www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/440,008
`
`09/16/2021
`
`Christopher Brian LOCKE
`
`P001759US02PCT
`
`5666
`
`60402
`
`7590
`
`09/19/2024
`
`KINETIC CONCEPTS, INC.
`c/o Harness Dickey & Pierce
`5445 Corporate Drive
`Suite 20
`Troy, MI 48098
`
`EXAMINER
`
`PHAM, KATHERINE-PH MINH
`
`Para NONE
`
`3781
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/19/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`IPDocketing @ Solventum.com
`dgodzisz@hdp.com
`troymailroom @hdp.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-27 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 1-11 and 24-27 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`[] Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 12-19 and 21-23 is/are rejected.
`[) Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s)
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)() The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)C) accepted or b){) objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12).) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`—_c)LJ None ofthe:
`b)LJ Some**
`a)D) All
`1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.2.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20240910
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/440,008
`LOCKE, Christopher Brian
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`KATHERINE-PH M PHAM
`3781
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 06/14/2024.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/440,008
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA orAIA Status
`
`The presentapplication,filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
`
`inventorto 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 applicationis 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 CFR1.114. Applicant's RCE
`
`submission filed on 06/14/2024 has been entered. This RCE enters the amendment and arguments filed
`
`on 05/28/2024.
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`Claims 1-19 and 21-27 are currently pending. Claim 20 is cancelled. Claims 1-11 and 24-27 are
`
`currently withdrawn.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's argumentsfiled on 05/28/2024 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive. The argumentsare addressed in the advisory action (PTOL-303) mailed on 06/14/2024.
`
`Regarding the changein prior art combination for the 103 rejection of claim 12 and its
`
`dependents, the prior arts of Greeneretal. (Publication No. WO 2018/033794 A1)in view of Look et al.
`
`(Publication No. US 2015/0327875 A1) and Danestad et al. (Publication No. US 2012/0112670 A1)is
`
`used since this prior art combination provides stronger support for the teaching of the claim limitation
`
`“wherein the processing circuit is configured to deactivate the pump based on a determination that the
`
`monitored amountof current supplied to the pump is below the threshold current value...” (see
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/440,008
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 3
`
`rejection of claim 12 below). The previous prior art combination Greeneret al. (Publication No. WO
`
`2018/033794 A1)in view of Look et al. (Publication No. US 2015/0327875 A1), madein thefinal
`
`rejection mailed on 03/01/2024, would still read on this claim limitation (see explanationin advisory
`
`action mailed on 06/14/2024), since the controller of Greener in view of Look is able to detect different
`
`operation statuses based onthe current readings in comparison to the threshold, such as an increase in
`
`current or decrease incurrent values and implicitly teaches that the controller of Look would also be
`
`capable of detecting current values under a threshold (Look; Paragraph 0049). However,the prior art of
`
`Danestad etal. (Publication No. US 2012/0112670 A1) provides a stronger support/explicit teaching of
`
`a processingcircuit that is connected to a negative pressure pump that is adapted/configured to
`
`deactivate the pump based on a determination that the monitored amountof current supplied to the
`
`pump is below the threshold current value (Danestad, control meansallows for motorto turn off if
`
`current is below a current threshold; Paragraph 0022). The controller of Danestad candetermine that a
`
`passageway of the device is blocked based on the status that the current value is below the
`
`predeterminedcurrent threshold (Paragraph 0022).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`Inthe 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
`
`basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) 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 forthin 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 skillin the art to which the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/440,008
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 4
`
`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.
`
`Claims 12-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greener
`
`et al. (Publication No. WO 2018/033794 A1)in view of Look etal. (Publication No. US 2015/0327875
`
`A1) and Danestad et al. (Publication No. US 2012/0112670 A1).
`
`Regarding claim12, Greener teaches a system (system 100; Paragraph 0052; Figure 1),
`
`comprising:
`
`a power source (power source 218; Paragraph 0061; Figure 2) configured to supply power to
`
`a pump (power source 218 powers apparatus 202 including the negative pressure source 214; Paragraph
`
`0061; Figure 2); and
`
`asensorelectrically coupled to the power source and the pump (pressure sensor 220
`
`connected to power source 218 and negative pressure source 214; Figure 2), wherein the system is
`
`configured to maintain an increased negative pressure within an enclosed region between a limb ora
`
`joint and acover when a user is at rest, and wherein the system is configured to maintain a decreased
`
`negative pressure within the enclosed region when the user is moving (apparatusis placed on limb and
`
`has sensor to detect movement and apparatus’ negative pressure sourceis ena bled/disabled based on
`
`patient’s mobility; Paragraph 0074; Figure 18), a memory (memory device 212; Paragraph 0061; Figure
`
`2) and a processing circuit operably coupled to the memory, the power source, and the pump (controller
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/440,008
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page5S
`
`210 connected to memorydevice 212, power source 218, and negative pressure source 214; Figure 2).
`
`Greener does not teacha memory configured to store a threshold current value corresponding toa
`
`percentage that is less than a full load current draw of the pump and below which a steady-state
`
`amount of negative pressure is present in the enclosed region, wherein the processingcircuit is
`
`configured to monitor an amount of current supplied to the pump, and wherein the processingcircuit is
`
`configured to deactivate the pump based onadetermination that the monitored amount of current
`
`supplied to the pump is below the threshold current value.
`
`However, Look teaches a memory configured to store a threshold current value corresponding
`
`toa percentage that is less thana full load current draw of the pump and below which a steady-state
`
`amountof negative pressureis present in the enclosed region (preset current value is storedin pump
`
`control board 50 and is used to monitor operation of pump 26 — implicit that control board has memory
`
`to store preset value and is capable of storing a threshold current value corresponding toa percentage
`
`that is less thana full load current draw of the pump and below which a steady-state amountof
`
`negative pressureis present in the enclosed region; Paragraph 0049), wherein the processingcircuitis
`
`configured to monitor an amount of current supplied to the pump (control board 50 monitors current
`
`delivered to pump 26; Paragraph 0049 and 0074).
`
`Look and Greener are both considered tobe analogous to the claimed invention because they
`
`arein the same field of negative pressure pump systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to
`
`someoneof ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have
`
`modified Greener to incorporate the teachings of Look and include the process in the processing circuit
`
`in monitoring the current at the pump, as taught by Look, to the processing circuit of Greener. This
`
`would allow for the system to deactivate the pump in response to abnormal problems in the system
`
`(Look; Paragraph 0049). The combination of Greener in view of Look does not expressly teach wherein
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/440,008
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 6
`
`the processingcircuit is configured to deactivate the pump based on a determination that the
`
`monitored amountof current supplied to the pump is below the threshold current value.
`
`However, Danestad teaches wherein the processingcircuit is configured to deactivate the pump
`
`basedon a determination that the monitored amountof current supplied to the pump is below the
`
`threshold current value (control meansallows for motorto turn off if current is below a current
`
`threshold; Paragraph 0022).
`
`Danestad and Greener in view of Look are both considered to be analogous to the claimed
`
`invention because they arein the same field of negative pressure pump systems. Therefore,it would
`
`have been obvious to someoneof ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed
`
`invention to have modified Greener in view of Look to incorporate the teachings of Danestad and
`
`include the process in the processingcircuit in monitoring the current at the pump andits response to
`
`decreased current compared to a threshold current value, as taught by Danestad, tothe processing
`
`circuit of Greener in view of Look. This would allow for the system to deactivate the pump in response
`
`to abnormal problems in the system, suchas complete blockage of the passageway (Danestad;
`
`Paragraph 0022).
`
`Regarding claim 13, Greener in view of Look and Danestad teaches the system of claim 12.
`
`Greener further teaches wherein the sensoris configured to measure data comprising at least one of
`
`mobility data and a condition of the enclosed region (pressure sensor monitors movement and
`
`condition of pressure in system; Paragraph 0005 and 0063), wherein the system further comprisesa
`
`transceiver (transceiver 222; Figure 2; Paragraph 0061) configured to transmit the data to a user device
`
`(transceiver transmit data to remote data processing system 204; Figure 2; Paragraph 0061).
`
`Regarding claim 14, Greener in view of Look and Danestad teaches the system of claim 12.
`
`Greener further teaches whereinthe sensoris configured to measure mobility data (Paragraph 0005),
`
`wherein the processingcircuit is configured to determine whether the user is moving or at rest based on
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/440,008
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 7
`
`the mobility data (Paragraph 0005 and 0073; Figure 20), wherein the processingcircuit is configured to
`
`maintain an increased negative pressure based on a determination that the user is at rest (Paragraph
`
`0005 and 0074), and wherein the processingcircuit is configured to maintain a decreased negative
`
`pressure based on a determination that the user is moving (Paragraph 0005 and 0074).
`
`Regarding claim15, Greenerin view of Look and Danestad teaches the system of claim 14.
`
`Greener further teaches wherein the processing circuit is configured to maintain an increased negative
`
`pressurebyat least one of activating the pump, increasing an operating speed of the pump, and closing
`
`a valve (TNP apparatus containing the controller can disable/enable the negative pressure source to
`
`increase/decrease pressure; Paragraph 0009 and 0074).
`
`Regarding claim 16, Greener in view of Look and Danestad teaches the system of claim 14.
`
`Greener further teaches wherein the processing circuit is configured to maintain a decreased negative
`
`pressurebyat least one of deactivating the pump, reducing an operating speed of the pump, and
`
`opening a valve (TNP apparatus containing the controller can disable/enable the negative pressure
`
`source to increase/decrease pressure; Paragraph 0009 and 0074).
`
`Regarding claim18, Greener in view of Look and Danestad teaches the system of claim 12.
`
`Greener further teaches wherein the system is configured to maintain the pressure within the enclosed
`
`region in a range between approximately negative 120 mm Hg and negative 145 mm Hg (pressure range
`
`can be between about -40 mmHg and -150 mmHg; Paragraph 0057).
`
`Regarding claim 19, Greener in view of Look and Danestad teaches the system of claim 12.
`
`Greener further teaches wherein the cover is disposable (dressing can be changed/dis posedsince it is
`
`used to treat wound; Paragraph 0056) and at least one of the pump and the sensorare reusable
`
`(dressing is separate from TNP system and can be changed —implicit that pump/sensor of TNP can be
`
`reused with different dressings; Paragraph 0054 and 0056).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/440,008
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 8
`
`Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greeneretal. (W.O.
`
`Patent Application No. 2018/033794 A1)in view of Look etal. (Publication No. US 2015/0327875 A1)
`
`and Danestad etal. (Publication No. US 2012/0112670 A1), as applied to claim 12 above, and further
`
`in view of Pratt et al. (W.O. Patent Application No. 2017/079174 Al).
`
`Regarding claim17, Greener in view of Look and Danestad teaches the system of claim 12.
`
`Greener further teaches wherein the sensor comprises a pressure sensor(pressure sensor220; Figure
`
`2), and wherein the pressure sensor is configured to electrically couple the pump to the power source in
`
`response to the pressure exceeding a threshold value (Paragraph 0009; Figure 2). Greener does not
`
`teach wherein the sensor comprises an electro-mechanical pressure switch, and wherein the electro-
`
`mechanical pressure switchis configured to electrically couple the pump tothe power source in
`
`response to the pressure exceeding a threshold value.
`
`However, Pratt teaches whereinthe sensor comprises an electro-mechanical pressure switch
`
`(switching element 330 is electromechanical device that is coupled to negative-pressure source and
`
`power source; Paragraph 0065;Figure 3), and wherein the electro-mechanical pressure switch is
`
`configured to electrically couple the pump to the power source in response to the pressure exceeding a
`
`threshold value (switch connected to power and pump turns pump on and off based on threshold;
`
`Paragraph 0065 and 00108).
`
`Pratt and Greener in view of Look and Danestad are both considered to be analogous to the
`
`claimed invention because they arein the same field of negative pressure therapy systems. Therefore,it
`
`would have been obvious to someone ofordinary skill in the art before the effectivefiling date of the
`
`claimed invention to have modified Greener in view of Look and Danestad toincorporate the teachings
`
`of Pratt and incorporate the electro-mechanical pressure switch in the pressure sensor of Greener in
`
`view of Look and Danestad. This would allow for the pump of the negative pressure device to turn on
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/440,008
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 9
`
`and off through the power control of the electromechanical switch based onif the pressure threshold is
`
`exceededor below during treatment(Pratt et al.; Paragraph 0065).
`
`Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greeneret al. (W.O.
`
`Patent Application No. 2018/033794 A1) in view of Look etal. (Publication No. US 2015/0327875 A1)
`
`and Danestad etal. (Publication No. US 2012/0112670 A1), as applied to claim 12 above, and further
`
`in view of Askem({U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0051560 A1).
`
`Regarding claim 21, Greener in view of Look and Danestad teaches the system of claim 12.
`
`Greener does not teach wherein the memoryis configured to store a threshold rate of change of the
`
`amount of current and a cycling frequency, wherein the processingcircuit is configured to activate and
`
`deactivate the pump at the cycling frequency, wherein the processingcircuit is configured to determine
`
`a rate of change of the amountof current, and wherein the processingcircuit is configured to reduce the
`
`cycling frequency if the determined rate of change of the amount of currentis less than the threshold
`
`rate of change of the amount of current.
`
`However, Look teaches whereinthe memoryis configured to store a threshold rate of change of
`
`the amountof current (current fluxuations/rate of change in current thresholds are stored in control
`
`board 50 to determine operation status —implicit that control board has memory to store threshold
`
`current fluxuations; Paragraph 0049), wherein the processingcircuit is configured to determine a rate of
`
`change of the amountof current (control board can determine current fluxuation/rate of change of
`
`current; Paragraph 0049), and wherein the processing circuit is configured to reduce pump operationif
`
`the determined rate of change of the amountof currentis less than the threshold rate of change of the
`
`amount of current (pump 26 can be disabled/decreased if rate of change of current falls below
`
`threshold — when a decreased rate of change/negative rate of change is detected, the pump is disabled;
`
`Paragraph0049).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/440,008
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 10
`
`Look is analogous tothe claimed invention, therefore, it would have been obvious to someone
`
`of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified
`
`Greener in view of Look and Danestad toincorporate the teachings of Look and include the process in
`
`the processingcircuit in monitoring the rate of change of the current at the pump andits response to
`
`decreased rate of change of current compared toathreshold rate of change current value, as taught by
`
`Look, to the processing circuit of Greener in view of Look and Danestad. This would allow for the system
`
`to deactivate the pump in response to abnormal problems in the system (Look; Paragraph 0049).
`
`Greener in view of Look does not teach wherein the memoryis configured to store a cycling frequency,
`
`wherein the processingcircuit is configured to activate and deactivate the pump at the cycling
`
`frequency, wherein the processing circuit is configured to activate and deactivate the pump at the
`
`cycling frequency, and wherein the processingcircuit is configured to reduce the cycling frequency if the
`
`determined rate of change of a value is less thanthe threshold rate of change of the value.
`
`However, Askem teaches wherein the memoryis configured to store a cycling frequency,
`
`wherein the processingcircuit is configured to activate and deactivate the pump at the cycling
`
`frequency (memory can store program codeorinstructions (executed by the controller), system
`
`parameters, operational data, user data, etc. or any combination thereof and store the duty cycle
`
`threshold and duty cycle difference; Paragraph 0044, 0047, 0052, and 0056), wherein the processing
`
`circuit is configured to activate and deactivate the pump at the cycling frequency (controller can
`
`deactivate/activate pump based on duty cycle value; Paragraph 0052), and wherein the processing
`
`circuit is configured to reduce the cycling frequency if the determined rate of change of a valueis less
`
`than the threshold rate of change of the value (controller can deactivate/activate pump based
`
`comparison of duty value to duty value threshold — deactivating pump equatesto reducedcycling
`
`frequency; Paragraph 0052).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/440,008
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 11
`
`Askem and Greener in view of Look and Danestad are both considered to be analogous to the
`
`claimed invention because they arein the same field of negative pressure therapy systems. Therefore,it
`
`would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention to have modified Greener in view of Look and Danestad toincorporate the teachings
`
`of Askem and incorporate the storage of cycling frequency in the memory of Greener in view of Look
`
`and Danestad and the configuration of the processingcircuit to reduce the duty cycle/cycle frequency
`
`basedon the rate of change of a value is less thana threshold value, as taught by Askem, with respect to
`
`the rate of change of the current value and its threshold monitored in the processing circuit and
`
`memory of Greener in view of Look and Danestad. This would allow for the system to
`
`activate/deactivate the pump during treatment and detect different operating conditions of the system
`
`in real time (Askem; Paragraph 0047).
`
`Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greener et al. (W.O.
`
`Patent Application No. 2018/033794 A1) in view of Look etal. (Publication No. US 2015/0327875 A1)
`
`and Danestad etal. (Publication No. US 2012/0112670 A1), as applied to claim 12 above, and further
`
`in view of Kamenetal. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2007/0219597 A1).
`
`Regarding claim 22, Greener in view of Look and Danestad teaches the system of claim 12.
`
`Greener further teaches further comprising a user interface and a processingcircuit operably coupled
`
`thereto (user interface 216 connected to controller; Paragraph 0061; Figure 2), and wherein the user
`
`interface is configured to display the alert (user interface has screento provide output to user;
`
`Paragraph 0062). Greener does not teach wherein the processingcircuit is configured to generate an
`
`alert based on a determination that the processing circuit is separated from the pump.
`
`However, Kamen teaches whereinthe processingcircuit is configured to generate analert based
`
`on a determination that the processing circuit is separated fromthe pump (alarmcondition generated
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/440,008
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 12
`
`when disconnect occur between repeater, comprising memory, processor, and alarm, and wearable
`
`medical device, comprising the pump,is disconnected; Paragraph 0016).
`
`Kamen and Greener in view of Look and Danestad are both considered to be analogousto the
`
`claimed invention because they are in the samefield of pressurized treatment systems. Therefore,it
`
`would have been obvious to someone ofordinary skill in the art before the effectivefiling date of the
`
`claimed invention to have modified Greener in view of Look and Danestad toincorporate the teachings
`
`of Kamenand incorporate the alarm/alert condition when the pump is separated from the processing
`
`circuit of the device of Greener in view of Look and Danestad. This would allow for the user to be
`
`notified of the fault condition/disconnect of the device (Kamen; Paragraph 0016).
`
`Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greener et al. (W.O.
`
`Patent Application No. 2018/033794 A1) in view of Look etal. (Publication No. US 2015/0327875 A1)
`
`and Danestad etal. (Publication No. US 2012/0112670 A1), as applied to claim 12 above, and further
`
`in view of Brzencheck et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2017/0239131A1).
`
`Regarding claim 23, Greener in view of Look and Danestad teaches the system of claim 12.
`
`Greener further teaches a transceiver (transceiver 222; Figure 2; Paragraph 0061) configured to receive
`
`commandsfrom a user device (transceiver 222 connect to data processing system and controller to send
`
`and receive commands; Figure 1; Paragraph 0061 and 0064). Greener does not teach a locking member
`
`configured to prevent removal of a processing circuit from the cover; wherein the processingcircuit is
`
`configured to operate the locking member in response to the commands.
`
`However, Brzenchek teaches a locking member configured to prevent removal of a processing
`
`circuit from the cover (lock 120 is in locked position so footboard cannot be removed; Paragraph 0076);
`
`wherein the processingcircuit is configured to operate the locking member in response to the
`
`commands(circuitry 98 gives commandsto operate lock 120; Paragraph 0076).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/440,008
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 13
`
`Brzenchek and Greener in view of Look and Danestad are both considered to be analogous to
`
`the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pressure therapy systems. Therefore,it
`
`would have been obvious to someone ofordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention to have modified Greener in view of Look and Danestad toincorporate the teachings
`
`of Brzenchek and incorporate lock member andits operation to the device of Greener in view of Look
`
`and Danestad. This would allow for the systemto lock the device in place during the treatment to
`
`prevent removal of device components (Brzencheck; Paragraph 0076).
`
`Conclusion
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to KATHERINE-PH M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0468. The
`
`examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM to 5PM 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 reachthe examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
`
`Rebecca Eisenberg canbe reached on (571) 270-5879. 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 managepatent submissions in Patent Center,visit: https://patentcenter.us pto. 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 aboutfiling in DOCX format. For additional
`
`questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197(toll-free). If you would like
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/440,008
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 14
`
`assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)or
`
`571-272-1000.
`
`/KATHERINE-PH MINH PHAM/
`Examiner, Art Unit 3781
`
`/LESLIE A LOPEZ/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
`
`