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 responsive to a preliminary amendment filed on 6/2/2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-15 were amended, no claims were cancelled, and new claims 16-17 were added. Thus, claims 1-17 are presently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology, (i.e., the term “comprises” in lines 1-2 of the abstract). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 3 and 5, the term “each pressure unit” is suggested to be changed to --each pressure unit of the plurality of pressure units-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 1, lines 5-6, the term “the movement” is suggested to be changed to --a movement-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 2, line 3, the term “the presence or absence of an applied stimulus” is suggested to be changed to --a presence or absence of an applied stimulus-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 2, line 4, the term “a first pressure unit” is suggested to be changed to --a first pressure unit of the plurality of pressure units-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 2, line 5, the term “second, adjacent pressure unit” is suggested to be changed to --second pressure unit of the plurality of pressure units, the second pressure unit is adjacent to the first pressure unit-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 5, lines 1-2, the term “a pressure unit” is suggested to be changed to --a pressure unit of the plurality of pressure units-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 5, line 6, the term “that pressure unit” is suggested to be changed to --the pressure unit-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 6, line 2, the term “a pressure unit” is suggested to be changed to --a pressure unit of the plurality of pressure units-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 8, line 2, the term “a pressure unit” is suggested to be changed to --a pressure unit of the plurality of pressure units-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 11, lines 7-8, the term “the movement” is suggested to be changed to --a movement-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 12, lines 8-9, the term “the movement” is suggested to be changed to --a movement-- in order to clarify the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
“a closure means that can be closed around the body part” in claim 9, line 3.
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: the limitations “support structure” (claim 1, line 3, the term “structure” is a generic placeholder and the function is “support”), “a movable member having three translational degrees of freedom relative to the support structure” (claim 1, lines 3-4, the term “member” is a generic placeholder and the function is “movable” and “having three translational degrees of freedom”), “a control unit adapted to control the movement of the movable member relative to the support structure of the pressure unit” (claim 1, lines 5-7, the term “unit” is a generic placeholder and the function is “control” and “adapted to control the movement of the movable member relative to the support structure of the pressure unit”), “support structure” (claim 11, line 2, the term “structure” is a generic placeholder and the function is “support”), “a movable member having three translational degrees of freedom relative to the support structure” (claim 11, lines 3-4, the term “member” is a generic placeholder and the function is “movable” and “having three translational degrees of freedom”), “a control unit adapted to control the movement of the movable member relative to the support structure” (claim 11, lines 7-8, the term “unit” is a generic placeholder and the function is “control” and “adapted to control the movement of the movable member relative to the support structure”), “support structure” (claim 12, line 2, the term “structure” is a generic placeholder and the function is “support”), “a movable member” (claim 12, line 3, the term “member” is a generic placeholder and the function is “movable”), and “a control unit adapted to control the movement of the movable member relative to the support structure” (claim 12, lines 8-9, the term “unit” is a generic placeholder and the function is “control” and “adapted to control the movement of the movable member relative to the support structure”).
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“support structure”: support structure can form or be a frame or frame-like structure, see page 8 of the specification. Support structure 25 in pages 22-23 of the specification.
“movable member”: the movable member can have various shapes, such as a cylindrical, cubic or rubber stamp-like shape, see page 10 of the specification. See movable member 21 in page 23 of the specification.
“control unit”: control unit can comprise, or be connected or connectible to, a power source, the control unit can be a computer or similar device, see page 18 of the specification.
“a closure mean”: see page 3 of specification, closure means are known in the art and include zippers, buttons, buckles, laces, Velcro, hook-and-loop closures and other suitable tightening mechanisms.
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.
Claims 1-17 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “preferably garment” (line 1) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, it is unclear as to how to define the term “preferably”, since the term “preferably” is a relative term that indicates a preference, therefore, it is unclear if the limitation “garment” is being positively claimed or not.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the pressure unit” (lines 6-7) lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear as to which pressure unit is being referred to by the limitation “the pressure unit”, it is noted that claim 1, line 2, claims “a plurality of pressure units”.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “preferably controllable independently of the movement of the movable member of a second, adjacent pressure unit” (line 4-5) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, it is unclear as to how to define the term “preferably”, since the term “preferably” is a relative term that indicates a preference, therefore, it is unclear if the limitation after the term “preferably” is being positively claimed or not.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “20 or more, 50 or more, or 100 or more pressure units” (line 2) is unclear if the pressure units in claim 3 are part of the plurality of pressure units being claimed in claim 1, line 2, or the “20 or more, 50 or more, or 100 or more pressure units” are additional relative to the plurality of pressure units being claimed in claim 1, line 2.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “preferably a stimulus selected from the group consisting of an electrical signal, temperature change, a chemical stimulus and combinations thereof, preferably an electrical stimulus, thereby moving the movable member of that pressure unit” (lines 3-6) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, it is unclear as to how to define the term “preferably”, since the term “preferably” is a relative term that indicates a preference, therefore, it is unclear if the limitation after the term “preferably” is being positively claimed or not.
Regarding claims 6, 9 and 15, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a pressure unit” (line 2) is unclear if the pressure unit in line 2 of claim 6 is the same as or different from “a pressure unit” being claimed in claim 4, lines 1-2. Furthermore, it is unclear if the limitation “two actuator elements” in lines 1-2 of claim 7 is the same as or different from the “at least one actuator element” being claimed in claim 4, line 2. If the pressure units are the same, suggest to amend the limitation “wherein two actuator elements of a pressure unit are configured to act as an antagonistic pair” (claim 7, lines 1-2) to --wherein the one or more actuator elements of the pressure unit comprise two actuator elements, the two actuator elements are configured to act as an antagonistic pair-- and the limitation “that pressure unit” in claim 7, lines 5 and 8 to --the pressure unit--.
Regarding claims 8 and 12, the limitation “frame-like” (claim 8, lines 2-3 and claim 12, lines 6-7) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the term “like”, specifically, it is unclear as to how to define the term “like”, what feature makes a support structure a “frame-like” and what features does not make the support structure a “frame-like”. The term “like” is too relative.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “a body part” (line 2) is unclear if the body part is the same as or different from “a body part” being claimed in claim 1, lines 1-2.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “with closure means that can be closed around the body part” (line 3) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, the term “can” can be defined as providing possibility, therefore, it is unclear if the closure means can or cannot be closed around the body part.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a device according to claim 1” (lines 1-2) is unclear if the device is the same as or different from “A device” being claimed in claim 1, line 1. If they are the same, suggest to amend the limitation to --the device according to claim 1--.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “one or more, preferably two or more, actuator elements, each coupled” (lines 5-6) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, it is unclear as to how to define the term “preferably”, since the term “preferably” is a relative term that indicates a preference, therefore, it is unclear if the limitation after the term “preferably” is being positively claimed or not. If the limitation after the term “preferably” is being positively claimed, it is unclear as to how many actuator elements the applicant is trying to claim because the term “one or more” gives the option of one, however, the term “two or more” and “each” means more than one. Therefore, it is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim one or more, or two or more.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “one or more, preferably two or more, actuator elements, each coupled” (lines 4-5) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, it is unclear as to how to define the term “preferably”, since the term “preferably” is a relative term that indicates a preference, therefore, it is unclear if the limitation after the term “preferably” is being positively claimed or not. If the limitation after the term “preferably” is being positively claimed, it is unclear as to how many actuator elements the applicant is trying to claim because the term “one or more” gives the option of one, however, the term “two or more” and “each” means more than one. Therefore, it is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim one or more, or two or more.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “preferably comprise, or consist of, shape memory materials” (lines 4-5) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, it is unclear as to how to define the term “preferably”, since the term “preferably” is a relative term that indicates a preference, therefore, it is unclear if the limitation after the term “preferably” is being positively claimed or not.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “wherein two actuator elements” (line 2) is unclear if the two actuator elements are the same as or different from “one or more, preferably two or more, actuator elements” being claimed in claim 11, line 5.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “preferably for providing compression to a body part of a subject, comprising two or more pressure units according to claim 12” (lines 1-3) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, it is unclear as to how to define the term “preferably”, since the term “preferably” is a relative term that indicates a preference, therefore, it is unclear if the limitation after the term “preferably” is being positively claimed or not.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “two or more pressure units according to claim 12” (lines 2-3) lacks proper antecedent basis, it is noted that claim 12 does not claim two or more pressure units, instead, claim 12 claims “A pressure unit” in line 1. Furthermore, it is unclear if the two or more pressure units are the same as or different from the pressure unit being claimed in claim 12, line 1.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “preferably comprise, or consist of, shape memory materials” (lines 3-4) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, it is unclear as to how to define the term “preferably”, since the term “preferably” is a relative term that indicates a preference, therefore, it is unclear if the limitation after the term “preferably” is being positively claimed or not.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “wherein two actuator elements” (line 1) is unclear if the two actuator elements are the same or different from “one or more, preferably two or more, actuator elements” being claimed in claim 12, line 4.
Any remaining claims are rejected for their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Doraiswamy (2021/0386614).
PNG
media_image1.png
1217
1008
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Doraiswamy discloses a wearable device (compression garment 100 comprising 108 having 200, 300, 400, figs. 1-3A, paragraphs 0149-0175, see the disclosure and drawings of provisional application 63/037,462 for corresponding support) for applying pressure to a body part of a subject (see paragraphs 0149-0150), wherein the device comprises a plurality of pressure units (200, 300, and 400, figs. 3A-3B, paragraphs 0163-0173, see figs. 2 and 7A for the plurality of pressure units), and each pressure unit comprises a support structure (portion comprising 328 of 300 for holding controller 320 and the surrounding frame portion, see figs. 3A-3B, 3D and paragraphs 0165-0166 and the annotated-Doraiswamy fig. 3B above) and a movable member (see the end of 300 in the annotated-Doraiswamy fig. 3B above, paragraphs 0157-0173, Doraiswamy discloses that the frame 200, 300 and 400 are flexible, the wire 118 and frame 400 can be extended or contracted, therefore, the movable member can be flexed manually by the user with sufficient force in three translational degree of freedoms) having three translational degree of freedom relative to the support structure, wherein each pressure unit is connected or connectable to a control unit (see controller and power supply in paragraph 0149, which are then connected to control circuit 320, see paragraphs 0165-0168 and 0171-0175) adapted to control the movement of the movable member relative to the support structure of the pressure unit (see paragraphs 0149 and 0174 and see the disclosure and drawings of provisional application 63/037,462 for corresponding support).
Regarding claim 2, Doraiswamy discloses that the pressure units are configured to apply compression to or remove compression from the body part based on the presence or absence of an applied stimulus, wherein the movement of the movable member of a first pressure unit is preferably controllable independently of the movement of the movable member of a second, adjacent pressure unit (see paragraphs 0171-0175, Doraiswamy discloses that the controller 320 is configured to apply an electrical input to the wire 118 to shorten or lengthen the wire 118 to apply compressive forces or release compressive forces to the limb 106 of the user (paragraph 0174), furthermore, as shown in figs. 2 and 7A relative to figs. 3A-3B, each pressure unit of the plurality of pressure units are separate and independent, therefore, when the pressure units are being controlled, the first pressure unit would be controllable independently of the movement of the movable member of a second, adjacent pressure unit).
Regarding claim 4, Doraiswamy discloses a pressure unit comprises one or more actuator elements coupled to the support structure and to the movable member of that pressure unit and the one or more actuator elements (118 or alternatively, portions of 118, see the annotated-Doraiswamy fig. 3B above, paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-00168 and 0170-0177) are configured to move the movable member of that pressure unit in three dimensions relative to the support structure of that pressure unit (paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-00168 and 0170-0177, Doraiswamy discloses that the wire 118 is a shape memory material that is able to extend and contract to move the movable member, since the device is worn on the user, the device including the movable member is a three dimensional object that moves in three dimensions relative to the support structure).
Regarding claim 5, Doraiswamy discloses a pressure unit comprises one or more actuator elements (118 or alternatively portions of 118, see the annotated-Doraiswamy fig. 3B above, paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-00168 and 0170-0177) that undergo a change in length along an axis of expansion in response to a stimulus, preferably a stimulus selected from the group consisting of an electrical signal, temperature change, a chemical stimulus and combinations thereof, preferably an electrical stimulus, thereby moving the movable member of that pressure unit (paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-00168 and 0170-0177, Doraiswamy discloses that the controller 320 is configured to apply an electrical input to the wire 118 to shorten or lengthen the wire 118 (paragraph 0174)).
Regarding claim 6, Doraiswamy discloses that the one or more actuator elements of a pressure unit comprise, or consist of, a shape memory material, such as a shape memory alloy or shape memory polymer (paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-00168 and 0170-0177, Doraiswamy discloses that wire 118 is made of shape memory alloy or polymer (see paragraph 0162)).
Regarding claim 7, Doraiswamy discloses two actuator elements (defined as a portion/elements of 118 at a particular section, see the annotated-Doraiswamy fig. 3B above, paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-00168 and 0170-0177) of a pressure unit are configured to act as an antagonistic pair of actuator elements, wherein a first actuator element of the antagonistic pair is configured to move the movable member of that pressure unit in a first direction relative to the support structure, the second actuator element of the antagonistic pair is configured to move the movable member of that pressure unit in a second direction relative to the support structure, and the first and second directions are opposite directions (see paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-00168 and 0170-0177 and the annotated-Doraiswamy fig. 3B above, as shown, there are a pair of antagonistic pair of actuator elements, and when wire 118 contracts the movable member, the first actuator element is configured to move the movable member of that pressure unit in a first direction and when 118 extends the movable member, the second actuator element is configured to move the movable member of that pressure unit in a second direction relative to the support structure and the second direction would be opposite from the first direction, it is noted that the claim does not claim that the movement of the movable member in the first and second directions take place simultaneously, furthermore, the first and second pair of actuator elements are antagonistic pair because during contraction of the movable element towards the support structure, the pair of actuators elements would resist or oppose the direction of pulling of the movable member by a user’s hand).
Regarding claim 8, Doraiswamy discloses that the support structure of a pressure unit is a frame and the movable member is a configured to move within the frame or frame-like structure (see the annotated-Doraiswamy fig. 3B above, as sown, the support structure is a frame or frame-like structure).
Regarding claim 9, Doraiswamy discloses that the device is a sleeve (see fig. 1 and paragraphs 0155-0156).
Regarding claim 10, Doraiswamy discloses providing the control unit (320 and controller connected to 104, see figs. 1-3B, see paragraph 0149 and paragraphs 0165-0168 and 0171-0175) with a series of instructions representing a movement pattern for each of the pressure units (see paragraph 0149 and paragraphs 0165-0168 and 0171-0175, the control unit is responsible for providing movement pattern, contraction and extension to apply compressive forces and release compressive forces, furthermore, the method of providing is ex vivo, since from figs. 1-3D, the device is external to the body and the control unit is external to the body, Doraiswamy is silent as to any control unit being provided in vivo).
Regarding claim 11, Doraiswamy discloses a pressure unit (200, 300, and 400, figs. 3A-3B, paragraphs 0163-0173, see figs. 2 and 7A for the plurality of pressure units, and see paragraphs 0149-0175 and see the disclosure and drawings of provisional application 63/037,462 for corresponding support) comprising a support structure (portion comprising 328 of 300 for holding controller 320 and the surrounding frame portion, see figs. 3A-3B, 3D and paragraphs 0165-0166 and the annotated-Doraiswamy fig. 3B above); a movable member (see the end of 300 in the annotated-Doraiswamy fig. 3B above, paragraphs 0157-0173, Doraiswamy discloses that the frame 200, 300 and 400 are flexible, the wire 118 and frame 400 can be extended or contracted, therefore, the movable member can be flexed manually by the user with sufficient force in three translational degree of freedoms) having three translational degrees of freedom relative to the support structure and one or more actuator element (118 or alternatively, portions of 118, see the annotated-Doraiswamy fig. 3B above, paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-00168 and 0170-0177), coupled to the support structure and the movable member (see figs. 3B-3D), and the pressure unit is connected or connectable to a control unit (see controller and power supply in paragraph 0149, which are then connected to control circuit 320, see paragraphs 0165-0168 and 0171-0175) adapted to control the movement of the movable member relative to the support structure (see paragraphs 0149 and 0174, see the disclosure and drawings of provisional application 63/037,462 for corresponding support).
Regarding claim 12, Doraiswamy discloses a pressure unit (200, 300, and 400, figs. 3A-3B, paragraphs 0163-0173, see figs. 2 and 7A for the plurality of pressure units, furthermore, see paragraphs 0149-0175 and see the disclosure and drawings of provisional application 63/037,462 for corresponding support) comprising a support structure (portion comprising 328 of 300 for holding controller 320 and the surrounding frame portion, see figs. 3A-3B, 3D and paragraphs 0165-0166 and the annotated-Doraiswamy fig. 3B above); a movable member (see the end of 300 in the annotated-Doraiswamy fig. 3B above, paragraphs 0157-0173, Doraiswamy discloses that the frame 200, 300 and 400 are flexible, the wire 118 and frame 400 can be extended or contracted) and one or more actuator element (118, fig. 3B, paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-00168 and 0170-0177), coupled to the support structure and the movable member (see figs. 3B-3D), wherein the support structure of the pressure unit is a frame or frame-like structure and the movable member is configured to move within the frame or frame-like structure (see the annotated-Doraiswamy fig. 3B above, as shown, the support structure is a frame or frame-like structure), and the pressure unit is connected or connectable to a control unit (see controller and power supply in paragraph 0149, which are then connected to control circuit 320, see paragraphs 0165-0168 and 0171-0175) adapted to control the movement of the movable member relative to the support structure (see paragraphs 0149 and 0174, see the disclosure and drawings of provisional application 63/037,462 for corresponding support).
Regarding claim 13, Doraiswamy discloses one or more actuator elements (118 or portions of 118, see the annotated-Doraiswamy fig. 3B above, paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-00168 and 0170-0177) are configured to move the movable member in three dimensions relative to the support structure and wherein the one or more actuator elements, preferably comprise of, shape memory materials (paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-00168 and 0170-0177, Doraiswamy discloses that wire 118 is made of shape memory alloy or polymer (see paragraph 0162)).
Regarding claim 14, Doraiswamy discloses that two actuator elements (portion/elements of 118 at a particular section, see the annotated-Doraiswamy fig. 3B above, paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-00168 and 0170-0177) are configured to act as an antagonistic pair of actuator elements, wherein a first actuator element of the antagonistic pair is configured to move the movable member in a first direction relative to the support structure, the second actuator element of the antagonistic pair is configured to move the movable member in a second direction relative to the support structure, and the first and second directions are opposite directions (see paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-00168 and 0170-0177 and the annotated-Doraiswamy fig. 3B above, as shown, there are a pair of antagonistic pair of actuator elements, and when 118 contracts the movable member, the first actuator element is configured to move the movable member of that pressure unit in a first direction and when 118 extends the movable member, the second actuator element is configured to move the movable member of that pressure unit in a second direction relative to the support structure and the second direction would be opposite from the first direction, it is noted that the claim does not claim that the movement of the movable member in the first and second directions take place simultaneously, furthermore, the first and second pair of actuator elements are antagonistic pair because during contraction of the movable element towards the support structure, the pair of actuators elements would resist or oppose the direction of pulling of the movable member by a user’s hand).
Regarding claim 15, Doraiswamy discloses a device, such as a garment, preferably for providing compression therapy to a body part of a subject, comprising two or more pressure units (compression garment 100 comprising 108 having 200, 300, 400, figs. 1-3A, paragraphs 0149-0175).
Regarding claim 16, Doraiswamy discloses that one or more actuator elements (118 or portions of 118, see the annotated-Doraiswamy fig. 3B above, paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-00168 and 0170-0177) are configured to move the movable member in three dimensions relative to the support structure (paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-00168 and 0170-0177, Doraiswamy discloses that the wire 118 is a shape memory material that is able to extend and contract to move the movable member, since the device is worn on the user, the device including the movable member is a three dimensional object that moves in three dimensions relative to the support structure) and wherein the one or more actuator elements preferably comprise, or consist of, shape memory materials (paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-00168 and 0170-0177, Doraiswamy discloses that wire 118 is made of shape memory alloy or polymer (see paragraph 0162)).
Regarding claim 17, Doraiswamy discloses that the two actuator elements (portion/elements of 118 at a particular section, see the annotated-Doraiswamy fig. 3B above, paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-00168 and 0170-0177) are configured to act as an antagonistic pair of actuator elements, wherein a first actuator element of the antagonistic pair is configured to move the movable member in a first direction relative to the support structure, the second actuator element of the antagonistic pair is configured to move the movable member in a second direction relative to the support structure, and the first and second directions are opposite directions (see paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-00168 and 0170-0177 and the annotated-Doraiswamy fig. 3B above, as shown, there are a pair of antagonistic pair of actuator elements, and when 118 contracts the movable member, the first actuator element is configured to move the movable member of that pressure unit in a first direction and when 118 extends the movable member, the second actuator element is configured to move the movable member of that pressure unit in a second direction relative to the support structure and the second direction would be opposite from the first direction, it is noted that the claim does not claim that the movement of the movable member in the first and second directions take place simultaneously, furthermore, the first and second pair of actuator elements are antagonistic pair because during contraction of the movable element towards the support structure, the pair of actuators elements would resist or oppose the direction of pulling of the movable member by a user’s hand).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown (2018/0348593).
Regarding claim 11, Brown discloses a pressure unit (entire unit in figs. 1-3 and control circuit 12 in fig. 4, paragraphs 0022-0042, the entire unit is a pressure unit because the movable member 20 is being moved and pulled, wherein pressure is being applied to the movable member) comprising a support structure (10, figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 0022-0025); a movable member (20 and 21, figs. 1-3, paragraphs 0022-0026) having three translational degrees of freedom relative to the support structure (see paragraphs 0012 and 0031-0032); and one or more actuator elements (30 including 30a, 30b, 30e, 30f, figs. 1-4, paragraphs 0024-0044) each coupled to the support structure and the movable member, and the pressure unit is connected or connectable to a control unit (control circuit 12, fig. 4, paragraphs 0037-0042) adapted to control the movement of the movable member relative to the support structure (see paragraphs 0039-0059).
Regarding claim 12, Brown discloses a pressure unit (entire unit in figs. 1-3 and control circuit 12 in fig. 4, paragraphs 0022-0042, the entire unit is a pressure unit because the movable member 20 is being moved and pulled, wherein pressure is being applied to the movable member) comprising a support structure (10, figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 0022-0025); a movable member (20 and 21, figs. 1-3, paragraphs 0022-0026); and one or more actuator elements (30 including 30a, 30b, 30e, 30f, figs. 1-4, paragraphs 0024-0044) each coupled to the support structure and the movable member, wherein the support structure of the pressure unit is a frame or frame-like structure (see figs. 1-3) and the movable member is configured to move within the frame or frame-like structure (figs. 1-3 and see paragraphs 0012 and 0031-0032), and the pressure unit is connected or connectable to a control unit (control circuit 12, fig. 4, paragraphs 0037-0042) adapted to control the movement of the movable member relative to the support structure (see paragraphs 0039-0059).
Regarding claim 13, Brown discloses that the one or more actuator elements (30 including 30a, 30b, 30e, 30f, figs. 1-4, paragraphs 0024-0044) are configured to move the movable member in three dimensions (see paragraphs 0001, 0012 and 0031-0032) relative to the support structure and wherein the one or more actuator elements preferably comprise, or consist, shape memory materials (see paragraphs 0024-0025 and 0027-0044, see SMA actuator wire 30).
Regarding claim 14, Brown discloses two actuators element (30 including 30a, 30b, 30e, 30f, figs. 1-4, paragraphs 0024-0044) are configured to act as an antagonistic pair of actuators, wherein a first actuator element of the antagonistic pair is configured to move the movable member in a first direction relative to the support structure, the second actuator element of the antagonistic pair is configured to move the movable member in a second direction relative to the support structure, and the first and second directions are opposite directions (see figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 0031-0032 and paragraphs 0027-0039, Brown discloses a plurality of SMA actuator wires 30 that are configured to move the movable member 20 in translational movements with three degrees of freedom, therefore, there would be a first actuator that is configured to move the movable member in a first direction relative to the support structure and a second actuator element of the antagonistic pair that is configured to move the movable member in a second direction relative to the support structure, alternatively, Brown discloses in paragraph 0030 that “Each SMA actuator wires 30 is connected at one end to the support structure 10 and at the other end to the camera lens element 20, selected so that in combination with the inclination of the SMA actuator wires 30, different SMA actuator wires 30 provide components of force in different directions along the z axis and different directions along the x axis or along the y axis. In particular, the pair of SMA actuator wires 30 on any given side of the camera lens element 20 are connected to provide components of force in opposite directions along the z axis, but in the same direction along the x axis or along the y axis. The two pairs of SMA actuator wires 30 on opposite sides of the camera lens element 20 are connected to provide components of force in opposite directions along the x axis or along they axis” and in paragraph 0035 “One SMA actuator wire 30 is provided on each of four sides of the camera lens element 20 in a 2-fold rotationally symmetric arrangement. Each SMA actuator wire 30 extends substantially perpendicular to a line radial of the optical axis of the camera lens element 20, that is substantially perpendicular to the x axis or to the y axis and thus provides a component of force primarily along the x axis or primarily along the y axis. Each SMA actuator wires 30 is connected at one end to the support structure 10 and at the other end to the camera lens element 20. The ends at which the SMA actuator wires 30 are connected to the support structure 10 alternate on successive sides around the z axis. As a result, the pairs of SMA actuator wires 30 on opposing sides provide a component of force in opposite directions along the x axis or in opposite directions along the y axis. However, the torques applied by two pairs of SMA actuator wires 30 are in opposite directions around optical axis (z axis)”).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doraiswamy (2021/0386614).
Regarding claim 3, Doraiswamy discloses a plurality of pressure units (see figs. 2 and 7A), but fails to disclose that there are 20 or more pressure units.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to have 20 or more pressure units for the purpose of providing compression therapy to other parts of the body that are in need of such therapy, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goto (JP 2005133553) is cited to show a compression device comprising a shape memory actuator.
Desseree (WO 2020/144437) is cited to show an SMA actuator.
Ross (2017/0304139) is cited to show a compression wrap.
Cheatham (2016/0058644) is cited to show a compression garment.
Provancher (2009/0036212) is cited to show a movable element movable in three translational degree of freedom.
Holschuh (2015/0073318) (2015/0073319) is cited to show an SMA actuator for a compression garment.
Asvadi (2010/0234779) is cited to show a shape memory pressure unit.
Wyatt (2016/0022528) (10,617,593) (9,326,911) is cited to show a compression garment.
Tozzi (2010/0204803) is cited to show an SMA actuator.
Pamplin (11,707,405) (11,672,729) (2018/0177677) (9,161,878) is cited to show a compression garment.
Bauerfeind (2013/0303957) is cited to show a shape memory wrap.
Gordon (2012/0232447) is cited to show a compression wrap.
Atkinson (7,896,825) is cited to show a compression garment.
Larson (7,857,777) is cited to show a compression garment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU A VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571)272-5139. 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.
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights