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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-16, 21, 25 and 26 are now pending. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 10, 21, 25 and 26, as well as the cancellation of claims 22-24. Claims 3, 8, 9 and 14-16 remain withdrawn from consideration.
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 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: “length-adjusting device” in claim 21; equivalent structures of which can be found at least at [0076]-[0077] of the instant specification.
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.
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, 2, 4-6, 21, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Pack (U.S. Patent No. 6,251,066) in view of Golan (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0066699). Regarding claim 1, Pack discloses a head-worn sexual massager, comprising a massage portion and a positioning portion (see reproduction below) which are connected to each other (Fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 4-9), wherein the massage portion comprises:
a shell having a connecting end and a massage section connected to the connecting end (see reproduction below), and the connecting end being connected to the positioning portion (see reproduction below); and
a driving mechanism mounted inside the shell and configured to drive the massage section to move (col. 1, lines 32-57),
wherein the positioning portion has at least one loop 18 configured to be secured onto a human head (Fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 51-53),
wherein the shell comprises a rigid inner shell (core components 2 and 5 as shown in Fig. 3 and disclosed at col. 1, lines 19-25 and 46-50) and a soft outer shell 6 covering an outer periphery of the rigid inner shell (col. 1, lines 25-30),
the rigid inner shell comprises a first shell 2 and a second shell 5,
the driving mechanism includes a driving component 3,4 (piston) located inside the first shell 2 (Figs. 1-3 and col. 1, lines 19-50), and the driving component 3,4 (piston) is configured to cause relative movement between the first shell 2 and a second shell 5, when the driving component 3,4 (piston) operates. While Pack discloses the aforementioned driving component (piston 3,4), configured to cause relative movement between the first shell the second shell (a piston, being a component of a motor) Pack fails to disclose explicitly that the driving mechanism comprises the motor.
Golan discloses a sexual aid device constructed to simulate the reciprocal extension and contraction of a male penis (Fig. 3, Abstract and [0058]), wherein the driving mechanism comprises a motor 242 and a rotating shaft 302, wherein the rotating shaft 302 drives a sleeve to reciprocate linearly in an axial direction to drive a massage section to extend and retract ([0058]-[0059] and [0062]; and Figs. 3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a driving mechanism comprising a motor for extending and retracting a linear device in a phallus attached to a user as taught by Golan, into a human-worn sexual aid for extending/retracting a linear device for the purposes of simulating the movements of a penis via a piston as taught by Pack, as a piston is a known component of a motor and Golan teaches that a motor facilitates thrusting of a shaft/rod ([0036], [0058] and [0062]).
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image1.png])]
Regarding claim 2, the massage portion is in a shape of an elongated rod/penis (Fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 25-30 of Pack).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Pack discloses that the positioning portion comprises a connecting section connected to the shell of the massage portion (see reproduction above), however Pack fails to disclose explicitly that a surface of the connecting section facing an interior of the at least one loop 18 is a concave, curved surface. However, Pack makes such a curved, concave surface obvious as Pack shows in Figs. 1 and 2 that the device contains a seating support 1 which “seats” the chin of the wearer, and Fig. 2 shows a curved, flared section which contains the eyelet “19” for securing the band 18 that encircles the head of the wearer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a surface of the connecting section which faces an interior of the loop to be a concave, curved surface as the chin of a wearer is curved and conformance of the chin to the device (as shown in Fig. 1) would be facilitated by a concave, curved surface.
Regarding claim 6, the connecting section comprises a middle portion connected to the shell of the massage portion, (middle portion where the chin lies), at least one first wing portion (where eyelet “19” lies in Fig. 2) and at least one second wing portion (where eyelet “19” lies on opposite side to join the other side of the band; col. 1, lines 51-53 discloses “eyelets”); and wherein the at least one first wing portion and the at least one second wing portion extend from the middle portion towards two different sides of the middle portion respectively (as shown in Fig. 2, where the opposite side having the second wing portion would extend from the middle portion in the same manner as shown in Fig. 2 having the side view of the first wing portion). While Pack fails to disclose explicitly that the at least one first wing portion, the middle portion and the at least one second wing portion together form the concave surface, Pack makes such obvious as indicated with respect to claims 4 and 5 above as Pack shows in Figs. 1 and 2 that the wing portions and the middle portion facilitate cradling/conformance of the device to the chin of the wearer and thus the wing portions and the middle portion would together form the concave surface for conformance to the chin.
Regarding claim 21, Pack teaches wherein the positioning portion comprises a flexible constraint member 18, the flexible constraint member is configured to be worn onto the human head (Fig. 1), and wherein the flexible constraint member circumferentially encloses to form the at least one loop (Fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 51-53). However, Pack fails to disclose that the positioning portion also comprises a length-adjusting device, wherein the length-adjusting device is provided on the flexible constraint member, and a length of the flexible constraint member is adjustable by the length-adjusting device to change a size of the at least one loop. Golan discloses a sexual aid device constructed to simulate the reciprocal extension and contraction of a male penis as likewise disclosed by Pack, wherein the sexual aid device comprises means for attaching it to a male user, such as a belt or a sling, with an appropriate buckle (“length adjusting device”) [0061]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a length-adjusting device (“buckle”) as taught by Golan, onto a band/belt for fastening the device onto a user as taught by Pack, as Pack recognizes fastening a sexual aid device onto a user via a band/belt to facilitate its use (Fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 51-53), and Pack teaches that an appropriate buckle would accompany the belt [0061], a belt of which enables retention of the device in a loop around the user and the ability to adjust the size thereof.
Regarding claim 25, Pack teaches that the rigid inner shell further comprises a “housing” 8 separate from the first shell 2 and second shell 5 (Figs. 1-2 and col. 1, lines 54-55, wherein the housing 8 is located closer to the positioning portion than the first and second shell (see reproduction above), however Pack fails to disclose that the massager further comprises a battery and a circuit board mounted inside the shell and electrically connected to the driving mechanism, wherein the and the battery and the circuit board are mounted within the housing.
Golan teaches that the massager further comprises a battery (“electric power source”/battery 232) ([0058] and [0054]) and a circuit board (“electronic circuitry”) mounted inside the shell and electrically connected to the driving mechanism ([0058] and Fig. 3), wherein a rigid inner shell further comprises a housing (housing of “simulated scrotum”) separate from a first shell and second shell ([0054], [0010] and [0030]-[0034]), the housing is located closer to a positioning portion than the first and second shell (the “positioning portion” being construed as the portion of the device which would be positioned against a pelvis of the user and adjacent the scrotum and therefore closer to the hosing of the simulated scrotum than the first shell and second shell inside the penis shaft) and the battery and the circuit board are mounted within the housing (of “simulated scrotum”) ([0054] and [0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a housing as taught by Pack, to further comprise a battery and a circuit board mounted therein and electrically connected to the driving mechanism, as taught by Golan, as such components would amount to a simple substitution for conversion of energy from one form to another in order to extend/retract a linear penile device, and further that Pack recognizes housing the “controller” of the driving mechanism in a separate housing of a simulated scrotum 8 (Figs. 1-2 and col. 1, lines 32-50 and 54-55).
Regarding claim 26, Pack teaches wherein each of the first shell 2, the second shell 5 and the housing 8 defines an accommodating space therein (Figs. 1-3 and col. 1, lines 54-55), and the accommodating spaces of the first shell, the second shell and the housing are separate from each other (Fig.3 and col. 1, lines 54-55).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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 10-12, while the prior art teaches a head-worn sexual massager, comprising a massage portion and a positioning portion which are connected to each other, wherein the massage portion comprises: a shell having a connecting end and a massage section connected to the connecting end, and the connecting end being connected to the positioning portion; and a driving mechanism mounted inside the shell and configured to drive the massage section to move, wherein the positioning portion has at least one loop configured to be secured onto a human head, and wherein the shell comprises a rigid inner shell and a soft outer shell covering an outer periphery of the rigid inner shell, the rigid inner shell comprises a first shell and a second shell, the driving mechanism comprises a motor fixedly installed inside the first shell, and the motor is configured to cause relative movement between the first shell and the second shell when the motor operates, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a head-worn sexual massager as claimed by Applicant, wherein the driving mechanism is configured to drive the massage section to extend and retract, wherein the driving mechanism further comprises a rotating shaft, and a sliding sleeve; and wherein the rotating shaft is connected to an output shaft of the motor, the sliding sleeve is fixed on an inner side of the second shell, the sliding sleeve surrounds and cooperates with an outer periphery of the rotating shaft, and when the rotating shaft rotates, relative linear movement is caused between the sliding sleeve and the rotating shaft in an axial direction of the rotating shaft to cause relative linear movement between the first shell and the second shell, so as to drive the massage section to extend and retract.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 24 March 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 10-12 and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 24 March 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 10-12 and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive, however new grounds of rejection are presented above to claims 1, 2, 4-6, 21, 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Park in view of Golan in light of the amendments.
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