 1, Bennett et al. (hereinafter Bennett) discloses a system, comprising: a memory storing instructions thereon; and a processor (Fig. 1, [0018] and [0026]) which, under control of the instructions, executes processes including:
in response to detecting that a second device of a second user moves relative to a first sex toy of a first user or a first user device of the first user, determining a change of a distance over time between the second device and either the first sex toy or the first user device ([0026], [0028]; and [0030]: “sexual wellness devices 12 can be programmed to stimulate the respective couple as they draw nearer to each other. In this way, the couple is stimulated or rewarded for being near or approaching each other”; [0028]: “if the distance between the controllers 22, transmitters/receivers 14, and sexual wellness devices 12 or between the sexual wellness devices 12 is increased, the intensity can decrease or decrease. It is also contemplated herein that movement of a controller 22, such the undergarments or outer garments, can control different actions of sexual wellness devices 12”),
the first sex toy being configured to sexually stimulate the first user [0029] and Figs. 3-4),
the second device being either a second sex toy of the second user or a second user device of the second user, and the second sex toy being configured to sexually stimulate the second user ([0026]-[0029]);
and controlling the first sex toy to perform a predetermined sexual stimulation action for sexually stimulating the first user based on the change of the distance ([0026]; [0028]: “an action can be triggered or actuated by adjusting or changing a distance”; [0030]), such that an intensity of the predetermined action increases or decreases based on a corresponding increase or decrease in the change of distance ([0028]: “In another instance, the distance between a controllers 22, transmitters/receivers 14, and sexual wellness devices 12 or between the sexual wellness devices 12 can increase or decrease an intensity of an action of sexual wellness devices 12. For example, if the distance between the controllers 22, transmitters/receivers 14, and sexual wellness devices 12 or between the sexual wellness devices 12 is increased, the intensity can decrease or decrease.”).
While Bennett does not explicitly disclose that determining the movement or the change of distance over time is “a rate of change”, Bennett makes such obvious as Bennett discloses that movement of the controller can control different actions of the sexual wellness device [0028] (“movement” taken to imply moves over time), and further that a couple is stimulated for approaching each other ([0030] and [0039]), the approaching of which would require a change over time and hence “a rate of change”.
However, Bennett fails to disclose explicitly that the “rate of change” is a velocity. Fung et al. (hereinafter Fung) teaches a system for remotely stimulating a user ([0039]-[0041]) as likewise disclosed by Bennett, wherein Fung teaches that the stimulation units can be controlled based on various control parameters such as distance between a control device and another person or user device location [0042], wherein the sensed parameter can cause an increase in intensity of stimulation as movement distance or speed varies [0042] and further wherein other sensed parameters acquired via GPS, accelerometer or position sensor, for instance, can comprise the signal indicative of the sensed parameters [0036]. 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 system of Bennett which determines control of stimulation units based on a rate of change and distance, to include a determination of velocity as taught by Fung, as Bennett recognizes the use of sex devices between remote partners [0018] and variation of intensity of the respective stimulation units based on the change of the distance ([0026]; [0028]) and Fung teaches that various signals/sensors indicative of distance and rate of change may control intensity between two remote users such as speed, acceleration and distance ([0036] and [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, at least one of the first sex toy and the second sex toy is a sex toy that can be worn discreetly (nerve stimulation patch [0018] and [0022]-[0024] of Bennett).
Regarding claim 7, the controlling the first sex toy to perform the predetermined action includes at least one of: initiating control of the first sex toy to perform the predetermined action in response to the distance falling within a threshold range or below a threshold value ([0031] of Bennett describes initiation of actions of stimulation based on triggering events such as detection of sound, light or chosen words).
Regarding claim 8, the intensity of the predetermined action includes at least one of an amplitude, a frequency, a speed, an acceleration, a temperature, a number of reciprocations, and a duration ([0027], [0031] of Bennett).
Regarding claim 9 and in view of its indefinite nature, the system of Bennett is configured to change/adjust the intensity of the predetermined action based on the change of the distance as noted above. The limitations of “that is equal to an initial value of the intensity plus a multiplied value that is the rate of change of the distance multiplied by an adjustment weight value” do not in fact define what the specific values are; positively recite/require multiplication or production of weight values; or recite how the system is configured to arrive at such values and therefore do not provide patentable weight.
Regarding claim 10, the system of Bennett is configured to control the first sex toy 100 to perform the predetermined action based on a preset control pattern of the second device ([0026] and [0038]); or control the first sex toy to perform the predetermined action via the second device in near real-time ([0030]: “sexual wellness devices 12 can be programmed to stimulate the respective couple as they draw nearer to each other. In this way, the couple is stimulated or rewarded for being near or approaching each other”).
Regarding claim 11, the processor of Bennett is configured to send user information associated with the second device to the first user device ([0018], [0026] and [0028]).
Regarding claim 12, the controlling the first sex toy to perform the predetermined action includes changing the intensity of the predetermined action based on the rate of change of the distance, and the changing the intensity comprises at least one of: decreasing the intensity as the rate of change of the distance increases; increasing the intensity as the rate of change of the distance decreases; decreasing the intensity as the rate of change of the distance decreases; or increasing the intensity as the rate of change of the distance increases ([0028] of Bennett).
Regarding claim 13, the predetermined action includes at least one of vibration, rotation, suction, contraction, expansion, temperature control, and reciprocating movement ([0027] of Bennett).
Regarding claim 14, the second device of Bennett comprises a smart device (cellular phone comprising an application [0018]) that communicates with the first sex toy via at least one of short distance communication, Wi-Fi, RFID, GPS, Ultra Wide Band, and combinations thereof ([0018] and [0021]).
Regarding claim 15, the first sex toy and the second device of Bennett are configured to wirelessly transmit and receive signals for determining the rate of change of the distance ([0018]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 17, Bennett teaches a method comprising: in response to detecting that a second device of a second user moves relative to a first sex toy of a first user or a first user device of the first user, determining a change of a distance over time between the second device and either the first sex toy or the first user device ([0026], [0028]; and [0030]: “sexual wellness devices 12 can be programmed to stimulate the respective couple as they draw nearer to each other. In this way, the couple is stimulated or rewarded for being near or approaching each other”; [0028]: “if the distance between the controllers 22, transmitters/receivers 14, and sexual wellness devices 12 or between the sexual wellness devices 12 is increased, the intensity can decrease or decrease. It is also contemplated herein that movement of a controller 22, such the undergarments or outer garments, can control different actions of sexual wellness devices 12”),
the first sex toy being configured to sexually stimulate the first user [0029] and Figs. 3-4),
the second device being either a second sex toy of the second user or a second user device of the second user, and the second sex toy being configured to sexually stimulate the second user ([0026]-[0029]);
and controlling the first sex toy to perform a predetermined sexual stimulation action for sexually stimulating the first user based on the change of the distance ([0026]; [0028]: “an action can be triggered or actuated by adjusting or changing a distance”; [0030]), such that an intensity of the predetermined action increases or decreases based on a corresponding increase or decrease in the change of distance ([0028]: “In another instance, the distance between a controllers 22, transmitters/receivers 14, and sexual wellness devices 12 or between the sexual wellness devices 12 can increase or decrease an intensity of an action of sexual wellness devices 12. For example, if the distance between the controllers 22, transmitters/receivers 14, and sexual wellness devices 12 or between the sexual wellness devices 12 is increased, the intensity can decrease or decrease.”).
While Bennett does not explicitly disclose that determining the movement or the change of distance over time is “a rate of change”, Bennett makes such obvious as Bennett discloses that movement of the controller can control different actions of the sexual wellness device [0028] (“movement” taken to imply moves over time), and further that a couple is stimulated for approaching each other ([0030] and [0039]), the approaching of which would require a change over time and hence “a rate of change”.
However, Bennett fails to disclose explicitly that the “rate of change” is a velocity. Fung et al. (hereinafter Fung) teaches a system for remotely stimulating a user ([0039]-[0041]) as likewise disclosed by Bennett, wherein Fung teaches that the stimulation units can be controlled based on various control parameters such as distance between a control device and another person or user device location [0042], wherein the sensed parameter can cause an increase in intensity of stimulation as movement distance or speed varies [0042] and further wherein other sensed parameters acquired via GPS, accelerometer or position sensor, for instance, can comprise the signal indicative of the sensed parameters [0036]. 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 method of Bennett which determines control of stimulation units based on a rate of change and distance, to include a determination of velocity as taught by Fung, as Bennett recognizes the use of sex devices between remote partners [0018] and variation of intensity of the respective stimulation units based on the change of the distance ([0026]; [0028]) and Fung teaches that various signals/sensors indicative of distance and rate of change may control intensity between two remote users such as speed, acceleration and distance ([0036] and [0042]).
Regarding claim 18, the distance is a physical distance and the determining the rate of change of the distance includes calculating the physical distance over time using at least one of ultrasonic detection, UWB positioning, short distance communication positioning, Wi-Fi positioning, satellite positioning, RFID positioning, and base station positioning ([0018] of Bennett).
Regarding claim 19, Bennett teaches: in response to determining that the physical distance meets a threshold, controlling the sex toy of the other user ([0026]-[0031]). However, Bennett fails to disclose explicitly controlling at least one of the first user device and the second user device to display, on a user interface thereof, a panel for controlling the sex toy. However, Bennett makes such obvious as Bennett teaches control of the sexual wellness devices via an application on a cellular phone ([0018] and Fig. 1) (which is well-known to comprise a display on a user interface enabling selections via icons and other graphics for controlling/manipulating operating parameters), wherein actions for controlling the sex toy may be programmed by the users or downloaded from an internet site [0027]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display, on a user interface of the user device, a panel for controlling the sex toys of the other user as Bennett discloses the function of controlling the sex toys via a cellular phone having an application for control of the remote sex toys, which would be well-understood to comprise a display and interface for a user to effect such control.
However, Bennett fails to disclose determining that an operational mode is a stranger mode. Fung teaches a system for remotely stimulating a user ([0039]-[0041]) as likewise disclosed by Bennett, wherein Fung teaches the remote control comprises a particular “remote control mode” [0042], and further that in response to determining that the operational mode is stranger mode (“remote control mode” of [0046] is also considered to be “stranger mode”) and a physical distance meets a threshold [0046], controlling the sex toy of a user ([0041]: “…the control of the stimulation units 110 can be …determined by a user (e.g., at a client executing on a user device, received by on-device controls such as switches, etc.), determined by machine learning and/or other data analysis techniques (e.g., based on other users' settings, based on usage of other sex toys by the user or other users, etc.), crowdsourced, or determined in any other suitable way”). 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 method of Bennett to determine that an operational mode of the system is a “stranger mode” (or remote control mode) as taught by Fung, as Bennett recognizes the use of sex devices between remote partners [0018] and further, establishing such a mode would facilitate the connection/communication protocol between the remotely connected devices.
Regarding claim 20, Bennett discloses a system, comprising: a memory storing instructions thereon; and a hardware processor (Fig. 1, [0018] and [0026]) configured to execute said instructions to:
in response to detecting that a second device of a second user moves relative to a first sex toy of a first user or a first user device of the first user, determining a change of a distance over time between the second device and either the first sex toy or the first user device ([0026], [0028]; and [0030]: “sexual wellness devices 12 can be programmed to stimulate the respective couple as they draw nearer to each other. In this way, the couple is stimulated or rewarded for being near or approaching each other”; [0028]: “if the distance between the controllers 22, transmitters/receivers 14, and sexual wellness devices 12 or between the sexual wellness devices 12 is increased, the intensity can decrease or decrease. It is also contemplated herein that movement of a controller 22, such the undergarments or outer garments, can control different actions of sexual wellness devices 12”),
the first sex toy being configured to sexually stimulate the first user [0029] and Figs. 3-4),
the second device being either a second sex toy of the second user or a second user device of the second user, and the second sex toy being configured to sexually stimulate the second user ([0026]-[0029]);
and controlling the first sex toy to perform a predetermined sexual stimulation action for sexually stimulating the first user based on the change of the distance ([0026]; [0028]: “an action can be triggered or actuated by adjusting or changing a distance”; [0030]), such that an intensity of the predetermined action increases or decreases based on a corresponding increase or decrease in the change of distance ([0028]: “In another instance, the distance between a controllers 22, transmitters/receivers 14, and sexual wellness devices 12 or between the sexual wellness devices 12 can increase or decrease an intensity of an action of sexual wellness devices 12. For example, if the distance between the controllers 22, transmitters/receivers 14, and sexual wellness devices 12 or between the sexual wellness devices 12 is increased, the intensity can decrease or decrease.”).
While Bennett does not explicitly disclose that determining the movement or the change of distance over time is “a rate of change”, Bennett makes such obvious as Bennett discloses that movement of the controller can control different actions of the sexual wellness device [0028] (“movement” taken to imply moves over time), and further that a couple is stimulated for approaching each other ([0030] and [0039]), the approaching of which would require a change over time and hence “a rate of change”.
However, Bennett fails to disclose explicitly that the “rate of change” is a velocity. Fung et al. (hereinafter Fung) teaches a system for remotely stimulating a user ([0039]-[0041]) as likewise disclosed by Bennett, wherein Fung teaches that the stimulation units can be controlled based on various control parameters such as distance between a control device and another person or user device location [0042], wherein the sensed parameter can cause an increase in intensity of stimulation as movement distance or speed varies [0042] and further wherein other sensed parameters acquired via GPS, accelerometer or position sensor, for instance, can comprise the signal indicative of the sensed parameters [0036]. 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 system of Bennett which determines control of stimulation units based on a rate of change and distance, to include a determination of velocity as taught by Fung, as Bennett recognizes the use of sex devices between remote partners [0018] and variation of intensity of the respective stimulation units based on the change of the distance ([0026]; [0028]) and Fung teaches that various signals/sensors indicative of distance and rate of change may control intensity between two remote users such as speed, acceleration and distance ([0036] and [0042]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claims 21-25, while the prior art teaches a system, comprising: a memory storing instructions thereon; and a processor which, under control of the instructions, executes processes including: in response to detecting that a second device of a second user moves relative to a first sex toy of a first user or a first user device of the first user, determining a rate of change of a distance between the second device and either the first sex toy or the first user device, the rate of change being a velocity at which the distance between the second device and either the first sex toy or the first user device varies over time, the first sex toy being configured to sexually stimulate the first user, the second device being either a second sex toy of the second user or a second user device of the second user, and the second sex toy being configured to sexually stimulate the second user; and controlling the first sex toy to perform a predetermined sexual stimulation action for sexually stimulating the first user based on the rate of change of the distance, such that an intensity of the predetermined action increases or decreases based on a corresponding increase or decrease in the rate of change, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a system as claimed by Applicant, wherein the processes further include: determining an operational mode from among plural operational modes each associated with a respective distance-based control for controlling the first sex toy, each operational mode being related to a relationship or a role designation between the first user and the second user; and in response to activation of the determined operational mode, detecting whether the second user device moves relative to the first sex toy or the first user device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 14 January 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 10, 11, 14, 15 and 18-25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 14 January 2026 with respect to claims 1, 6-15, 17, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Bennett have been fully considered and are persuasive, however new grounds of rejection are presented above under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Bennett in view of Fung in light of the amendments. In regards to the arguments provided, Bennett does not specifically teach that the rate of change is with respect to velocity, and therefore Fung is incorporated to teach such a feature as indicated in the rejection above.
Applicant further contends that “…a fundamental technical distinction between the system recited in amended independent claim 1 and the system of Bennett et al lies in the control parameter used to regulate stimulation intensity. In particular, Bennett et al relies on a static absolute value of distance between devices, in contrast to the technique recited in amended claim 1 (which utilizes a dynamic variation in a rate of change of distance; i.e., velocity)…” and more specifically, “Bennett et al merely teaches controlling stimulation intensity based on a distance between two wellness devices, leveraging the resonant inductive coupling effect. The technical logic of the scheme disclosed by Bennett et al is a linear, static physical mapping…” which Applicant states leads to “user experience flaws” and by contrast, the recited structure of claim 1 leads two 2 technical advantages to which Applicant also describes in detail. To the latter point, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Real-time synchronization between user action rhythm and stimulation” and “Diversified interactive scenarios: The dynamic control logic supports customizable interaction patterns (e.g., rhythmic approaching/away movements to create pulsating intensity, variable speed movements to adjust intensity gradients)”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With respect to Applicant’s initial argument that “Bennett et al relies on a static absolute value of distance between devices, in contrast to the technique recited in amended claim 1 (which utilizes a dynamic variation in a rate of change of distance; i.e., velocity),” it is held that Bennett obviates such as Bennett discloses that movement of the controller can control different actions of the sexual wellness device [0028] (“movement” taken to imply moves over time), and further that a couple is stimulated for approaching each other ([0030] and [0039]), the approaching of which would require a change over time and hence “a rate of change”. Bennett’s direct teaching of users moving near each other as disclosed in [0030] is taken as a dynamic movement, in addition to the teaching of users approaching each other in [0039]. Further, Bennett appears to disclose constant monitoring using “…sensors that can be used to monitor for a triggering event. For instance, sexual wellness devices 12 can include microphones or light sensors that are able monitor for a particular sound, word, or any light or darkness. Upon detecting a chosen word, sound, light, or darkness, one or both sexual wellness devices 12 can be activated.” See [0031]. The aforementioned is construed to read on the argued dynamic/“real-time” vs. static variation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-9058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles A Marmor, II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights