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 .
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
The claims are numbered such that there is a claim 13 listed, however there is no text associated with the claim. Therefore, the Examiner suggests claim 13 be amended to include text or cancelled. It should be noted that claim 13 is filed as an original claim and therefore must be treated as such.
Claims 3, 4, 7, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “the direction of the deck” in line 2, although the line is understood by the Examiner to mean “a direction of the deck” as the “direction” was not previously defined, the Examiner suggests the line be amended to read “a direction of the deck” for the purpose of providing proper antecedent basis for claimed terminology;
Claim 4 recites “to the one of the cross members” in line 3, although the line is understood by the Examiner to mean “to one of the cross members” as the “one” was not previously defined, the Examiner suggests the line be amended to read “to one of the cross members” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims;
Claim 4 recites “where the apex supports each connect to the one of the cross members, extending from the apex to the cross members” in lines 3 – 4, although the line does not rise to the level of being indefinite as the line is understood by the Examiner to mean “wherein each of the plurality of apex supports are connected to a respective cross member of the plurality of cross members and extend from the apex to the respective cross member” as disclosed in Applications disclosure, the Examiner suggests the line be amended to read “wherein each of the plurality of apex supports are connected to a respective cross member of the plurality of cross members and extend from the apex to the respective cross member” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims;
Claims 7 and 10 recite “comprising landing gear”, however this is not grammatically correct as there is no article (a/an/the) before the noun, thus the Examiner suggests the line(s) be amended to read “comprising a landing gear”;
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "where each of the tie downs curve outwardly front to back" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what Applicant is considering the “front” and what Applicant is considering the “back”. For the purpose of examination, and based off of Applicants disclosure, the Examiner will read the limitation such that the “tie downs curve radially outward from the cross member and radially inward towards the deck”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 – 5, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soiron et al (DE 3133793 A1) (translated PDF attached).
Regarding claim 1, Soiron discloses a direct pressure device (constriction device 10) (abstract, paragraphs [0016 – 0022], claim 1, and Figs. 1 – 4 of the Google translated web page) comprising:
a deck (plate 21 and designated in annotated Fig. 2) (paragraph [0017] of the Google translated web page, Fig. 2, and annotated Fig. 2); and
a body (screw spindle 24 and designated in annotated Fig. 2) projecting perpendicularly from the deck and terminating in an apex (collar 28 and designated in annotated Fig. 2) (paragraph [0018] of the Google translated web page, Fig. 2, and annotated Fig. 2);
[claim 2] where the body is an apex pylon (see annotated Fig. 2);
[claim 3] a plurality of apex supports (perpendicular portions of the housing 20 / sidewalls 23 and designated in annotated Fig. 2 and discussed in paragraph [0017] of the Google translated web page) extending at an angle both in the direction of the deck and outward from the apex (Fig. 2 and annotated Fig. 2);
[claim 4] a plurality of cross members (joint levers 44 and 45 and designated in annotated Fig. 2) extending radially outward from the apex pylon at a location spaced from the deck but closer to the deck than the apex (paragraph [0022] of the Google translated web page and annotated Fig. 2), where the apex supports (perpendicular portions of the housing 20 / sidewalls 23 and designated in annotated Fig. 2) each connect to the one of the cross members (joint levers 44 and 45 and designated in annotated Fig. 2), extending from the apex to the cross members (Fig. 2 and annotated Fig. 2);
[claim 5] where the cross members (joint levers 44 and 45 and designated in annotated Fig. 2) each terminate in a tie down (Examiner’s note: each of the joint levers 44 and 45 have an end connected to / tying down a portion of the band 13; therefore, each of the joint levers 44 and 45 have an end considered to be a “tie-down”);
[claim 7] a landing gear (hand wheel 29 and designated in annotated Fig. 2) extending horizontally outward from the apex or from the apex supports (paragraphs [0025 – 0026] of the Google translated web page and Fig. 2);
[claim 14] further comprising one or more tourniquets and/or elastic wraps (band 13) (paragraph [0016] of the Google translated web page and Fig. 2).
Annotated Figure 2 of Soiron
PNG
media_image1.png
486
819
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nieburgs (US 2,332,107).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 10, and 14, Nieburgs discloses a direct pressure device (surgical tourniquet) (col. 1 lines 1 – 12, and Figs. 1 – 4) comprising:
a deck (pad 27) (col. 3 lines 55 – 60 and Fig. 3); and
a body (adjusting screw 29 and open-ended casing 11) projecting perpendicularly from the deck and terminating in an apex (upper narrow member 14) (col. 2 lines 39 – 49 and Figs. 1 – 2);
[claim 9] the body (adjusting screw 29 and open-ended casing 11) is frustoconical (Fig. 2) (Examiner’s note: as shown in Fig. 2 the open-ended casing forms a frustoconical shape);
[claim 10] a landing gear (head 30) extending outward from the body (col. 3 lines 54 – 55 and Fig. 2)
[claim 14] further comprising one or more tourniquets and/or elastic wraps (elastic webbing 5) (col. 2 lines 12 – 55 and Figs.1 – 2).
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burkart et al (US 2020/0121327 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 14, Burkart discloses a direct pressure device (tourniquet 101) (abstract, paragraphs [0030 – 0032], and Figs. 3A/B/C) comprising:
a deck (plate 143) (paragraph [0030] and Fig. 3A/B/C); and
a body (screw section 133) projecting perpendicularly from the deck and terminating in an apex (base 149) (paragraph [0030] and Fig. 3B).
[claim 2] where the body (screw section 133) is an apex pylon (Fig. 3A);
[claim 11] a ledge (attachment posts 147) projecting backward and inward from one side of an edge of a back of the deck (paragraph [0030] and Fig. 3A/B/C), where the ledge projects inward to create a gap between a projecting portion of the ledge and the deck (Examiner’s note: as shown in Figs. 3A/B the posts 147 project inwards over the plate 143 (i.e., the deck) creating a gap between the free end of the posts and the plate 143 (i.e., the deck));
[claim 12] a blade (attachment posts 147) (Examiner’s note: a blade is defined as flat wide section of an implement) connected to one side of an edge of a back of the deck (paragraph [0030] and Fig. 3A/B/C), where the blade projects inward to lie in a plane parallel to, but spaced from, the deck to create a gap therebetween (Examiner’s note: as shown in Figs. 3A/B the posts 147 project inwards over the plate 143 (i.e., the deck) creating a gap between the free end of the posts and the plate 143 (i.e., the deck));
[claim 14] further comprising one or more tourniquets and/or elastic wraps (tourniquet 21) (paragraph [0031]).
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Delgado et al (US 2006/0118679 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Delgado discloses a direct pressure device (wrist support 10) (abstract, paragraphs [0016], [0048], and Figs. 1 – 5) comprising:
a deck (flat surface of frame 140 from which the threaded tubular insert extends from – as shown in Fig. 5) (paragraph [0059] and Fig. 5); and
a body projecting (threaded tubular insert 129) perpendicularly from the deck and terminating in an apex (Fig. 5).
[claim 11] a ledge (projections 142/144) projecting backward and inward from one side of an edge of a back of the deck (paragraph [0061] and Fig. 5), where the ledge projects inward to create a gap (space where wrist goes) between a projecting portion of the ledge and the deck (Fig. 5);
[claim 12] a blade (projections 142/144) (Examiner’s note: a blade is defined as flat wide section of an implement) connected to one side of an edge of a back of the deck (paragraph [0061] and Fig. 5), where the blade projects inward to lie in a plane parallel to, but spaced from, the deck to create a gap (space where wrist goes) therebetween (Fig. 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art alone or in combination with fails to disclose or make obvious the direct pressure device of claims 6 and 8.
With respect to claim 6, the prior art alone or in combination fails to disclose or make obvious the direct pressure device of claim 6, wherein the direct pressure device of claim 6 comprises the direct pressure device of claim 5 and further comprises wherein the tie downs curve outwardly from the cross member and inwardly towards the deck (as interpreted by the Examiner).
With respect to claim 8, the prior art alone or in combination fails to disclose or make obvious the direct pressure device of claim 8, wherein the direct pressure device of claim 8 comprises the direct pressure device of claim 7 and further comprises wherein the landing gear is L-shaped with one end connected to one of the cross members and the other end connected to the apex or to one of the apex supports.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, the closest prior art Soiron (cited above) discloses the direct pressure devices of claims 5 and 7, however Soiron does not disclose or make obvious [claim 6] wherein the tie downs curve outwardly from the cross member and inwardly towards the deck or [claim 8] wherein the landing gear is L-shaped with one end connected to one of the cross members and the other end connected to the apex or to one of the apex supports. It would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tie downs of Soiron to extend in the manner claim as this would change how the belt attaches to the housing which could render the device inoperable for its intended use. Furthermore, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Soiron to have an end of the landing gear be connected to one of the cross members or an apex support as this would result in the landing gear being fixed to the housing and unable to rotate the 360 degrees needed in order to push down the pressure pad, thus such a modification would render the device in operable for its intended use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Clark (US 12,396,736 B2), Crowder et al (US 2013/0267994 A1), and Lee (US 2014/0163442 A1) teach direct pressure devices comprising, inter alia, a deck and a body extending perpendicular to the body.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Restaino whose telephone number is (571)272-4748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 571-272-7134. 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 Restaino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771