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 6/2/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-13, 19-25 and 27-28 have been amended, claims 14-18 have been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-13 and 19-28 are presently pending in the application.
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 first compression element…configured to apply” in claims 1, 2 and 3 (corresponding language is “straps” [0034]).
“a second compression element…configured to apply” in claims 1, 2 and 3 (corresponding language is “straps” [0034]).
“an actuation module” in claim 3 (corresponding structure is at least a motor and motor barrel, [0004])
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 § 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 3 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moomiaie-Qajar et al. (2008/0319359) in view of Johnson et al. (2017/0312161).
Regarding claim 3, in fig. 1 Moomiaie-Qajar discloses a system, comprising: an actuation module (structure in fig. 1 excluding straps 20); a first compression element (top strap 20) coupled to the actuation module and configured to apply compression to a limb when placed around the limb [0099]; a second compression element (middle strap 20) coupled to the actuation module and configured to apply compression to the limb when placed around the limb [0099]; motor barrels 18 included in the actuation module, at least one motor barrel being rotatable independently of another motor barrel ([0089] “a controller system may sequentially command a plurality of the actuators to activate”), but is silent regarding at least one sensor is configured to measure pressure applied by the first and second compression elements to the limb and rotating at least one motor barrel based on at least measured pressure. However, Johnson teaches at least one sensor that is configured to measure pressure applied by the first and second compression elements to the limb [0136] and rotating at least one motor barrel based on at least measured pressure [0136]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moomiaie-Qajar’s straps with the addition of a pressure sensor, as taught by Johnson, for the purpose of further helping to control the compression applied to the user ([0136] Johnson). The modified Moomiaie-Qajar discloses a controller ([0089] Moomiaie-Qajar) operably coupled to the at least one sensor ([0089] Moomiaie-Qajar, [0136] Johnson) and the actuation module ([0089] Moomiaie-Qajar), the controller configured to, in response to data obtained by the at least one sensor, automatically cause the first and second compression elements to apply compression to the limb up to a predetermined threshold of pressure ([0136] Johnson).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Moomiaie-Qajar discloses that the first compression element is a first strap (upper strap 20 Moomiaie-Qajar), the first strap having a first end (end that is coiled around the drum [0133] Moomiaie-Qajar) and a second end (end that is fixed [0133] Moomiaie-Qajar); and the second compression element is a second strap (middle strap 20 Moomiaie-Qajar), the second strap having a first end (end that is coiled around the drum [0133] Moomiaie-Qajar) and a second end (end that is fixed [0133] Moomiaie-Qajar).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Moomiaie-Qajar discloses the first strap is configured such that pulling the first end of the first strap while the second end of the first strap remains fixed and is configured to shorten the first strap around the limb ([0133] Moomiaie-Qajar).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Moomiaie-Qajar is silent regarding a plurality of sensors are configured to measure a rate of blood flow in the limb; and wherein the controller is communicatively coupled to the plurality of sensors such that the controller causes transition between first and second operating conditions based on measured rate of blood flow in the limb. However, Johnson teaches a plurality of sensors that are configured to measure a rate of blood flow in the limb (venous filling time and blood flow dynamics sensors [0065]); and wherein the controller is communicatively coupled to the plurality of sensors such that the controller causes transition between first (higher compression) and second (lower compression) operating conditions based on measured rate of blood flow in the limb ([0140] “The number of heart beats can be selected based on the time needed for refilling the venous vessels with blood. Synchronization with the heart rate can be particularly useful to treat peripheral arterial disease by assisting the heart pump blood to the extremities”). 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 Moomiaie-Qajar’s system with the addition of a plurality of sensors configured to measure a rate of blood flow in the limb, as taught by Johnson, for the purpose of further helping to control the compression applied to the user ([0140] Johnson).
Regarding claim 27, the modified Moomiaie-Qajar discloses the at least one sensor is configured to obtain data indicative of pressure applied by the first or second compression elements to the limb ([0136] Johnson).
Regarding claim 28, the modified Moomiaie-Qajar is silent regarding that the controller is further configured to, in response to data indicative of blood flow, analyze a blood flow pattern, and adjust operation of the actuation module to adjust compression applied by the first and second compression elements to the limb. However, Johnson teaches a controller that is configured to, in response to data indicative of blood flow (venous filling time and blood flow dynamics sensors [0065]), analyze a blood flow pattern ([0140] “The number of heart beats can be selected based on the time needed for refilling the venous vessels with blood. Synchronization with the heart rate can be particularly useful to treat peripheral arterial disease by assisting the heart pump blood to the extremities”), and adjust operation of the actuation module to adjust compression applied by the compression elements to the limb ([0140] “The number of heart beats can be selected based on the time needed for refilling the venous vessels with blood. Synchronization with the heart rate can be particularly useful to treat peripheral arterial disease by assisting the heart pump blood to the extremities”). 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 Moomiaie-Qajar system with the addition of sensors configured to measure a rate of blood flow in the limb, as taught by Johnson, for the purpose of further helping to control the compression applied to the user ([0140] Johnson).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-13, 19 and 22-23 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 6/2/26, with respect to the rejection of claims 3 and 24-28 under Vess in view of Johnson have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Moomiaie-Qajar in view of Johnson.
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