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 .
Status of Claims
The present Office action is responsive to the Remarks and Amendments filed on 08-11-2025. As directed, claims 1, 5, 9, 14, and 16 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-17 are currently pending examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended each of claims 5, 9, 14, and 16 to address minor informalities. The previously held claim objections are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, see Remarks as filed 08-11-2025 at pages 4-5, that the previous rejections of record (rejection of claims 1-3 and 14 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being rejected over Stemple; rejection of claims 1-6 and 10-13 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being rejected over Quintana; rejection of claims 1-3, 14, and 16 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being rejected over Parascandola; rejection of claims 1-4, 7-9, 14-15, and 17 as being rejected under 35 USC 103 under Hardig in view of Nilsson; rejection of claim 15 as rejected under 35 USC 103 under Hardig in view of Nilsson, and in further view of Weaver II) no longer apply as claim 1 has been amended to recite “the backboard having a compression alignment line to guide a rescuer to align the backboard with the desired compression point”, which Applicant alleges none of Stemple, Quintana, Parascandola, Hardig, Nilsson, nor Weaver II anticipates and/or renders obvious.
In order to address the newly amended limitations of claim 1, Thomas (US 4,632,094) will be relied on for its teaching of a backboard (20) having a compression alignment line (22, and note that a line is defined as “a mark (as by pencil) that forms part of the formal design of a picture distinguished from the shading or color” and “a straight or curved geometric element that is generated by moving a point and that has extension inly along the path of the point: curve” and “a defining outline: contour”) to guide a rescuer to align the backboard (20) with the desired compression point (Col. 2, lines 20-32; Figs. 1 and 3). Therefore, new grounds of rejection will be presented to address the newly amended limitations of claim 1, rendering Applicant’s arguments moot.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-6, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1, line 5, it is suggested that “configured” be added before “to guide a rescuer” in order to more explicitly avoid claiming the human organism.
At claim 5, line 2, it is suggested that “desired” be added before “compression point” for consistency with claim 1, line 2.
At claim 6, line 1, it is suggested that “extends” be replaced with “configured to extend” to avoid positive recitation of method-based steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 6, lines 1-2, it is suggested that “desired” be added before “compression point” for consistency with claim 1, line 2.
At claim 10, line 1, it is suggested that “spans” be replaced with “configured to span” to avoid positive recitation of method-based steps in an apparatus claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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:
An “alignment device” in claims 1-2 and 11, which is interpreted relative to the instant specification a paragraphs 28, 35, 43, and 48 to be sensors, mechanical alignment devices, image capturing devices, a strap, a template, a light, and/or functional equivalents thereof.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemple (US 2018/0042811) in view of Thomas (US 4,632,094).
Regarding claim 1, Stemple discloses a mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) device (10) (paragraph 24, lines 1-7; Fig. 1), comprising:
an alignment device (22) structured to be positioned at a desired compression point of a chest of a patient (paragraph 28, lines 1-10, note that holding means 22 is interpreted as a mechanical alignment device given its relationship to plunger 19, and 24, making up a portion of 22, is regarded as template, as it overlays the desired compression point on the patient’s chest and provides a visual indication of the surface area over which the compression from plunger 19 will be applied to the chest; Figs. 1 and 3);
a backboard (14) structured to be positioned under the patient and aligned with the alignment device (22) (paragraph 24, lines 4-7; paragraph 25, lines 1-13; paragraph 26, lines 1-4; Fig. 1);
an upper part (15) having a compression mechanism (19) structured to attach to the backboard (14) (paragraph 25, lines 1-13; Fig. 1).
Stemple fails to disclose wherein the backboard has a compression alignment line to guide a rescuer to align the backboard with the desired compression point.
However, Thomas teaches a heart-compressor system (10) (abstract, lines 1-3; Col. 2, lines 20-22; Fig. 1) including a backboard (20) having a compression alignment line (22, and note that a line is defined as “a mark (as by pencil) that forms part of the formal design of a picture distinguished from the shading or color” and “a straight or curved geometric element that is generated by moving a point and that has extension inly along the path of the point: curve” and “a defining outline: contour”) to guide a rescuer to align the backboard (20) with the desired compression point (Col. 2, lines 20-32 and 50-57; Figs. 1 and 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the backboard of Stemple to include a compression alignment line to guide a rescuer to align the backboard with the desired compression point, as taught by Thomas, such that the rescuer is able to visually ascertain the point on the backboard at which the patient’s chest should be placed in order to facilitate proper compression with the compression mechanism.
Regarding claim 2, Stemple in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Stemple further discloses wherein the alignment device (22) includes a visual indication (24) of a compression point target (21) (paragraph 28, lines 1-18, where holding pad 24 stuck-on to the patient presents a visual indication of the target contact zone 21; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Stemple in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Stemple further discloses wherein the visual indication (24) is a geometric shape (paragraph 28, lines 1-18; Fig. 1, where 21, 22, and 25, which forms a portion of 24, are each shown to be a circle).
Regarding claim 14, Stemple in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Stemple further discloses wherein the alignment device (22) includes a template (24) to be placed on the chest of the patient having a compression point target (21) (paragraph 28, lines 1-18, where holding pad 24 stuck-on to the patient presents an overlaid template of the target contact zone 21 for aligning the pressure portion 20 of the plunger 19; Fig. 1).
Claims 1-6 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintana (US 2005/0080362) in view of Thomas (US 4,632,094).
Regarding claim 1, Quintana discloses a mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) device (2) (paragraph 18, lines 1-6; paragraph 20, lines 1-3; Fig. 1), comprising:
an alignment device (5) structured to be positioned at a desired compression point of a chest of a patient (paragraph 18, lines 1-3; paragraph 20, lines 1-6; Figs. 1 and 3; further note: paragraph 58, lines 1-6 for yellow coloring of eyelet 33 and peg 34, paragraph 25, lines 1-11 which describes the eyelet and the peg, and paragraph 18, lines 4-6 defines that the belt cartridge 5 includes the belt 3 on which the eyelet 33 and the peg 34 are contained);
a backboard (6) structured to be positioned under the patient and aligned with the alignment device (5) (paragraph 18, lines 6-7; paragraph 28, lines 1-4; Figs. 1-3);
an upper part (portion of 4 closer to patient’s head) having a compression mechanism (42 and its motor, located at the portion of 4 closer to the patient’s head in Figs. 1-2) structured to attach to the backboard (6) (paragraph 18, lines 1-9 and paragraph 20, lines 1-9, note that 18 and 19 attach to belt drive platform 4, which is described as being a portion of housing 6; Figs. 1-3; paragraph 28, lines 1-11; Examiner notes that in the present device, the compressions are belt-based, such that the spool and motor wind the belt to compress the chest, and as such, the drive acting on the belt of the Quintana device is interpreted as compressing to achieve CPR compressions).
Quintana fails to disclose wherein the backboard has a compression alignment line to guide a rescuer to align the backboard with the desired compression point.
However, Thomas teaches a heart-compressor system (10) (abstract, lines 1-3; Col. 2, lines 20-22; Fig. 1) including a backboard (20) having a compression alignment line (22, and note that a line is defined as “a mark (as by pencil) that forms part of the formal design of a picture distinguished from the shading or color” and “a straight or curved geometric element that is generated by moving a point and that has extension inly along the path of the point: curve” and “a defining outline: contour”) to guide a rescuer to align the backboard (20) with the desired compression point (Col. 2, lines 20-32 and 50-57; Figs. 1 and 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the backboard of Quintana to include a compression alignment line to guide a rescuer to align the backboard with the desired compression point, as taught by Thomas, such that the rescuer is able to visually ascertain the point on the backboard at which the patient’s chest should be placed in order to facilitate proper compression with the compression mechanism.
Regarding claim 2, Quintana in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Quintana further discloses wherein the alignment device (5) includes a visual indication of a compression point target (paragraph 58, lines 1-6 for yellow coloring of eyelet 33 and peg 34; paragraph 25, lines 1-11 describes the eyelet and the peg, and paragraph 18, lines 4-6 defines that the belt cartridge 5 includes the belt 3 on which the eyelet 33 and the peg 34 are contained).
Regarding claim 3, Quintana in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 2, as discussed above.
Quintana further discloses wherein the visual indication is a geometric shape (paragraph 25, lines 12-16 describe the elongated shape of the eyelet and the peg; Fig. 1 shows the shape of both components).
Regarding claim 4, Quintana in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 2, as discussed above.
Quintana further discloses wherein the visual indication is a change in color (paragraph 58, lines 1-6 for yellow coloring of eyelet 33 and peg 34, note the description that the components are “uniquely colored or marked”).
Regarding claim 5, Quintana in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Quintana further discloses wherein the alignment device (5) includes a strap (3) that extends from the compression point toward a back of the patient (paragraph 18, lines 4-6 defines that the belt cartridge 5 includes the belt 3; Fig. 1 shows that belt 3 extends from the chest of the patient towards the back in the direction of belt portions 3L and 3R).
Regarding claim 6, Quintana in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 5, as discussed above.
Quintana further discloses wherein the strap (3) extends from the compression point toward the backboard (6) (paragraph 18, lines 4-6 defines that the belt cartridge 5 includes the belt 3; Fig. 1 shows that belt 3 extends from the chest of the patient towards the backboard 6 in the direction of belt portions 3L and 3R).
Regarding claim 10, Quintana in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 5, as discussed above.
Quintana further discloses wherein the strap (3) spans a lateral width of the backboard (6) to permit visual alignment of the strap (3) with the backboard (6) (see Figs. 1 and 2 where the belt 3 traverses the lateral width of the backboard 6; note paragraph 28, lines 1-10 and Fig. 2 where label 46 is used to align cover plate 44 on backboard 6, and in Fig. 1, the patient and the belt 3 are aligned over label 46).
Regarding claim 11, Quintana in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 5, as discussed above.
Quintana further discloses wherein the alignment device (5) includes a visual indication of a compression point target (paragraph 58, lines 1-6 for yellow coloring of eyelet 33 and peg 34; paragraph 25, lines 1-11 describes the eyelet and the peg, and paragraph 18, lines 4-6 defines that the belt cartridge 5 includes the belt 3 on which the eyelet 33 and the peg 34 are contained).
Regarding claim 12, Quintana in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 11, as discussed above.
Quintana further discloses wherein the visual indication is a geometric shape (paragraph 25, lines 12-16 describe the elongated shape of the eyelet and the peg; Fig. 1 shows the shape of both components).
Regarding claim 13, Quintana in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 11, as discussed above.
Quintana further discloses wherein the visual indication is a change in color (paragraph 58, lines 1-6 for yellow coloring of eyelet 33 and peg 34, note the description that the components are “uniquely colored or marked”).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintana (US 2005/0080362) in view of Thomas (US 4,632,094), as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of Escudero (US 2005/0080361).
Regarding claim 7, Quintana in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 5, as discussed above.
Quintana fails to disclose wherein the strap is flexible.
However, Escudero teaches a belt (3) in a mechanical CPR device (paragraph 17, lines 1-6; Fig. 1) that is flexible (see paragraph 41: “strong and flexible materials”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the belt of Quintana to be made from a flexible material, as taught by Escudero, given that Escudero provides evidence that such a material can reliably produce compressions of the chest, and further teaches the skilled artisan that constructing the belt from flexible material is a known arrangement and construction of such a belt.
Regarding claim 8, Quintana in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 5, as discussed above.
Quintana fails to disclose wherein the strap is rigid.
However, Escudero teaches a belt (3) in a mechanical CPR device (paragraph 17, lines 1-6; Fig. 1) that is rigid (see paragraph 41: “flat metal or rounded metallic cable”, where a metal/metallic material is understood to have some degree of rigidity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the belt of Quintana to be made from a rigid material, as taught by Escudero, given that Escudero provides evidence that such a material can reliably produce compressions of the chest, and further teaches the skilled artisan that constructing the belt from rigid material is a known arrangement and construction of such a belt.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintana (US 2005/0080362) in view of Thomas (US 4,632,094), as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of Reynolds (US 2020/0121552).
Regarding claim 9, Quintana in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 5, as discussed above.
Quintana fails to disclose wherein the strap includes an adhesive for adhering the strap to the patient.
However, Reynolds teaches a strap (106) in a mechanical compression device (100) (paragraph 105, lines 1-13), wherein the strap (106) includes an adhesive for adhering the strap (106) to the patient (paragraph 105, lines 8-10), in order to facilitate sticking of the strap to the skin, such that upward motion of the belt, provides upward movement of the chest to achieve active decompression (paragraph 110, lines 6-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the strap of Quintana to include an adhesive, as taught by Reynolds, in order to facilitate sticking of the strap to the skin, such that upward motion of the belt, provides upward movement of the chest to achieve active decompression.
Claims 1-3, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parascandola (US 2014/0088467) in view of Thomas (US 4,632,094).
Regarding claim 1, Parascandola discloses a mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) device (10) (paragraph 25, lines 1-8; Fig. 1), comprising:
an alignment device (17) structured to be positioned at a desired compression point of a chest of a patient (paragraph 27, lines 1-15; Fig. 1, where 17 is initially placed on the chest without connection to plunger adapter 16);
a backboard (11B) structured to be positioned under the patient and aligned with the alignment device (17) (paragraph 25, lines 1-12; Fig. 1, note that 17 is aligned over top of backboard 11B);
an upper part (11+12) having a compression mechanism (14) structured to attach to the backboard (11B) (paragraph 25, lines 1-15; paragraph 27, lines 1-15; Fig. 1).
Parascandola fails to disclose wherein the backboard has a compression alignment line to guide a rescuer to align the backboard with the desired compression point.
However, Thomas teaches a heart-compressor system (10) (abstract, lines 1-3; Col. 2, lines 20-22; Fig. 1) including a backboard (20) having a compression alignment line (22, and note that a line is defined as “a mark (as by pencil) that forms part of the formal design of a picture distinguished from the shading or color” and “a straight or curved geometric element that is generated by moving a point and that has extension inly along the path of the point: curve” and “a defining outline: contour”) to guide a rescuer to align the backboard (20) with the desired compression point (Col. 2, lines 20-32 and 50-57; Figs. 1 and 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the backboard of Parascandola to include a compression alignment line to guide a rescuer to align the backboard with the desired compression point, as taught by Thomas, such that the rescuer is able to visually ascertain the point on the backboard at which the patient’s chest should be placed in order to facilitate proper compression with the compression mechanism.
Regarding claim 2, Parascandola in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Parascandola further discloses wherein the alignment device (17) includes a visual indication of a compression point target (paragraph 27, lines 1-15; Fig. 1, where 17 is initially placed on the chest without connection to plunger adapter 16; note in Fig. 1, 17 is visible and indicates the point at which plunger 14 attaches to compression pad 17 to compress the chest).
Regarding claim 3, Parascandola in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 2, as discussed above.
Parascandola further discloses wherein the visual indication is a geometric shape (paragraph 27, lines 1-15; Fig. 1, where 17 is initially placed on the chest without connection to plunger adapter 16; note in Fig. 1, 17 is visible and indicates the point at which plunger 14 attaches to compression pad 17 to compress the chest, and 17 has a shape; note analogous alignment device 31 in Fig. 5 and its cross-section).
Regarding claim 14, Parascandola in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Parascandola further discloses wherein the alignment device (17) includes a template to be placed on the chest of the patient having a compression point target (paragraph 27, lines 1-15; Fig. 1, where 17 is initially placed on the chest without connection to plunger adapter 16; note in Fig. 1, 17 is visible and indicates the point at which plunger 14 via plunger adapter 16 attaches to compression pad 17 to compress the chest, 17 is regarded as a template providing a compression point target as its shape and perimeter provide an indication/pattern of the surface area to be compressed on the patient’s chest, and its top aspect, i.e. 17A in Fig. 1, includes a surface for connection to the plunger adapter 16, regarded as a compression point target since it is where the plunger and its adapter are targeted for attachment; see paragraph 9, lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 16, Parascandola in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 14, as discussed above.
Parascandola further discloses wherein the compression point target comprises a suction cup (i.e. 17D, constructed as a flexible cup) structured to attach to a compression mechanism (14) of the upper part (11+12) (paragraph 9, lines 9-12, see “flexible cups” and “vacuum”; paragraph 25, lines 1-15; paragraph 27, lines 1-15; Fig. 1).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parascandola (US 2014/0088467) in view of Thomas (US 4,632,094), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Hardig (US 2019/0117499).
Regarding claim 17, Parascandola in view of Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Parascandola further discloses wherein the upper part (11+12) includes a first leg and a second leg (see right and left arched portions of 11 in Fig. 1), each of the first leg and the second leg being structured to attach the compression mechanism (14) to the backboard (11B) (paragraph 25, lines 1-12; Fig. 1), wherein the backboard (11B) has an elongated portion extending along a lateral axis between the first leg and the second leg (Fig. 1, where 11B extends laterally between the first and second legs).
Parascandola fails to disclose wherein the backboard further comprises a first connector structured to attach to the first leg;
a second connector structured to attach to the second leg, and thus fails to disclose that the elongated portion extends between the first connector and the second connector.
However, Hardig teaches a mechanical CPR device (200) (paragraph 47, lines 1-5; Fig. 2) which includes a backboard (210), a first leg (206), a second leg (208), an upper part (204) with a compression mechanism (220) wherein the first leg (206) and the second leg (208) are structured to attach the compression mechanism (220) to the backboard (210) (paragraph 47, lines 1-12; paragraph 49, lines 1-9; Fig. 2);
the backboard (210) further comprising:
a first connector (216) structured to attach to the first leg (206) (paragraph 47, lines 7-8; Fig. 2);
a second connector (218) structured to attach to the second leg (208) (paragraph 47, lines 7-8; Fig. 2); and
an elongated portion extending along an axis between the first connector (216) and the second connector (218) (see Fig. 2, where the middle portion of 210 extends laterally between 216 and 218 along an axis). Hardig indicates that this system of components serves to attach the components of the device together to form a retention structure for the patient (paragraph 47, lines 8-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the attachment points of the first and second legs of Parascandola to include first and second connectors respectively coupled thereto, as taught by Hardig, such that the elongated portion of the backboard of Parascandola extended along an axis between the first and second connectors, in order to form a retention structure for the patient by known methods of coupling the device components together.
Claims 1-4, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardig (US 2019/0117499) in view of Nilsson (US 2016/0136042) and Thomas (US 4,632,094).
Regarding claim 1, Hardig discloses a mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) device (200) (paragraph 47, lines 1-4; Fig. 2), comprising:
a backboard (210) structured to be positioned under the patient (paragraph 47, lines 4-5; Fig. 2);
an upper part (204) having a compression mechanism (220) wherein the first leg (206) and the second leg (208) structured to attach to the backboard (210) (paragraph 47, lines 1-12; paragraph 49, lines 1-9; Fig. 2).
Hardig fails to disclose an alignment device and that the backboard is aligned with the alignment device, and fails to disclose wherein the backboard has a compression alignment line to guide a rescuer to align the backboard with the desired compression point.
However, Nilsson teaches a mechanical CPR device (“CPR machine”) (paragraph 50, lines 1-4; Fig. 1) employing a compression mechanism (148) (paragraph 54, lines 1-7; Fig. 1) and a backboard (portion of 140 under the back) (paragraph 51, lines 10-12), and further including an alignment device (“tape”) structured to be positioned at a desired compression point of a chest of a patient, and aligned with the backboard (portion of 140 under the back) (paragraph 171, lines 1-10, where the tape is used to align the suction cup of the compression device, and indicates the targeted point for compression; note paragraph 51, lines 10-12 where the backboard is under the patient’s chest and back, meaning the tape is aligned with the backboard when both are in place, given that the tape is adhered to the chest and the backboard is under the chest), wherein the alignment device advantageously allows a rescuer to align and position the compression device properly on the patient’s chest (paragraph 171, lines 1-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hardig to include an alignment device structured to be positioned at a desired compression point of a chest of a patient and aligned with the backboard, as taught by Nilsson, in order to allow a rescuer to align and position the compression device properly on the patient’s chest for proper chest compressions.
Now modified Hardig fails to disclose wherein the backboard has a compression alignment line to guide a rescuer to align the backboard with the desired compression point.
However, Thomas teaches a heart-compressor system (10) (abstract, lines 1-3; Col. 2, lines 20-22; Fig. 1) including a backboard (20) having a compression alignment line (22, and note that a line is defined as “a mark (as by pencil) that forms part of the formal design of a picture distinguished from the shading or color” and “a straight or curved geometric element that is generated by moving a point and that has extension inly along the path of the point: curve” and “a defining outline: contour”) to guide a rescuer to align the backboard (20) with the desired compression point (Col. 2, lines 20-32 and 50-57; Figs. 1 and 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the backboard of Hardig to include a compression alignment line to guide a rescuer to align the backboard with the desired compression point, as taught by Thomas, such that the rescuer is able to visually ascertain the point on the backboard at which the patient’s chest should be placed in order to facilitate proper compression with the compression mechanism.
Regarding claim 2, Hardig in view of Nilsson and Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Hardig further discloses wherein the alignment device (“tape” of Nilsson) includes a visual indication of a compression point target (Nilsson: paragraph 171, lines 1-10, see “graphical indication”, “target”, “circle”, “colors”, “drawings”).
Regarding claim 3, Hardig in view of Nilsson and Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 2, as discussed above.
Modified Hardig further discloses wherein the visual indication is a geometric shape (Nilsson: paragraph 171, lines 1-10, see “target”, “circle”).
Regarding claim 4, Hardig in view of Nilsson and Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 2, as discussed above.
Modified Hardig further discloses wherein the visual indication is a change in color (Nilsson: paragraph 171, lines 1-10, see “colors”).
Regarding claim 14, Hardig in view of Nilsson and Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Hardig further discloses wherein the alignment device (“tape” of Nilsson) includes a template to be placed on the chest of the patient having a compression point target (Nilsson: paragraph 171, lines 1-10, see “adhered” and “graphical indication”, “target”, “circle”, “colors”, “drawings”).
Regarding claim 17, Hardig in view of Nilsson and Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Hardig further discloses wherein the upper part (204) includes a first leg (206) and a second leg (208), each of the first leg (206) and the second leg (208) being structured to attach the compression mechanism (220) to the backboard (210) (paragraph 47, lines 1-12; paragraph 49, lines 1-9; Fig. 2);
the backboard (210) further comprising:
a first connector (216) structured to attach to the first leg (206) (paragraph 47, lines 7-8; Fig. 2);
a second connector (218) structured to attach to the second leg (208) (paragraph 47, lines 7-8; Fig. 2); and
an elongated portion extending along an axis between the first connector (216) and the second connector (218) (see Fig. 2, where the middle portion of 210 extends laterally between 216 and 218 along an axis).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardig (US 2019/0117499) in view of Nilsson (US 2106/0136042) and Thomas (US 4,632,094), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Weaver II (US 5,487,722).
Regarding claim 15, Hardig in view of Nilsson and Thomas disclose the mechanical CPR device of claim 14, as discussed above.
Presently modified Hardig fails to disclose wherein the compression point target is a hole in the template.
However, Weaver II teaches a manual compression device (10) that includes a hole (16) aligned over sternum so that the rescuer’s fingers can palpate the chest anatomy and visually locate the chest anatomy for proper placement of the device (Col. 5, lines 30-35 and lines 41-49; Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the alignment device of modified Hardig to include a hole in the template, as taught by Weaver II, so that the rescuer is able to tactilely and visually locate the chest anatomy for proper placement of the alignment device and thus properly align the compression mechanism.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Walden (US 2017/0156979) is cited for its illustration if Figure 8 of alignment lines and a depiction of the patient on the backboard.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAIGE K. BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785