DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments received 14 August 2025. Claims 2-3 and 11-12 are cancelled; new claims 18-19 are entered; claims 1, 4-10 and 13-19 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
In view of the amendments received 14 August 2025, the Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 14 August 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 10 and their dependent claims under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Burton.
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 1, 4-10 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton (U.S. 5,423,325). Burton discloses (col. 29, lines 20-40) an electrocardiogram waveform input unit; a differentiating circuit (col. 9, line 15-col. 11, line 5); an enable signal generating unit; a power supply unit (Figure 5a); and an electrode group including electrodes, wherein the electrode device for defibrillation is configured so that an electrocardiogram waveform inputted through the electrode cardiogram waveform input unit is transmitted to the arithmetic processor through the differentiating circuit (col. 13, line 61-col. 14, line 5); the electric device for defibrillation is further configured to generate an enable signal from the enable signal generating unit after a peak of an event is surpassed and when or after the arithmetic processor determines that condition 2, condition 3, and condition 1 are satisfied (col. 23, line 49-col. 24, line 33), and apply a voltage to the electrode group from the power supply unit based on the enable signal, the event being estimated to be an R-wave of an electrocardiogram waveform, the electrocardiogram waveform being obtained from a human body and inputted from the electrocardiogram waveform input unit, the condition 1 is that a differential value in a differentiated waveform generated from the differentiating circuit based on the electrocardiogram waveform, which corresponds to the event estimated to be the R-wave, is a negative constant C3 value or less, the condition 2 is that a peak value of the differentiated waveform generated from the differentiating circuit based on the electrocardiogram waveform, which corresponds to a rise phase occurring before the peak of the event estimated as the R-wave of the electrocardiogram waveform, is a positive constant C1 value or more, and the condition 3 is that a period of time, during which the value of the differentiated waveform, which corresponds to the rise phase occurring before the peak of the event estimated as the R-wave of the electrocardiogram waveform, is the positive constant C2 value or more, the positive constant C2 value being smaller than the C1 value but greater than 0 in the differentiated waveform.
Burton discloses the claimed invention except for the period of time is 10 milliseconds or more and 80 milliseconds or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine the constant value ranges as claimed, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Burton discloses the claimed invention except for the differential value of Rn-wave reaches the C3 value is 50 milliseconds or more. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a time range of this value, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Burton discloses (Figure 1) a portion from the electrocardiogram waveform input unit to the enable signal generating unit is formed of a hardware circuit.
Regarding claim 6, Burton discloses (col. 31, line 30-42) a display unit that displays the electrocardiogram waveform, wherein the electric device for defibrillation is configured to generate a mark display signal for providing a mark to the event estimated to be the R-wave on the display unit from a mark display signal generating unit after the arithmetic processor determines that the peak of the event estimated to be the R-wave is surpassed and when or after the condition 1 is satisfied.
Regarding claim 7, Burton discloses (col. 20, lines 21-38) the electric device for defibrillation is configured to generate the mark display signal when or after the arithmetic processor determines that the condition 2 is satisfied and the condition 1 is satisfied.
Regarding claim 8, Burton discloses (col. 31, line 30-42) the electric device for defibrillation is configured to generate the mark display signal when or after the arithmetic processor determines that the condition 2 and the condition 3 are satisfied and the condition 1 is satisfied.
Regarding claim 9, Burton discloses the claimed invention except for the differential value of Rn-wave reaches the C3 value is 50 milliseconds or more. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a time range of this value, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, Burton discloses (col. 29, lines 20-40) generating a differential value by a differentiating circuit (col. 9, line 15-col. 11, line 5) based on an electrocardiogram waveform obtained from a human body, determining whether condition 2, condition 3 and condition 1 are satisfied after a peak of an event is surpassed by an arithmetic processor (col. 13, line 61-col. 14, line 5), the event being estimated to be an R-wave of the electrocardiogram waveform; and generating an enable signal by an enable generating unit when or after the arithmetic processor determines that the condition 2, the condition 3, and the condition 1 are satisfied (col. 23, line 49-col. 24, line 33), and applying a voltage from a power supply unit (Figure 5a) to an electrode group including electrodes based on the enable signal, wherein the condition 1 is that the differential value corresponding to the event estimated to be the R-wave is a negative constant C3 value or less, the condition 2 is that a peak value of the differentiated waveform, which corresponds to a rise phase occurring before the peak of the event estimated as the R-wave of the electrocardiogram waveform, is a positive constant C1 value or more, and the condition 3 is that a period of time, during which a value of the differentiated waveform, which corresponds to the rise phase occurring before the peak of the event estimated as the R-wave of the electrocardiogram waveform, is a positive constant C2 value or more, the positive constant C2 value being smaller than the C1 value but greater than 0 in the differentiated waveform.
Burton discloses the claimed invention except for the period of time is 10 milliseconds or more and 80 milliseconds or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine the constant value ranges as claimed, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Burton discloses the claimed invention except for the differential value of Rn-wave reaches the C3 value is 50 milliseconds or more. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a time range of this value, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Burton discloses (col. 31, line 30-42) generating a mark display signal for providing a mark to the event estimated to be the R-wave on a display unit when or after the arithmetic processor determines that the condition 1 is satisfied; and generating the enable signal when or after the step of generating the mark display signal.
Regarding claim 15, Burton discloses (col. 20, lines 21-38) generating the mark display signal for providing the mark to the event estimated to be the R-wave on the display unit when or after the arithmetic processor determines that the condition 2 is satisfied and the condition 1 is satisfied.
Regarding claim 16, Burton discloses (col. 20, lines 21-38) generating the mark display signal for providing the mark to the event estimated to be the R-wave on the display unit when or after the arithmetic processor determines that the condition 2 and the condition 3 are satisfied and the condition 1 is satisfied.
Regarding claim 17, Burton discloses the claimed invention except for the differential value of Rn-wave reaches the C3 value is 50 milliseconds or more. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a time range of this value, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 18-19, Burton discloses the claimed invention except for the enable signal is generated within 60 milliseconds from when the differential value reaches the negative constant C3 value. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the enable signal at this time, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result of effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
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 DEBORAH L MALAMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-2106. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 1:00-9:30 Eastern.
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, James Kish can be reached on (571) 272-5554. 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.
/DEBORAH L MALAMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights