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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to a preliminary amendment filed on 7/8/2022. As directed by the preliminary amendment, claim 20 was canceled, no claims were amended, and claims 21 were added. Thus, claims 1-19 and 21 are pending for this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because the claims lack a claim status (i.e. “Original”, “previously presented”, “currently amended”, “new” etc). See 37 CFR 1.121.
Claims 18 and 19 are objected to because “CPR” is an acronym and should be spelled out the first time it is used (i.e. “cardio-pulmonary resuscitation”).
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected due to the following informalities:.
Figs. 1-3 are objected to because different views of the device must be provided with different figure numbers (i.e. (a) in Figure 1 should be labeled “Figure 1a”).
Fig. 2-9 are objected to for being in grayscale instead of a black-and-white drawings.
Figs. 1 and 4 are objected to for being poor resolution, as the features, words and reference numbers are difficult to make out
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 5 is a grayscale photograph instead of a black-and-white drawing.
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 “biometric monitoring” in claims 1 line 2, “thrust device” in claim 2, 9, 13; “personal flotation device” in claim 3, “a heartrate monitor, a pressure sensor, a pulse oximeter, indicator lights, illumination lights, a display, or a camera” in claim 4, “oxygen delivery device” in claims 11 and 15, “tank distributor valve” in claims 16 and 17, and “system for performing cardioversion” in claim 21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to because Figures 5-9 are not described in the specification. See MPEP 608.01(f) and 608.01(g).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“thrust device” in claims 2, 9, 13
“personal flotation device” in claim 3
“oxygen delivery device” in claims 11 and 15
“tank distributor valve” in claims 16 and 17
“system for performing cardioversion” in claim 21
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a thrust device wherein the thrust device forces movement of the head, neck, and jaw in response to a manual trigger or a biometric trigger; wherein the biometric trigger is activated in response to the biometric monitoring” in claim 2, 9 and 13
“a personal floatation device that is in a deflated state while diving and that can be switched to an inflated state either by a manual trigger, a trigger from a rescue diver, or a biometric trigger; wherein the biometric trigger is activated in response to the biometric monitoring” in claim 3
“a system for performing cardioversion wherein the system for performing cardioversion performs a procedure used to return an abnormal heartbeat to a normal rhythm in response to a manual trigger or a biometric trigger; wherein the biometric trigger is activated in response to the biometric monitoring” in claim 21
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-19 and 21 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.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 12, the phrase “a system…a method” in lines 1-2 of each claim is unclear if the claim is directed to an apparatus (“system”) or a method (“method”). If a system, the claim lacks any structural limitations therefore the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear. If a method, the claim lacks any steps of the method therefore the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 12, the phrase "the biometric monitoring monitors" in line 2 of each claim is unclear what structural component this is referencing (or if this is even a structure to begin with).
Claims 1, 8, and 12 recite the limitation "the heart” in line 4 of each claim and “the brain” in line 4 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claim limitations “a thrust device wherein the thrust device forces movement of the head, neck, and jaw in response to a manual trigger or a biometric trigger; wherein the biometric trigger is activated in response to the biometric monitoring” in claim 2, 9 and 13; “a personal floatation device that is in a deflated state while diving and that can be switched to an inflated state either by a manual trigger, a trigger from a rescue diver, or a biometric trigger; wherein the biometric trigger is activated in response to the biometric monitoring” in claim 3; “an oxygen delivery device wherein the oxygen delivery device delivers free flowing or positive pressure ventilation” in claims 7, 11, and 15; and “a system for performing cardioversion wherein the system for performing cardioversion performs a procedure used to return an abnormal heartbeat to a normal rhythm in response to a manual trigger or a biometric trigger; wherein the biometric trigger is activated in response to the biometric monitoring” in claim 21 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, claims 2-3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 21 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2, 9 and 13 recite the limitation "the head, neck, and jaw" in line 2 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the wearable chest compression device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 12, 18-19, and 21 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-19 and 21 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 1 (per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Claims 1, 8 and 12 are each directed to a machine (“system”) and therefore eligible for Step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1 (per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of claims 1, 8 and 12 recites at least one step or instruction for biometric monitoring, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, each of claims 1, 8 and 12 recite an abstract idea.
Specifically, these claims are directed to monitoring/observing characteristics of another human, such as respiratory rate/heart rate, which are concepts that could be performed in the human mind (i.e. user can watch someone breath and determine respiratory rate, i.e. heavy breathing means vs. slow breathing; user can measure/estimate blood pressure by looking at or feeling pulse of user).
Further, dependent claims 4, 6, 18-19 and 21 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
For example, “diver mask” in claim 4 and “diver computer” in claims 6, 18-19 amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 8, 12 (and their respective dependent Claims 4, 6, 18-19 and 21) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding independent claims 1, 8 and 12, there are no additional elements therefore the claims are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 21 includes an additional element but the additional element (“a system for performing cardioversion wherein the system for performing cardioversion performs a procedure used to return an abnormal heartbeat to a normal rhythm in response to a manual trigger or a biometric trigger; wherein the biometric trigger is activated in response to the biometric monitoring”) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use, and therefore the additional element does not integrate the except into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding dependent claim 4, the additional element of “a dive mask wherein the dive mask contains at least one the following: a heartrate monitor, a pressure sensor, a pulse oximeter, indicator lights, illumination lights, a display, or a camera” in lines 1-3 also generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use, and therefore the additional element does not integrate the except into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding claims 6 and 18-19 the additional elements of: “connected dive computer wherein the dive computer in an emergency does at least one of the following: sends a signal to a dive partner or rescue diver, sends a signal to emergency medical services, or sends a signal to another component of the wearable safety system” in claim 6 lines 2-4, “the connected dive computer can instruct the wearable safety system to automate CPR” in claim 18 lines 1-2, and “the connected dive computer can receive updates to conform with changes to CPR protocols” in claim 19 lines 1-2 are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in claims 6 and 18-19 are not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 6 and 18-19 are not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 8, 12 (and their respective dependent Claims 4, 6, 18-19 and 21) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 1, 8, 12 (and their respective dependent Claims 4, 6, 18-19 and 21) include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of:
Claim 4 lines 1-3: “a dive mask wherein the dive mask contains at least one the following: a heartrate monitor, a pressure sensor, a pulse oximeter, indicator lights, illumination lights, a display, or a camera”
Claim 6 lines 2-4 “connected dive computer wherein the dive computer in an emergency does at least one of the following: sends a signal to a dive partner or rescue diver, sends a signal to emergency medical services, or sends a signal to another component of the wearable safety system”
Claim 18 lines 1-2 “the connected dive computer can instruct the wearable safety system to automate CPR” in claim 18 lines 1-2, and
Claim 19 lines 1-2 “the connected dive computer can receive updates to conform with changes to CPR protocols”
Claim 21 lines 1-3: “a system for performing cardioversion wherein the system for performing cardioversion performs a procedure used to return an abnormal heartbeat to a normal rhythm in response to a manual trigger or a biometric trigger; wherein the biometric trigger is activated in response to the biometric monitoring”
Regarding claim 4, the “dive mask” appears to be routine and conventional in the art as exhibited by paragraph [0028], which recites the mask as “traditional”, and thus well known, understood and conventional. Thus the limitations of claim(s) 4, when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 21, the “system for performing cardioversion” appears to be routine and conventional in the art as applicant’s specification provides no structure or details of such a “system”, meaning the requirements of 112(a) are not passed and thus the “system” is understood to be well understood, routine and conventional. As further evidence, Madanat (US 2014/0039359) recites in paragraph [0005] that AED systems (which appear to be analogous to applicant’s claimed system) are “conventional”.
The above-identified additional elements of claims 6 and 18-19 are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification (particularly paragraph [0044]), the dive computer is described as a computer that allows for Bluetooth/wire communication and performs calculations and sends signals and notifications to users or other users.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term “drive computer” is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the dive computer. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 6, and 18-19 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the system of Claims 6, 18-19 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 8 and 12 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 12, 18-19, and 21 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 12, 18-19, and 21 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kantor (US 2019/0151180).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Kantor discloses (Fig. 1-4) a wearable safety system for diving (“for diving” interpreted as intended use. Because the structure of Kantor would be capable of being used “for diving”, i.e. could be integrated into a swimsuit, the claim limitation is comprehended) comprising: a method of biometric monitoring (paragraph [0057] discloses monitoring patient condition) wherein the biometric monitoring monitors at least one of the following: blood oxygenation (includes a pulse oximeter, paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 2, Kantor discloses a thrust device (device 10 that includes a jaw thrust mechanism 20) wherein the thrust device forces movement of the head, neck, and jaw (see Fig. 1A-1B and paragraphs [0005] and [0050]) in response to a manual trigger or a biometric trigger (response to biometric trigger i.e. pulse oximeter), wherein the biometric trigger is activated in response to the biometric monitoring (paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Kantor discloses (Fig. 1-4) a wearable safety system for harsh or anoxic environments (“for harsh or anoxic environments” interpreted as intended use. Because the structure of Kantor would be capable of being used “for harsh or anoxic environments”, i.e. device could be used in a desert, the claim limitation is comprehended) comprising: a method of biometric monitoring (paragraph [0057] discloses monitoring patient condition) wherein the biometric monitoring monitors at least one of the following: blood oxygenation (includes a pulse oximeter, paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 9, Kantor discloses a thrust device (device 10 that includes a jaw thrust mechanism 20) wherein the thrust device forces movement of the head, neck, and jaw (see Fig. 1A-1B and paragraphs [0005] and [0050]) in response to a manual trigger or a biometric trigger (response to biometric trigger i.e. pulse oximeter), wherein the biometric trigger is activated in response to the biometric monitoring (paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Kantor discloses (Fig. 1-4) a wearable safety system for individuals at high risk for respiratory or cardiac failure (“for individuals at high risk for respiratory or cardiac failure” interpreted as intended use. Because the structure of Kantor would be capable of being used “for individuals at high risk for respiratory or cardiac failure”, i.e. device could be used for a patient, the claim limitation is comprehended) comprising: a method of biometric monitoring (paragraph [0057] discloses monitoring patient condition) wherein the biometric monitoring monitors at least one of the following: blood oxygenation (includes a pulse oximeter, paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 13, Kantor discloses a thrust device (device 10 that includes a jaw thrust mechanism 20) wherein the thrust device forces movement of the head, neck, and jaw (see Fig. 1A-1B and paragraphs [0005] and [0050]) in response to a manual trigger or a biometric trigger (response to biometric trigger i.e. pulse oximeter), wherein the biometric trigger is activated in response to the biometric monitoring (paragraph [0057]).
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gruentzig (US 2017/0049164).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Gruentzig discloses (Fig. 3A-4B) a wearable safety system for diving (paragraph [0273]) comprising: a method of biometric monitoring (paragraphs [0407] and [0419]) wherein the biometric monitoring monitors at least one of the following: blood oxygenation (pulse meter, paragraph [0419]), heart rate (paragraph [0310]).
Regarding claim 3, Gruentzig discloses a personal flotation device (inflatable cuffs around arms and ankles, paragraph [0273]) that is in a deflated state while diving (paragraph [0412]) and that can (the word “can” is interpreted by the examiner to mean “capable”) be switched to an inflated state by a manual trigger (rip cord that is pulled and results in inflation of all bladders, paragraph [0355]).
Regarding claim 5, Gruentzig discloses a chest compression device (inflatable/deflatable portion on chest of patient, paragraph [0419]) wherein the chest compression device is triggered in response to a biometric trigger (heart failure, paragraph [0419]); wherein the biometric trigger is activated in response to the biometric monitoring (paragraph [0419]).
Regarding claim 6, Gruentzig discloses a connected dive computer (central unit 74, which is part of the diving system and thus interpreted to be a dive computer) wherein the dive computer in an emergency does at least one of the following: sends a signal to a dive partner or rescue diver (paragraph [0057]), sends a signal to emergency medical services (paragraph [0410]), or sends a signal to another component of the wearable safety system (paragraph [0375]).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Gruentzig discloses (Fig. 3A-4B) a wearable safety system for harsh or anoxic environments (i.e. underwater which is anoxic, paragraph [0273]) comprising: a method of biometric monitoring (paragraphs [0407] and [0419]) wherein the biometric monitoring monitors at least one of the following: blood oxygenation (pulse meter, paragraph [0419]), heart rate (paragraph [0310]).
Regarding claim 10, Gruentzig discloses a chest compression device (inflatable/deflatable portion on chest of patient, paragraph [0419]) wherein the wearable chest compression device can be mounted on the front or back of a diver (provides chest compressions and thus is mounted to portion of chest of user, paragraph [0419]) and is triggered in response to a biometric trigger (heart failure, paragraph [0419]); wherein the biometric trigger is activated in response to the biometric monitoring (paragraph [0419]).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Gruentzig discloses (Fig. 3A--4B) a wearable safety system for individuals at high risk for respiratory or cardiac failure (heart failure, paragraph [0419]) comprising: a method of biometric monitoring (paragraphs [0407] and [0419]) wherein the biometric monitoring monitors at least one of the following: blood oxygenation (pulse meter, paragraph [0419]), heart rate (paragraph [0310]).
Regarding claim 14, Gruentzig discloses a chest compression device (inflatable/deflatable portion on chest of patient, paragraph [0419]) wherein the chest compression device is triggered in response to a biometric trigger (heart failure, paragraph [0419]); wherein the biometric trigger is activated in response to the biometric monitoring (paragraph [0419]).
Regarding claim 18, Gruentzig discloses wherein the connected dive computer can instruct the wearable safety system to automate CPR (paragraph [0419]).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruentzig (US 2017/0049164) in view of Fearnot (US 2013/0000642).
Regarding claim 4, Gruentzig appears to disclose a dive mask in Fig. 4A-4B, but does not disclose the dive mask includes a heartrate monitor, a pressure sensor, a pulse oximeter, indicator lights, illumination lights, a display, or a camera.
However, Fearnot teaches (Fig. 3B) a dive mask (40’) including a display (display 72).
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 dive mask of Gruentzig to include a display, as taught by Fearnot, for the purpose of allowing a user or the system to communicate with a bystander while also allowing the bystander to see the patient at the same time (paragraph [0061]-[0062] Fearnot).
Regarding claim 7, Gruentzig discloses the system is used for diving (paragraph [0273]), and appears to depict an oxygen delivery device for delivering free flowing oxygen to a user in Fig. 4A-4B.
In the event this is not disclosed, Fearnot teaches (Fig. 3B) an oxygen delivery device (oxygen tank 22) wherein the oxygen delivery device delivers free flowing ventilation (paragraph [0058]-[0059]).
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 system of Gruentzig to include an oxygen delivery device, as taught by Fearnot, for the purpose of allowing a diving user to breathe underwater (paragraph [0034] Fearnot).
Regarding claim 11, Gruentzig discloses the system is used for diving (paragraph [0273]), and appears to depict an oxygen delivery device for delivering free flowing oxygen to a user in Fig. 4A-4B.
In the event this is not disclosed, Fearnot teaches (Fig. 3B) an oxygen delivery device (oxygen tank 22) wherein the oxygen delivery device delivers free flowing ventilation (paragraph [0058]-[0059]).
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 system of Gruentzig to include an oxygen delivery device, as taught by Fearnot, for the purpose of allowing a diving user to breathe underwater (paragraph [0034] Fearnot).
Regarding claim 15, Gruentzig discloses the system is used for diving (paragraph [0273]), and appears to depict an oxygen delivery device for delivering free flowing oxygen to a user in Fig. 4A-4B.
In the event this is not disclosed, Fearnot teaches (Fig. 3B) an oxygen delivery device (oxygen tank 22) wherein the oxygen delivery device delivers free flowing ventilation (paragraph [0058]-[0059]).
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 system of Gruentzig to include an oxygen delivery device, as taught by Fearnot, for the purpose of allowing a diving user to breathe underwater (paragraph [0034] Fearnot).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruentzig (US 2017/0049164) in view of Fearnot (US 2013/0000642), and further in view of Rinehart (US 5,411,018).
Regarding claim 16, modified Gruentzig discloses an oxygen delivery device, but does not disclose a tank distributor valve that switches between air and oxygen from the oxygen delivery device.
However, Rinehart teaches (Fig. 1-3) an oxygen delivery device (breathing system 10) including a tank distributor valve (selector valve 52) that switches between air and oxygen (Abstract).
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 system of Gruentzig to include a tank distributor valve, as taught by Rinehart, for the purpose of allowing a rescuer to adjust the air delivered to the diver as needed (Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, modified Gruentzig discloses the tank distributor valve switches between air and oxygen from the oxygen delivery device based on biometric data (applicant has not recited a controller or other similar device that would be performing this function, therefore a rescuer can switch between air and oxygen based on biometric data, i.e. if user is having trouble breathing or is going unconscious).
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruentzig (US 2017/0049164) in view of Centen (US 2008/0171311).
Regarding claim 19, modified Gruentzig discloses a system that performs CPR on a user as well as notify and guide rescuers to perform CPR on the user (paragraphs [0419]-[421]), but does not disclose the connected dive computer can receive updates to conform with changes to CPR protocols.
However, Centen teaches (Fig. 2 and 12-14) a computer (“processing unit”, paragraph [0093]) that can receive updates to conform with changes to CPR protocols (paragraph [0093], [0128] and [0158]).
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 dive computer of Gruentzig to be able to receive updates to conform with changes to CPR protocols, as taught by Centen, for the purpose of adjusting CPR according to the specific situation and users (paragraphs [0093], [0128] and [0158]).
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruentzig (US 2017/0049164) in view of Freeman (US 2016/0274162).
Regarding claim 21, Gruentzig discloses a wearable safety system, but does not disclose the system includes a system for performing cardioversion wherein the system for performing cardioversion performs a procedure used to return an abnormal heartbeat to a normal rhythm in response to a manual trigger or a biometric trigger; wherein the biometric trigger is activated in response to the biometric monitoring.
However, Freeman teaches (Fig. 1) a wearable safety system including an ECG (ECG electrodes 7A, 7B 7C 7D, paragraph [0127]) for biometric monitoring of a user, and include a system (defibrillator electrodes 13a, 13b 13c) for performing cardioversion wherein the system for performing cardioversion performs a procedure used to return an abnormal heartbeat to a normal rhythm in response to a biometric trigger (deliver shocks if arrhythmia detected, paragraph [0164]); wherein the biometric trigger is activated in response to the biometric monitoring (paragraph [0164]).
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 system of Gruentzig to include a system for performing cardioversion wherein the system for performing cardioversion performs a procedure used to return an abnormal heartbeat to a normal rhythm in response to a manual trigger or a biometric trigger; wherein the biometric trigger is activated in response to the biometric monitoring., as taught by Freeman, for the purpose of delivering life-saving shocks to a user experiencing a cardiac arrest (paragraph [0128] Freeman).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Li (US 2023/0356818) discloses an underwater rescue device.
Pourmasiha (US 2021/0403132) discloses a diving device having built in CPR programs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MOON whose telephone number is (571)272-2554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Justine Yu can be reached on 571-272-4835. 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