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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Squitieri et al. (USPGPub 2013/0255699) in view of Kloecker et al. (USPGPub 2010/0042026).
Regarding claim 1, Squitieri teaches a structural body (pump housing, [0079] necessarily having some ingress interface with the pump [0079] in order to be functional and some egress to allow filing of the pressure mitigating apparatus (Fig.2), a processor [0134] and memory [0134] that includes instructions [0134] for regulating air flow in the mitigation device using real time data [0103] that is sensed [0061], wherein the detection of connection to the mitigation apparatus would be a capability of the device of Squitieri due to the ability to sense the change in pressure or any pressure change at all from the chambers as described, wherein a pattern of controlling individual chambers may be identified and employed [0084] to allow for varying inflation and deflation in a coordinated fashion which would shift pressure and contact points in the patient [0088] and wherein durations of pressure maintenance may be programmed [0087]. Squitieri fails to teach wherein valves and transducers are used as part of the hardware employed for filling the individual chambers. However, Kloecker teaches that for pressurized medical devices similar to that of Squitieri involving the inflation of discrete chambers independently, it is known to use a combination of valves and transducers related to individual fluid supply lines provided in the form of a manifold in order to monitor and regulate pressure in independent chambers [0112-0118]. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the transducer/valve configuration system of Kloecker in the pressure mitigation device of Squitieri as an application of a known transducer/valve pressure control system to a known pressure mitigation device ready for improvement wherein the results would be predictable. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Regarding claims 3-5, Kloecker teaches the use of circuitry to control the transmission of signals to the valves to control the pressure [0086][0091][0111][0121][0126][0130].
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Squitieri teaches a structural body (pump housing, [0079] necessarily having some ingress interface with the pump [0079] in order to be functional and some egress to allow filing of the pressure mitigating apparatus (Fig.2), a processor [0134] and memory [0134] that includes instructions [0134] for regulating air flow in the mitigation device using real time data [0103] that is sensed [0061], wherein the detection of connection to the mitigation apparatus would be a capability of the device of Squitieri due to the ability to sense the change in pressure or any pressure change at all from the chambers as described, wherein a pattern of controlling individual chambers may be identified and employed [0084] to allow for varying inflation and deflation in a coordinated fashion which would shift pressure and contact points in the patient [0088] and wherein durations of pressure maintenance may be programmed [0087]. Squitieri fails to teach wherein valves and transducers are used as part of the hardware employed for filling the individual chambers. However, Kloecker teaches that for pressurized medical devices similar to that of Squitieri involving the inflation of discrete chambers independently, it is known to use a combination of valves and transducers related to individual fluid supply lines provided in the form of a manifold in order to monitor and regulate pressure in independent chambers [0112-0118]. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the transducer/valve configuration system of Kloecker in the pressure mitigation device of Squitieri as an application of a known transducer/valve pressure control system to a known pressure mitigation device ready for improvement wherein the results would be predictable. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Regarding claim 8, the teachings of Squitieri in view of Kloecker are as shown above. Squitieri in view of Kloecker fails to teach the use of a second egress to discharge air into an ambient environment. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice that it is a well-known practice to provide pressure relief valves from pressure vessels into the ambient environment in a variety of fields in order to preserve compressors as well as for safety purpose. This is commonplace on hot water heater and compressors used on construction cites and in steam pipes. The relief of pressure can prevent explosive damage as well as preserve motors that cannot generate pressure at levels. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a pressure relief valve in the invention for Squitieri in view of Kloecker in order to gain the safety benefits described above.
Regarding claim 9, the manifold of Kloecker is separated into a variety of chambers corresponding to unique channels (see Figs. 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 10, the ability to provide settings for the operation of the device of Squitieri that are patient specific [0129] is reasonably implicit of mechanical means to enter or provide said settings.
Regarding claim 11, Squitieri reasonably teaches a form of display that has an indicator signal telling workers a direction needed to move a patient [0092].
Regarding claim 12, the teachings of Squitieri in view of Kloecker are as shown above. Squitieri in view of Kloecker is silent as to the manner of inflation of the chambers upon deployment. However, given that the chambers are either inflated in a natural or unnatural state, both of which would be reasonably predictable to operate with success, it would have been considered “obvious to try” for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use either known inflation state in the invention of Squitieri upon deployment.
Regarding claims 14-15, similarly to claim 12 above, it is noted that a natural state of inflation is reasonably the same as a natural state of deflation and it would be obvious to try in the same manner described above in the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claims 16, Squitieri teaches a structural body (pump housing, [0079] necessarily having some ingress interface with the pump [0079] in order to be functional and some egress to allow filing of the pressure mitigating apparatus (Fig.2), a processor [0134] and memory [0134] that includes instructions [0134] for regulating air flow in the mitigation device using real time data [0103] that is sensed [0061], wherein the detection of connection to the mitigation apparatus would be a capability of the device of Squitieri due to the ability to sense the change in pressure or any pressure change at all from the chambers as described, wherein a pattern of controlling individual chambers may be identified and employed [0084] to allow for varying inflation and deflation in a coordinated fashion which would shift pressure and contact points in the patient [0088] and wherein durations of pressure maintenance may be programmed [0087]. Squitieri fails to teach wherein valves and transducers are used as part of the hardware employed for filling the individual chambers. However, Kloecker teaches that for pressurized medical devices similar to that of Squitieri involving the inflation of discrete chambers independently, it is known to use a combination of valves and transducers related to individual fluid supply lines provided in the form of a manifold in order to monitor and regulate pressure in independent chambers [0112-0118]. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the transducer/valve configuration system of Kloecker in the pressure mitigation device of Squitieri as an application of a known transducer/valve pressure control system to a known pressure mitigation device ready for improvement wherein the results would be predictable. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Regarding claim 18, it is reasonably implicit that the chamber valves of Squitieri would be bidirectional so as to allow deflation as well as inflation.
Claims 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Squitieri et al. (USPGPub 2013/0255699) in view of Kloecker et al. (USPGPub 2010/0042026) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7-16 and 18 above and further in view of Yano et al. (USPGPub 2004/0206409).
Regarding claim 2, the teachings of Squitieri in view of Kloecker are as shown above. Squitieri in view of Kloecker fails to teach wherein the valves are necessarily piezoelectric valves. . However, Yano teaches that air control operations using valves are known to employ piezoelectric valves in particular as the valve type (abstract). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the piezoelectric valves of Yano as the valves of Squitieri in view of Kloecker as use of a known valve type applied to an air supply/control mechanism ready for improvement and wherein the results would be predictable. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claims 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Squitieri et al. (USPGPub 2013/0255699) in view of Kloecker et al. (USPGPub 2010/0042026) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7-16 and 18 above and further in view of Squitieri et al. (USPGPub 2009/0194115)(referred to herein as SQ2).
Regarding claim 6, the teachings of Squitieri in view of Kloecker are as shown above. Squitieri in view of Kloecker fails to teach wherein the air that is employed as air in the chambers of Squitieri in view of Kloecker was compressed by an air compressor. However, SQ2 teaches that it is known to use compressed air compressed by an air compressor to inflate chambers of devices employed to prevent decubitis ulcers [0031-0034]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compressor of SQ2 to provide the air of Squitieri in view of Kloecker because SQ2 shows that his compressed air compressor system is suited for said general purpose such as those of Squitieri in view of Kloecker. Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Regarding claim 17, the teachings of Squitieri in view of Kloecker are as shown above. Squitieri in view of Kloecker fails to teach wherein the air that is employed as air in the chambers of Squitieri in view of Kloecker was compressed by an air compressor. However, SQ2 teaches that it is known to use compressed air compressed by an air compressor to inflate chambers of devices employed to prevent decubitis ulcers [0031-0034]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compressor of SQ2 to provide the air of Squitieri in view of Kloecker because SQ2 shows that his compressed air compressor system is suited for said general purpose such as those of Squitieri in view of Kloecker. Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Claims 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Squitieri et al. (USPGPub 2013/0255699) in view of Kloecker et al. (USPGPub 2010/0042026) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7-16 and 18 above and further in view of Kuiper (WO 02/45656).
Regarding claims 19-20, the teachings of Squitieri in view of Kloecker are as shown above. Squitieri in view of Kloecker fails to teach the use of unidirectional valves in their invention. However, Kuiper teaches that it is known to provide check valves on the air provision side of an air pump wherein it is recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that this would prevent the backflow of air out of the pumping means. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the check valves of Kuiper in the inflated device of Squitieri in view of Kloecker in order to prevent the same backflow as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights