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. Specification The amendment filed 27 Apr 2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: t he incorporation by reference of the international patent application PCT/ AU2021/051284 and of the foreign patent application s AU 2020903943 and 2021106829 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 01 Nov 2021 , see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore the specification amendment of 27 Apr 2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p) . Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. Claim Objections Claim(s) 8, 11-12, 15-17 , 19 and 21 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8, Ln. 3 recites “ the body” which should read “ the deformable body” for consistency with claim 1 Claim 11, Ln. 2 recites “a subject” which should read “the subject” following after claim 1 Claim 12, Ln. 2 recites “a subject” which should read “the subject” following after claim 1 In claims 15 and 16 the cubic units should be presented as an exponent Claim 16, Ln. 2 recites “ low fluid flow rate ” which should read “the low fluid flow rate ” following after claim 6 Claim 17, Ln. 2 recites “ the internal air volume ” which should read “ the internal volume ” for consistency with claim 1 Claim 17, Ln. 3 recites “ the ingress of air ” which should read “an ingress of air ” as it is a first introduction Claim 19, Ln. 2 recites “ the body” which should read “ the deformable body” for consistency with claim 1 Claim 21, Ln. 7 recites “ strap ” which should read “a strap ” Claim 21, Ln. 11 recites “ the body” which should read “ the deformable body” for consistency Claim 21, Ln. 13 recites “ the body” which should read “ the deformable body” for consistency Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim(s) 1 and 3-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 21 each recite “ two or more rods connected to the deformable body and extending into the internal volume ”. The original claims in the instant application only recite “one or more rods” (PCT claims 1 and 2). The specification only identifies two rods in the form of rods 661, 662 (Fig. 7). The particular language “two or more rods” requires that the originally filed application must have support from the original disclosure for a configuration with at least three rods. However, there is not found to be a reasonable expectation in the originally filed application that applicant ever intended more than two rods within the internal volume of the deformable body. Thus, the breadth of scope encompassed by the particular language “two or more rods” amounts to new matter not sufficiently described in the application as originally filed. It is suggested to delete the “or more” portion of the limitation. Claim 7 recites “ the strap defines an internal volume thereof ”. Claim 1 with its particular recitation of two or more rods can only reasonably be read as directed to the embodiment of Figs. 6-7. The strap 650 in that embodiment is explicitly described as not defining an internal volume (¶0083 of the PGPub copy of the instant application). The embodiment with a strap having an internal volume is Fig. 5 (¶0083 of the PGPub ). However, there is no reason to expect the strap of Fig. 5 would be used in the embodiment of Figs. 6-7. All limitations of claims 7-10 are only drawn from the embodiment of Fig. 5 which does not include the two or more rods required by claim 1. The overall requirements of the instant claim thus amount to an improper mixing and matching of embodiments not disclosed as interchangeable in the application as originally filed. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim(s) 6 , 13-14, 16, 18 and 21 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 6 recites the limitation “ the valve and fluid flow control ” in Ln. 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for the fluid flow control portion of this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the claim will instead be interpreted as dependent on claim 3, which provides the proper antecedent basis. Claim 13 recites the limitation “ the handle ” in Ln. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “the strap” following after claim 1. The same change should also be made in claim 18 . Claim 14 recites the limitation “ the handle ” in Ln. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “the strap” following after claim 1. Claim 21 recites the limitation “ to adjust a fluid flow rate therebetween ” in Ln. 9-10 which deems the claim indefinite. The preceding portion of the limitation fails to clearly identify what the present “ therebetween ” is to be understood as in reference to. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “ to adjust a fluid flow rate between the internal volume and the external environment ” as recited in claim 1 . Duplicate Claims Claim 12 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 11. Because the claims 11 and 12 are apparatus claims which each depend from claim 1 their individual recitations only amount to intended use. There is no meaningful patentable difference between the intended use language of claim 11 and that of claim 12. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 and 3-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 1st paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph , set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1 , the prior art fails to teach or suggest a n apparatus having all elements and functionality recited by the instant claim. Of particular note the instant claim recites the apparatus as including: a deformable body having a valve located at an opening of the deformable body , with the valve adapted to adjust a fluid flow rate between the internal volume and the external environment ; two or more rods connected to the deformable body and extending into the internal volume, the two or more rods adapted to deflect in response to deformation of the deformable body ; and a strap connected to the two or more rods, the deformation of the deformable body causes the strap to provide a stimuli to the subject . Said alternately, there must be at least two distinct “rods” within the deformable body. The strap must be connected to those rods such that deforming the deformable body causes the internal rods to deflect which thereby causes movement of the strap against the subject. Closest prior art to the instant claim includes: Zemer (U.S. Patent 5820523), Navari j o (U.S. Pub. 2016/0101252), Gillespie et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0157348) and Islava et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0016034). Zemer teaches a palm exerciser (e.g. Figs. 2-3 & 5) including two internal rods (telescoping tubes in Figs. 2-3 & 5). However, Zemer fails to teach or suggest the rods as deflect in response to a squeezing of elliptical body 12. Instead, because the internal rods in Zemer are telescoped they will not be expected to deflect. The term “deflect” is given a plain language meaning of “changing direction” as per Webster’s Dictionary (see definition #1 in attached document ). A linear sliding action when telescoped would not reasonably be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as a deflection (caused by squeezing of elliptical body 12). One of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to have modified Zemer in order to have read on the instant claim without improper hindsight reasoning. Navari j o teaches a resuscitator bag including internal arms readable as rods (e.g. Figs. 10A-10D). However, those internal arms are not connected to a strap, as required by the instant claim. While there is a handle in Navari j o (e.g. Fig. 9) it is not connected to structures internal of the bag valve assembly in order to allow Navari j o to suitably read on the instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to have modified Navari j o in order to have read on the instant claim without improper hindsight reasoning. Gillespie teaches a resuscitat i o n bag including internal telescoping tube s readable as rods (e.g. Figs. 8- 10). However, those internal tubes are not connected to a strap, as required by the instant claim. Further, those internal tubes are deflecting in response to squeezing in the manner required by the instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to have modified Gillespie in order to have read on the instant claim without improper hindsight reasoning. Islava teaches a resuscitation bag including internal spokes 34 readable as rods (e.g. Figs. 2A-4B). However, those spokes are not connected to a strap, as required by the instant claim. While there is a strap in Islava (e.g. Figs. 6C-6D) it is not connected to structures internal of the resuscitation bag in order to allow Islava to suitably read on the instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to have modified Islava in order to have read on the instant claim without improper hindsight reasoning. It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning. Regarding claim 19 , t he opening and valve of the instant claim are clearly understood to refer back to the opening and the valve of claim 1. Regarding claim 21 , the claim is found allowable over the prior art for the same reasons discussed above in regard to claim 1. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, see PTO-892 for additional attached references. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOSEPH D BOECKER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0376 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kendra Carter can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-9034 . 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. /JOSEPH D. BOECKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785