DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6 have been amended, and remain pending.
The amended claims overcome the previously raised objections, 112b rejections and 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 103 rejection of Claim 1, in Page 5 of Remarks, Applicant argues that a) “using any actuator to increase body temperature to promote circulation” as in reference LAL, “is not driving fluid in a predetermined direction”, and in Page 6 of Remarks, argues that b) LAL “does not teach using ultrasonic waves produced by speakers to drive fluid in a predetermined direction”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments. Regarding the argument a), reference LAL was cited to teach using actuators capable of transmitting ultrasonic waves, not to teach driving fluid in a predetermined direction. Reference LAL does disclose “For example, these vibrations can be used to heal damaged tissue by increased temperature and circulation as often done with high frequency ultrasonic therapy” (Para 0026); however, “increased temperature” is just one effect of an exampled application of LAL’s invention when applied for healing damaged tissue. Furthermore, the cited phrase should not be interpreted that the “increased … circulation” is caused by the “increased temperature”. Structurally, LAL discloses using actuators formed in arrays and capable of stimulating skin with “different, user-controlled patterns”, which aligns with both reference Suarez and the Application.
Regarding the argument b), as discussed above, reference LAL teaches using actuators capable of transmitting ultrasonic waves, and was not cited for the purpose of teaching driving fluid in a predetermined direction (reference Suarez teaches this latter feature).
Claim Objections
Claim 1-6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Line 7, “ultrasonic sounds waves” should be changed to “ultrasonic waves”.
Claim 1, Line 8, “a patient” should be changed to “the user”.
Claim 2, Line 1, “ultras” should be deleted.
Claims 2-6, “wherein” should be changed to --[,] wherein--.
Claim 4, Line 2, “speakers in arranged” should be changed to “speakers are arranged”.
Claim 5, Line 2, “are “ operated” should be changed to “are operated”.
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 4 is 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 4, Line 2 recites “… claim 3 wherein said speakers in arranged in a ring and are spaced 120 degrees apart”. It is unclear whether all the “said speakers” are arranged in a single ring, or as Claim 3 claims, in “plurality of rings”. For present purposes of examination, the underlined phrase is referred to as “speakers in each of the plurality of rings are spaced 120 degrees apart”.
Claim 6 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because it inherits the indefiniteness of Claim 4 it depends upon.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suarez et al (US 20210386615 A1; hereafter Suarez), in view of Lal et al (US 20160058657 A1; hereafter Lal).
With regard to Claim 1, Suarez discloses a compression stocking (Suarez, Para 0040; “… a cuff 70 is illustrated, which is worn on a leg of the patient …”) comprising:
a plurality of actuators (Suarez, Para 0043; “The actuators 14 of FIG. 2 are configured as bladders 80A-80J, … ”) attached to a flexible material;
said flexible material in the form of a stocking (Suarez, Para 0040; “… the flexible member 12, which is illustrated as a sock 74.”) configured to fit over a user’s foot and leg (Suarez, Para 0040; “… the sock 74 extends higher on the leg than the rigid outer shell 72 and covers the foot …”); and
a controller, said controller adapted to control the operation of said actuators (Suarez, Para 0037; “The controller 20 is configured to activate the pump 60 to direct fluid and, consequently, adjust the bladders 50 to apply the selected pressure to the affected area”) such that said actuators are configured to cause fluid to flow in a predetermined direction in a patient (Suarez, Para 0044; “The bladders 80 are generally adjusted sequentially to apply pressure to the leg that pushes fluid out of the limb and to the trunk or central cavity of the body.”).
Suarez does not clearly and explicitly disclose the actuators being speakers capable of emitting ultrasonic waves.
Lal in the same field of endeavor discloses the actuators being speakers capable of emitting ultrasonic waves (Lal, Para 0026; “in the case of piezoelectric actuators, unimorphs and/or bimorphs can be driven at ultrasonic frequencies that generate waves transduced into skin that penetrate deep into tissue.”)(Lal, Para 0031; “The device 100 includes a wearable apparel material 102 (e.g., a vest, yoke, coat, pants, hat, glove or other clothing, cloth or blanket, etc.).”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suarez, as suggested by Lal, in order to apply ultrasonic waves to the body. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of ultrasonic waves being controllable by user and being effective in improving circulation (Lal, Para 0029; “… applying mechanical, shear, and ultrasonic forces to massage the skin with different, user-controlled patterns”)(Lal, Para 0026; “these vibrations can be used to heal damaged tissue by increased temperature and circulation as often done with high frequency ultrasonic therapy.”).
With regard to Claim 2, Suarez and Lal disclose the compression stocking of Claim 1 as discussed above. Suarez further discloses wherein said speakers are operated by said controller to create a sequential pulsation (Suarez, Para 0039; “the bladder 50A may be re-adjusted to the deployed state substantially simultaneously with the bladder 50D to begin the directional pattern 22 of pressure again, which may provide a continuous wave-like pattern of pressure moving away from the wrist.”).
With regard to Claim 3, Suarez and Lal disclose the compression stocking of Claim 1 as discussed above. Suarez further discloses wherein said speakers are arranged in plurality of rings (Suarez, Para 0043; “The actuators 14 of FIG. 2 are configured as bladders 80A-80J …”; then further in Para 44; “Each bladder 80 (e.g., bladder 80A, etc.) may be a single bladder 80 extending around the leg, or alternatively, may be one or more bladders 80 that together extend around the circumference of the leg.”) and said controller is adapted to sequentially activate each speaker one at a time in a ring before activating an adjoining ring of speaker sequentially one at a time (Suarez, Para 0044; “The bladders 80 are generally adjusted sequentially to apply pressure to the leg … The bladder 80A … may be adjusted to the deployed state first. … The bladder 80B, disposed adjacent to the bladder 80A, may then be adjusted to the deployed state.”).
With regard to Claim 5, Suarez and Lal disclose the compression stocking of Claim 3 as discussed above. Suarez further discloses wherein said speakers are operated in phase with one another which creates a fluid wave front which pushes the fluid in a single direction (Suarez, Para 0044; “The bladders 80 are generally adjusted sequentially to apply pressure to the leg that pushes fluid out of the limb and to the trunk or central cavity of the body.”).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suarez and Lal, further in view of Uchihashi et al (US 4866682 A; hereafter Uchihashi).
With regard to Claim 4, Suarez and Lal disclose all the limitations of Claim 3 as discussed above. Suarez and Lal do not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein said speakers arranged in a ring are spaced 120 degrees apart.
Uchihashi in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein said speakers arranged in a ring are spaced 120 degrees apart (Uchihashi, Column 1, Lines 28-33; “Thirty of the transducer elements are disposed on an imaginary circle at angular uniform intervals, thereby forming a circular row of the transducer elements. There are ten such rows from the top of the bottom of the transducer assembly.” With the disclosed arrangement, every two adjacent elements are 12 degrees apart (360 degrees/30 elements), so for an element (e.g. A), in the ring there are two other elements (e.g. B and C) that are 120 degrees apart with element A. Hence, the device in Uchihasi comprises a plurality (3) of speakers (Claim 1, Line 1), wherein said (3) speakers in a ring are 120 degrees apart (current Claim 4)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suarez and Lal, as suggested by Uchihashi, in order to distribute the actuators or transducers in a ring with angular interval of 120 degrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of uniformly applying the impact or compression to the outer boundary of a cross-section slice of a lower leg and being conveniently configurable. A minimum of 3 transducers with 120 degrees apart fully and uniformly cover the boundary. When higher density of coverage is needed, additional sets of 3 uniformly distributed transducers can be added conveniently.
With regard to Claim 6, Suarez, Lal and Uchihashi disclose all the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above. Suarez further discloses wherein said speakers are operated in phase with one another which creates a fluid wave front which pushes the fluid in a single direction (Suarez, Para 0053; “The controller 20 may sequentially adjust the actuators 14 in the directional pattern 22 to assist in moving lymphatic fluid or promoting blood flow in a selected direction.”).
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 LEI ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm E.T..
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/L.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights