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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 1/16/2026 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1, 5, 7-12, 14-20, 23-27, 38-40, 42, 56, 138 and 140 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5, 7-12, 14-20, 23-27, 38-40, 42, 56, 138 and 140 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner notes that while the same prior art is being used as the previous non-final office action, a different embodiment of the prior art reference is now being relied upon to reflect the newly amended claims.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-9, 14-15, 23, 25, 38 and 140 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Lurie et al. (US 2017/0119622 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lurie discloses a system for performing an active compression decompression (ACD) treatment on a patient (compression device 502 can provide active compression-decompression CPR, Paragraph 0089 and Figure 5), the system comprising: a platform for placement under a patient (base 514 of elevation device 500 to support patient, Figure 5); a chest compression actuator comprising a belt configured to be coupled to a thorax of the patient (cable 516, Figure 5; motor assembly 512 drives cable 516 to tighten around users chest in order to compress the user’s chest to the desired degree, Paragraph 0089; the Examiner notes the cable 516 is disposed in the same location over the user’s chest as Applicant’s belt 106, therefore is coupled to the thorax of the patient in the same manner), the belt configured to extend from the platform on a first side of the patient to a second side of the patient opposite the first side (see cable 516 extending from the base 514 on a first side of the patient to a second side of the patient, Figure 5); a load distribution portion coupled to the belt (see chest compression band 508 coupled to cable 516, Figure 5 and Paragraph 0089), the load distribution portion configured to be placed across the thorax of the patient (chest compression band 508 disposed across thorax of patient, Figure 5 and Paragraph 0089), an upward force actuator operatively coupled to the belt to provide a decompressing force to the thorax of the patient (a cable 520 of the decompression cable system 506 is guided by a number of pulleys 522 to therefore lift the suction cup 504 and band 508 to actively decompress the chest, Paragraph 0089 and Figure 5); at least one arm having a first end coupled to the platform and a second end fixedly coupled to the upward force actuator (see support arm 524 having a first end coupled to base/platform 514 and a second end coupled to the horizontal support arm containing the cable 520, Figure 5); a connector fixedly coupled to the load distributing portion and the upward force actuator (the suction cup 504, driven by the decompression cable 520, is used to actively decompress the user’s chest by the lifting motion of the suction cup 504 connected to band 508, Figure 5 and Paragraph 0089, the connector extending laterally along the load distribution portion to decompress the chest and distribute the decompressing force along a longitudinal axis the load distribution portion (see suction cup 504 extending laterally along the chest compression band 508, therefore fully capable of distributing the decompressing force along a longitudinal axis of the band 508, Figure 5; the Examiner also notes that the structurally configuration between Lurie’s connector and band is essentially the same configuration of Applicant’s connector and band, therefore the way in which the decompressive force is distributed across the band is expected to be equivalent), the entire connector interposed between the belt and the upward force actuator during compression and decompression (the entire suction cup 504 Is disposed between the band 508 and the decompression cable 520 of the decompression cable system 506, see annotated Figure 5 below); a controller (a controller may be used to sense physiological parameters as well as the manner in which CPR is being performed, Paragraph 0094); and a motor that is coupled to the belt and configured to receive one or more signals from the controller (as motor assembly 512 actuates, it winds a cable 516 of the compression cable system 510 around a portion of the motor assembly 512, thereby tightening the chest compression band 508, Paragraph 0089 and Figure 5), the motor configured to respond to the one or more signals from the controller to: cause the belt to tighten about the thorax of the patient and exert a compressing force on the thorax of the patient (as motor assembly 512 actuates, it winds a cable 516 of the compression cable system 510 around a portion of the motor assembly 512, therefore tightening around the user, Paragraph 0089 and Figure 5), and cause the belt to loosen about the thorax of the patient and allow the upward force actuator to cause decompression of the patient (motor assembly 512 may release the cable 516 such that the chest is free to expand. In some embodiments, the motor assembly 512 may then wind a cable 520 of the decompression cable system 506. This causes the winding cable 520, guided by a number of pulleys 522, to lift the suction cup 504, thereby actively decompressing the chest, Paragraph 0089); wherein an amount of the decompression of the thorax of the patient is selectively adjustable based on adjusting a magnitude of the decompressing force on the thorax of the patient by the upward force actuator (tensioners may be used to apply tension to the cables to adjust a force and/or depth of the decompressions delivered by the suction cup, Paragraph 0088).
PNG
media_image1.png
725
988
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5 of Lurie
However, should there be any doubt that Lurie’s compression band 508 serves as a load distribution portion, Lurie teaches an alternative embodiment wherein a modified load distributing band is coupled to the device in order to distribute the compressive/decompressive loads across the user’s chest (Paragraphs 0132-0133 of Lurie).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lurie such that a load distribution portion is coupled to the belt, as further taught by Lurie in an alternative embodiment, as providing such a structure would assist in the distribution of forces across the user’s chest, increasing the effectiveness of both compression and decompression of the user’s chest.
Furthermore, although the embodiment of Lurie as referred to above teaches an upward force actuator in the form of a cable system, Lurie doesn’t explicitly state the upward force actuator/cable system being elastic; and is silent wherein the entire upward force actuator being above the load distribution portion when the patient is placed on the platform.
However, Lurie teaches an alternative embodiment as shown in Figure 18 comprising an elastic upward force actuator (to provide a stronger decompressive force, the chest compression device 1812 may include one or more springs positioned around a portion of the plunger 1816 and above the suction cup 1814, as the plunger 1814 retracts, the spring may recoil, providing sufficient force to actively decompress the patient’s chest, Paragraph 0138 and Figure 18E), such that the entire upward force actuator is positioned above the load distribution portion when the patient is placed on the platform (as the spring is described as being positioned around the plunger 1816 and above the suction cup 1814, after modification with the other embodiment, the resulting structure would result in the spring being positioned above the load distribution portion when the patient is placed on the platform, Paragraph 0138 and Figures 18E, Figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lurie such the cable decompression system is replaced with an elastic upward force actuator such as a spring, as taught by an alternative embodiment of Lurie, as providing one or more springs may aid in providing a stronger decompressive force to the user’s chest (Paragraph 0138), and minimize the number of system components.
Regarding claim 5, Lurie further discloses wherein at least one arm comprises one or more of a rigid arm (rigid support arm 524, Figure 5 and Paragraph 0090).
Regarding claim 7, Lurie further discloses wherein the magnitude of the decompressing force on the thorax of the patient by the upward force actuator is adjustable by adjusting a tension in the upward force actuator (tensioners may be used to apply tension to the cables to adjust a force and/or depth of the decompressions delivered, Paragraph 0088).
Again, the embodiment as shown in Figure 5 of Lurie does not describe the upward force actuator (cable 520, Figure 5) as being elastic.
However, Lurie teaches an alternative embodiment as shown in Figure 18 comprising an elastic upward force actuator (to provide a stronger decompressive force, the chest compression device 1812 may include one or more springs positioned around a portion of the plunger 1816 and above the suction cup 1814, as the plunger 1814 retracts, the spring may recoil, providing sufficient force to actively decompress the patient’s chest, Paragraph 0138 and Figure 18E), such that the entire upward force actuator is positioned above the load distribution portion when the patient is placed on the platform (as the spring is described as being positioned around the plunger 1816 and above the suction cup 1814, after modification with the other embodiment, the resulting structure would result in the spring being positioned above the load distribution portion when the patient is placed on the platform, Paragraph 0138 and Figures 18E, Figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lurie such the cable decompression system is replaced with an elastic upward force actuator such as a spring, as taught by an alternative embodiment of Lurie, as providing one or more springs may aid in providing a stronger decompressive force to the user’s chest (Paragraph 0138), and minimize the number of system components.
Regarding claim 8, Lurie further discloses wherein the magnitude of the decompression of the thorax of the patient is adjustable based on adjusting a range of motion of the upward force actuator relative to the platform (tensioners may be used to apply tension to the cables to adjust a force and/or depth of the decompressions delivered, Paragraph 0088).
Again, the embodiment as shown in Figure 5 of Lurie does not describe the upward force actuator (cable 520, Figure 5) as being elastic.
However, Lurie teaches an alternative embodiment as shown in Figure 18 comprising an elastic upward force actuator (to provide a stronger decompressive force, the chest compression device 1812 may include one or more springs positioned around a portion of the plunger 1816 and above the suction cup 1814, as the plunger 1814 retracts, the spring may recoil, providing sufficient force to actively decompress the patient’s chest, Paragraph 0138 and Figure 18E), such that the entire upward force actuator is positioned above the load distribution portion when the patient is placed on the platform (as the spring is described as being positioned around the plunger 1816 and above the suction cup 1814, after modification with the other embodiment, the resulting structure would result in the spring being positioned above the load distribution portion when the patient is placed on the platform, Paragraph 0138 and Figures 18E, Figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lurie such the cable decompression system is replaced with an elastic upward force actuator such as a spring, as taught by an alternative embodiment of Lurie, as providing one or more springs may aid in providing a stronger decompressive force to the user’s chest (Paragraph 0138), and minimize the number of system components.
Regarding claim 9, Lurie further discloses the upward force actuator is formed by the motor and the belt (decompression cable 520 is driven by motor assembly 512 and connected to cable 516, to thereby decompress the chest, Paragraph 0089 and Figure 5); the belt comprises an adhesive configured to affix the belt to the thorax of the patient (compression band 508 that interfaces with patient’s chest can be modified to stick to the patient’s chest, using an adhesive means, Paragraph 0133); and the motor is configured to respond to the one or more signals from the controller to cause the belt to loosen about the thorax of the patient and enable the belt to exert the decompressing force on the thorax of the patient (motor assembly 512 may release the cable 516 such that the chest is free to expand. In some embodiments, the motor assembly 512 may then wind a cable 520 of the decompression cable system 506. This causes the winding cable 520, guided by a number of pulleys 522, to lift the suction cup 504, thereby actively decompressing the chest, Paragraph 0089).
Again, the embodiment as shown in Figure 5 of Lurie does not describe the upward force actuator (cable 520, Figure 5) as being elastic.
However, Lurie teaches an alternative embodiment as shown in Figure 18 comprising an elastic upward force actuator (to provide a stronger decompressive force, the chest compression device 1812 may include one or more springs positioned around a portion of the plunger 1816 and above the suction cup 1814, as the plunger 1814 retracts, the spring may recoil, providing sufficient force to actively decompress the patient’s chest, Paragraph 0138 and Figure 18E), such that the entire upward force actuator is positioned above the load distribution portion when the patient is placed on the platform (as the spring is described as being positioned around the plunger 1816 and above the suction cup 1814, after modification with the other embodiment, the resulting structure would result in the spring being positioned above the load distribution portion when the patient is placed on the platform, Paragraph 0138 and Figures 18E, Figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lurie such the cable decompression system is replaced with an elastic upward force actuator such as a spring, as taught by an alternative embodiment of Lurie, as providing one or more springs may aid in providing a stronger decompressive force to the user’s chest (Paragraph 0138), and minimize the number of system components.
Regarding claim 14, Lurie further teaches wherein: causing the belt to tighten about the thorax of the patient and exert the compressing force on the thorax of the patient comprises compressing the thorax from an initial state of zero compression past a state of neutral compression to a state of full compression; and the upward force actuator decompresses the thorax from the state of full compression past the state of neutral compression to the initial state of zero compression (As the motor assembly 512 actuates, it winds a cable 516 of the compression cable system 510 around a portion of the motor assembly 512, thereby reducing the amount of exposed cable 516 and tightening the chest compression band 508. The cable 516 may wind around a system of pulleys 518 within the compression cable system 510 and direct the winding cable 516 toward the motor assembly 512, Paragraph 0089).
Again, the embodiment as shown in Figure 5 of Lurie does not describe the upward force actuator (cable 520, Figure 5) as being elastic.
However, Lurie teaches an alternative embodiment as shown in Figure 18 comprising an elastic upward force actuator (to provide a stronger decompressive force, the chest compression device 1812 may include one or more springs positioned around a portion of the plunger 1816 and above the suction cup 1814, as the plunger 1814 retracts, the spring may recoil, providing sufficient force to actively decompress the patient’s chest, Paragraph 0138 and Figure 18E), such that the entire upward force actuator is positioned above the load distribution portion when the patient is placed on the platform (as the spring is described as being positioned around the plunger 1816 and above the suction cup 1814, after modification with the other embodiment, the resulting structure would result in the spring being positioned above the load distribution portion when the patient is placed on the platform, Paragraph 0138 and Figures 18E, Figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lurie such the cable decompression system is replaced with an elastic upward force actuator such as a spring, as taught by an alternative embodiment of Lurie, as providing one or more springs may aid in providing a stronger decompressive force to the user’s chest (Paragraph 0138), and minimize the number of system components.
Regarding claim 15, Lurie further discloses wherein the upward force actuator decompresses the thorax from a state of full compression past a state of neutral compression and past an initial state of zero compression to a state of positive decompression (Once the motor assembly 512 tightens the cable 516 sufficiently to compress the chest to a desired degree, motor assembly 512 may release the cable 516 such that the chest is free to expand. In some embodiments, the motor assembly 512 may then wind a cable 520 of the decompression cable system 506. This causes the winding cable 520, guided by a number of pulleys 522, to lift the suction cup 504, thereby actively decompressing the chest. Once the chest is fully decompressed, the motor assembly 512 may release the cable 520 and allow the chest to return to a resting state, Paragraph 0089).
Again, the embodiment as shown in Figure 5 of Lurie does not describe the upward force actuator (cable 520, Figure 5) as being elastic.
However, Lurie teaches an alternative embodiment as shown in Figure 18 comprising an elastic upward force actuator (to provide a stronger decompressive force, the chest compression device 1812 may include one or more springs positioned around a portion of the plunger 1816 and above the suction cup 1814, as the plunger 1814 retracts, the spring may recoil, providing sufficient force to actively decompress the patient’s chest, Paragraph 0138 and Figure 18E), such that the entire upward force actuator is positioned above the load distribution portion when the patient is placed on the platform (as the spring is described as being positioned around the plunger 1816 and above the suction cup 1814, after modification with the other embodiment, the resulting structure would result in the spring being positioned above the load distribution portion when the patient is placed on the platform, Paragraph 0138 and Figures 18E, Figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lurie such the cable decompression system is replaced with an elastic upward force actuator such as a spring, as taught by an alternative embodiment of Lurie, as providing one or more springs may aid in providing a stronger decompressive force to the user’s chest (Paragraph 0138), and minimize the number of system components.
Regarding claim 23, Lurie further discloses wherein the at least one arm extends from the platform over the patient (see support arm 524 of device 500 extending over the patient, Figure 5), the arm being coupled to the belt or to the thorax of the patient by the upward force actuator (arm coupled to the compression band 508/cable 516 via the suction cup 504, Figure 5).
Regarding claim 25, Lurie further discloses wherein at least one arm comprises a first arm and a second arm, wherein the first arm extends from the platform substantially perpendicular to the platform, and the second arm extends from the first arm substantially parallel to the platform and partially over the patient (see annotated Figure 5 provided below indicating a first arm extending substantially perpendicular to the platform, and a second arm extending from the first arm substantially parallel to the platform and partially over the patient).
PNG
media_image2.png
622
748
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 38, Lurie further discloses wherein at least one arm is a first arm (see annotated Figure 5 provided above), the system comprising a second arm coupled to the belt and configured to intersect the first arm over the thorax of the patient (see annotated Figure 5 provided above showing the second arm coupled to the band 508/cable 516 and intersecting with the first arm over the thorax of the patient).
Regarding claim 140, Lurie further teaches wherein the connector extends linearly along the load distribution portion (see suction cup 504 extending along a lateral/linear direction of the compression band 508, Figure 5).
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lurie et al. (US 2017/0119622 A1) in view of Joshi et al. (US 2017/0105897A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lurie discloses the system of claim 9, and the belt extends from a first actuator on the first side of the patient to a second actuator on the second side of the patient and one of the first actuator or the second actuator comprises the motor (pulleys 518 on either side of cable 516, operably connected to the one or more motor assemblies 512, Paragraph 0098), but is silent wherein: the belt comprises a rigid material.
However, Joshi teaches an analogous chest compression device (Abstract) comprising straps (9R and 9L, Figure 1) comprising a rigid material (“straps made of stiff material”, Paragraph 0028), wherein the straps extend from a first actuator (drive spool 12R, Figure 2) to a second actuator (drive spool 12L, Figure 2), wherein one actuator comprises the motor ("one motor operably connected to each drive spool”, Paragraph 0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lurie to have the belt made from a rigid material, as taught by Joshi, to allow the belt to be self-supporting when not in use and provide adequate compression while in use (Paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 11, Lurie in view of Joshi teach the system of claim 10, with Lurie further teaching wherein at least one of the first and second actuators comprises a rack and pinion configuration to couple the belt to the motor (mechanisms used to convert rotation force from a motor into linear movement, such as rack and pinons, may be used to transfer force of a motor assembly to linear motion, Paragraph 0092).
Regarding claim 12, Lurie in view of Joshi teach the system of claim 10, with Joshi further teaching wherein at least one of the first and second actuators is configured to affix to an end of the belt ("belt ends may be attached directly to the drive spools 12R/12L”, Paragraph 0021) and retract into the platform (See Figure 2 where drive spools 12R/12L are retracted within housing 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Lurie’s chest compression device to have the first and second actuators retract into the platform, as taught by Joshi, as this would provide a means of collapsing the device for storage when not in use.
Claims 16, 26, 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lurie et al. (US 2017/0119622 A1) in view of Everete (5,257,619).
Regarding claim 16, Lurie discloses the system of claim 1, however is silent wherein the at least one arm comprises a collapsible arm that is coupled to the platform on the first side of the patient, the second side of the patient, or both the first and second sides of the patient; the collapsible arm is coupled to the belt or to the thorax of the patient; wherein the collapsible arm is configured to deform when the motor causes the belt to tighten about the thorax of the patient; and re-straighten when the motor causes the belt to loosen about the thorax of the patient thereby exerting the decompressing force on the thorax of the patient.
However, Everete teaches an analogous external cardiac compression device (Abstract) comprising two collapsible arms (arms 3 and 5 comprised of telescoping rectangular sections allowing arms to be folded and collapsed when not in use, Figure 1), with arm 3 being coupled to a platform (base plate 1, Figure 1) on the first side of the patient (Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lurie to include a collapsible arm coupled to the platform as taught by Everete, as this would allow the arms to fold away when not in use or when loading or unloading a patient from the device (Column 1, lines 42-43), and allow the arm to deform when motor is tightening the belt and re-straighten when the belt is loosened.
Regrading claim 26, Lurie discloses the system of claim 25, but is silent wherein the second arm is adjustable relative to the first arm.
However, Everete teaches an analogous external cardiac compression device (Abstract) comprising two arms (arms 3 and 5, Figure 1), with the second arm being adjustable to the first arm (“length of vertical post and the lever arm are both readily adjustable”, Column 1, lines 51-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lurie to allow the first and second arm to be adjustable relative to one another, as taught by Everete, as this provides a device suited for a variety of operating situations (Column 1, lines 52-53) and allows the arms to fold away when not in use or when loading or unloading a patient from the device (Column 1, lines 42-43).
Regarding claim 39, Lurie discloses the system of claim 38, but is silent wherein the first arm or the second arm is adjustable relative to the other of the first and second arms.
However, Everete teaches an analogous external cardiac compression device (Abstract) comprising two arms (arms 3 and 5, Figure 1), with the second arm being adjustable to the first arm (“length of vertical post and the lever arm are both readily adjustable”, Column 1, lines 51-52), as described previously.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lurie to allow the first and second arm to be adjustable relative to one another, as taught by Everete, as this provides a device suited for a variety of operating situations (Column 1, lines 52-53) and allows the arms to fold away when not in use or when loading or unloading a patient from the device (Column 1, lines 42-43).
Regarding claim 40, Lurie discloses the system of claim 38, with Everete further teaching wherein the first arm or second arm comprises a telescoping rod to allow for adjustment of position or height of the first or second arm relative to the platform or the thorax of the patient (arms 3 and 5 comprised of telescoping rectangular sections, Figure 1 and Col. 2 lines 31-34),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lurie to have the first and second arm comprise telescoping rods to allow for adjustment of position and height of the first and second arm relative to the platform, as taught by Everete, as providing telescoping first and second arms would provide a means of accommodating various sized patients.
Claims 17-19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lurie et al. (US 2017/0119622 A1) in view of Lurie et al. (US 2016/0338904 A1):
Regarding claim 17, Lurie discloses the system of claim 1, but is silent wherein the at least one arm comprises at least one rigid arm configured to couple to the belt or couple to the thorax of the patient, the rigid arm coupled to the platform by a hinge, wherein the rigid arm is configured to rotate about the hinge from a position under the platform to a position over the platform.
However, Lurie (2016/03338904 A1) teaches an analogous chest compression/decompression device in which an upward force actuator (spring 2214, Figure 22B) comprises at least one rigid arm (arm 2208) configured to couple to the belt (spring 2214 coupled to band 2210, Paragraph 0160) or couple to the thorax of the patient, the rigid arm coupled to the platform by a hinge (Pivot point 2220, Figure 22B), wherein the rigid arm is configured to rotate about the hinge from a position under the platform (arm can be rotated to a position slightly under plane of support, see Figure 22A) to a position over the platform (rotatable arm in active position above support, Figure 22B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lurie’s chest compression/decompression device to include the upward force actuator comprising a rigid arm coupled to the platform by a hinge, in which the arm is configured to rotate about the hinge, as this would provide a means of collapsing the device when not in use for storage and/or aide in the patient positioning him or herself into the device prior to usage.
Regarding claim 18, Lurie further discloses wherein the rigid arm comprises an adjustable pivot point for the hinge (“pivot point 2220 may be moved closer to the load distributing band 2210”, Paragraph 0612).
Regarding claim 19, Lurie further discloses wherein the at least one arm (spring 2214) comprises a rigid arm (arm 2208), configured to couple to the belt (“spring 2214 of the rotatable arm 2208 may be coupled with a top surface of the load distributing band 2210”, Paragraph 0160) the rigid arm are in tension when the motor causes the belt to tighten about the thorax of the patient (“such that the motor may periodically wind and/or tension a band or cord coupled with the load distributing band 2210, causing the load distributing band 2210 to be pulled against the patient's chest to compress the chest”, Paragraph 0160), and the rigid arm is configured to cause the belt to exert the decompressing force on the thorax of the patient when the motor causes the belt to loosen about the thorax of the patient (“as the motor releases tension on the band, the spring 2214 recoils, providing spring force that pulls the load distributing band 2210 away from the patient's chest, thereby decompressing the chest).
Regarding claim 27, Lurie discloses the system of claim 1, but is silent wherein the elastic upward force actuator comprises an elastic material configured to be in tension when the motor causes the belt to tighten about the thorax of the patient and configured to exert the decompressing force on the thorax of the patient when the motor causes the belt to loosen about the thorax of the patient.
However, Lurie (2016/0338904 A1) teaches an upward force actuator (spring 2214) comprises an elastic material (spring 2214 can stretch and recoil therefore has elastic material properties, Paragraph 0160) configured to be in tension when the motor causes the belt to tighten about the thorax of the patient (“motor may periodically wind and/or tension a band or cord coupled with the load distributing band 2210, causing the load distributing band 2210 to be pulled against the patient's chest to compress the chest, while also elongating the spring 2214 and causing the spring 2214 to store potential energy”, Paragraph 0161) and configured to exert the decompressing force on the thorax of the patient when the motor causes the belt to loosen about the thorax of the patient (“as the motor releases tension on the band, the spring 2214 recoils, providing spring force that pulls the load distributing band 2210 away from the patient's chest, thereby decompressing the chest).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lurie’s chest compression/decompression device to have the upward force actuator comprise an elastic material configured to be in tension when the belt is tightened, and configured to exert decompressing force when the motor is loosened, as taught by Lurie, as this would provide an alternative means of providing both compressive and decompressive forces to the thorax of a patient.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lurie et al. (US 2017/0119622 A1) in view of Lurie et al. (US 2016/0338904 A1) and in further view of Tien-Tsai (US 6,397,843 B1).
Regarding claim 20, Lurie in view of Lurie discloses the system of claim 19, but is silent on the system comprising a second leaf spring that is coupled to the belt, the first leaf spring being affixed to the platform on the first side of the patient and the second leaf spring being affixed to the platform on the second side of the patient.
However, Tien-Tsai teaches an analogous external cardiopulmonary resuscitation device (abstract) that comprises a leaf spring (leaf spring 461, Figure 4) that is coupled to a belt (upper band 41 can be fixed by way of end of the leaf spring 461, Column 4 lines 23-25) and the leaf spring being affixed to a platform on the second side of the patient (leaf spring 461 fixed to base 44 on a second side, Figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lurie to include a leaf spring coupled to a belt and affixed to a platform on a side of the patient, as taught by Tien-Tsai, to allow for the position of the belt to be fixed in the correct position quickly (Column 4 lines 25-26).
The examiner notes that claim 20 requires the leaf spring to be a first leaf spring, however the upward force actuator comprising a leaf spring is an alternative option as presented in claim 19, thus is not required in claim 20. Therefore, the limitation of “the first leaf spring being affixed to the platform on the first side of the patient” is not required by claim 20, as this particular limitation further limits an alternative option presented in claim 19.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lurie et al. (US 2017/0119622 A1) in view of Lurie et al. (2018/0133103 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Lurie discloses the system of claim 23, but is silent on wherein a height or a position of the at least one arm is adjustable to adjust a magnitude of the decompressing force of the elastic upward force actuator on the patient.
However, Lurie (US 2018/0133103 A1) teaches an adjustable support arm 408 (Figure 4A) that may be configured to expand and contract to adjust the height of the chest compression device (Paragraph 0079) to deliver a range of decompressive forces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lurie to include an adjustable arm as taught by Lurie (US 2018/0133103 A1), to accommodate patients of different sizes (Paragraph 0079).
Again, the embodiment as shown in Figure 5 of Lurie does not describe the upward force actuator (cable 520, Figure 5) as being elastic.
However, Lurie teaches an alternative embodiment as shown in Figure 18 comprising an elastic upward force actuator (to provide a stronger decompressive force, the chest compression device 1812 may include one or more springs positioned around a portion of the plunger 1816 and above the suction cup 1814, as the plunger 1814 retracts, the spring may recoil, providing sufficient force to actively decompress the patient’s chest, Paragraph 0138 and Figure 18E), such that the entire upward force actuator is positioned above the load distribution portion when the patient is placed on the platform (as the spring is described as being positioned around the plunger 1816 and above the suction cup 1814, after modification with the other embodiment, the resulting structure would result in the spring being positioned above the load distribution portion when the patient is placed on the platform, Paragraph 0138 and Figures 18E, Figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lurie such the cable decompression system is replaced with an elastic upward force actuator such as a spring, as taught by an alternative embodiment of Lurie, as providing one or more springs may aid in providing a stronger decompressive force to the user’s chest (Paragraph 0138), and minimize the number of system components.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lurie et al. (US 2017/0119622 A1) in view of Wik et al. (US 2015/0272822 A1).
Regarding claim 42, Lurie discloses the system of claim 23, but is silent wherein the at least one arm comprises a series of segmented sections to permit the arm to be collapsed into a roll and to enable the at least one arm to form a rigid arch.
However, Wik teaches an analogous chest compression device (Abstract) comprising an arm (arch 2, Figure 1) comprised of a series of segmented sections (arch 2 comprised of three sections connected by hinges 18, Figure 1) to permit the arm to be collapsed into a roll (“hinges 18 allow flexing of the arch 2”, Paragraph 0035) to form a rigid arch (“support structure is preferably a rigid structure which may maintain its shape during chest compressions”, Paragraph 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lurie to include an arm with collapsible segmented sections as segmented sections as taught by Wik, as this can provide adjustability to accommodate patients of different sizes (Paragraph 0035), and allow the arm to be collapsed and stored away while not in use.
Claims 56 and 138 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lurie et al. (US 2017/0119622 A1) in view of Nilsson et al. (US 2016/0136042 A1).
Regarding claim 56, Lurie discloses the system of claim 1, but is silent on a force sensor configured to measure the decompressing force of the elastic upward force actuator.
However, Nilsson teaches an analogous CPR machine (Abstract) comprising a force sensing system 149 including a piezoelectric force sensor (Paragraph 0069), configured to measure the decompressing force of the upward force actuator (“the sensed amount of the lifting force attributable to active decompression”, Paragraph 0114).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lurie to include a force sensor capable of measuring the decompressing force as taught by Nilsson, as this provides a means of monitoring decompressive forces and adjusting said forces should they not be as expected (Abstract).
Again, the embodiment as shown in Figure 5 of Lurie does not describe the upward force actuator (cable 520, Figure 5) as being elastic.
However, Lurie teaches an alternative embodiment as shown in Figure 18 comprising an elastic upward force actuator (to provide a stronger decompressive force, the chest compression device 1812 may include one or more springs positioned around a portion of the plunger 1816 and above the suction cup 1814, as the plunger 1814 retracts, the spring may recoil, providing sufficient force to actively decompress the patient’s chest, Paragraph 0138 and Figure 18E), such that the entire upward force actuator is positioned above the load distribution portion when the patient is placed on the platform (as the spring is described as being positioned around the plunger 1816 and above the suction cup 1814, after modification with the other embodiment, the resulting structure would result in the spring being positioned above the load distribution portion when the patient is placed on the platform, Paragraph 0138 and Figures 18E, Figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lurie such the cable decompression system is replaced with an elastic upward force actuator such as a spring, as taught by an alternative embodiment of Lurie, as providing one or more springs may aid in providing a stronger decompressive force to the user’s chest (Paragraph 0138), and minimize the number of system components.
Regarding claim 138, Nilsson further teaches wherein the controller (controller 110) is configured to control the motor (driver system 141 can include a motor) in response to a signal from the force sensor (“compression force is sensed, and the driving is adjusted accordingly”, Paragraph 0012).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH B LEDERER whose telephone number is 571-272-7274. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Brandy Lee can be reached on (571)-270-7410. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARAH B LEDERER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/MARGARET M LUARCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785