PTAB

PGR2024-00053

Therabody Inc v. Hyperice IP Subco LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Massage Device Having Variable Stroke Length
  • Brief Description: The ’482 patent relates to a percussive massage device. While the specification describes a device with a variable stroke length system, the challenged claims are directed to a "quick release connector" for securing interchangeable massaging heads to a reciprocating piston.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Lack of Written Description - Claims 34-38, 40, 41, 43-46, and 58-60 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Argument Mapping: Petitioner argued that the challenged claims, which were added late in prosecution, lack written description support in the specification. The core of the argument is that independent claim 34 recites a "first massaging head" having a "substantially cylindrical pocket to receive the quick release connector," but the specification's only disclosed embodiment shows the exact opposite configuration. The patent disclosure describes a piston with a "hollow-end bore" that receives a shaft extending from the massaging head. Petitioner asserted that because the specification fails to describe any instance of the claimed configuration, the claims are invalid.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner further argued the specification fails to support the full scope of two other limitations:
      • It does not disclose a "substantially cylindrical" pocket, only describing certain components as "cylindrical."
      • It discloses only a single magnetic embodiment for the broadly, functionally claimed "quick release connector" that is "configured to secure a first massaging head while the piston reciprocates."

Ground 2: Indefiniteness - Claims 34-38, 40, 41, 43-46, and 58-60 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Argument Mapping: Petitioner argued that the claim term "substantially cylindrical pocket" is indefinite. The specification allegedly provides no standard, definition, or guidance that would allow a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to determine with reasonable certainty the scope of the claim. Specifically, a POSITA could not determine what degree of deviation from a perfect cylinder is permissible for a pocket to still be considered "substantially cylindrical," rendering the boundary of the claim language insolubly ambiguous.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Mabuchi - Claims 34, 35, and 58-60 are obvious over Mabuchi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mabuchi (Patent 4,513,737).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mabuchi, which discloses a "beauty treatment device," teaches all elements of independent claim 34 and its dependents 35 and 58-60. Mabuchi describes a device with a housing, a motor, a reciprocating actuator (piston), and a drive mechanism (rotating disc and rod). Critically, Petitioner asserted that Mabuchi's magnetic "patter connecting mechanism" for its interchangeable "patter assembly" (massaging head) meets the limitations of the claimed "quick release connector." The Petitioner mapped the flange on Mabuchi's patter assembly as having a pocket that receives the protruding actuator head, thus teaching a massaging head with a pocket to receive the connector. Mabuchi's disclosure of multiple interchangeable "patter assemblies" was argued to teach claim 35, and its drive mechanism was argued to teach the flywheel and crank pin limitations of claims 58-60.

Ground 4: Obviousness over Mabuchi and Harris - Claims 36-38, 40, 41, and 43-46 are obvious over Mabuchi in view of Harris.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mabuchi (Patent 4,513,737) and Harris (Patent 6,432,072).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Harris, a hand-held percussive massager, provides the additional features recited in the dependent claims. Harris discloses a control panel with a "speed setting control button," an "LED speed indicator," and power/program buttons. This disclosure, when combined with the base device of Mabuchi, would allegedly render obvious the claims requiring a second reciprocation speed (claim 36), specific stroke-per-minute ranges (claims 37-38), an external control panel (claim 40), visual indicators (claim 41), and various user inputs for power and speed selection (claims 43-46).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Harris's advanced user control features with Mabuchi's fundamental massager design to improve functionality and user experience by allowing for variable massage speeds, which was a known objective in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because both references describe percussive massage devices powered by similar, compatible motor and drive systems.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations including Pivaroff (Patent 6,682,496), which was argued to teach the core percussive massager mechanism, in combination with Mabuchi for the quick-release connector and Harris for the control panel features.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), asserting that the Office would commit material error by not considering the petition's arguments. The core reasons were that the challenged claims were added late in prosecution after the final Office Action, meaning the §112 written description and indefiniteness issues were never examined. Furthermore, while some of the prior art was of record, the Examiner never discussed or applied the key Mabuchi reference against the "quick release connector" limitation that was used to distinguish other art.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of post-grant review and cancellation of claims 34-38, 40, 41, 43-46, and 58-60 as unpatentable.