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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s response filed November 24, 2025. No claims have been canceled and no claims have been amended. Claims 1-3 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Applicant's arguments filed November 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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 Spencer (US 2010/0152770) in view of Pan (CN109864790).
Regarding claim 1, Spencer discloses an auto-locking apparatus for controlling hemorrhage, the apparatus enabling a user to apply point pressure extremely rapidly with a single hand (Ref 110; where the apparatus is capable of enabling a user to apply point pressure extremely rapidly with a single hand), the apparatus comprising: a mounting plate for mounting the apparatus over a wound site, wherein the mounting plate is a unitary piece comprising a first end, a second end opposite the first end, a center section between the first end and the second end, a top surface and a bottom surface (Ref 142; Figure 1B, 2; where the top of Ref 142 is the top surface and the bottom of Ref 142 is the bottom surface; where the left side of Ref 142 near a first strap is a first end and the opposite/right side of Ref 142 near a second strap Ref 122 is the second opposite end; where the section of Ref 142 between the left and right ends is the center section; where Figure 2 shows that Ref 142 is a unitary piece); a first strap attachment point coupled to the first end of the mounting plate and a second strap attachment point coupled to the second end of the mounting plate (Ref 141; Figures 1B, 2; Para [0026]; where Figures 1B and 2 shows a first strap Ref 122 coupled to the first end of the mounting plate Ref 142 at a first strap attachment point and a second strap Ref 122 coupled to the second end of the mounting plate Ref 142 at a second strap attachment point), the first and second strap attachment points configured for connecting to a strap that is configured to secure the apparatus over the wound site (Ref 122, 127, 141; Para [0026]; where the first and second strap attachment points are configured to connect to a strap that is capable of securing the apparatus over a wound site); a pressure applicator for applying point pressure to the wound site (Ref 160, 164, 166, 162), the pressure applicator extending through the center section of the mounting plate and being stabilized in a lateral direction by the mounting plate (Ref 164, 142; Para [0027]-[0028], [0038]; where Ref 162 applies pressure to a wound site; where Ref 164 extends through the center section of the mounting plate Ref 142 and is therefore extending through the mounting plate and being stabilized in a lateral direction by the mounting plate); and an auto-locking mechanism configured for enabling the pressure applicator to travel, upon application of downward force, towards the wound site when the apparatus is placed over the wound site (Ref 182,178; Para [0029]; where Ref 182, 178 is capable of enabling the pressure applicator Ref 164, 162,166 to travel, upon application of downward force, toward the wound site when the apparatus is placed over the wound site), the auto-locking mechanism configured for preventing the pressure applicator from traveling away from the wound site when downward pressure is removed from the pressure applicator (Ref 182, 178; Para [0029]; where Ref 182, 178 is capable of preventing the pressure applicator from traveling away from the site when the downward pressure is removed due to the spring Ref 180 and the aperture 178 applying friction against the sides of the shaft), the auto-locking mechanism comprising a locking tab (Ref 182) having an aperture therethrough (Ref 178), wherein the pressure applicator extends through the aperture in the locking tab (Figure 2; where Ref 164 extend through Ref 178 in tab Ref 182; Para [0029]), wherein the locking tab comprises a resting position that is at an angle that is offset from a plane that is orthogonal to the pressure applicator and the pressure applicator is prevented from moving upward or downward when the locking tab is in the resting position (Figure 2; Ref 182, 178, 180; Para [0029]; where the locking tab is shown at an angle that is offset from a plane orthogonal to Ref 164 and the pressure applicator Ref 164 is prevented from moving upward or downward), and wherein the locking tab comprises an active position in which the locking tab substantially aligns with the plane that is orthogonal to the pressure applicator and the pressure applicator is able to move upward or downward when the locking tab is in the active position (Ref 182, 178, 180; Para [0029]; where the locking tab can be pushed inward against the spring Ref 180 to an active position, where the locking tab Ref 182 would extend substantially parallel with the plane and therefore the locking tab can substantially align with a plane that is orthogonal to part of the pressure applicator Ref 164).
Spence discloses all of the claimed limitations above but fails to explicitly disclose that the mounting plate has a contoured shape that creates counter pressure cavities on the bottom surface of the mounting plate.
However, Pan teaches a similar hemostasis device with a pressure applicator (Ref 24, 2) and a mounting plate, where the mounting plate is a unitary piece (Ref 14; see Figure 2 below), where the mounting plate has a contoured shape that creates counter pressure cavities on the bottom surface of the mounting plate (Ref 12; Figure 1, mislabeled as Ref 24 in Figure 2 below; where a user is capable of grasping/holding the underside of Ref 12 and therefore the labeled cavities in annotated Figure 2 are interpreted as counter pressure cavities on a bottom surface of the mounting plate; where as shown in annotated Figure 2 below, the mounting plate has a contoured shape that creates the counter pressure cavities), the counter pressure cavities configured for allowing a user to apply counter-force in a generally opposite direction to the downward force applied to the pressure applicator (Ref 12 Figure 1; mislabeled as Ref 24 in Figure 2 below; where a user is capable of grasping/holding the underside of Ref 12 with one or more fingers while pushing down on the pressure applicator Ref 24, 2 and therefore the cavities on the bottom surface of Ref 12 are capable of allowing a user to apply a counter-force in a generally opposite direction to the downward force applied to the pressure applicator Ref 24, 2); wherein the counter pressure cavities comprise: a first counter pressure cavity positioned in close proximity to the pressure applicator and just to the left of the center section of the mounting plate (Figure 2 see below; where annotated Figure 2 shows a first cavity positioned in close proximity to the pressure applicator Ref 24, just to the left of the center section of the mounting plate); and a second counter pressure cavity positioned in close proximity to the pressure applicator and just to the right of the center section of the mounting plate (Figure 2 see below; where annotated Figure 2 shows a second cavity positioned in close proximity to the pressure applicator Ref 24, just to the right of the center section of the mounting plate).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
789
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mounting plate of Spence to include a contoured shaped that creates counter pressure cavities on the bottom surface of the mounting plate as suggested by Pan, since such a modification provides an easy area for a user to grasp while providing a downward force on a pressure applicator.
Where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that modifying the mounting plate of Spence to include a contoured shape that creates counter pressure cavities on a bottom surface of the mounting plate as suggested by Pan, where Pan teaches that the counter pressure cavities include a first counter pressure cavity positioned in close proximity to the pressure applicator and just to the left of the center section where the pressure applicator passes and a second counter pressure cavity positioned in close proximity to the pressure applicator and just to the right of the center section where the pressure applicator passes, would result in the first and second counter pressure cavities being positioned in close proximity to the pressure applicator of Spence in order to allow the user to properly/easily use their fingers/thumb to grasp the cavity sections. Therefore modifying Spence to include a first counter pressure cavity positioned in close proximity to the pressure applicator and just to the left of the center section of the mounting plate that the pressure applicator passes and a second counter pressure cavity positioned in close proximity to the pressure applicator and just to the right of the center section of the mounting plate that the pressure applicator passes would result in the first counter pressure cavity being positioned between the center section and the first end of the mounting plate of Spence and the second counter pressure cavity between the center section and the second end of the mounting plate of Spence.
Regarding claim 2, Spence discloses that the locking tab comprises a plate (Ref 182; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Spence discloses that the aperture in the locking tab is in the plane that is orthogonal to the pressure applicator when the locking tab is in the active position (Ref 178, 182; Par [0029]; where the locking tab Ref 182 is capable of being pushed inward against the spring Ref 180 to an active position that is orthogonal to the pressure applicator Ref 164; where the locking tab Ref 182 and therefore the aperture Ref 178 in the locking tab Ref 182 is in a plane that is orthogonal to the pressure applicator Ref 164 when Ref 182 is in an active position), and wherein the aperture in the locking tab is at an angle relative to the plane that is orthogonal to the pressure applicator when the locking tab is in the resting position (Ref 178, 182; Par [0029]; Figure 2; where the locking tab and therefore the aperture are shown at an angle relative to the plane that is orthogonal to the pressure applicator when the locking tab is in the resting position).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the counter pressure cavities create a space between the patient and the mounting plate, which is advantageous because the positioning allows the straps to be lifted away from the patient, thereby mitigating circumferential pressure applied by the straps and minimizing damage to tissue surrounding the wound site.
The Examiner notes 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., create a space between the patient and the mounting plate, or allowing the straps to be lifted away from the patient, or mitigating circumferential pressure applied by the straps and minimizing damage to tissue surrounding the wound site) 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).
Applicant argues that Pan teaches a ring and the Examiner’s interpretation of ring 17 as a mounting plate is an unreasonably broad interpretation of the claim language since claim 1 specifies that the mounting plate has a first end, a second end opposite the first end, a center section, a top surface, and a bottom surface.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Pan is not relied on for its teaching of a mounting plate, where the ring of Pan is not being incorporated into Spencer. The Examiner notes using the term “mounting structure” instead of “mounting plate” when referring to Ref 17 of Pan would have been a better choice of language, however Ref 17 of Pan still does teach a first end (i.e. side of Ref 17 if looking at it from the left), a second opposite end (i.e. side of Ref 17 if looking at it from the right), a center (i.e. through the middle of Ref 17), a top surface (i.e. top of Ref 17), a bottom surface (i.e. bottom of Ref 17). Furthermore, since Pan teaches a counter pressure structure (Ref 12/24) that is on the mounting structure (Ref 17) and Spencer teaches a mounting plate, the specific mounting structure of Pan does not need to be a plate/smooth flat thin piece of material, since Spencer was relied on to teaching the mounting plate. Since Pan was used merely to teach counter pressure cavities attached to a mounting structure, modifying the mounting plate of Spencer to include counter pressure cavities as suggested in the office action teach the claimed limitations and therefor ethe arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the pressing rods 24 of Pan do no mitigate circumferential pressure.
The Examiner notes 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. mitigating circumferential pressure) 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).
Applicant argues that Pan does not teach or suggest counter pressure cavities that are positioned between the strap attachment points and the center of a mounting plate or that are on the bottom surface of a mounting plate.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that modifying the mounting plate of Spencer to include a contoured shape that creates counter pressure cavities, where Pan teaches a first counter pressure cavity positioned in close proximity to the pressure applicator and just to the left of the center section and a second counter pressure cavity posited in close proximity to the pressure applicator and just to the right of center, would result in first and second counter pressure cavities being positioned in close proximity to the pressure applicator of Spence to allow the user to easily reach and use their fingers to grasp the cavity sections. Where the counter pressure cavities would extend right next to the pressing rod/locking tab of Spencer and would extend upwards toward the top of the pressing rod, immediately to the left and right of the rod in order to allow a user to reach the cavities with a single hand, where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the counter pressure cavities would not extend beyond the ends of the mounting plate or a user would not be able to reach the cavities with their middle and index fingers while the user’s thumb pushed against the pressing rod as suggested by the English translation of Pan. Therefore such a modification would result in the first counter pressure cavity being positioned between the center section and the first end of the mounting plate of Spence and the second counter pressure cavity between the center section and the second end of the mounting plate of Spence based on the location of the counter pressure cavities in Pan relative to the pressing rod, which allow a user to reach the cavities with their index and middle fingers in order to apply counter pressure. Where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that modifying Spencer’s plate to have counter pressure cavities at the ends of the plate would not work, since such a location would not allow a user to easily reach and grasp the cavities to apply counter pressure. Since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the placement of such counter pressure cavities would need to be near the pressure applicator, resulting in them being positioned between the strap attachment points and the center of the mounting plate, the claim limitations are all taught and the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that even if the device taught by Spencer could reasonably be modified to include counter cavities 24 as suggested by Pan, the modification would result in a device having pressing rods that are elevated above the mounting plate and would not alleviate the circumferential pressure applied by the straps, whereas one of the advantages of the claimed device is alleviation of the circumferential pressure.
As previously stated, 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. alleviating circumferential pressure applied by the straps) 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).
Applicant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is classic hindsight bias and there is no reason to rearrange the counter pressure cavities positioned above the strap and at the ends of the ring 17 as taught by Pan to have the counter pressure cavities to be positioned between the strap and the center of the mounting plate.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In the instant case, as shown above, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that modifying Spencer’s plate to have counter pressure cavities at the ends of the plate would not work, since such a location would not allow a user to easily reach and grasp the cavities to apply counter pressure. Therefore the placement of such counter pressure cavities would need to be near the pressure applicator, resulting in them being positioned between the strap attachment points and the center of the mounting plate. Both Spencer and Pan teach similar devices that can apply pressure to a desired site, and Pan additionally teaches counter pressure cavities that a user can grasp to apply a counter pressure to the device when applying a downward pressure force to the desired site. Since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a specific need for the positioning with respect to the counter pressure cavities when applied to the device of Spencer to be near the center of the mounting plate, the rejection is based on only knowledge that was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and therefore does not rely on hindsight, as such the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
O’Connor (US 2004/0098034) could be used to reject claim 1 since O’Connor discloses an auto-locking mechanism including a locking tab that enable the pressure applicator to travel towards a site and prevented from traveling away from the site; where the locking tab has an aperture and the pressure applicator extends through the aperture; where the locking tab has a resting position at an angle that is offset to a plane orthogonal to the pressure applicator and an active position where the tab moves towards an aligned position with the orthogonal plane (Para [0034; Ref 27, 30, 29; Figures 7, 9 ) and O’Connor discloses a finger hold formed on the bottom surface of the mounting plate, where the finger hole is configured for allowing a user to apply counter-force in a generally opposite direction to the downward force applied to the pressure applicator (Figure 7, 9; Ref 34; where the bottom surface of Ref 34 can be interpreted as the finger hold formed on the bottom surface of the mounting plate and is capable allowing a user to grip Ref 34 to apply a counter force to the force applies to pressure applicator Ref 37, 29)
US 8,777,982- finger hold capable of allowing a user to apply a counter-force in a generally opposite direction the downward force applied to the pressure applicator; where the finger hold is in close proximity to a central section pushed downward in order to easily provide the counter force; where the first and second cavities of the finger hold are positioned between a central section of the device and the first and second ends, respectively. (Could be used as evidence to support the location of the counter cavities being in close proximity to the central section and positioned between the center of the device and the first/second ends, respectively in the modification of Spence in view of Pan above).
US 5,443,484- counter-force grip provided in close proximity to a central section pushed downward; where the grip has sections for user’s fingers to impart a reverse/opposite upward motion to counteract the downward penetration of the central section that is pushed downward. (Could be used as evidence to support the location of the counter cavities being in close proximity to the central section and positioned between the center of the device and the first/second ends, respectively in the modification of Spence in view of Pan above).
US2018/0117262- contoured grip ergonomically designed for an easy fitting and firm grip
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIN L COLELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays 8-5pm, Tuesday-Thursdays 10-2pm.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/E.L.C/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/DARWIN P EREZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771