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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on 03/20/2026 has been entered. Presently, Claims 16, 17, and 21-30 remain pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
The previously indicated allowability of Claims 16 and 17 in the Final Office action mailed 09/22/2025 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Moilanen (WO 2017/220847). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the limitation “blood vessel location” appears in the preamble. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the limitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. The limitation is therefore afforded no patentable weight.
Furthermore, Applicant is invited to appreciate the wide breadth of the claims where the preamble is afforded no patentable weight and can read on multiple art.
Applicant is encouraged to amend the claim by providing additional limitations that will tie the claimed device’s structure to locating a blood vessel, as is intended by Applicant.
Drawings
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 features must be shown or canceled from the claim(s):
Claim 16: the first and second compliances; and
Claim 17: the use position and the storage position
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16, 17, and 21-30 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.
With regard to Claim 16, it is unclear what Applicant considers to be a “compliance”. The Specification utilizes the same term and it therefore is unclear whether compliance is a configuration, a compliance protocol, or otherwise. Clarification is required.
Claims 17 and 21-30 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they inherit the indefiniteness of Claim 16.
Claims 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With regard to Claim 27, the limitations set forth therein appear to have been claimed in Claim 16 (“a control system…including a LED switch configured to select the white LEDs or the red LEDs”).
With regard to Claim 30, the limitations set forth therein appear to have been claimed in Claim 16 (“a light emitting diode (LED) strip formed of a flexible plastic”).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 21, 23, 25-28, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moilanen (WO 2017/220847) (hereinafter “Ref M”).
With regard to Claims 16, 27, and 30, Moilanen discloses in Figs. 4, 6, and 8 a device comprising:
an inherent housing (Ref M teaches an apparatus being an information screen, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize has a housing to protect the internal components from the adverse effects of the environment);
a light emitting diode (LED) strip (generally depicted in Fig. 4a) formed of a flexible plastic, the LED strip coupled to the housing and including a linear array of white LEDs and a linear array of red LEDs (generally depicted in Fig. 4c), a set of inner apertures (apertures formed by layer 41c) and a set of outer apertures (apertures formed by layers 41a/41b) (“In an embodiment of the invention, each used LED is an encapsulated RGB LED or an encapsulated RGBW-LED. Alternatively, the used encapsulated LEDs may be merely single-color LEDs, such as R- (red), G- (green), B- (blue) or W-LEDs (white)”);
two pegs (64) selectively coupled with the inner apertures or the outer apertures, the pegs spacing the LED strip away from the housing, wherein the LED strip provides a first compliance when the pegs are engaged with the inner apertures (Fig. 4b – top configuration) and a second compliance when the pegs are engaged with the outer apertures (Fig. 4b – bottom configuration); and
a control system positioned within the housing and including an inherent switch configured to select the first LEDs or the red LEDs (“the control system of the screen structure can control and manage the output power fed to the LEDs”).
With regard to Claim 17, Ref M teaches the device set forth above, wherein the LED strip is connected to the control system via a cable (“The cables and conductive wires within the frame structure can be placed in contact with the conductive wires or patterns of the modules through conductive pins and with conductive glue assisting in the contact points”) and moveable between a use position and a storage position relative to the housing (it is herein noted that Applicant does not provide any specificity or particularity as to what a use or a storage position is. therefore, as broadly and reasonably interpreted, the top configuration in Fig. 4b shall be deemed a storage position and the bottom configuration in Fig. 4b shall be deemed to be a use position).
With regard to Claim 21, Ref M discloses the device set forth above, wherein the pegs (64) space the LED strip away from the housing in the use position. As broadly and reasonably understood, it is herein considered that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the housing encapsulates/envelops the LED strip away. Because the pegs (64) support the LED strip, it provides an inherent thickness and therefore “space” the LED strip away from the housing in at least one direction.
With regard to Claim 23, Ref M discloses the device set forth above, wherein each of the two pegs (64) includes a stud sized to be received within the inner apertures or the outer apertures of the LED strip.
With regard to Claim 25, Ref M discloses the device set forth above, comprising a cable connecting the LED strip to the control system (“The cables and conductive wires within the frame structure can be placed in contact with the conductive wires or patterns of the modules through conductive pins and with conductive glue assisting in the contact points”).
With regard to Claim 26, Ref M discloses the device set forth above, wherein the LED strip is removable from the housing. One of ordinary skill in the art that two separate components that are not produced contemporaneously are inherently removable/detachable from one another.
With regard to Claim 28, Ref M discloses the device set forth above, wherein the linear array of LEDs includes equidistantly spaced LEDs (generally illustrated in Figs. 4a and 4b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 22, 24, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moilanen (WO 2017/220847) (hereinafter “Ref M”).
With regard to Claim 22, Ref M discloses the device set forth above, but lacks a clear disclosure of the two pegs are hingedly coupled between the LED strip and the housing. Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, selecting a well-known coupling means to couple the LED strip and the housing to provide greater stability and adherence would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to modify Ref M by providing the claimed coupling means in order to provide greater stability and adherence. Claim 24 is also deemed obvious for similar reasons set forth with respect to Claim 22.
With regard to Claim 29, Ref M discloses the device set forth above, but lacks a clear disclosure of the LED strip being formed of a translucent plastic. Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, selecting a well-known material for the LED strip in order to optimize light availability would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to modify Ref M by providing a LED strip formed of a translucent plastic in order to provide optimal illumination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PASCAL M. BUI-PHO whose telephone number is (571)272-2714. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Jonathan T. Moffat can be reached at (571) 272-4390. 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.
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
