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 .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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.
No claim limitation has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because each term (e.g., ‘visual indicator’) connotes sufficient structure to a POSITA. See MPEP § 2181. If applicant contends otherwise, please point to supporting disclosure.
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: please change “the detached head” to “the detachable head”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: please change “in such a way” to “such that”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein (US 2018/0008512A1) in view of Metri (US 2009/0318753A1) in view of Ackermann et al. (US 2014/0316310A1, “Ackermann”).
Regarding claims 1-3, Goldstein discloses a vibration unit for stimulating an acupressure point including a cylindrical shaft (20, 22; Fig. 1), defining an interior for accommodating at least an energy storage device (battery; [0049]) and a motor [0048] with an electronics control unit (generates vibrational forces). A detachable (removable; [0057, 0060]) head (16) which is attached to the cylindrical shaft by means of a thread [0051] and closes the cylindrical shaft opposite a free end [0060]. A push button (28; [0050])) is provided on the cylindrical shaft of the vibration unit, wherein the push button is for switching on and off and for setting power levels and a vibration frequency of the vibration unit associated with the power levels is provided.
However, Goldstein does not disclose a visual indicator on the shaft of the vibration unit, wherein the visual indicator displays the set power levels and the set associated vibration frequency and a chain attached to the head of the vibration unit for positioning the vibration unit on the acupressure point.
In the same field of endeavor, handheld vibrating device, Metri teaches a device including a cylindrical shaft, motor, battery source and a chain (18; Fig. 2) attached to the head (2) of the vibration 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 have provided the head of the device of Goldstein with a chain, as taught by Metri, to aid in the use, retrieval and storage of the device [0018].
In the same field of endeavor, handheld vibration devices, Ackermann teaches a push button (114, 116; rocker switch for switching power levels and associated vibration frequency up and down) that controls and changes one or more parameters (e.g. frequency or pattern of vibration) which are then displayed as a visual indicator on a housing (138; [0054, 0069, 0070]). The visual indicator displays set power levels and the set associated vibration frequency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the head of the device of Goldstein with a visual indicator that displays set power levels and the set associated vibration frequency, as taught by Ackermann, to provide user feedback and information during use to indicate that mechanisms are being operated.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein in view of Metri in view of Ackermann, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hotaling et al. (US 2014/0171767A1, “Hotaling”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Goldstein, Metri and Ackermann does not disclose that the detachable head allows access of a charging cable which is connectable to the energy storage device in the shaft. In the same field of endeavor, portable battery-operated devices, Hotaling teaches a head or top of a housing (10) that includes access of a charging cable that is connectable to the energy storage device/battery ([0068]; Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the head of the device of the combination of Golden, Metri, and Ackermann with a access of a charging cable, as taught by Hotaling, for the benefit of using rechargeable batteries instead of having to replace the battery.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein (US 2018/0008512A1) in view of Metri (US 2009/0318753A1) in view of Ackermann et al. (US 2014/0316310A1, “Ackermann”).
Regarding claims 1-3, Goldstein discloses a vibration unit for stimulating an acupressure point including a cylindrical shaft (20; Fig. 1), defining an interior for accommodating at least an energy storage device (battery; [0049]) and a motor [0048] with an electronics control unit (generates vibrational forces). A detachable (removable; [0051, 0057, 0060]) head (12) which is attached to the cylindrical shaft by means of a thread [0051] and closes the cylindrical shaft opposite a free end [0060]. A push button (28; [0050])) is provided on the cylindrical shaft of the vibration unit, wherein the push button is for switching on and off and for setting power levels and a vibration frequency of the vibration unit associated with the power levels is provided.
However, Goldstein does not disclose a visual indicator on the shaft of the vibration unit, wherein the visual indicator displays the set power levels and the set associated vibration frequency and a chain attached to the head of the vibration unit for positioning the vibration unit on the acupressure point.
In the same field of endeavor, handheld vibrating device, Metri teaches a device including a cylindrical shaft, motor, battery source and a chain (18; Fig. 2) attached to the head (2) of the vibration 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 have provided the head of the device of Goldstein with a chain, as taught by Metri, to aid in the use, retrieval and storage of the device [0018].
In the same field of endeavor, handheld vibration devices, Ackermann teaches a push button (114, 116; rocker switch for switching power levels and associated vibration frequency up and down) that controls and changes one or more parameters (e.g. frequency or pattern of vibration) which are then displayed as a visual indicator on a housing (138; [0054, 0069, 0070]). The visual indicator displays set power levels and the set associated vibration frequency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the head of the device of Goldstein with a visual indicator that displays set power levels and the set associated vibration frequency, as taught by Ackermann, to provide user feedback and information during use to indicate that mechanisms are being operated.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein in view of Metri in view of Ackermann, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oronsky et al. (US 2010/0042137A1, “Oronsky”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Goldstein, Metri and Ackermann discloses that the shaft (Goldstein; [0049]) is formed of stainless steel [0064] but does not disclose that the head is formed of stainless steel and that the head and shaft have a nickel-free outer coating. In the same field of endeavor, acupressure devices, Oronsky teaches a device formed of stainless steel and that is coated with gold or silver [0038]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shaft and head of the combination of Golden, Metri, and Ackermann of stainless steel and a gold or silver coating, as taught by Oronsky, to provide high strength, corrosion resistant and to resist tarnishing and scratching of the head and shaft during use or storage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee (US 2014/0378940A1) discloses an acupressure apparatus including vibrating means and a motor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOCELIN C TANNER whose telephone number is (571)270-5202. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571)272-4696. 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.
/JOCELIN C TANNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights