Trigger Points: Claims and Device Boundaries

A concentrated contact head does not locate a trigger point merely because it presses a small area. Contact size describes the physical interface, while identification or diagnosis requires a separate evidential basis. T1 publishes four silicone heads, ninety-six nodes, rotary kneading and three speed levels. Its current record does not identify a diagnostic sensor, anatomical mapping function or trigger-point detection algorithm. Those absences prevent a retailer from presenting the product as finding the cause of a user's discomfort. A selectable speed also does not measure tissue condition or establish a therapeutic pressure. The useful catalog description remains the mechanical construction and controls that a customer can understand.

A clearer position describes the permitted relaxation use, actual contact construction and controls rather than a diagnosis. A product can offer localized mechanical contact without proving that it identifies a clinical point or resolves a particular disorder. The current catalog does not publish a model-specific trigger-point detection or therapy implementation. T1's construction is relevant only as a contrasting example of what contact facts look like: four heads and ninety-six nodes describe layout, while three speeds describe user choices. They do not establish depth, force or an individualized treatment plan. This distinction also protects the product comparison from misleading numerical shortcuts.