DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 12/30/2024. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 5, 6, 10-12 and 15-20 are withdrawn and not examiner at this point.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/7/2024 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to the specification is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to the specification.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 4 is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/7/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Boukanov et al. does not teach the claimed three distinct operational modes, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed below, Boukanov et al. teaches that the adjustable strapping system (straps 80, 82) configured to operate in three distinct modes (as discussed below) comprising: a first bleeding control mode wherein the straps (straps 80, 82) are configured to be secured to apply additional compression or flex elasticity stretch contracting force beyond that provided by the flexible cap (dome-shaped pressure bandage 70, bladder 74, gauze bandage liner 76) to control bleeding without aggravating intracranial pressure (straps 80, 82 are capable of being secured via hook and loop material in a manner that pulls the dome-shaped pressure bandage 70 more firmly against the patient’s head to apply additional compression thereto to control bleeding without aggravating intracranial pressure); a second pressure relief mode wherein the straps (straps 80, 82) are configured to be loosened and re-attached (the hook and loop fastener of straps 80, 82 is capable of being loosened and re-attached) to prevent circulation restriction and avoid aggravating intracranial pressure (straps 80, 82 are capable of being loosened and re-attached via hook and loop material in a manner that prevents circulation restriction and avoids aggravating intracranial pressure); a third mode for removal of the head trauma bandage flexible cap when needed (the hook and loop fastener of straps 80, 82 is capable of being opened for removal of the pressure bandage). Applicant is reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use (as is the case with Boukanov et al.), then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a method that includes initially controlling bleeding through compression when needed, transitioning to a pressure relief mode to prevent complications while maintaining wound coverage and quickly removing the bandage when necessary) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claimed configuration provides new and unexpected results in the field of head trauma treatment, the examiner notes that a showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP 2145).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “three distinct modes,” “a first bleeding control mode,” “a second pressure relief mode” and “a third mode,” which are claim limitations lacking proper antecedent basis in the specification. This is not an issue of new matter. Applicant should amend the specification to include the cited language to avoid this error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to correct a grammatical/typographical error, “is configures to allows” in line 2 of the claim should be amended to recite ---is configured to allow---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 7-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boukanov et al. (US 6,762,337), in view of Straus (US 1,882,677), in view of Mraz (WO 9416655 A1), in view of Bell et al. (US 5,800,372), in view of Ravikumar (US 2002/0198480) and further in view of Reisinger (US 2008/0312572).
In regards to claim 1, Boukanov et al. teaches in Figures 7 and 8, column 4, lines 5-7 and columns 4-5, lines 65-7
a. a flexible cap (dome-shaped pressure bandage 70, bladder 74, gauze bandage liner 76; shown in Figure 7 to be flexed around the head of the person 72 and therefore, must be flexible) with
i. an exterior (outer surface of bladder 74 that is exposed to the environment in use) made of a flexible material (the outer surface of bladder 74 is shown in Figure 7 to be flexed around the head of the person 72 and therefore, must be flexible) with periphery edges, top and sides (as shown in Figures 7 and 8) sized to fit about and cover a forehead/crown, sides, ears, and back of a head of the patient with a head trauma (the outer surface of bladder 74 is capable of being positioned around and covering a forehead/crown, sides, ears, and back of a head of a patient with a head trauma, depending on the size of the patient), the exterior (outer surface of bladder 74 that is exposed to the environment in use) forming a barrier to prevent penetration of bacteria, pathogens or contaminants (the outer surface of bladder 74 is a physical barrier that can oppose penetration of bacteria, pathogens or contaminants); and
ii. an interior (gauze bandage liner 76) made of non-adherent wound contact surface (gauze is a non-adherent material; gauze bandage liner 76 is capable of being positioned on a wound in use); and
b. an adjustable strapping system (straps 80, 82; capable of being adjusted via the hook and loop connection taught in column 5, lines 2-3) with a strap (straps 80, 82) affixed to (as shown in Figures 7 and 8; column 5, lines 5-7 teaches “straps 80, 82 can optionally be made integral with the production of the elastic bladder 74 or attached by adhesive”) the flexible cap (dome-shaped pressure bandage 70, bladder 74, gauze bandage liner 76) with fasteners (column 4, lines 5-7 teaches straps 80, 82 being “hook and loop fastening straps for securing the pressure bandage to the wound”) secured about or affixed to (via straps 80, 82, as shown in Figures 7 and 8) the flexible cap (dome-shaped pressure bandage 70, bladder 74, gauze bandage liner 76) structured to anchor the straps (straps 80, 82) about either the patient’s chin or the occipital colloidal bone (Figure 7 teaches the straps 80, 82 being secured about a patient’s chin via attachment of hook strap 80 to loop strap 82), the adjustable strapping system (straps 80, 82) configured to operate in three distinct modes (as discussed below) comprising:
a first bleeding control mode wherein the straps (straps 80, 82) are configured to be secured to apply additional compression or flex elasticity stretch contracting force beyond that provided by the flexible cap (dome-shaped pressure bandage 70, bladder 74, gauze bandage liner 76) to control bleeding without aggravating intracranial pressure (straps 80, 82 are capable of being secured via hook and loop material in a manner that pulls the dome-shaped pressure bandage 70 more firmly against the patient’s head to apply additional compression thereto to control bleeding without aggravating intracranial pressure);
a second pressure relief mode wherein the straps (straps 80, 82) are configured to be loosened and re-attached (the hook and loop fastener of straps 80, 82 is capable of being loosened and re-attached) to prevent circulation restriction and avoid aggravating intracranial pressure (straps 80, 82 are capable of being loosened and re-attached via hook and loop material in a manner that prevents circulation restriction and avoids aggravating intracranial pressure);
a third mode for removal of the head trauma bandage flexible cap when needed (the hook and loop fastener of straps 80, 82 is capable of being opened for removal of the pressure bandage).
Boukanov et al. does not teach the exterior being made of a flexible weather resistant or waterproof material; and the interior made of a sterile superabsorbent polymer, with enough flex elasticity when placed on the patient to apply minimal compressive force to the patient’s head to control bleeding without aggravating intracranial pressure; and the exterior forming ear observation openings adapted to be positioned proximately to the patient’s ears; and the exterior being antimicrobial.
However, Straus teaches in Figures 3 and 4 and page 2, lines 4-11 an analogous device with the exterior (waterproof layer or covering 3; Figure 4 teaches waterproof layer or covering 3 being positioned on an exposed, exterior surface of the device in use) being made of a flexible (waterproof layer or covering 3 is shown in Figures 3 and 4 to be capable of being flexed around the user’s limb and therefore, is flexible) weather resistant or waterproof material (page 2, lines 4-11 teaches “the outer portion of the bandage containing the waterproof layer 3”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the exterior of Boukanov et al. to be made of a flexible weather resistant or waterproof material as taught by Straus because this element is known to provide an exterior that “limits the degree of penetration and prevent the blood or other matter flowing from the wound from wholly passing through the bandage, at the same time affording a degree of protection not provided by other types of bandage,” as Straus teaches in page 2, lines 4-11.
Boukanov et al. and Straus do not teach the interior made of a sterile superabsorbent polymer, with enough flex elasticity when placed on the patient to apply minimal compressive force to the patient’s head to control bleeding without aggravating intracranial pressure; and the exterior forming ear observation openings adapted to be positioned proximately to the patient’s ears; and the exterior being antimicrobial.
However, Mraz teaches in Figure 1 and pages 7-8, lines 28-10 an analogous device with the interior (contact layer 3) made of a sterile polymer (pages 7-8, lines 28-10 teaches “the contact layer 3 is the material that will come into contact with the wearer's wounds, and so must be made from a material that is soft, sterile and will not irritate the wound area” and lists several polymer materials from which that contact layer 3 can be manufactures).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the interior of Boukanov et al. as modified by Straus to be made of a sterile polymer as taught by Mraz because this element is known to “infection of any open wound or raw epidermal layers in contact with the pad,” as Mraz teaches on page 5, lines 6-9.
Boukanov et al., Straus and Mraz do not teach the interior made of a superabsorbent polymer, with enough flex elasticity when placed on the patient to apply minimal compressive force to the patient’s head to control bleeding without aggravating intracranial pressure; and the exterior forming ear observation openings adapted to be positioned proximately to the patient’s ears; and the exterior being antimicrobial.
However, Bell et al. teaches in Figures 1 and 2, column 1, lines 40-44, column 4, lines 20-23 and column 5, lines 49-51 and 63-66 an analogous device with the interior (porous topsheet 15 and active region 12 enclosed in cloth enclosure; active region 12 is taught in column 5, lines 49-50 to be “the region designed to cover the wound itself;” column 5, lines 63-66 teaches “the upper surface or top of the enclosure is covered with a porous topsheet 15 which will contact the wound surface”) made of a superabsorbent polymer (column 5, lines 49-51 teaches “active region 12 (the region designed to cover the wound itself and containing the microfibrillar collagen and superabsorbent polymer)”), with enough flex elasticity when placed on the patient to apply minimal compressive force to the patient’s head to control bleeding without aggravating intracranial pressure (column 4, lines 20-23 teaches “the enclosure is thus preferably hydrophilic, and also preferably flexible to permit full contact with the open wound and surrounding area;” column 1, lines 40-44 teaches “the enclosure is preferably expandable to accommodate the expansion of the superabsorbent polymer as the polymer absorbs fluid from the blood escaping from the wound;” thus, it is clear that the enclosure has flex elasticity that enables the enclosure to expand against the wound upon expansion of the superabsorbent polymer, which can apply minimal compressive force to a patient’s head to control bleeding without aggravating intracranial pressure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the interior of Boukanov et al. as modified by Straus and Mraz to be made of a superabsorbent polymer, with enough flex elasticity when placed on the patient to apply minimal compressive force to the patient’s head to control bleeding without aggravating intracranial pressure as taught by Bell et al. because this element is known to provide a “hemostatic wound dressing” that “provides rapid intervention of exsanguination more effectively than cotton gauze,” as Bell et al. teaches in column 1, lines 30-33.
Boukanov et al., Straus, Mraz and Bell et al. do not teach exterior forming ear observation openings adapted to be positioned proximately to the patient’s ears; and the exterior being antimicrobial.
However, Ravikumar teaches in Figures 1 and 2 and [0018-0019] an analogous device with the exterior (outer surface of skull cap 12) forming ([0018] teaches “the skull cap 12 includes three "lobes" 22, 24, 26” and “the lobe 22 defines a left ear opening 22a and the lobe 24 defined a right ear opening 24a;” also shown in Figures 1 and 2) ear observation openings (left ear opening 22a, right ear opening 24a) adapted to be positioned proximately to the patient’s ears (as shown in Figures 1 and 2; further, [0019] teaches “the victim's ear protruding through the ear opening 22a” and “the victim's ear protruding through the ear opening 24a”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the exterior of Boukanov et al. as modified by Straus, Mraz and Bell et al. to form ear observation openings adapted to be positioned proximately to the patient’s ears as taught by Ravikumar because this element is known to provide further securement of the device in proper position on the user’s anatomy, while also comfortably accommodating the user’s ears.
Boukanov et al., Straus, Mraz, Bell et al. and Ravikumar do not teach the exterior being antimicrobial.
However, Reisinger teaches in claim 37 and Figure 1a an analogous device with the exterior (outer covering 2) being antimicrobial (claim 37 teaches “the outer covering includes antimicrobial, odor-inhibiting, disinfecting, fungicidal, drugs or other wound healing-promoting substances”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the exterior of Boukanov et al. as modified by Straus, Mraz, Bell et al. and Ravikumar to be antimicrobial as taught by Reisinger because this element is known to be “wound healing-promoting,” as Reisinger teaches in claim 37.
In regards to claim 7, Boukanov et al., Straus, Mraz, Bell et al., Ravikumar and Reisinger teach the apparatus of claim 1. Boukanov et al. does not teach that the flexible weather resistant or waterproof material is constructed of polyurethanes and block-copolymer polyamides, and blends forming a barrier-dressing so exterior particles, fluids and pathogens cannot penetrate from outside toward the patient.
However, Straus teaches in Figures 3 and 4 and page 2, lines 4-11 an analogous device wherein the flexible (waterproof layer or covering 3 is shown in Figures 3 and 4 to be capable of being flexed around the user’s limb and therefore, is flexible) weather resistant or waterproof material (page 2, lines 4-11 teaches “the outer portion of the bandage containing the waterproof layer 3”) forms a barrier-dressing so exterior particles, fluids and pathogens cannot penetrate from outside toward the patient (waterproof layer or covering 3 provides a physical barrier that prevents fluids and particles/pathogens contained therein from penetrating through the waterproof layer or covering 3 toward the patient; page 2, lines 5-10 teaches that the waterproof layer or covering 3 “a degree of protection”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the flexible weather resistant or waterproof material of Boukanov et al. as modified by Straus, Mraz, Bell et al., Ravikumar and Reisinger to form a barrier-dressing so exterior particles, fluids and pathogens cannot penetrate from outside toward the patient as taught by Straus because this element is known to provide the device with “a degree of protection,” as Straus teaches in page 2, lines 5-10.
Boukanov et al., Straus, Mraz, Bell et al., Ravikumar and Reisinger do not teach that the flexible weather resistant or waterproof material is constructed of polyurethanes and block-copolymer polyamides, and blends.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to provide that the flexible weather resistant or waterproof material is constructed of polyurethanes and block-copolymer polyamides, and blends, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regards to claims 8 and 9, Boukanov et al., Straus, Mraz, Bell et al., Ravikumar and Reisinger teach the apparatus of claim 1. Boukanov et al., Straus and Mraz do not teach a flexible granular (SAP) or fibrous (SAF) nonwoven superabsorbent polymer inside layer formed of soft textile or nonwoven material that can absorb fluids; and wherein the flexible granular (SAP) or fibrous (SAF) nonwoven superabsorbent polymer inside layer can be hydrated, chilled or frozen to provide an extended duration cooling article.
However, Bell et al. teaches in column 1, lines 41-43 and column 4, lines 17-18 and column 5, lines 49-52 a flexible granular (SAP) or fibrous (SAF) nonwoven superabsorbent polymer inside layer (column 4, lines 17-18 teaches “superabsorbent polymer is enclosed in an enclosure”) formed of soft textile (the superabsorbent polymer can be considered “soft” inasmuch as it is taught in column 1, lines 41-43 to be expandable and therefore, is not rigid) or nonwoven material that can absorb fluids (column 5, lines 49-52 teaches that the superabsorbent polymer can become “swollen with blood;” column 1, lines 41-43 teaches “expansion of the superabsorbent polymer as the polymer absorbs fluid from the blood escaping from the wound”); and wherein the flexible granular (SAP) or fibrous (SAF) nonwoven superabsorbent polymer inside layer (column 4, lines 17-18 teaches “superabsorbent polymer is enclosed in an enclosure”) can be hydrated, chilled or frozen to provide an extended duration cooling article (the superabsorbent polymer is capable of being hydrated, chilled or frozen by the user and used as an extended duration cooling article).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the device of Boukanov et al. as modified by Straus, Mraz, Bell et al., Ravikumar and Reisinger to include a flexible granular (SAP) or fibrous (SAF) nonwoven superabsorbent polymer inside layer formed of soft textile or nonwoven material that can absorb fluids; and wherein the flexible granular (SAP) or fibrous (SAF) nonwoven superabsorbent polymer inside layer can be hydrated, chilled or frozen to provide an extended duration cooling article as taught by Bell et al. because this element is “known in the art of polymer technology for use in absorbent articles such as diapers, sanitary napkins, and other articles for personal care and clinical use” and to be “capable of absorbing large quantities of liquids including water and aqueous solutions or suspensions, such as bodily exudates such as urine, menses and blood, and are further capable of retaining such liquids under moderate pressures,” as Bell et al. teaches in column 2, lines 52-62.
In regards to claim 13, Boukanov et al., Straus, Mraz, Bell et al., Ravikumar and Reisinger teach the apparatus of claim 1. Boukanov et al. teaches in Figure 8, column 4, lines 5-7 and column 5, lines 2-3 that the fasteners (column 4, lines 5-7 teaches straps 80, 82 being “hook and loop fastening straps for securing the pressure bandage to the wound”) comprise corresponding hook and loop strips (column 4, lines 5-7 teaches straps 80, 82 being “hook and loop fastening straps for securing the pressure bandage to the wound;” column 5, lines 2-3 teaches “hook strap 80 and loop strap 82”).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boukanov et al. (US 6,762,337), in view of Straus (US 1,882,677), in view of Mraz (WO 9416655 A1), in view of Bell et al. (US 5,800,372), in view of Ravikumar (US 2002/0198480), in view of Reisinger (US 2008/0312572) and further in view of Cohen et al. (US 1,533,973).
In regards to claim 2, Boukanov et al., Straus, Mraz, Bell et al., Ravikumar and Reisinger teach the apparatus of claim 1. Boukanov et al., Straus, Mraz, Bell et al., Ravikumar and Reisinger do not teach that the flexible weather resistant or waterproof material is made of laminated layers of film and reinforcing and/or cushioning materials.
However, Cohen et al. teaches in Figure 3, in the claim(s) and on page 1, lines 64-68 an analogous device wherein the flexible (page 1, lines 64-68 teaches “by thus associating the quilted layers with a layer of waterproofing on one side, we combine in one single pad or sheet of any desired form and flexibility, a soft flexible cushion”) weather resistant or waterproof material (“quilted waterproof pad” taught in the claim(s)) is made of laminated layers of film and reinforcing and/or cushioning materials (“a bordered quilted waterproof pad which comprises a pair of spaced layers of fabric with a layer of padding therebetween, said three layers being quilted together, and a layer of rubber in the form of a coating upon and suitably incorporated with the outer face of one side of said quilted mate-rial, and over and covering the quilting thereof, whereby the pad at the coated side is waterproof throughout including the quilting stitches” is claimed; Figure 3 teaches thin film layers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the flexible weather resistant or waterproof material of Boukanov et al. as modified by Straus, Mraz, Bell et al., Ravikumar and Reisinger to be made of laminated layers of film and reinforcing and/or cushioning materials as taught by Cohen et al. because this element is known to provide the flexible weather resistant or waterproof material with “all the advantages of a soft cushion,” as Cohen et al. teaches on page 1, lines 23-30.
In regards to claim 3, Boukanov et al., Straus, Mraz, Bell et al., Ravikumar, Reisinger and Cohen et al. teach the apparatus of claims 1 and 2. Straus teaches in Figures 3 and 4 that the flexible (waterproof layer or covering 3 is shown in Figures 3 and 4 to be capable of being flexed around the user’s limb and therefore, is flexible) weather resistant or waterproof material (page 2, lines 4-11 teaches “the outer portion of the bandage containing the waterproof layer 3”) is a monolithic barrier (inasmuch as Figure 3 teaches the waterproof layer 3 being formed as a single unit).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boukanov et al. (US 6,762,337), in view of Straus (US 1,882,677), in view of Mraz (WO 9416655 A1), in view of Bell et al. (US 5,800,372), in view of Ravikumar (US 2002/0198480), in view of Reisinger (US 2008/0312572), in view of Cohen et al. (US 1,533,973) and further in view of Hodgson (US 3,645,835 A).
In regards to claim 4, Boukanov et al., Straus, Mraz, Bell et al., Ravikumar, Reisinger and Cohen et al. teach the apparatus of claims 1-3. Boukanov et al., Straus, Mraz, Bell et al., Ravikumar, Reisinger and Cohen et al. do not teach that the monolithic barrier is configures to allows moisture or perspiration from the patient’s skin to escape while maintaining its waterproof properties.
However, Hodgson teaches in column 9, lines 34-37 an analogous device wherein the monolithic barrier is configures to allows moisture or perspiration from the patient’s skin to escape while maintaining its waterproof properties (column 9, lines 34-37 teaches “the main advantage with the bandages and strapping tapes is that they are waterproof yet moisture vapor and gas permeable”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the monolithic barrier of Boukanov et al. as modified by Straus, Mraz, Bell et al., Ravikumar, Reisinger and Cohen et al. to provide that the monolithic barrier is configures to allows moisture or perspiration from the patient’s skin to escape while maintaining its waterproof properties as taught by Hodgson because this element is known to enable application of the monolithic barrier “to the skin without irritation or trauma developing,” as Hodgson teaches in column 9, lines 34-37.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boukanov et al. (US 6,762,337), in view of Straus (US 1,882,677), in view of Mraz (WO 9416655 A1), in view of Bell et al. (US 5,800,372), in view of Ravikumar (US 2002/0198480), in view of Reisinger (US 2008/0312572) and further in view of Reeves (US 6,747,561).
In regards to claim 14, Boukanov et al., Straus, Mraz, Bell et al., Ravikumar and Reisinger teach the apparatus of claim 1. Boukanov et al., Straus, Mraz, Bell et al., Ravikumar and Reisinger do not teach that the flexible cap is color-coded to indicate severity of the patient’s injuries in an emergency trauma triage setting.
However, Reeves teaches in column 5, lines 28-31 and column 7, lines 60-66 an analogous device (column 7, lines 60-66 teaches “the device can be worn on the exterior of the body by means of a bracelet or necklace 12 or any other appropriate means of affixing the device to the body where it is clearly visible and readily accessible in an emergency”) that is color-coded to indicate severity of the patient’s injuries (“medical condition,” “medical defect”) in an emergency trauma triage setting (column 5, lines 28-31 teaches “color coding or other alpha-numeric coding which would identify the class of severity of the medical defect of the wearer on the exterior of the shell;” column 7, lines 60-64 teaches “the outside of shell 1 is marked with appropriate symbols 8 which identify the device as a medical information device and an alpha numerical code or color code 9 which identifies the level of severity of the preexisting medical condition of the wearer”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the flexible cap of Boukanov et al. as modified by Straus, Mraz, Bell et al., Ravikumar and Reisinger to be color-coded to indicate severity of the patient’s injuries in an emergency trauma triage setting as taught by Reeves because this element is known to provides a means to readily identify the medical status of a patient in an emergency situation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA H FISHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6:00AM-4:00PM EST.
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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached on (571) 270-5237. 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.
/VICTORIA HICKS FISHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 3/4/2025
Prosecution Insights