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 .
Amendment
This office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 2/20/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 2, 7, 9-10, 14 and 19 have been amended, claim 1 has been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 2-21 are presently pending in the application.
Priority Note
Only the claims of the continuation-in-part application that are disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph in the prior-filed application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior-filed application. Therefore, claims 2-21 are entitled the filing date of 02/20/2018 since none of the prior-filed applications disclose at least an audio sensor, behavior data and user input.
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: “control module configured to activate…” in claims 8, 11 and 18.
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 § 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 8, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8, 11 and 18 recites “the control module,” which lacks proper antecedent basis. As best understood applicant is referring to the controller in their respective independent claims, which is how control module will be interpreted for examination purposes.
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 2-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin et al. (9,161,878) in view of and Magi (2015/0185762).
Regarding claim 2, in fig. 1 and 3A-3B Pamplin discloses a compression device configured to be worn by a user and portable during treatment, the compression device comprising: a flex frame (20a Col. 11, ll. 27-30) comprising: a series of struts (21a-i); and a series of spring links (22a-i, Col. 12, ll. 30-48), each spring link of the series of spring links disposed between adjacent struts of the series of struts (Fig. 3A-3B); a shape memory material having a length (shape memory alloy 40 has a length), the shape memory material configured to be disposed around the series of struts such that the shape memory material crosses over itself between the adjacent struts of the series of struts (Col. 12, ll. 26-29, Fig. 3A-3B); one or more batteries configured to supply electrical current to the shape memory material (Col. 3, ll. 37-40), the electrical current having an electrical current parameter (the electrical current must have current amplitude); a controller 50, the controller configured to adjust the electrical current parameter based on the signals to obtain a modified electrical current parameter (Col. 11, ll. 66-Col. 12, ll. 2, step 124 in fig. 8B); and communicate an adjusted electrical current to the shape memory material to adjust the length of the shape memory material to adjust compression applied to the user (Col. 11, ll. 66-Col. 12, ll. 2, step 124 in fig. 8B), the adjusted electrical current having the modified electrical current parameter (Col. 11, ll. 66-Col. 12, ll. 2, step 124 in fig. 8B), but is silent regarding an audio sensor configured to capture audio associated with words spoken by the user and to generate audio signals corresponding to the audio and the controller in communication with the audio sensor, the controller configured to: receive the audio signals; adjust the electrical current parameter based on the audio signals to obtain a modified electrical current parameter. However, Magi teaches an audio sensor (voice commands [0071][0076]) configured to capture audio associated with words spoken by the user (voice commands [0071][0076]) and to generate audio signals corresponding to the audio (voice commands generate corresponding signals [0071][0076]); and a controller (formable display control logic [0071][0076]) in communication with the audio sensor [0071][0076], the controller configured to: receive the audio signals [0071][0076]; adjust the electrical current parameter based on the audio signals to obtain a modified electrical current parameter (resets the shape memory alloy based on the voice command [0071][0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pamplin’s compression device and controller with the addition of an audio sensor and voice command resetting of the shape memory material, as taught by Magi, for the purpose of allowing for voice command reset adjustment of the device as needed and provide an alternate shape memory alloy adjustment having the predictable results of resetting a shape memory material shape.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Pamplin discloses that the flex frame is one of a plurality of flex frames (20a-20d Col. 11, ll. 27-30 Pamplin), and wherein the compression device is configured to sequentially propagate compression in a distal-to-proximal direction (Col. 2, ll. 19-21 Pamplin).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Pamplin discloses that the electrical current parameter comprises at least one of: a current amplitude (the current amplitude is adjusted by Pamplin to increase or decrease compression, Col. 8, ll. 42-46, Col. 11, ll. 66-Col. 12 Pamplin), a current frequency, or a current waveform.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin and Magi, as applied to claim 3 above, in further view of Senoue et al. (5,233,974).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Pamplin is silent regarding that the compression device is configured to control a speed of propagation of compression. However, Senoue teaches a compression device is configured to control a speed of propagation of compression (Col. 3, ll. 26-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s control module with the addition of control of a speed of propagation of compression, as taught by Senoue, for the purpose of sequentially compressing the user’s leg at a speed desired by the operator.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Pamplin discloses that the compression device is configured to control a frequency of compression (Col. 3, ll. 60-63 Pamplin).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Pamplin discloses that the compression device is configured to control a duration of compression (Col. 2, ll. 37-39 Pamplin).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin and Magi, as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Hyde et al. (2016/0220808).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Pamplin is silent regarding a pressure sensor that detects when the compression device has been placed on the user, and wherein the control module is configured to activate when the pressure sensor detects that the compression device has been placed on the user. However, Hyde teaches a pressure sensor 108 that detects when the compression device has been placed on the user [0071], and wherein the control module is configured to activate when the pressure sensor detects that the compression device has been placed on the user ([0071] “responsive to the one or more sensors 108 detecting pressure or force on a body part, the control electrical circuitry 114 can direct the one or more actuators 110 to cause the flexible compression garment 102 to selectively constrict or selectively dilate in a gradient, such as along the at least one body part 104, or in a pulsatile manner substantially as described herein”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s device with a pressure sensor and activation upon donning, as taught by Hyde, for the purpose of providing immediate and automatic treatment to the user upon donning.
Claims 9-10, 12, 14-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin et al. (9,161,878) in view of Johnson et al. (2017/0312165).
Regarding claim 9, in fig. 1 and 3A-3B Pamplin discloses a compression device configured to be worn by a user and portable during treatment, the compression device comprising: a flex frame (20a Col. 11, ll. 27-30) comprising: a series of struts (21a-i); and a series of spring links (22a-i, Col. 12, ll. 30-48), each spring link of the series of spring links disposed between adjacent struts of the series of struts (Fig. 3A-3B); a shape memory material having a length (shape memory alloy 40 has a length), the shape memory material configured to be disposed around the series of struts such that the shape memory material crosses over itself between the adjacent struts of the series of struts (Col. 12, ll. 26-29, Fig. 3A-3B); one or more batteries configured to supply electrical current to the shape memory material (Col. 3, ll. 37-40), the electrical current having an electrical current parameter (the electrical current must have current amplitude); a controller 50, the controller configured to adjust the electrical current parameter based on the signals to obtain a modified electrical current parameter (Col. 11, ll. 66-Col. 12, ll. 2, step 124 in fig. 8B); and communicate an adjusted electrical current to the shape memory material to adjust the length of the shape memory material to adjust compression applied to the user (Col. 11, ll. 66-Col. 12, ll. 2, step 124 in fig. 8B), the adjusted electrical current having the modified electrical current parameter (Col. 11, ll. 66-Col. 12, ll. 2, step 124 in fig. 8B), but is silent regarding that the controller is configured to: obtain user behavior data indicative of use of the compression device by the user; adjust the compression based on application of a machine learning model to the user behavior data to obtain a modified compression, the machine learning model trained to process the user behavior data; and communicate an adjusted compression to adjust the compression applied to the user. However, Johnson discloses a controller 1206 that is configured to: obtain user behavior data indicative of use of the compression device by the user (“learning” patient habits is behavior data indicative of use of the compression device by the user [0177]); adjust the compression based on application of a machine learning model to the user behavior data to obtain a modified compression [0177][0072][0117], the machine learning model trained to process the user behavior data [0177]; and communicate an adjusted compression to adjust the compression applied to the user [0177]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pamplin’s controller with the addition of adjustment of compression based on learned behavior data, as taught by Johnson, for the purpose of providing convenience, comfort or efficacy of treatment to the user ([0177] Johnson). The modified Pamplin discloses adjustment of the electrical current parameter based on application of a machine learning model to the user behavior data to obtain a modified electrical current parameter (the current amplitude is adjusted based on the modified Pamplin’s compression adjustment [0177] Johnson, Col. 11, ll. 66-Col. 12, ll. 2, step 124 in fig. 8B Pamplin), and the controller is configured to communicate an adjusted electrical current to the shape memory material to adjust the length of the shape memory material to adjust compression applied to the user (the current amplitude is adjusted based on the modified Pamplin’s compression adjustment [0177] Johnson, Col. 11, ll. 66-Col. 12, ll. 2, step 124 in fig. 8B Pamplin), the adjusted electrical current having the modified electrical current parameter (the current amplitude is adjusted based on the desired compression, Col. 11, ll. 66-Col. 12, ll. 2, step 124 in fig. 8B Pamplin).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Pamplin discloses that the electrical current parameter comprises at least one of: a current amplitude (the current amplitude is adjusted by Pamplin to increase or decrease compression, Col. 8, ll. 42-46, Col. 11, ll. 66-Col. 12 Pamplin), a current frequency, or a current waveform.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Pamplin discloses that the flex frame is one of a plurality of flex frames (20a-20d Col. 11, ll. 27-30 Pamplin), and wherein the compression device is configured to sequentially propagate compression in a distal-to-proximal direction (Col. 2, ll. 19-21 Pamplin).
Regarding claim 14, in fig. 1 and 3A-3B Pamplin discloses a compression device configured to be worn by a user and portable during treatment, the compression device comprising: a flex frame (20a Col. 11, ll. 27-30) comprising: a series of struts (21a-i); and a series of spring links (22a-i, Col. 12, ll. 30-48), each spring link of the series of spring links disposed between adjacent struts of the series of struts (Fig. 3A-3B); a shape memory material having a length (shape memory alloy 40 has a length), the shape memory material configured to be disposed around the series of struts such that the shape memory material crosses over itself between the adjacent struts of the series of struts (Col. 12, ll. 26-29, Fig. 3A-3B); one or more batteries configured to supply electrical current to the shape memory material (Col. 3, ll. 37-40), the electrical current having an electrical current parameter (the electrical current must have current amplitude); a controller 50, the controller configured to adjust the electrical current parameter based on the signals to obtain a modified electrical current parameter (Col. 11, ll. 66-Col. 12, ll. 2, step 124 in fig. 8B); and communicate an adjusted electrical current to the shape memory material to adjust the length of the shape memory material to adjust compression applied to the user (Col. 11, ll. 66-Col. 12, ll. 2, step 124 in fig. 8B), the adjusted electrical current having the modified electrical current parameter (Col. 11, ll. 66-Col. 12, ll. 2, step 124 in fig. 8B), but is silent regarding that the controller is in communication with a user interface configured to receive user input, the controller is configured to: receive user input indicative of an adjustment to the compression; adjust the compression based on the user input to obtain a modified compression. However, in fig. 28 Johnson discloses a controller [0208] in communication with a user interface (shown in fig. 28 [0208]) configured to receive user input [0208], the controller is configured to: receive user input indicative of an adjustment to the compression [0208]; adjust the compression based on the user input to obtain a modified compression [0208]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pamplin’s compression device and controller with a user interface that communicates with the controller, as taught by Johnson, for the purpose of providing ease of adjustment to the user. The modified Pamplin discloses that the user input is indicative of an adjustment to the electrical current parameter (the current amplitude is adjusted based on the modified Pamplin’s compression adjustment [0208] Johnson, Col. 11, ll. 66-Col. 12, ll. 2, step 124 in fig. 8B Pamplin); and adjustment of the electrical current parameter is based on the user input to obtain a modified electrical current parameter (the current amplitude is adjusted based on the modified Pamplin’s compression adjustment [0208] Johnson, Col. 11, ll. 66-Col. 12, ll. 2, step 124 in fig. 8B Pamplin).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Pamplin discloses that the flex frame is one of a plurality of flex frames (20a-20d Col. 11, ll. 27-30 Pamplin), and wherein the compression device is configured to sequentially propagate compression in a distal-to-proximal direction (Col. 2, ll. 19-21 Pamplin).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Pamplin discloses that the electrical current parameter comprises at least one of: a current amplitude (the current amplitude is adjusted by Pamplin to increase or decrease compression, Col. 8, ll. 42-46, Col. 11, ll. 66-Col. 12 Pamplin), a current frequency, or a current waveform.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin and Johnson, as applied to claim 9 above, in further view of Hyde et al. (2016/0220808).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Pamplin is silent regarding a pressure sensor that detects when the compression device has been placed on the user, and wherein the control module is configured to activate when the pressure sensor detects that the compression device has been placed on the user. However, Hyde teaches a pressure sensor 108 that detects when the compression device has been placed on the user [0071], and wherein the control module is configured to activate when the pressure sensor detects that the compression device has been placed on the user ([0071] “responsive to the one or more sensors 108 detecting pressure or force on a body part, the control electrical circuitry 114 can direct the one or more actuators 110 to cause the flexible compression garment 102 to selectively constrict or selectively dilate in a gradient, such as along the at least one body part 104, or in a pulsatile manner substantially as described herein”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s device with a pressure sensor and activation upon donning, as taught by Hyde, for the purpose of providing immediate and automatic treatment to the user upon donning.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin and Johnson, as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Senoue et al. (5,233,974).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Pamplin discloses that the compression device is configured to control a frequency of compression (Col. 3, ll. 60-63 Pamplin) and a duration of compression (Col. 2, ll. 37-39 Pamplin), but is silent regarding that the compression device is configured to control a speed of propagation of compression. However, Senoue teaches a compression device is configured to control a speed of propagation of compression (Col. 3, ll. 26-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s control module with the addition of control of a speed of propagation of compression, as taught by Senoue, for the purpose of sequentially compressing the user’s leg at a speed desired by the operator.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin and Johnson, as applied to claim 15 above, in further view of Senoue et al. (5,233,974).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Pamplin is silent regarding that the compression device is configured to control a speed of propagation of compression. However, Senoue teaches a compression device is configured to control a speed of propagation of compression (Col. 3, ll. 26-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s control module with the addition of control of a speed of propagation of compression, as taught by Senoue, for the purpose of sequentially compressing the user’s leg at a speed desired by the operator.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Pamplin discloses that the compression device is configured to control a frequency of compression (Col. 3, ll. 60-63 Pamplin) and a duration of compression (Col. 2, ll. 37-39 Pamplin).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin and Johnson, as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Hyde et al. (2016/0220808).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Pamplin is silent regarding a pressure sensor that detects when the compression device has been placed on the user, and wherein the control module is configured to activate when the pressure sensor detects that the compression device has been placed on the user. However, Hyde teaches a pressure sensor 108 that detects when the compression device has been placed on the user [0071], and wherein the control module is configured to activate when the pressure sensor detects that the compression device has been placed on the user ([0071] “responsive to the one or more sensors 108 detecting pressure or force on a body part, the control electrical circuitry 114 can direct the one or more actuators 110 to cause the flexible compression garment 102 to selectively constrict or selectively dilate in a gradient, such as along the at least one body part 104, or in a pulsatile manner substantially as described herein”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s device with a pressure sensor and activation upon donning, as taught by Hyde, for the purpose of providing immediate and automatic treatment to the user upon donning.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin and Johnson, as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Deshpande (2012/0078146) and Hyde (2016/0220808).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Pamplin is silent regarding an orientation sensor. However, Deshpande teaches an orientation sensor [0027]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s device with the addition of an orientation sensor, as taught by Deshpande, for the purpose of allowing for altered compression depending on the orientation of the user’s limb ([0027] Deshpande). The modified Pamplin is silent regarding a location system. However, Hyde teaches a location system [0075]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s device with the addition of an a location system, as taught by Hyde, for the purpose of allowing for altered compression depending on the location information of the user’s limb ([0075] Hyde).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin and Johnson, as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Hyde (2016/0220808).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Pamplin is silent regarding an optical sensor. However, Hyde teaches an optical pulse sensor [0077]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s device with the addition of an optical sensor, as taught by Hyde, for the purpose of allowing for altered compression depending on the optical sensor readings ([0077] Hyde).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-10 that Magi in view of Pamplin fails to teach "adjust the electrical current parameter based on the audio signals to obtain a modified electrical current parameter; and communicate an adjusted electrical current to the shape memory material to adjust the length of the shape memory material to adjust compression applied to the user, the adjusted electrical current having the modified electrical current parameter" with respect to claim 2.
Examiner disagrees since Pamplin already discloses a controller that adjusts the electrical current parameter based on the signals to obtain a modified electrical current parameter (Col. 11, ll. 66-Col. 12, ll. 2, step 124 in fig. 8B) and communicates an adjusted electrical current to the shape memory material to adjust the length of the shape memory material to adjust compression applied to the user (Col. 11, ll. 66-Col. 12, ll. 2, step 124 in fig. 8B), and Magi is applied to teach an audio sensor (voice commands [0071][0076]) configured to capture audio associated with words spoken by the user (voice commands [0071][0076]) and to generate audio signals corresponding to the audio (voice commands generate corresponding signals [0071][0076]); and a controller (formable display control logic [0071][0076]) in communication with the audio sensor [0071][0076], the controller configured to receive the audio signals [0071][0076]; adjust the electrical current parameter based on the audio signals to obtain a modified electrical current parameter (resets the shape memory alloy based on the voice command [0071][0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pamplin’s compression device and controller with the addition of an audio sensor and voice command resetting of the shape memory material, as taught by Magi, for the purpose of allowing for voice command reset adjustment of the device as needed.
Applicant argues on page 10 that the motivation statement applied is conclusory.
Examiner disagrees since the ability to reset the compression garment as desired by the user is not conclusory, but an advantage provided by Magi.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 that Magi is not related to therapeutic compression.
Applicant’s argument is not taken well since Magi is directed to the same problem as the instant invention of adjusted current of a shape memory material using an audio sensor. Since Pamplin already adjusts current based on sensor signals, it would have been obvious to look to Magi’s voice command adjustment of a shape memory material to reset the shape memory material as desired and provide an alternate shape memory alloy adjustment having the predictable results of resetting a shape memory material shape.
Applicant argues that Magi only teaches a portion of claim 1.
This argument is not taken well because the combination of Pamplin and Magi teach the recited claim 2 above.
Applicant argues on pages 12-13 that Johnson fails to teach communicating an adjusted electrical current with respect to claim 9.
This argument is not taken well since Pamplin already discloses communicating an adjusted electrical current from a controller and Johnson is applied to teach adjusting compression based on behavior data. It would have been obvious to modify Pamplin’s electrical current controller adjustment with adjustment based on behavior data as taught by Johnson for the purpose of controlling compression depending on a user’s behavior.
Applicant argues on page 13 that Johnson does not disclose what is meant by “performance data.”
This argument is not taken well since Johnson teaches “learning” patient habits, which is behavior data indicative of use of the compression device by the user [0177] and is now relied upon to teach the claimed behavior data.
Applicant argues on pages 14-15 that Johnson’s increase and decrease buttons are not for adjustment of electrical current, with respect to claim 14.
This argument is not taken well since Pamplin already discloses communicating an adjusted electrical current from a controller and Johnson is applied to teach adjusting compression based on user input. It would have been obvious to modify Pamplin’s electrical current controller adjustment with adjustment based on user input as taught by Johnson for the purpose of controlling compression depending on a user’s needs.
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 RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1481. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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, 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.
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights