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. Preliminary Amendment This office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 11/6/23 . As directed by the amendment: claims 4-5, 8 and 13 have been amended, claims 14-18 have been canceled, and new claims 19-28 have been added. Thus, claims 1-13 and 19-28 are presently pending in the application. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 1040 in fig. 10 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 160 in [0033] . 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 Objections Claim s 1 -2 , 5, 10-13, 19, 22- 24 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “couple” in line 2 suggested to be changed to -- coupled -- for grammatical reasons. Claim 1 , line 8 and claim 2, line 14 recites “a limb, ” suggested to be changed to --the limb-- in order to refer back to the limb previously recited. Claim 5, line 2 and Claim 24 , line 1 recite “wherein first compression element, ” suggested to be changed to --wherein the first compression element-- for grammatical reasons. Claims 10 and 11 recites “the physiological sensor,” suggested to be changed to --the at least one physiological sensor-- for consistency. Claim 12 recites “the pressure sensor,” suggested to be changed to --the at least one pressure sensor-- for consistency. Claims 13 , 23 and 28 recite “the compression elements” suggested to be changed to --the first and second compression elements-- for consistency. Claim 19 recites “ Preliminary_Amendment _” language that is suggested to be removed. Claim 22 recites “first and second operating conditions” suggested to be changed to --the first and second operating conditions-- in order to refer back to the first and second operating conditions recited in claim 2. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 5-7, 20-21, 24-25 and 27 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. Claim 5, line 5 , claim 20, line 4 and c laim 24 , line 4 recites “the first end ,” suggested to be changed to --the first end of the second strap-- to avoid confusion. Claim 27 recites “the pressure sensor,” suggested to be changed to --the at least one sensor-- to clearly refer back to the at least one sensor in claim 3. Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on a rej e cted base claim. 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. Claim s 6 , 21 and 25 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 s 6 , 21 and 25 recite “and shortens the first strap around the limb,” suggested to be changed to --and is configured to shorten the first strap around the limb-- to avoid positively claiming the limb. 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. Claim s 3 and 24- 2 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vess (2011/0066093) in view of Johnson et al. (2017/0312161) . Regarding claim 3, in fig. 1-2 Vess discloses a system, comprising: an actuation module 30 ; a first compression element 94 coupled to the actuation module and configured to apply compression to a limb when placed around the limb [0024] ; a second compression element 92 coupled to the actuation module and configured to apply compression to the limb when placed around the limb [0024] ; at least one sensor 142 , but is silent regarding that the at least one sensor is configured to measure pressure applied by the first and second compression elements to the limb . 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]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vess ’ sensors 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 Vess discloses a controller (60 Vess ) operably coupled to the at least one sensor ([0036] Vess , [0136] Johnson) and the actuation module ([0018] Vess ) , 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 Vess discloses first compression element is a first strap (94 Vess ) , the first strap having a first end (that connects to 84b Vess ) and a second end (end opposite to where 94 meets 84b, Vess ) opposite the first end; and the second compression element is a second strap (92 Vess ) , the second strap having a first end (that connects to 82b Vess ) and a second end (end opposite to where 92 meets 82b, Vess ) opposite the first end. Regarding claim 25, the modified Vess 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 shortens the first strap around the limb ([0023] Vess ) . Regarding claim 26, the modified Vess discloses a plurality of sensors (142 Vess ), but is silent regarding that the 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 that the plurality of sensors 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 Vess ’ sensors 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 Vess discloses the pressure 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 Vess 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 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 Vess ’ sensors 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. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moomiaie -Qajar et al. (2008/0319359) directed towards a compression device and Kazanchyan et al. (2016/0331620) directed towards a compression device. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1481 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Timothy Stanis can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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