DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (Figures 1-8) in the reply filed on 10/29/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/29/25.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the domestic priority from provisional application no. 62/434,452 (titled “PADE-WEIERSTRASS ANALYTIC CONTINUATION TECHNIQUE FOR THE EFFICIENT ENFORMENT OF CONTROL LIMITS IN POWER-FLOW STUDIES”) filed 12/15/2016 appears to be incorrect. The proper provisional application no. appears to be 63/434,452 (titled “HOLSTER AND TOURNIQUET”) filed 12/21/2022. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the earliest priority date for the present application will be considered as 12/21/2022.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“tensioning member” in claims 1, 8, 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig et al., hereinafter “Craig” (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0090140) in view of Reis (U.S. Patent No. 7,947,061).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Craig discloses a tourniquet (including a lateral strap system 240 or 240’ that may be used as a tourniquet assembly; Figures 3, 13-15, [0071], [0100]), comprising:
a plate 202 (Figure 3; liner 202 is considered a “plate” or thin sheet, and is curved to fit over a user’s leg, similar to the present application plate 30 including “a curved portion 34 to fit over leg/thigh” as disclosed in [0031] of the present application publication);
a first band 241 (Figures 3, 13-15), wherein said first band draws through said plate (Figure 3);
a tensioning member 311 (Figures 14-15, [0104]: lever 311 increases and maintains tension via ratchets; interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to ratchet lever 56 as disclosed in [0034] of the present application publication); and
a second band 242 (Figures 14-15), wherein one end of said second band connects to said first band at an inner side of said first band (at 243) and the other end of said second band connects to said tensioning member (around 313),
wherein said first band receives a limb of a user and said plate remains on the limb (Figure 3; [0076]), and
wherein said tensioning member operates to draw said second band towards said tensioning member allowing said first band to apply pressure on the limb and stop flow of blood (Id., [0100]).
However, Craig does not disclose the tensioning member positioned at an outer surface of said first band (tensioning member 311 is positioned at an outer surface of said second band 242).
Reis teaches a tourniquet (Figures 1-5) including a first band 14, a tensioning member 36 (ratchet lever 36; interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to ratchet lever 56 as disclosed in [0034] of the present application publication) positioned at an outer surface of said first band (Id.), a second band 30 having one end connected to an inner side of said first band (near 22) and another end connected to said tensioning member (Figures 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Craig with a tensioning member that is positioned at an outer surface of said first band, as taught by Reis, since Craig teaches that “[a]ny suitable mechanisms may be used to selectively adjust the lateral strap system 240” ([0097]), and since doing so would be substitution of one known tensioning member configuration for another, which would yield predictable results, namely applying pressure to a limb to stop the flow of blood. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 2, Craig as modified teaches said plate 202 is anatomically shaped to position on the limb (Craig, Figure 3, [0077]; plate 202 is curved to conform to the leg).
Regarding claims 3 and 5-6, Craig as modified teaches the claimed invention, as discussed above, except for said second band comprises a ratchet ladder strap, and wherein said ratchet lever lifts repeatedly to draw said ratchet ladder strap towards said ratchet lever.
Reis teaches a tourniquet (Figures 1-5) with a tensioning mechanism including a second band 30 comprising a ratchet ladder strap 32 and wherein a ratchet lever 36 lifts repeatedly to draw said ratchet ladder strap towards said ratchet lever to tension the strap (col. 3, lines 55-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Craig with a ratchet ladder strap as claimed, as taught by Reis, since Craig teaches that “[a]ny suitable mechanisms may be used to selectively adjust the lateral strap system 240” ([0097]), and since doing so would be since doing so would be substitution of one known tensioning member mechanism for another, which would yield predictable results, namely applying pressure to a limb to stop the flow of blood. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 7, Craig as modified teaches said plate 202 (Craig, Figure 3) connects to a holster ([0076]; utility module 50 on plate 202 can be connected with a holster 290 as shown in Figures 10-11).
Regarding claim 15, Craig discloses a tourniquet (including a lateral strap system 240 or 240’ that may be used as a tourniquet assembly; Figures 3, 13-15, [0071], [0100]), comprising:
a first band 241 (Figures 3, 13-15), wherein said first band suspends from a waist strap 110;
a tensioning member 311 (Figures 14-15, [0104]: lever 311 increases and maintains tension via ratchets; interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to ratchet lever 56 as disclosed in [0034] of the present application publication); and
a second band 242 (Figures 14-15), wherein one end of said second band connects to said first band at an inner side (at 243) of said first band and the other end of said second band connects to said tensioning member (around 313),
wherein said first band receives a limb of a user and said waist strap wraps around a waist of the user (Figure 3; [0076]), and
wherein said tensioning member operates to draw said second band towards said tensioning member allowing said first band to apply pressure on the limb and stop flow of blood (Id., [0100]).
However, Craig does not disclose the tensioning member positioned at an outer surface of said first band (tensioning member 311 is positioned at an outer surface of said second band 242).
Reis teaches a tourniquet (Figures 1-5) including a first band 14, a tensioning member 36 (ratchet lever 36; interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to ratchet lever 56 as disclosed in [0034] of the present application publication) positioned at an outer surface of said first band (Id.), a second band 30 having one end connected to an inner side of said first band (near 22) and another end connected to said tensioning member (Figures 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Craig with a tensioning member that is positioned at an outer surface of said first band, as taught by Reis, since Craig teaches that “[a]ny suitable mechanisms may be used to selectively adjust the lateral strap system 240” ([0097]), and since doing so would be substitution of one known tensioning member configuration for another, which would yield predictable results, namely applying pressure to a limb to stop the flow of blood. See MPEP 2143.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig et al., hereinafter “Craig” (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0090140) in view of Reis (U.S. Patent No. 7,947,061) and Rogers et al., hereinafter “Rogers” (U.S. Patent No. 6,588,640).
Regarding claims 8 and 11, Craig discloses a tourniquet (including a lateral strap system 240 or 240’ that may be used as a tourniquet assembly; Figures 3, 13-15, [0071], [0100]), comprising:
a plate 202 (Figure 3; liner 202 is considered a “plate” or thin sheet, and is curved to fit over a user’s leg, similar to the present application plate 30 including “a curved portion 34 to fit over leg/thigh” as disclosed in [0031] of the present application publication);
a first band 241 (Figures 3, 13-15), wherein said first band draws through said plate (Figure 3);
a tensioning member 311 (Figures 14-15, [0104]: lever 311 increases and maintains tension via ratchets; interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to ratchet lever 56 as disclosed in [0034] of the present application publication); and
a second band 242 (Figures 14-15), wherein one end of said second band connects to said first band at an inner side of said first band (at 243) and the other end of said second band connects to said tensioning member (around 313),
wherein said first band receives a limb of a user and said plate remains on the limb (Figure 3; [0076]), and
wherein said tensioning member operates to draw said second band towards said tensioning member allowing said first band to apply pressure on the limb and stop flow of blood (Id., [0100]).
However, Craig does not disclose said plate comprises channels positioned at opposite sides, wherein said first band draws through said channels.
In Figures 1-2, 8, Rogers teaches a holster plate 26 comprising channels 27 positioned at opposite sides, wherein a first band 20, 21, or 55 draws through said channels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the plate of Craig to have channels as claimed, as taught by Rogers, to further secure the first band to the plate, and since doing so would be substitution of one known holster plate for another, which would yield predictable results, namely securely mounting a holster to the first band. See MPEP 2143.
Additionally, Craig does not disclose the tensioning member positioned at an outer surface of said first band (tensioning member 311 is positioned at an outer surface of said second band 242).
Reis teaches a tourniquet (Figures 1-5) including a first band 14, a tensioning member 36 (ratchet lever 36; interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to ratchet lever 56 as disclosed in [0034] of the present application publication) positioned at an outer surface of said first band (Id.), a second band 30 having one end connected to an inner side of said first band (near 22) and another end connected to said tensioning member (Figures 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Craig with a tensioning member that is positioned at an outer surface of said first band, as taught by Reis, since Craig teaches that “[a]ny suitable mechanisms may be used to selectively adjust the lateral strap system 240” ([0097]), and since doing so would be substitution of one known tensioning member configuration for another, which would yield predictable results, namely applying pressure to a limb to stop the flow of blood. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 9, Craig as modified teaches said plate 202 is anatomically shaped to position on the limb (Craig, Figure 3, [0077]; plate 202 is curved to conform to the leg).
Regarding claims 10 and 12-13, Craig as modified teaches the claimed invention, as discussed above, except for said second band comprises a ratchet ladder strap, and wherein said ratchet lever lifts repeatedly to draw said ratchet ladder strap towards said ratchet lever.
Reis teaches a tourniquet (Figures 1-5) with a tensioning mechanism including a second band 30 comprising a ratchet ladder strap 32 and wherein a ratchet lever 36 lifts repeatedly to draw said ratchet ladder strap towards said ratchet lever to tension the strap (col. 3, lines 55-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Craig with a ratchet ladder strap as claimed, as taught by Reis, since Craig teaches that “[a]ny suitable mechanisms may be used to selectively adjust the lateral strap system 240” ([0097]), and since doing so would be since doing so would be substitution of one known tensioning member mechanism for another, which would yield predictable results, namely applying pressure to a limb to stop the flow of blood. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 14, Craig as modified teaches said plate 202 (Craig, Figure 3) connects to a holster ([0076]; utility module 50 on plate 202 can be connected with a holster 290 as shown in Figures 10-11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANE D YABUT whose telephone number is (571)272-6831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/DIANE D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771