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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the filing of the application on 1/3/2024. Since the initial filing, no claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Thus, claims 1-19 are pending in the application.
Drawing Objections
2. The drawings are objected to for the following informalities:
The drawings are objected to because of the unlabeled boxes and shapes shown in Fig. 1. The drawings should be provided with suitable descriptive legends or labels. See: 37 CFR 1.84 (n) and (o). Descriptive legends may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. Labeling of the blank boxes and shapes will facilitate a clear understanding of the drawings without undue reliance on the specification for understanding of the subject matter depicted therein.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the features canceled from the claims: (1) “a multi-compartment pneumatic device having fluid conduits between adjacent compartments” (claim 11, ln. 1-2); (2) “each more distal compartment” and “the adjacent proximal compartment” (claim 12, ln. 2-3); (3) and “each fluid conduit comprises a valve” (claim 13, ln. 1). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation- 35 USC § 112 – Sixth Paragraph/35 USC § 112(f)
3. 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.
At present, no claims are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Claim Objections
4. Claims 3, 14, 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, the term “the inflation air cells” (ln. 1) should read –the one or more inflation air cells-- for the sake of consistency with how the term is introduced in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “the pressure, flow rate, flow volume, and timing of fluid flows is selectively controllable” (ln. 1-2) should read -- the pressure, flow rate, flow volume, and timing of fluid flows are selectively controllable--.
Regarding claim 16, the term “transduce signal” (ln. 1) should read –transduced signal--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-17 and 19 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 “which pressure is synchronized with a transduced real time signal representative of the mammal’s cardiac cycle” (ln. 3-4) renders the claim unclear if the claim is directed to an apparatus or a method of using the apparatus. For the purposes of examination, claim 1 will be interpreted as an apparatus that is “configured to” exert pressure that is synchronized with a transduced real time signal representative of the mammal’s cardiac cycle.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein the apparatus alternately applies negative pressure to improve arterial blood flow and positive pressure to increase venous blood flow” (ln. 1-2) renders the claim unclear if the claim is directed to an apparatus or a method of using the apparatus. For the purposes of examination, claim 2 will be interpreted as an apparatus that is “configured to” alternately apply negative pressure to improve arterial blood flow and positive pressure to increase venous blood flow.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “using a valve on the outer shell” (ln. 3) is unclear if the valve itself is considered part of the claim. For the purposes of examination, the process of filling the space between the inner shell and the outer shell is not considered part of the overall apparatus claim, whereby use of the valve is also not considered part of the claim. Rather, the claim will be interpreted as an apparatus having the double walled chamber configured to resist deformation during inflation or suction when fluid is located between the inner inflatable shell and the outer inflatable shell. The valve itself is not considered part of the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the limb is padded and sealed to the inner shell by a curable material” (ln. 2-3) renders the claim unclear if the claim is directed to an apparatus or a method of applying the apparatus to a limb of user. For the purposes of examination, claim 5 will be interpreted as an apparatus claim requiring padding and a seal configured to be attached to the limb of the user, but not requiring a “curable material” since the curable material does not appear to be part of the apparatus itself.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the negative pressure is varied in timed relation to a transduced signal that is indicative of cardiovascular activity” (ln. 1-2) renders the claim unclear if the claim is directed to an apparatus or a method of using the apparatus. For the purposes of examination, claim 6 will be interpreted as an apparatus “configured to” apply a negative pressure that is varied in time relation to a transduced signal that is indicative of cardiovascular activity.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein negative pressure is exerted at the distal segment of the mammal's limb” (ln. 1-2) renders the claim unclear if the claim is directed to an apparatus or a method of using the apparatus. For the purposes of examination, claim 7 will be interpreted as an apparatus “configured to” apply a negative pressure at the distal segment of the mammal’s limb.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the negative pressure is varied in timed relation to inflation of the immediately proximal inflatable chamber” (ln. 1-2) renders the claim unclear if the claim is directed to an apparatus or a method of using the apparatus. For the purposes of examination, claim 8 will be interpreted as an apparatus “configured to” apply a negative pressure that is varied in time relation to inflation of the immediately proximal inflatable chamber. Additionally, the term “the immediately proximal inflatable chamber” (ln. 2) lacks an antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear how “at least one” of three separate steps can be performed “simultaneously or sequentially.” In the instance of only one step being selected, it is not possible for a single step to be performed “simultaneously or sequentially” because no other steps exist in the method. For the purposes of examination, claim 9 will be interpreted as only requiring any of steps (i)-(iii) to be performed.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the negative pressure is applied by progressively decreasing negative pressure to the limb” (ln. 1-2) renders the claim unclear if the claim is directed to an apparatus or a method of using the apparatus. For the purposes of examination, claim 10 will be interpreted as an apparatus “configured to” apply progressively decreasing negative pressure to the limb.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “the pressure, flow rate, flow volume, and timing of fluid flows varied in timed relation to a transduced signal that is indicative of cardiovascular activity” (ln. 1-2) renders the claim unclear if the claim is directed to an apparatus or a method of using the apparatus. For the purposes of examination, claim 15 will be interpreted as an apparatus “configured to” vary the pressure, flow rate, flow volume, and timing of fluid flows in timed relation to a transduced signal that is indicative of cardiovascular activity.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “wherein the transduced signal is derived from a pulse oximeter” (ln. 1) is unclear if the “pulse oximeter” is actually required as part of the claimed apparatus. For the purposes of examination, claim 16 will be interpreted as requiring a pulse oximeter as part of the claimed apparatus. A suggestion for correction is --wherein the apparatus includes a pulse oximeter configured to generate the transduced signal--.
Regarding claim 17, the scope of the claim is unclear because not transitional phrase is recited (e.g. “comprising the steps of”). A transitional phrase is needed to define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim. See MPEP 2111.03. Additionally, the limitation “wherein the following treatment parameters may be independently varied” (ln. 1-2. Emphasis added by examiner) is unclear if the subsequent treatment parameters are required to be independently varied due to the use of the phrase “may be.” For the purposes of examination, the independently varying the listed treatment parameters is considered optional and not required by the claim. Additionally, use of the term “e.g.” (ln. 5) and “optionally” (ln. 6) render the claim unclear if the limitation is optional. For the purposes of examination, these limitations will be considered optional.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “peripheral arterial diseases in which traditional or standard treatments are contraindicated or not advised” (ln. 5-6) are unclear as to what type of treatments qualify as “traditional” or “standard.” Furthermore, it is unclear what source determines what is “contraindicated” or “not advised.” For the purposes of examination, any type of “peripheral arterial diseases” will be considered sufficient to meet this claim limitation.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claim 5 is 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).
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the double walled inflatable chamber is positioned over the mammal’s limb, and the limb is padded and sealed to the inner shell” (ln. 1-2) positively claims part of a human organism (i.e. the limb). A suggestion for correction is to recited –wherein the double walled inflatable chamber is configured to be positioned over the mammal’s limb--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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 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.
10. Claims 1-2, 6-12, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rastegar (2003/0216672).
Regarding claim 1, Rastegar discloses an apparatus for pulse cycle pressure modulation and negative pressure therapy treatment of a limb of a mammal (Fig. 1 depicts such an apparatus with Fig. 6 depicts a variation configured to be used with the overall system of Fig. 1 and designed to treat the foot of a human. See annotated Figs. 1 and 6 below for convenience) comprising a pneumatic system (Annotated Fig. 1 highlights the “pneumatic system” which includes a pressure and vacuum source 160, a control unit 170, and a tubing system 150 that leads to the chamber 102. Such an pneumatic system would also be used with the shell 202 in the variation of Fig. 6) for exerting negative pressure upon a tissue of the limb of the mammal which pressure is synchronized with a transduced real time signal representative of the mammal's cardiac cycle ([0075] discloses pressurization and vacuum cycles that are synchronized with the cardiac systole and diastole, which is detected by sensor 180).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
334
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Rastegar discloses the apparatus alternately applies negative pressure to improve arterial blood flow and positive pressure to increase venous blood flow ([0075] discloses negative pressure while blood is being pumped into the injured region (which occurs in the arteries) and positive pressure as blood is being pumped out of the injured region (which occurs in the veins)) and the apparatus comprises a transducer for signal input of the cardiac cycle (Fig. 1, sensor 180), a microcontroller-based control module and an associated computing system (Fig. 1, control unit 170 is equipped with a microcomputer to regulate the supply of pressurized air and vacuum to the chamber; see [0072]), an air compressor (Fig. 2, compressor 161), an air reservoir (Fig. 2, pressure tank 163 and vacuum tank 164 are both air reservoirs), one or more inflation valves (Fig. 2, valve unit 172), conduits (Fig. 1, tubing system 150), electronic circuitry for controlling the inflation valves (Fig. 12, solenoid valves 402 are part of the valve unit 172, wherein solenoid valves require electronic circuitry to operate); see [0077]), and one or more inflation air cells adapted to compress tissue (Fig. 1, enclosed chamber 102 and Fig. 6, shell 202 are “inflation air cells” in the same manner as applicant’s embodiment of Fig. 2 is an “inflation air cell”).
Regarding claim 6, Rastegar discloses the negative pressure is varied in timed relation to a transduced signal that is indicative of cardiovascular activity ([0075] discloses applying negative pressure as dependent upon the cardiac cycle as indicated by sensor 180).
Regarding claim 7, Rastegar discloses negative pressure is exerted at the distal segment of the mammal's limb (Fig. 6 depicts pressure exerted at the foot, which is the distal end of a human’s leg).
Regarding claim 8, Rastegar discloses the negative pressure is varied in timed relation to inflation of the immediately proximal inflatable chamber ([0077] discloses sequential negative pressurization application within the enclosure).
Regarding claim 9, Rastegar discloses a method for pulse cycle pressure modulation and negative pressure therapy, wherein at least one of the following steps is performed simultaneously or sequentially:(i) applying positive pressure at a limb during systole; (ii) applying negative pressure at a wound site during systole;(iii) applying positive pressure at a tissue site on the limb during diastole ([0075] discloses applying negative pressure to the wound site as blood is being pumped to the wound site, which occurs during systole).
Regarding claim 10, Rastegar discloses the negative pressure is applied by progressively decreasing negative pressure to the limb ([0078] discloses exhausting air before switching phases, which would thereby decrease negative pressure as the valves open and pressure is released).
Regarding claim 11, Rastegar discloses a multi-compartment pneumatic device having fluid conduits between adjacent compartments (Fig. 10 depicts an embodiment of the shell 202 that has a plurality of compartments or “bubbles” that are connected to one another via fluid conduits; see annotated Fig. 10 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
419
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Rastegar discloses the fluid conduits are sized to provide progressive changes in negative pressure within each more distal compartment when such pressure is changed in the adjacent proximal compartment ([0077] discloses sequential negative pressure, whereby the fluid conduits running between the bubbles 251 would act to provide “progressive changes in negative pressure” within each more distal compartment).
Regarding claim 14, Rastegar discloses the pressure, flow rate, flow volume, and timing of fluid flows is selectively controllable ([0072], control unit 171 would control all of these parameters. [0078] additionally explicitly discloses pressure control with feedback from pressure sensors 416).
Regarding claim 15, Rastegar discloses the pressure, flow rate, flow volume, and timing of fluid flows varied in timed relation to a transduced signal that is indicative of cardiovascular activity ([0075] discloses applying positive/negative pressure as dependent upon the cardiac cycle as indicated by sensor 180, wherein application of the positive/negative pressure includes control over the claimed parameters).
Regarding claim 17, Rastegar discloses a method of treating a vertebrate organism using the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the following treatment parameters may be independently varied:(a) delay in time from largest detected signal of cardiac activity at which time the most proximal compartment inflation begins; (b) exerting negative pressure at the distal segment of the organism's limb, e.g., the foot or hand or any other optionally selected body-part; (c) maximal pressure in one or more compartments; (d) duration of compartment inflation;(e) time after inflation of most proximal compartment when the next compartment inflation begins; (f) pressure of each successive compartment, relative to its most immediate neighboring proximal compartment; and (g) duration of treatment (See 35 USC 112(b) above, whereby independently varying each of these treatment parameters is considered optional due to use of the term “may be” in line 2 of the claim. Therefore, Rastegar meets the scope of claim 17).
Regarding claim 18, Rastegar discloses a method of treating a wound of a vertebrate organism (Abstract discloses treating “damages skin” of a patient. [0010] provides an example of a burn wound) comprising the steps of (a) detecting cardiovascular activity of the organism (Fig. 1, sensor 180 detects the cardiac cycles of the user; see [0075]); (b) applying varying sub-atmospheric pressures to a wound site of the organism in timed relation with the detected cardiovascular activity ([0075] discloses pressurization and vacuum cycles that are synchronized with the cardiac systole and diastole of the patient).
Regarding claim 19, Rastegar discloses a method of treating one or more of the following human conditions: peripheral arterial obstructive disease; microangiopathy; vasculitis; vasa vasorum disease; complex regional pain syndrome; frostbite; erythromelalgia; trauma induced limb wound; chronic limb wound; diabetic neuropathic wounds; trench foot; Raynaud's disease; vasa nervosum disease; peripheral neuropathy; and peripheral arterial diseases in which traditional or standard treatments are contraindicated or not advised ([0010] provides an example of a burn wound, which is considered a “trauma induced limb wound”); by the steps of (a) detecting cardiovascular activity of the human (Fig. 1, sensor 180 detects the cardiac cycles of the user; see [0075]); (b) applying varying sub-atmospheric pressures to one or more somatic sites on the human in timed relation with the detected cardiovascular activity ([0075] discloses pressurization and vacuum cycles that are synchronized with the cardiac systole and diastole of the patient).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 of this title, 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegar, as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Loori et al (2006/0185670).
Regarding claim 3, Rastegar discloses the one or more inflation cells comprising a chamber for exerting negative pressure on a mammalian limb (Fig. 6 depicts a chamber formed by shell 202 for exerting negative pressure on the foot of a limb of a human).
Rastegar does not disclose the one or more inflation air cells comprising inflatable double walled chambers.
However, Loori teaches a hyperbaric device for treating the foot of a user comprising a collapsible bag formed of an inflatable double walled chamber (Figs. 2-3 enclosure 12 is a collapsible bag formed of an outer sheet 24 and an inner sheet 26 that is inflated when gas filled the space 25 between the two sheets). Loori teaches that the bag transitions into a “rigid state” when gas is delivered between the sheets 24 and 26 ([0022])
PNG
media_image4.png
247
536
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
576
780
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 foot chamber of Rastegar to comprise an inflatable double wall as taught by Loori. Having the chamber be an inflatable double wall allows it to collapse for easier storage and transport.
Regarding claim 4, the modified apparatus of Rastegar has the double walled chambers each comprising inner and outer inflatable shells wherein once a fluid is introduced between the inner inflatable shell and outer inflatable shell using a valve on the outer shell, the double walled chamber resists deformation during subsequent inflation or suction (Loori, [0022], discloses that the bag transitions into a “rigid state” when gas is delivered between the sheets 24 and 26. It is noted that the valve on the outer shell is not considered part of the claim. See 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 4 above. Finally, once Loori’s double walled chamber is in its rigid state, it resists deformation to the inflation or suction that would occur within the chamber in the modified device of Rastegar).
Regarding claim 5, the modified apparatus of Rastegar has the double walled inflatable chamber configured to be positioned over the mammal's limb (Rastegar, Fig. 6, depicts the chamber positioned over the foot of the user. The modified apparatus would use the double-walled structure of Loori for its chamber), and the limb is padded and sealed to the inner shell by a curable material (Rastegar, [0080], discloses a soft sealing material 212 that is considered both “padding” and a “seal.” Medical adhesive tape 208 (which may have curable adhesive) may also be used. However, it is noted that the “curable material” is not considered part of the claimed apparatus. See 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 5 above).
14. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegar, as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Mansur et al (2014/0276294).
Regarding claim 13, Rastegar discloses a desire to have pressure applied in a sequential manner ([0038] and [0077]).
Rastegar does not disclose each fluid conduit comprising a valve.
However, Masur teaches a pressure treatment garment comprising a plurality of inflatable bladders that are connected to one another via fluid conduits containing valves (Figs. 4-5, air chambers 110, 112, and 114 are connected to one another via pressure resistive valves 116 and 118). Use of this conduit and valve configuration between bladders ensures a progressively distal-to-proximal force application within the
PNG
media_image6.png
309
367
media_image6.png
Greyscale
limb ([0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the chamber of Rastegar to have valves within the fluid conduits connecting the plurality of compartments as taught by Masur to ensure a progressive/sequential pressurization of the chamber to assist in blood flow within the limb.
15. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegar, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kamm et al (2003/0009119).
Regarding claim 16, Rastegar does not disclose the transduced signal derived from a pulse oximeter.
However, Kamm teaches a wound healing device that applies external compression that is synchronized with the cardiac cycle of the patient ([0011]). Kamm detects the cardiac cycle by using a pulse oximeter ([0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the cardiac sensor of Rastegar a pulse oximeter as taught by Kamm. Such a sensor would be an easy and non-invasive way to determine the patient’s cardiac cycle.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A STANIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5139. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:30-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justine Yu can be reached on 571-272-4835. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785