DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the filing of the application on 8/21/2024. Since the initial filing, no claims have been amended, added, or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 line 9 recites the term “based.” Examiner suggests changing to read –based on—in order to correct a typographical error.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 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.
Claims 1 and 18 recite that the limb-compression device is reduced to a length that is less than a length of the shell (see lines 6-7 in claim 1, and lines 7-8 in claim 18). However, as seen earlier in the claim (lines 1-2 in claim 1 and lines 2-3 in claim 18), the device as a whole is a “limb-compression device” and the “shell” is a component of the limb-compression device. Hence, the limb-compression device contains the shell, and thus it is unable to be shorter than the shell, as it would effectively be claiming that the limb-compression device is shorter than itself, which is unclear and indefinite. For the purposes of examination, a reduction in length of the limb-compression device, shell, or both will be understood to meet the claim limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the leg-compression device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the leg-compression device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the language “if necessary” in line 10. It is unclear whether or not the limitations which follow are being positively claimed, and it is unknown if they are actually “necessary.”
Any remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasty (US Pat. 4,091,804).
Regarding claim 1, Hasty discloses a limb-compression device (see Fig. 1 compression device 20 and abstract) comprising: a shell for receiving a limb of a user (see Figs. 2-3 compression sleeve 26) therein; and multiple compression bladders within the shell (see Figs. 2-3 pressure chambers 48a-48f), spaced along a length of the shell (see Figs. 2-3 where the pressure chambers 48a-48f are along the length of the sleeve 26); wherein the shell includes a foldable section between an adjacent pair of the bladders (see Figs. 3 and 5 where sizing portion 50 is able to fold along line 54 to reduce the length of the sleeve 26 and between pressure chambers 48d and 48e; see also Col. 4 lines 1-19), to allow folding of the shell to reduce a length of the limb-compression device to less than the length of the shell (see Fig. 5 and Col. 4 lines 1-19 where the folding results in a reduction of the length of sleeve 26).
Regarding claim 2, Hasty discloses wherein the foldable section is at a gap between the adjacent pair of the bladders (see Fig. 3 where sizing portion 50 is located at a gap space between pressure chambers 48d and 48e).
Regarding claim 4, Hasty discloses wherein folding the shell at the foldable section reduces the length of the leg-compression device by at least 10% (see Fig. 3 where there are six pressure chambers 48a-48f, and a sizing portion 50 that are roughly equal in size, such that there are seven portions. When sizing portion 50 is folded, it reduces the length of the sleeve 26 by up to 1/7th, which is more than a 10% reduction).
Regarding claim 6, Hasty discloses wherein the limb-compression device is a leg-compression device for receiving a leg of the user (see Fig. 1 where the sleeve 26 fits around the leg of a user); and wherein the shell includes an upper leg end (see Fig. 3 the top of the sleeve 26 above chamber 48f) and a lower leg end (see Fig. 3 the bottom of sleeve 26 below chamber 48a), with the foldable section closer to the upper leg end than the lower leg end (see Fig. 3 where the sizing portion 50 is closer to the top than the bottom of sleeve 26).
Regarding claim 10, Hasty discloses a control unit that controls inflation and deflation of the bladders (control apparatus 22 in Fig. 1; see also Col. 3 lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 14, Hasty discloses wherein the control unit includes a compressor for supplying compressed air to the bladders (see Fig. 1 where control apparatus 22 provides air through conduits 34a-34b, in order to inflate the pressure chambers, and thus includes some air compressor for supplying the air).
Regarding claim 18, Hasty discloses a method of configuring a limb-compression device, the method comprising: providing the limb-compression device (providing the compression device 20 of Fig. 1), the leg-compression device including: a shell for receiving a limb of a user therein (see Figs. 2-3 sleeve 26); and multiple compression bladders within the shell, spaced along a length of the shell (see Figs. 2-3 pressure chambers 481-48f); wherein the shell includes a foldable section between an adjacent pair of the bladders (see Figs. 3 and 5, sizing section 50, between pressure chambers 48d and 48e), to allow folding of the shell to reduce a length of the limb-compression device to less than the length of the shell (see Col. 4 lines 1-19); and selecting the length of the limb-compression device based limb leg length of the user (see Col. 4 lines 1-19), if necessary, folding the shell at the foldable section to reduce the length of the limb-compression device (see Col. 4 lines 1-19).
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.
Claims 3, 8, 11, 15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasty as applied to claims 1, 10, 14, and 18 above, where applicable, and further in view of Deshpande (US Pub. 2013/0085428).
Regarding claim 3, Hasty discloses folding the shell at the foldable section.
Hasty lacks a detailed description of wherein folding the shell at the foldable section overlaps bladders of the adjacent pair of the bladders.
However, Deshpande teaches a compression bladder device that folds to shorten its length, where folding the shell at the foldable section overlaps adjacent segments (see [0061], [0080], and Fig. 20 where the bladder sleeve folds over on itself).
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 sleeve of Hasty to fold over from a top end as taught by Deshpande, as it would be a simple substitution of one way of folding the bladder sleeve for another, to yield the predictable result of folding the bladders to shorten the length.
Regarding claim 8, Hasty discloses the limb-compression device.
Hasty lacks a detailed description of wherein the limb-compression device is an arm-compression device for receiving an arm of the user.
However, Deshpande teaches a compression bladder device that can be used on the arm (see [0045]).
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 limb of the compression of Hasty to be the arm as taught by Deshpande, as it would be a simple matter of design choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose another limb, such as an arm, as opposed to a leg, to deliver compression therapy to.
Regarding claim 11, Hasty discloses a control unit is configured to operate the limb-compression device, and a foldable section.
Hasty lacks a detailed description of wherein the control unit is configured to operate the limb-compression device differently, depending on whether the shell is folded at the foldable section.
However, Deshpande teaches a compression bladder device that folds to shorten its length, where the inflatable chamber is configured to be pressurized by the control system, and the change in chamber volume from the folding of the bladder would result in a change to the applied inflation from the control unit (see [0061], [0080], and Fig. 20 where the bladder sleeve folds over on itself, resulting in a reduction of volume, and thus changing the inflation characteristics from the controller in order to maintain a particular pressure profile).
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 control unit of Hasty to have different operational parameters and output depending on the changing shape of the bladders as taught by Deshpande, as it would allow for the system to adjust and maintain a desired pressure profile as the shape of the device changes, improving consistency and maintaining a baseline level of applied therapy.
Regarding claim 15, Hasty discloses the compressor, which has some power source.
Hasty lacks a detailed description of wherein the compressor is a battery-powered compressor.
However, Deshpande teaches a compression bladder device that folds to shorten its length, where a inflation pump system is powered by a battery (see [0061]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to power the electronics of the device with a battery as taught by Deshpande, as it would be a simple matter of design choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose a well-known power source such as a battery, which also allows for the device to be more portable than other power options.
Regarding claim 17, Hasty discloses a control unit for controlling inflation and deflation of bladders in a shell of a limb-compression device (control apparatus 22 in Fig. 1; see also Col. 3 lines 40-49), the control unit comprising: circuitry (see Col. 3 lines 40-49 where the control apparatus is understood to have some circuitry for controlling its operations).
Hasty lacks a detailed description of the control unit comprising: circuitry configured to operate the limb-compression device differently, depending on whether the shell is folded at a foldable section.
However, Deshpande teaches a compression bladder device that folds to shorten its length, where the inflatable chamber is configured to be pressurized by the control system, and the change in chamber volume from the folding of the bladder would result in a change to the applied inflation from the control unit (see [0061], [0080], and Fig. 20 where the bladder sleeve folds over on itself, resulting in a reduction of volume, and thus changing the inflation characteristics from the controller in order to maintain a particular pressure profile).
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 control unit of Hasty to have different operational parameters and output depending on the changing shape of the bladders as taught by Deshpande, as it would allow for the system to adjust and maintain a desired pressure profile as the shape of the device changes, improving consistency and maintaining a baseline level of applied therapy.
Regarding claim 19, Hasty discloses a control unit that is coupled to the limb-compression device, and the foldable section.
Hasty lacks a detailed description of configuring a control unit that is coupled to the limb-compression device, based on whether the shell is folded at the foldable section.
However, Deshpande teaches a compression bladder device that folds to shorten its length, where the inflatable chamber is configured to be pressurized by the control system, and the change in chamber volume from the folding of the bladder would result in a change to the applied inflation from the control unit (see [0061], [0080], and Fig. 20 where the bladder sleeve folds over on itself, resulting in a reduction of volume, and thus changing the inflation characteristics from the controller in order to maintain a particular pressure profile).
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 control unit of Hasty to have different operational parameters and output depending on the changing shape of the bladders as taught by Deshpande, as it would allow for the system to adjust and maintain a desired pressure profile as the shape of the device changes, improving consistency and maintaining a baseline level of applied therapy.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Hasty device has wherein the control unit is configured automatically based on whether the shell is folded at the foldable section (Deshpande; see [0061], [0080], and Fig. 20 where the bladder sleeve folds over on itself, resulting in a reduction of volume, and thus changing the inflation characteristics from the controller in order to maintain a particular pressure profile).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasty as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US pat. 3,826,249).
Regarding claim 5, Hasty discloses other adjacent pairs of the bladders that are other than the adjacent pair of bladders bordering the foldable section.
Hasty lacks a detailed description of wherein there is some overlap of other adjacent pairs of the bladders that are other than the adjacent pair of bladders bordering the foldable section.
However, Lee teaches an inflatable constriction sleeve for a leg, where there are a plurality of inflatable chambers which are arranged such that they have some overlap (see Col. 2 lines 36-45).
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 inflatable chambers of Hasty to overlap with one another as taught by Lee, as it would form a staggered pattern that ensures continuous wrapping and thus consistent pressure about the limb (Lee; see Col. 2 lines 36-45).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasty as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Dye (US Pat. 5,007,411).
Regrading claim 7, Hasty discloses the shell at the lower leg.
Hasty lacks a detailed description of wherein the shell at the lower leg end includes a foot covering for covering a foot of the user.
However, Dye teaches a leg compression device, where a shell of the compression device includes a covering for a foot of the user (see Fig. 10 where chamber 116 surrounds the foot of the user).
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 compression sleeve of Hasty to include a covering section about the foot as taught by Dye, as it would provide the therapeutic benefits of the compression therapy to an additional part of the leg.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasty as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wersland et al. (US Pat. 11,510,844).
Regarding claim 9, Hasty discloses the shell.
Hasty lacks a detailed description of wherein the shell has a zipper closure.
However, Wersland teaches a leg-compression device having a shell and inflatable compartments, where the shell has a closure system being a zipper (see Col. 6 lines 18-21).
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 shell of Hasty to have a zipper closure as taught by Wersland, as it would allow for the sleeve to be opened up to access the inflatable chambers within, making it easier to repair, replace, clean, and otherwise attach hoses to the chambers while still keeping them protected within the sleeve.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasty in view of Deshpande as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Barak et al. (US Pat. 7,591,796).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Hasty device has the control unit and the foldable section.
The modified Hasty device lacks a detailed description of wherein the control unit receives input from the user as to whether the shell is folded at the foldable section.
However, Barak teaches a compression sleeve device, where the system is able to establish a shortening value that is indicative of the reduction in volume of the inflatable bladders caused by constricting them to better fit around a limb (as described from Col. 19 line 21 to Col. 20 line 22) and where the control system allows for operator inputs (see Col. 21 lines 11-24).
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 adjustment and control parameters of the modified Hasty device to calculate a shortening value indicative of the loss of volume from folding the bladder as taught by Barak, as it would provide a means for determining how much pressure needs to be applied to maintain the same compression when there is an increase or decrease in bladder volume, thus ensuring a consistent compression pressure. It is noted that the calculation for the shortening can be done by hand with the provided formula, and the control system as taught by Barak does allow for user inputs, and thus the control unit can receive user input with regards to whether or not there is a fold based on whether or not it receives a shortening value.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Hasty device has the control unit and the foldable section.
The modified Hasty device lacks a detailed description of wherein the control unit automatically detects whether the shell is folded at the foldable section.
However, Barak teaches a compression sleeve device, where the system is able to establish a shortening value that is indicative of the reduction in volume of the inflatable bladders caused by constricting them to better fit around a limb (as described from Col. 19 line 21 to Col. 20 line 22).
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 adjustment and control parameters of the modified Hasty device to calculate a shortening value indicative of the loss of volume from folding the bladder as taught by Barak, as it would provide a means for determining how much pressure needs to be applied to maintain the same compression when there is an increase or decrease in bladder volume, thus ensuring a consistent compression pressure. Further, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the control unit with means for performing the calculation of the shortening value as taught by Barak, as it would allow for the system to automatically detect and adjust pressure based on changing volume due to the folds. Further, it is understood that calculating a shortening value is a detection of there being a fold that resulted in the reduction of volume to warrant a shortening value.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasty as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Meyer et al. (US Pat. 9,649,245).
Regarding claim 16, Hasty discloses an additional limb-compression device (see Fig. 1 where an additional sleeve 26 can be included on another limb).
Hasty lacks a detailed description of an additional limb-compression device; and a manifold couplable to the control unit and the limb-compression devices. It is noted that Hasty does disclose conduits 34a-34b in Fig. 1 which both connect to the controller 22 for inflating the compression sleeves 26.
However, Meyer teaches a limb compression device, where there is a manifold at the air delivery system for connecting to all the inflatable chambers of the system (see Fig. 3 manifold 71A and Col. 10 lines 55-62).
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 air delivery connection of Hasty to include an air manifold connected to all the inflation sleeves as taught by Meyer, as it would keep the air delivery system centralized as well as remove the requirement for additional compressors to inflate the plurality of different compression sleeve devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D ZIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-3349. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
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.
/MATTHEW D ZIEGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
