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
This Office Action is in response to an amendment filed on 3/17/2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-11 were canceled, no claims were amended, and claims 12-21 were added. Thus, claims 12-21 are pending for this application.
Pro Se Warning
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12 lines 3-4, “including a first limb and a second contralateral limb comprising” should be changed to --including a first limb and a second contralateral limb, the system comprising—in order to improve clarity of the claim.
In claim 17 line 4, “including a first limb and a second contralateral limb comprising the steps of” should be changed to --including a first limb and a second contralateral limb, the method comprising the steps of—in order to improve clarity of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "each ORIP device" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the ORIP therapy" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the prognostic parameters" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “that trigger release of ischemia-triggered cellular modulators (ITCMs) or redox molecules that enter circulation to improve physiological functions of vital organs or tissues, and increasing their threshold to various physiological or pathological insults or mobilities” in lines 9-11 is unclear what structure performs this function (the wireless connection? If so, it is not clear how a wireless connection can perform this function).
Furthermore, it is unclear where and how this “triggered release” occurs. Does it occur within tissues of a patient? Does a patient receive these molecules via a vaccine/shot?
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “incentivizing peer participation by analyzing and delivering to users the prognostic parameters of improved health effects of ORIP treatment, sharing and delivering monetizable user-generated content or sponsored content to users during the ORIP dosing sessions” in lines 12-14 is unclear because the claim is directed to an apparatus but this appears to be a method step. Apparatus claims are required to list the structural components to perform claimed functions, and no structure is recited for performing this function and thus the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear Applicant is reminded that a single claim cannot be directed simultaneously to an apparatus and method.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “providing a microblogging interface for creating revenue-generating opportunities for participating peers” in lines 15-16 is unclear because the claim is directed to an apparatus but this appears to be a method step. Applicant is reminded that a single claim cannot be directed simultaneously to an apparatus and method.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “increasing their threshold” in lines 10-11 is unclear what structure(s) “their” is referring to.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the decentralized network” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the stakes” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the platform’s token economy” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “they” in lines 4-5 is unclear who “they” refers to in this context.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the blocks” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claims 14 and 19 recite the limitation "each treatment session” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “each treatment session with a pair of programmable pneumatic cuffs, comprise attaching” in lines 1-2 is unclear because the claim is directed to an apparatus (“system”) but this limitation appears to be directed to a method step. Applicant is reminded that a single claim cannot be directed simultaneously to an apparatus and method.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “a pair programmable pneumatic cuffs” in line 1 is unclear whether the “cuffs” in addition to or the same as those of claim 12.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the systolic blood pressure” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the beginning of the first ischemic cycle” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “that includes pre-procedure treatment” is unclear what “that” is referring to (i.e. what “includes” pre-procedure treatment? If it’s an acute use case, it’s unclear how an acute use can include a pre-procedure treatment as this appears contradictory to the meaning of “acute”).
Claims 15 and 20 recite the limitation "the treatment session” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the pathophysiological conditions prevented or alleviated include” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “establishing a wireless connection between each pneumatic cuff and a handheld mobile device” in lines 7-8 is unclear whether each cuff of the pair is being connected to a respective mobile device (i.e. each cuff has its own mobile device), or whether the pair is being connected to a single mobile device.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the inflation and deflation” in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the subject’s systolic blood pressure” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the limb tissue distal to the pneumatic cuff” in line 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the ischemic phase” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the reperfusion phase” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “increasing their threshold” in line 19 is unclear what structure(s) “their” is referring to.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the therapy subjects” in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the ORIP sessions” in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the stakes” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the platform’s token economy” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Regarding claim 18, the phrase “they” in lines 4-5 is unclear who “they” refers to in this context.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the blocks” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “a pair programmable pneumatic cuffs” in line 1 is unclear whether the “cuffs” in addition to or the same as those of claim 17. This is further unclear due to “attaching a first cuff…and a second cuff” in line 2 of the claim (are these the same cuffs of claim 1 or additional cuffs?).
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the beginning of the first ischemic cycle” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “that includes pre-procedure treatment” is unclear what “that” is referring to (i.e. what “includes” pre-procedure treatment? If it’s an acute use case, it’s unclear how an acute use can include a pre-procedure treatment as this appears contradictory to the meaning of “acute”).
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "include but not limited to" in line 3 is unclear, as the scope of what is encompassed by this limitation has no clear metes and bounds (i.e. in claim 20 “interventional procedures that cause substantial tissue injuries that include but not limited to” suggests that any interventional procedure (i.e. rhinoplasty) is covered, and it is unclear how this would be made possible by applicant’s invention), and it is further unclear whether the example limitations provided are all part of applicant’s invention or not).
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the pathophysiological conditions prevented or alleviated include” in line 1 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility.
Regarding claims 16 and 21, applicant claims that pathophysiological conditions and physiological and pathological insults can be prevented (lines 1-2 of each claim), however there is no scientific evidence suggesting that such a task of prevention of conditions/diseases is possible (for example, people can be genetically hypertensive and no amount of ORIP treatment can cure it. People can also acquire these diseases from other sources, i.e. cancer in the form of lung cancer from smoking tobacco).
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 12 recites “that trigger release of ischemia-triggered cellular modulators (ITCMs) or redox molecules that enter circulation to improve physiological functions of vital organs or tissues, and increasing their threshold to various physiological or pathological insults or mobilities” in lines 9-11, which positively claims ischemia triggered cellular modulators (ITCMs) or redox molecules, which circulate throughout the body.
Claim 14 recites “attaching a first cuff to the first limb and a second cuff to the second limb” in lines 2-3, which positively claims a first limb and a second limb.
Applicant is suggested to amend the claims to use inferential language (e.g. “adapted to”, “configured to”) so that the human body part is not positively claimed.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependence on a rejected base claim.
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) 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raheman (US 2015/0265286) in view of Pruit (US 2014/0316793).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Raheman discloses (Fig. 1-8) a computer-implemented system of decentralized wireless wearable devices configured to deliver Optimal Remote Ischemic Preconditioning (ORIP) treatment regimen by inducing transient, repetitive, and alternating ischemia and reperfusion of at least two remote body parts (Abstract), including a first limb and a second contralateral limb (i.e. left and right arms, see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0057]), the system comprising:
- pair of programmable pneumatic cuffs (left and right cuffs on arms 10a,10b, see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0057]), each equipped with an air pump, a pressure transducer, and a microprocessor (paragraph [0055]),
- a wireless connection between each ORIP device and a handheld mobile device (mobile phone, paragraph [0050]) configured to process computer-readable instructions for administering the ORIP therapy (paragraphs [0050] and [0060]),
- that trigger release of ischemia-triggered cellular modulators (ITCMs) or redox molecules that enter circulation to improve physiological functions of vital organs or tissues, and increasing their threshold to various physiological or pathological insults or morbidities (paragraph [0045]—[0047]),
- incentivizing peer participation by analyzing and delivering to users the prognostic parameters of improved health effects of ORIP treatment (measures and administers ORIP treatment, which include prognostic parmaters, and user’s incentivized by communication to and from clinician, paragraphs [0028] and [0058]).
Raheman does not disclose sharing and delivering monetizable user-generated content or sponsored content to users during the ORIP dosing sessions, and, providing a microblogging interface for creating revenue-generating opportunities for participating peers.
However, Pruit teaches (Fig. 1 and 10) a medical computer system for incentivizing peer participation in clinical trials which comprises sharing delivering monetizable user-generated content or sponsored content to users during the treatment session (user creates an “e-flyer” which is a monetizable user created content delivered during treatment session, paragraph [0061]-[0062]), and, providing a microblogging interface for creating revenue-generating opportunities for participating peers (users rewarded by posting link to social media to recruit more users, paragraph [0061]-[0062]).
Therefore, 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 system of Raheman to include sharing and delivering monetizable user-generated content or sponsored content to users during the ORIP dosing sessions, and, providing a microblogging interface for creating revenue-generating opportunities for participating peers, as taught by Pruit, for the purpose of providing additional monetary incentive to user for using system as well as to improve marketing of system to that users in need can be more easily accessed.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood the limitation “the pathophysiological conditions prevented or alleviated include an acute episode of tissue injury that includes myocardial infarction or cerebral stroke or chronic consequences of endothelial dysfunction, which include a plethora of consequent morbidities that include hypertension, atherosclerosis, sleep apnoea, Raynaud's disease, diabetes, renal failure, pregnancy/pre-eclampsia, dementia, macular degeneration, Alzheimer's disease, periodontal disease, heart attack, heart failure, angina, pulmonary hypertension, erectile dysfunction, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), cancer, tumour growth, metastasis, venous thrombosis, and severe viral infectious diseases” isinterpreted as intended use for the device, therefore because no structural features in the claims would prevent the invention of claim 12 from treating any or all of these disesases as applicant claims, the invention of modified Raheman could be used for this purpose.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raheman (US 2015/0265286) in view of Pruit (US 2014/0316793), and further in view of Kutzko (US 20190355472).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, modified Rahman discloses the system incentivizes peer participation by generate revenue through content creation and curation activities of participating peers (paragraph [0061]-[0062] Pruit), but does not disclose the decentralized network utilizes a zero-transaction fee blockchain protocol to incentivize peer participation by generating monetary rewards based on: the stakes they hold with the platform’s token economy and, the blocks they produce.
However Kutzko teaches (Fig. 1) a decentralized network utilizes a zero-transaction fee blockchain protocol (SHA256, paragraphs [0062]-[0063]) for incentivizing peer participation by generating monetary rewards based on: the stakes they hold with the platform’s token economy (“token governance rulesets based on crytpo economic incentive mechanisms”, paragraph [0063]) and, the blocks they produce (new blocks created, paragraph [0063]).
Therefore, 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 system of modified Raheman such that the decentralized network utilizes a zero-transaction fee blockchain protocol to incentivize peer participation by generating monetary rewards based on: the stakes they hold with the platform’s token economy and, the blocks they produce, as taught by Kutzko, for the purpose of incentivizing users to be healthier as well as improving security of medical data transmission.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raheman (US 2015/0265286) in view of Pruit (US 2014/0316793), and further in view of Ganske (US 20150190301 A1)
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, modified Raheman discloses wherein each treatment session with a pair of programmable pneumatic cuffs, comprise attaching a first cuff to the first limb and a second cuff to the second limb (see Fig. 1 Raheman), inducing transient, repetitive and alternating ischemia and reperfusion cycles numbering between 2 and 4 cycles (see claim 1 of Raheman and paragraph [0054]), each cycle being not less than 2 minutes and not more than 5 minutes long (discloses 1 to 10 minutes, which includes values between 2 and 5 minutes. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)), but does not disclose this is achieved by raising cuff pressure to not less than 5 mm and not more than 50 mm beyond the systolic blood pressure measured at the beginning of the first ischemic cycle.
However, Ganske teaches (Fig. 1) raising cuff pressure to not less than 5 mm and not more than 50 mm beyond the systolic blood pressure measured at the beginning of the first ischemic cycle (paragraph [0076]).
Therefore, 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 system of modified Raheman to include raising cuff pressure to not less than 5 mm and not more than 50 mm beyond the systolic blood pressure measured at the beginning of the first ischemic cycle, as taught by Ganske, for the purpose of providing the minimally effective cuff inflation pressure so that therapy can be optimize and user is kept comfortable (paragraph [0076] Ganske).
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raheman (US 2015/0265286) in view of Pruit (US 2014/0316793), and further in view of Redington (US 20100292619 A).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, modified Raheman discloses the treatment sessions are not more than twice in 24 hours in acute use cases (paragraph [0069]), that includes pre-procedure treatment of interventional procedures that cause substantial tissue injuries, including angioplasty (paragraph [0063]) Raheman), but does not disclose the treatment sessions are prescribed once a day in chronic ambulatory use cases.
However, Redington teaches (Fig. 1) ORIP treatment sessions are prescribed once a day in chronic ambulatory use cases (for treating chronic stable angina, which is a chronic condition that can lead to a heart attack and thus ambulatory, paragraph [0179]).
Therefore, 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 system of modified Raheman to include the treatment sessions are prescribed once a day in chronic ambulatory use cases, as taught by Redington, for the purpose of helping to treat a chronic and potentially lethal condition (paragraph [0179] Redington).
Claim 17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raheman (US 2015/0265286) in view of Youngblood (US 20180110960) and Pruit (US 2014/0316793).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Raheman discloses (Fig. 1-8) a method of non-invasively administering Optimal Remote Ischemic Preconditioning (ORIP) treatment using a pair of programmable pneumatic cuffs (Abstract), each equipped with an air pump, a pressure transducer, and a microprocessor (paragraph [0055]) wherein the treatment regimen involves at least a pair of remote body parts that includes a first limb and a second contralateral limb (left and right arm, paragraph [0057] and Fig. 1), the method comprising the steps of:
- attaching the first pneumatic cuff to the first limb and a second pneumatic cuff to the second limb (paragraph [0057]),
- establishing a wireless connection between each pneumatic cuff and a handheld mobile device (mobile phone, paragraph [0050]) configured to process computer-readable instructions for controlling the inflation and deflation of the pneumatic cuffs (paragraph [0050] and [0060]),
- inflating the first pneumatic cuff beyond the subject's systolic blood pressure for a . predefined time, thereby inducing a zone of ischemia in the limb tissue distal to the pneumatic cuff in the ischemic phase (paragraphs [0051] and [0057]), while the second cuff attached to the contralateral limb remains in a deflated state in the reperfusion phase (paragraphs [0051] and [0057]),
- repeating the inflation/deflation cycle alternatively with both the limbs to induce alternate ischemic and reperfusion cycles, so that when the first limb is in ischemic phase, the second limb is in reperfusion phase (paragraphs [0051], [0054] and [0057]),
- triggering the generation and release of ischemia-triggered cellular modulators (ITCMs} or redox molecules that enter circulation to improve physiological functions of vital organs or tissues, and increase their threshold to various. physiological or pathological insults and morbidities (paragraph [0045]-[0047]),
Raheman does not disclose connecting the therapy subjects to a decentralized social network for sharing their experience with peers,
However, Youngblood teaches (Fig,. 41) connecting the therapy subjects to a decentralized (decentralized platform, paragraph [0354]) social network for sharing their experience with peers (paragraph [0326]).
Therefore, 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 method of Raheman to include connecting the therapy subjects to a decentralized social network for sharing their experience with peers, as taught by Youngblood, for the purpose of allowing for other users to support each other and improve patient compliance by allowing pressure of other users to hold them accountable
Raheman does not disclose incentivizing peer participation by sharing and delivering monetizable user-generated content or sponsored content to users during the ORIP dosing sessions, and, providing a microblogging interface for creating revenue-generating opportunities for participating peers.
However, Pruit teaches (Fig. 1 and 10) a medical computer system for incentivizing peer participation in clinical trials which comprises sharing delivering monetizable user-generated content or sponsored content to users during the treatment session (user creates an “e-flyer” which is a monetizable user created content delivered during treatment session, paragraph [0061]-[0062]), and, providing a microblogging interface for creating revenue-generating opportunities for participating peers (users rewarded by posting link to social media to recruit more users, paragraph [0061]-[0062]).
Therefore, 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 system of Raheman to include incentivizing peer participation by sharing and delivering monetizable user-generated content or sponsored content to users during the ORIP dosing sessions, and, providing a microblogging interface for creating revenue-generating opportunities for participating peers, as taught by Pruit, for the purpose of providing additional monetary incentive to user for using system as well as to improve marketing of system to that users in need can be more easily accessed.
Regarding claim 21, as best understood, the limitation “the pathophysiological conditions prevented or alleviated include an acute episode of tissue injury that includes myocardial infarction or cerebral stroke or chronic consequences of endothelial dysfunction, which include a plethora of consequent morbidities that include hypertension, atherosclerosis, sleep apnoea, Raynaud's disease, diabetes, renal failure, pregnancy/pre-eclampsia, dementia, macular degeneration, Alzheimer's disease, periodontal disease, heart attack, heart failure, angina, pulmonary hypertension, erectile dysfunction, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), cancer, tumour growth, metastasis, venous thrombosis, and severe viral infectious diseases” isinterpreted as intended use for the device, therefore because no structural features in the claims would prevent the invention of claim 12 from treating any or all of these disesases as applicant claims, the invention of modified Raheman could be used for this purpose.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raheman (US 2015/0265286) in view of Youngblood (US 20180110960) and Pruit (US 2014/0316793), and further in view of Kutzko (US 20190355472).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood modified Rahman discloses the system incentivizes peer participation by generate revenue through content creation and curation activities of participating peers (paragraph [0061]-[0062] Pruit), but does not disclose the decentralized network utilizes a zero-transaction fee blockchain protocol to incentivize peer participation by generating monetary rewards based on: the stakes they hold with the platform’s token economy and, the blocks they produce.
However Kutzko teaches (Fig. 1) a decentralized network utilizes a zero-transaction fee blockchain protocol (SHA256, paragraphs [0062]-[0063]) for incentivizing peer participation by generating monetary rewards based on: the stakes they hold with the platform’s token economy (“token governance rulesets based on crytpo economic incentive mechanisms”, paragraph [0063]) and, the blocks they produce (new blocks created, paragraph [0063]).
Therefore, 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 system of modified Raheman such that the decentralized network utilizes a zero-transaction fee blockchain protocol to incentivize peer participation by generating monetary rewards based on: the stakes they hold with the platform’s token economy and, the blocks they produce, as taught by Kutzko, for the purpose of incentivizing users to be healthier as well as improving security of medical data transmission.
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raheman (US 2015/0265286) in view of Youngblood (US 20180110960) and Pruit (US 2014/0316793), and further in view of Ganske (US 20150190301 A1).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, modified Raheman discloses wherein each treatment session with a pair of programmable pneumatic cuffs, comprise attaching a first cuff to the first limb and a second cuff to the second limb (see Fig. 1 Raheman), inducing transient, repetitive and alternating ischemia and reperfusion cycles numbering between 2 and 4 cycles (see claim 1 of Raheman and paragraph [0054]), each cycle being not less than 2 minutes and not more than 5 minutes long (discloses 1 to 10 minutes, which includes values between 2 and 5 minutes. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)), but does not disclose this is achieved by raising cuff pressure to not less than 5 mm and not more than 50 mm beyond the systolic blood pressure measured at the beginning of the first ischemic cycle.
However, Ganske teaches (Fig. 1) raising cuff pressure to not less than 5 mm and not more than 50 mm beyond the systolic blood pressure measured at the beginning of the first ischemic cycle (paragraph [0076]).
Therefore, 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 system of modified Raheman to include raising cuff pressure to not less than 5 mm and not more than 50 mm beyond the systolic blood pressure measured at the beginning of the first ischemic cycle, as taught by Ganske, for the purpose of providing the minimally effective cuff inflation pressure so that therapy can be optimize and user is kept comfortable (paragraph [0076] Ganske).
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raheman (US 2015/0265286) in view of Youngblood (US 20180110960) and Pruit (US 2014/0316793), and further in view of Redington (US 20100292619 A).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, modified Raheman discloses the treatment sessions are not more than twice in 24 hours in acute use cases (paragraph [0069]), that includes pre-procedure treatment of interventional procedures that cause substantial tissue injuries, including angioplasty (paragraph [0063]) Raheman), but does not disclose the treatment sessions are prescribed once a day in chronic ambulatory use cases.
However, Redington teaches (Fig. 1) ORIP treatment sessions are prescribed once a day in chronic ambulatory use cases (for treating chronic stable angina, which is a chronic condition that can lead to a heart attack and thus ambulatory, paragraph [0179]).
Therefore, 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 system of modified Raheman to include the treatment sessions are prescribed once a day in chronic ambulatory use cases, as taught by Redington, for the purpose of helping to treat a chronic and potentially lethal condition (paragraph [0179] Redington).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12 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.
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 MATTHEW R MOON whose telephone number is (571)272-2554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Justine Yu can be reached at 571-272-4835. 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.
/MATTHEW R MOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JUSTINE R YU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785