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 .
Claims 1-21, filed 6/26/23, are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/12/23 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because non-patent literature document 2 does not have a date listed on the IDS. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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:
“a feedback control mechanism…” in claims 2 and 10 (corresponding structure is in [0132] “one or more sensors and provided to the controller”).
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 Objections
Claims 1, 14 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “At” in lines 4 and 5 that should not be capitalized.
Claim 14 recites “a chest compression or constriction cycles” which is suggested to be changed to --chest compression or constriction cycles-- for grammatical reasons.
Claim 21 recites “based on measurement” suggested to be changed to --based on a measurement-- for grammatical reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6-8, 10-13, 17 and 21 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 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13 recite “the compressor” however it is unclear which compressor applicant is referring back to.
Claim 4 recites “the abdominal constriction,” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 21 recite “the constrictor” however it is unclear which constrictor applicant is referring back to.
Claims 6 and 7 recite “the timing” in line 1, which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 17 recites “the CPR cycle,” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 21 recites “the location,” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 12 recites “a pneumatic bladder positioned under the patient, wherein the pneumatic bladder under the patient is adapted to inflate simultaneously with the compression of the compressor, thereby applying force on the patient upwards into the compressor” which appears to positively recite the patient.
Claim 14 recites “the airway occluder provides temporary synchronized full or partial obstruction of an airway” which appears to positively recite the airway of a user.
Claim 15 recites “at least one of the at least one compressors is a pneumatic sternal bladder over the sternal area of the anterior chest” which appears to positively recite the anterior chest of a patient.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karve et al. (2014/0155792).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 9 and 11c Karve discloses a cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) device to improve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes of patients suffering cardiac arrest, or other low-flow states, the CPR device comprising: At least one compressor (120 and 118 [0085], or 120 [0085] or 112, 118 and 1104” [0085], [0091]]) adapted to compress a chest of a patient; and At least one constrictor (112 [0085]) adapted to constrict a chest of the patient.
Regarding claim 3, Karve discloses that the at least one compressor is further adapted to forcefully decompress the chest of the patient (via 118 [0085]).
Regarding claim 5, Karve discloses that the at least one constrictor 112 is also the at least one compressor 112 adapted to compress the chest of the patient (112 both compresses and constricts the chest of the patient [0085]).
Regarding claim 9, Karve discloses that the at least one constrictor is selected from the group consisting of a constricting belt (112 [0041]), an inflatable pneumatic device, a series of inflatable pneumatic chambers (or 1104 fig. 11c [0091]), and a band that has inflatable pneumatic chambers on all or a portion of the inner circumference of the band (band 112 with inflatable pneumatic chambers 1104, fig. 11c [0091]).
Regarding claim 11, Karve discloses that the constrictor is adapted to provide non-uniform constriction that provides greater constriction to one area of the chest than another ([0091]).
Regarding claim 12, Karve discloses a pneumatic bladder positioned under the patient (1104” Fig. 11c [0091]), wherein the pneumatic bladder under the patient is adapted to inflate simultaneously with the compression of the compressor ([0063]), thereby applying force on the patient upwards into the compressor ([0091]).
Regarding claim 13, Karve discloses a removable outer structure (118 [0060]) adapted to provide support for the compressor and the constrictor to exert force on the patient (118 provides support to the compressor 120 and constrictor 112 since it is attached to the compressor and constrictor and exerts a decompression force on the patient [0060]).
Regarding claim 15, Karve discloses that at least one of the at least one compressors is a pneumatic sternal bladder (Fig. 11c, anterior bladder 1104” over the sternum) over the sternal area of the anterior chest, and wherein the sternal bladder can be inflated and deflated separately to apply force to the sternal area separately from the force of the constrictor ([0091]).
Regarding claim 16, Karve discloses the sternal bladder is adapted to provide forceful decompression at the sternal area (in combination with 118 [0043-0044]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Halperin et al. (4,928,674).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 1-2 Halperin discloses a cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) device to improve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes of patients suffering cardiac arrest, or other low-flow states, the CPR device comprising: At least one compressor (14, Col. 3, ll. 37-40) adapted to compress a chest of a patient; and At least one constrictor (12, Col. 3, ll. 37-40) adapted to constrict a chest of the patient.
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karve, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Itnati (2010/0198118).
Regarding claim 2, Karve is silent regarding a feedback control mechanism adapted to utilize feedback from the patient to automatically control parameters of the at least one compressor or the at least one constrictor.
However, Itnati teaches a feedback control mechanism adapted to utilize feedback from the patient to automatically control parameters of the at least one compressor or the at least one constrictor ([0129], [0198]-[0206], [0237]-[0260]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karve’s device with the addition of a feedback control mechanism, as taught by Itnati, for the purpose of providing enhanced CPR to a user.
Regarding claim 10, Karve is silent regarding a feedback control mechanism adapted to incorporate feedback from the patient and automatically control individual force contributions of the compressor and the constrictor.
However, Itnati teaches a feedback control mechanism adapted to incorporate feedback from the patient and automatically control individual force contributions of the compressor ([0129], [0198]-[0206], [0237]-[0250] from life-signs sensors 714) and the constrictor ([0129], [0253]-[0260] from life-signs sensors 814). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karve’s device with the addition of a feedback control mechanism, as taught by Itnati, for the purpose of providing enhanced CPR to a user. The modified device would used the feedback control mechanism to control all forces applied by the device, including the individual force contributions of both the at least one compressor and the at least one constrictor.
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karve, as applied to claims 3 and 1 above, respectively, in further view of Petelenz et al. (2006/0047228).
Regarding claim 4, Karve is silent regarding that the compressor is adapted to provide compression and decompression in phase with the abdominal constriction of the constrictor.
However, in fig. 3B Petelenz teaches a compressor that is adapted to provide compression and decompression in phase with the abdominal constriction of the constrictor ([0011] 20a and 20 allow for synchronized compression and decompression of a thorax compressor and abdominal constrictor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karve’s device with the addition of an abdominal constrictor, as taught by Petelenz, for the purpose of providing enhanced CPR to a user.
Regarding claim 20, Karve discloses that the at least one constrictor further comprises a thoracic constrictor 112 adapted to constrict the thorax of the patient, but is silent regarding at least one abdominal constrictor adapted to constrict an abdomen of the patient, and wherein the CPR device further comprises a controller adapted to synchronize the thoracic constrictor, the abdominal constrictor, and at least one of the at least one compressors.
However, in fig. 3-3B Petelenz teaches a thoracic constrictor 36 adapted to constrict the thorax of the patient, an abdominal constrictor 36a adapted to constrict an abdomen of the patient. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karve’s device with the addition of an abdominal constrictor, as taught by Petelenz, for the purpose of providing enhanced CPR to a user. The modified Karve discloses synchronizing the thoracic constrictor ([0011] Petelenz, [0063] Karve), the abdominal constrictor ([0011] Petelenz), and at least one of the at least one compressors ([0063] Karve). The modified Karve discloses that the thoracic constrictor and the at least one of the compressors are synchronized by a controller ([0080][0095] Karve), but is silent regarding that the abdominal constrictor is synchronized by a controller. However, Karve teaches a constrictor controlled by a controller [0095]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Karve’s abdominal constrictor with a controller controlled constrictor, as taught by Karve, for the purpose of providing less work for a CPR provider.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karve, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Hampton et al. (2004/0162587).
Regarding claim 14, Karve is silent regarding an airway occluder, wherein the airway occluder provides temporary synchronized full or partial obstruction of an airway during a portion of a chest compression or constriction cycles.
However, Hampton teaches an airway occlude (valve [0064]), wherein the airway occluder provides temporary synchronized full or partial obstruction of an airway during a portion of a chest compression or constriction cycles [0064]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karve’s device with the addition of an airway occluder, as taught by Hampton, for the purpose of providing enhanced CPR to a user.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halperin, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Ideker et al. (2005/0119706).
Regarding claim 17, Halperin is silent regarding pneumatic shoulder bladders adapted to encompass the region between the supraclavicular sulcas in the front over the shoulders to the suprascapular region in the back and provide compression during a portion of the CPR cycle.
However, in fig. 9 Ideker teaches pneumatic shoulder bladders adapted to encompass the region between the supraclavicular sulcas in the front over the shoulders to the suprascapular region in the back and provide compression during a portion of the CPR cycle (the shoulder bladders of vest 40v [0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Halperin’s bladders with vests including shoulder bladders, as taught by Ideker, for the purpose of providing further compression to the user.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karve, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Hanson (2014/0213942).
Regarding claim 18, Karve discloses a decompression element 118 on a patient side of a compressor 120 (abstract, fig. 1b), but is silent regarding wherein at least one of the at least one compressors has a flexible diaphragm within a hardened bell structure on a patient side of the compressor, and wherein application of positive pressure above the diaphragm augments compression, and application of negative pressure above the diaphragm augments sternal decompression.
However, Hanson teaches a compressor having a flexible diaphragm (66 [0035]) within a hardened (has a solid structure) bell structure (22 and 18) on a patient side of the compressor, and wherein application of positive pressure above the diaphragm augments compression [0032-0033][0054], and application of negative pressure above the diaphragm augments sternal decompression ([0032-0033][0054-0055] due to the adhesive maintaining the device’s location). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Karve's compressor with the addition of a flexible diaphragm within a hardened bell structure is on the patient side of the compressor, as taught by Hanson, for the purpose of providing an alternate compression and decompression structure having the predictable results of providing compression and decompression to a user.
Regarding claim 19, Karve discloses a decompression element 118 on a patient side of a compressor 120 (abstract, fig. 1b), but is silent regarding wherein at least one of the at least one compressors has a flexible diaphragm within a hardened bell structure on a patient side of the compressor, and wherein application of positive pressure above the diaphragm augments compression, and application of negative pressure above the diaphragm augments sternal decompression.
However, Hanson teaches a compressor having a flexible diaphragm (66 [0035]) within a hardened (has a solid structure) bell structure (22 and 18) on a patient side of the compressor, and wherein the hardened bell structure with the flexible diaphragm is configured to attach to the patient when negative pressure is applied above the diaphragm [0032-0033][0054], so that the bell structure with the flexible diaphragm can be used to pull on the chest of the patient ([0032-0033][0054-0055] at least somewhat due to the adhesive maintaining the device’s location). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Karve's compressor with the addition of a flexible diaphragm within a hardened bell structure is on the patient side of the compressor, as taught by Hanson, for the purpose of providing an alternate compression and decompression structure having the predictable results of providing compression and decompression to a user.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karve, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Schock et al. (5,490,820).
Regarding claim 21, Karve is silent regarding that the location on the thorax that is displaced by the constrictor changes adaptively based on measurement of a biomarker. However, in fig. 3 Schock teaches that the location on the thorax that is displaced by the constrictor changes adaptively based on measurement of a biomarker (Col. 11, ll. 11-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Karve's constrictor bladders with inflation that changes adaptively based on measurement of a biomarker, as taught by Schock, for the purpose of synchronizing chest compressions (anterior bladder inflation) with cardiac diastole, to raise aortic pressure and cardiac output (Col. 11, ll. 11-25 Schock).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,285,621. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim 7 further recites “a suction cup” not found in the instant claim. Therefore, any infringement over patented claim would result in infringement over current claims.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 19/192,127. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claim 8 further recites “a suction cup” not found in the instant claim. Therefore, any infringement over patented claim would result in infringement over current claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Freeman et al. (2014/0052032) directed to compression and ventilation system, Flood (2011/0098611) directed towards a compression and ventilation system and Newman et al. (4,424,806) directed towards a compression and ventilation system.
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