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 amendment filed on 6/17/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-2, 4, 13, 16-18 and 20 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-20 are presently pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis et al. (2013/0310719).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 7a-7b Davis discloses a device 200 for providing a therapeutic stimulus to a subject, comprising: a material 273 configured to cover a portion of the subject [0053], the material having an inner surface (surface of 273 shown in fig. 7a) for engaging a surface of the subject [0053] and an exterior surface (surface of 273 facing chamber members 204) arranged to face away from the surface of the subject; a network of flexible [0026][0034] cells (106 and 204) coupled to the material [0053], each flexible cell of the network of flexible cells having an internal cavity (within chamber 204); at least one channel (120 in fig. 2, not labeled, but shown in fig. 7A); and a working material [0026] disposed within the internal cavities of the network of flexible cells; wherein the at least one channel 120 is arranged to allow exchange of the working material between the flexible cells of the network of flexible cells due to application of force upon the network of flexible cells from movement of the engaged surface of the subject [0026].
Regarding claim 2, Davis discloses at least one cell of the network of flexible cells comprises: a perimeter wall 127 proximate to and extending away from the exterior surface of the material; an inner layer 129 proximate to the exterior surface of the material and coupled to the perimeter wall; and an outer layer 125 substantially parallel to the inner layer and displaced from the inner layer by the perimeter wall, the outer layer coupled to the perimeter wall (Fig. 3A-3C); wherein the perimeter wall, the inner layer, and the outer layer define the internal cavity of the at least one cell (Fig. 3A-3C).
Regarding claim 4, Davis discloses the perimeter wall of at least one other cell of the network of flexible cells is less elastic than the inner layer of the at least one cell (different chambers may have different resiliencies [0045]).
Regarding claim 5, Davis discloses the device is configured to interface with a predetermined portion of the subject [0022].
Regarding claim 6, Davis discloses the device is customized to interface with a predetermined portion of the subject [0022].
Regarding claim 7, Davis discloses configured to provide targeted stimulation to a specific portion of the subject using a varying fluidic resistance among the network of flexible cells or the at least one channel [0045].
Regarding claim 8, Davis discloses the material is configured to be tightly fit against the portion of the subject [0029].
Regarding claim 9, Davis discloses the portion of the subject is an extremity [0022] or joint of the subject [0029].
Regarding claim 10, Davis discloses the working material is fluid or gel [0026].
Regarding claim 14, Davis discloses at least one flexible cell of the network of flexible cells has a strength that is different from a strength of another flexible cell of the network of flexible cells (due to different resiliencies [0045]).
Regarding claim 15, Davis discloses at least one flexible cell of the network of flexible cells comprises an elastomer [0045].
Regarding claim 16, Davis discloses wherein the at least one channel 120 comprises at least two channels (each of 120 coming off of a cell) and a first channel of the at least two channels has a size that is different from a size of a second channel of the at least two channels (different cross sectional areas for different channels 120 [0045]).
Regarding claim 17, Davis discloses that the size of at least one cell of the network of flexible cells is different from the size of another cell of the network of flexible cells (different shapes of the chamber members 104 [0045]).
Regarding claim 18, in fig. 7a-7b Davis discloses a therapeutic garment (200 [0022]), comprising: a plurality of cells (106 and 204), each cell of the plurality of cells comprising: a perimeter wall 127; an inner layer 129 configured to engage a surface of a subject (Fig. 3A and 7A [0053]); and an outer layer 125 substantially parallel to the inner layer (Fig. 3A) and displaced from the inner layer by the perimeter wall (Fig. 3A); wherein the perimeter wall, inner layer, and outer layer define an internal cavity 105; a plurality of channels 120, each channel of the plurality of channels coupling the internal cavity of one cell of the plurality of cells to the internal cavity of another cell of the plurality of cells (Fig. 7A); and a working material [0026] disposed in the internal cavity of at least one of the plurality of cells and the plurality of channels; wherein the plurality of cells, plurality of channels, and working material form a cell pack (Fig. 7A) wherein the plurality of channels is arranged to allow exchange of the working material between the plurality of cells due to application of force upon the plurality of cells from movement of the engaged surface of the subject (When force is applied against bladder 106, flexible inner layer 129 moves since the person’s leg moves during compression of bladder 106, such as with walking movement, and flexible inner layer 129 is attached to the user’s leg [0026]. Alternatively, due to the flexible material of the flexible cells, movement of the inner layer 129, such as by flexing of the calf or bending the leg when the wrap is wrapped around both the upper and lower leg [0022], would create a force upon the flexible cells, which in turn would move the working fluid [0026]).
Regarding claim 19, Davis discloses that the garment is configured to provide targeted redistribution of the working material within the cell pack [0026].
Regarding claim 20, in fig. 7a-7b Davis discloses method for applying a therapeutic treatment to a subject [0026], comprising: attaching a therapeutic device to a portion of a surface of the subject [0022], the therapeutic device comprising: a material 173 configured to engage a surface of the subject [0053]; a network of flexible cells (106 and 204) coupled to the material, each flexible cell of the network of flexible cells having an internal cavity 105; at least one channel 120; and a working material [0026] disposed within the internal cavities of the network of flexible cells; wherein the at least one channel is arranged to allow exchange of the working material between the flexible cells of the network of flexible cells due to application of force upon the network of flexible cells from movement of the engaged surface of the subject [0026].
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hardman et al. (9,011,353).
Regarding claim 3, Davis discloses that the cell may be formed of any shape, but does not explicitly recite that the perimeter wall of the at least one cell forms a hexagon. However, in fig. 2 Hardman teaches a perimeter wall of at least one cell 232 forms a hexagon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis’ at least one cell perimeter wall shape with a hexagon, as taught by Hardman, for the purpose of providing an alternate shape having the predictable results of providing compression therapy to a user.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hall et al. (2003/0004445).
Regarding claim 11, Davis discloses that the working material is a gel, but is silent regarding that the gel is a hydrogel. However, Hall teaches a compression device having a hydrogel working material [0054]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis’ gel working material with hydrogel, as taught by Hall, for the purpose of providing an alternate working material having the predictable results of providing compression therapy to a user.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schwirian et al. (2016/0095787).
Regarding claim 12, Davis is silent regarding that the working material is a non-Newtonian fluid. However, Schwirian teaches a compression device having a non-Newtonian working fluid [0022]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis’ gel working material with a non-Newtonian fluid, as taught by Schwirian, for the purpose of providing an alternate working material having the predictable results of providing compression therapy to a user.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dye et al. (4,029,087).
Regarding claim 13, Davis is silent regarding that the at least one channel comprises more than one channel coupled to and extending from a first cell of the network of flexible cells to a second cell of the network of flexible cells. However, in fig. 12 Dye teaches that the at least one channel 94 comprises more than one channel coupled to and extending from a first cell of the network of flexible cells to a second cell of the network of flexible cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis’ at least one channel with more than one channel extending from a first cell of the network of flexible cells to a second cell of the network of flexible cells, as taught by Dye, for the purpose of providing an alternate number of channels having the predictable results of dispersing working fluid.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-10 that Davis fails to disclose the claim language of "allow exchange of the working material between the flexible cells of the network of flexible cells due to application of force upon the network of flexible cells from movement of the engaged surface of the subject" since Davis’ compression bladder 106, which is under the foot of the user, rather than surface 273, which the office relies on for engaging the subject, that causes movement of the fluid.
This argument is not taken well. When force is applied against bladder 106, flexible surface 273 moves since the person’s leg moves during compression of bladder 106, such as with walking movement, and flexible surface 273 is attached to the user’s leg. Alternatively, due to the flexible material of both sheet 273 and the flexible cells, movement of the inner sheet 273, such as by flexing of the calf or bending the leg when the wrap is wrapped around both the upper and lower leg [0022], would create a force upon the flexible cells, which in turn would move the working fluid. Therefore, Davis discloses the claimed language.
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