DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 6/4/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1 and 7 have been amended, claim 3 has been cancelled, and no claims have been newly added. Thus, claims 1-2 and 4-8 are presenting pending in this application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/4/2026 has been entered.
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:
“a compression indicator configured to provide an indication of a compression rhythm for application of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force” in claim 4, corresponding to a compression indicator such as a flashing light, a sound indication, or a motion indicator such as vibration (Specification, page 6, lines 13-17).
“at least one processing unit configured to: monitor the vital signs measured by the at least one sensor; determine whether the housing is properly positioned on the chest according to the monitoring of the vital signs; generate a notification comprising instructions for administering the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force; and, providing real-time, continuous feedback regarding the treatment administered and condition of the subject” in claim 6, corresponding to a processor such as a general purpose processor or a microprocessor (Specification, page 9, lines 13-21).
“a communication unit configured to communicate and communicate with a mobile device” in claim 7.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the at least one processing unit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, lines 1-3 recites, “further comprising a second concave dell configured to facilitate administration of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force during cardiopulmonary resuscitation of an infant”. It is unclear whether the second concave dell recited in claim 8 refers back to the previously recited secondary concave dell recited in claim 1 or to a new structural element. It is noted that applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not disclose the device including three concave dells (i.e. a concave dell and a secondary concave dell recited in claim 1 (from which claim 8 depends from), and a second concave dell recited in claim 8), as the specification and drawings only disclose a device with two concave dells (i.e. a concave dell (220) and a secondary concave dell (221)). For purposes of examination, it is considered that the second concave dell recited in claim 8 refers back to the previously recited secondary concave dell recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (5,496,257) in view of Morgan (9,539,172).
PNG
media_image1.png
313
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kelly discloses a resuscitation device to facilitate the administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation to a subject, the resuscitation device comprising: a housing including a compression region (12) having a top surface (16) (flat, stiff surface) and a bottom surface (14) (bottom surface of compression pad (14)) (col 3, ln 63-col 4, ln 6);
wherein the top surface (16) is configured to guide a hand position of a rescuer administrating a cardiopulmonary resuscitation to the subject (may include a contoured element (not shown) that is shaped to match the contours of a user’s hand (col 4, ln 33-37) and can be sized to be used for performing CPR on an infant using two fingers (col 5, ln 16-31));
and wherein said bottom surface (14) is configured to facilitate positioning and stabilizing the housing over a sternum of a subject (bottom surface (14) may contain an adhesive or a textured surface to hold the bottom surface (14) in one set position on a patient’s chest (col 4, ln 13-27),
wherein the housing is configured to transmit a uniform distribution of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force to the chest of the subject (by applying a force to the top surface (16), the force is transferred to a patient's chest via the bottom surface (14), and since the top surface (16) is relatively stiff, any force applied will be evenly distributed across the bottom surface (14) and onto the patient) (col 4, ln 7-13),
wherein the housing is configured to transmit a cardiopulmonary resuscitation force that uniformly distributes to the chest of the subject (compression pad (14) is cushioned so that the forces applied to the compression region (12) are more evenly distributed onto the patient (col 3, ln 65-col 4, ln 4), wherein said cardiopulmonary resuscitation force over a surface area that is greater than the surface area of the top surface (16) that directly receives the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force (as shown in the annotated fig 1 above, bottom surface (14) is shown to be a length L that is larger than a length of an extending portion of top surface (16), and therefore the surface area of the bottom surface would be larger than the surface area of the top surface) (fig 1a, col 5, ln 9-12), thereby facilitating injury and contusion prevention to ribs and the sternum of the subject (as a result, there is less of a chance that the force being applied to the patient will cause internal injuries or external bruising) (col 4, ln 2-4).
Kelly does not disclose said top surface comprises a central portion having a concave dell configured to guide a hand position of a rescuer administrating a cardiopulmonary resuscitation to the subject, wherein said concave dell comprises a secondary concave dell configured to facilitate administration of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation force to an infant
However, Morgan teaches a device to deliver cardiopulmonary resuscitation to an infant, and in figs 14a-c discloses a top surface of a housing (206) (case) including a concave dell (220) (as shown in fig 14b, device includes a pair of finger pads (220) which are shown to be concave with respect to the housing (206)) at a central portion (as shown in fig 14, finger pads (220) are shown to be disposed centrally at a midpoint between two lateral ends of the device) configured to guide a hand position of a rescuer (concave dells (220) allow a user to position fingers in concave dells to provide compression to an infant using two fingers) (col 14, ln 48-59), wherein said concave dell comprises a secondary concave dell (220) (second finger pad) configured to facilitate administration of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation to an infant (col 14, ln 48-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Kelly by providing the top surface with a concave dell comprising two finger pads on a top surface configured to provide guide a hand placement of a rescuer administrating a cardiopulmonary resuscitation to a subject and including a secondary dell comprising a second finger pad configured to facilitate administration of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation force to an infant as taught by Morgan in order to allow the device to be used for CPR on an infant by repeated press-release movements using a concave dell comprising a pair of concave finger pads disposed on the top surface of the housing (Morgan, abstract) to cause the device to distribute the pressing force substantially evenly to the infant (Morgan, col 14, ln 52-56).
Regarding claim 2, Kelly in fig 1b teaches the housing includes a bottom surface (17) of a compression pad (14), wherein the bottom surface (17) comprises a friction surface configured to prevent the housing from dislocating from its position during administration of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force (the bottom surface (17) of the compression pad (14) may be textured to increase the coefficient of friction associated with that surface, or may include an adhesive element that contacts the patient) (col 4, ln 13-27).
Regarding claim 4, Kelly discloses a compression indicator (30, 32) (visual, audio indicators) configured to provide an indication of a compression rhythm for application of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force (visual indicator (30) and audible indicator (32) is configured to pace the person administering CPR in the proper compression rate per minute for a given sized patient) (col 6, ln 32-50).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Kelly’s reference discloses a second concave dell configured to facilitate administration of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation force to an infant (as shown in fig 1a-c of Morgan, finger pads (220 of Morgan) include two concave dells, and therefore a second of the concave dells would comprise a second concave dell to facilitate administration of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation force to an infant) (Morgan, col 14, ln 48-59).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly and Morgan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson (2014/0323928).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kelly discloses a resuscitation device.
Modified Kelly does not disclose a tarp operative to facilitate covering the chest of the subject during administration of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation force.
However, Johnson teaches a resuscitation device, and in fig 2 discloses a tarp (electrode assembly) operative to facilitate covering the chest of the subject during administration of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation force and including a sternal electrode (4), an apex electrode (5), and a bridge (6) operable to contain a resuscitation device (7) (chest compression monitor) (para [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Kelly by providing a tarp operative to facilitate covering the chest of the subject during administration of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation force and including electrodes as taught by Johnson in order to allow the device to be used in combination with a defibrillator to apply a shock to a patient is if is determined that a defibrillating shock should be applied (Johnson, para [0005]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly and Morgan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hardig et al (2019/0117499).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kelly discloses at least one sensor (43 of Kelly) (blood flow sensor) configured to measure vital signs of the subject (Kelly, col 7, ln 9-26); and, at least one processing unit (51 of Kelly) (CPU) (Kelly, col 8, ln 18-23) configured to: monitor the vital signs measured by the at least one sensor (43 of Kelly) (sensor (43) intercommunicates with circuitry within the apparatus housing) (Kelly, col 7, ln 18-20); generate a notification comprising instructions for administering the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force (CPU (51 of Kelly) drives the visual indicator (30 of Kelly) and the audible indicator (32 of Kelly) to prompt the rescuer into properly administering CPR) (Kelly, col 8, ln 21-28); and, providing real-time, continuous feedback regarding the treatment administered and condition of the subject (includes gauges (50, 52 of Kelly), which may be electronically produced images, for providing feedback for compression force and blood flow) (Kelly, col 7, ln 52-col 8, ln 3).
Modified Kelly does not disclose the at least one processing unit is configured to determine whether the housing is properly positioned on the chest according to the monitoring of the vital signs.
However, Hardig in fig 1 teaches a resuscitation device including a contact surface (116) configured to make contact with a patient’s chest for performing chest compressions (para [0034]) and a physiological sensor (138) configured to measure vital signs of the subject (sensor can measure a physiological parameter such as Arterial Systolic Blood Pressure (ABSP), a blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), a ventilation measured as End-Tidal CO2 (ETCO2), a temperature, a detected pulse, etc.) (para [0040]), and at least one processing unit (102), wherein the at one processing unit (102) is configured to determine whether the contact surface is properly positioned on the chest according to the monitoring of the vital signs (controller (102) can receive a physiological parameter sensor signal (140) from the physiological parameter sensor (138) and determine whether a first orientation of the contact surface (116) should be adjusted based on the physiological parameter sensor signal (140)) (para [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Kelly so that the at least one processing unit is configured to determine whether the housing is properly positioned on the chest according to the monitoring of the vital signs as taught by Hardig in order to allow the at least one processing unit to determine whether the orientation of the housing should be adjusted so that pressure can be positioned at an intended point on the chest (Hardig, para [0011]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly and Morgan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Freeman et al (2019/0255340).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kelly discloses a resuscitation device.
Modified Kelly does not disclose a communication unit configured to connect and communicate with a mobile device.
However, Freeman teaches a treatment system (100) including a resuscitation device (110) (ACD resuscitation device) (para [0037]), wherein the resuscitation device (200) (which is the same as device (110)) (para [0040]) includes a communication unit configured to communicate with a mobile device (device can include an antenna for wireless communication for communication with external devices such as laptops, wireless networks, wearable electronic devices, smartwatches, servers, tablets, phones, etc) (para [0056]), and wherein the mobile device configured to present the user with user interface and instructional content (mobile phone can be connected to the integrated treatment system (100), in which visual feedback, such as a graphical user interface that displays an ECG trace, compression timing and depth measurements, or other feedback of the ACD Resuscitation treatment, can be provided to the rescuer from a location that is away from the ACD Resuscitation device 110) (para [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Kelly by providing a communication unit configured to communicate with a mobile device, the mobile device configured to present the user with user interface and instructional content as taught by Freeman in order to allow information to be provided to the rescuer from a location that is away from the resuscitation device (Freeman, para [0037]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7, sixth full paragraph-page 8, first full paragraph of applicant’s remarks, that Kelly does not teach the structure of the concave dell, and Morgan finger-positioning depressions fundamentally differ from the claimed concave hand, as Morgan’s recesses are not configured to receive a rescuer’s hand and not disclosed as centrally positioned. However, Morgan’s concave dells are considered to read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of being “centrally positioned” as the concave dells (220) are shown in fig 14 to be disposed at a midpoint between the two laterals ends of the top housing. Furthermore, Morgan’s recesses are configured to receive a rescuer’s fingers to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation on an infant, and as a finger is a component of a hand, a recess configured to position a rescuer’s fingers would read the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a concave dell configured to guide a hand position of a rescuer administering a cardiopulmonary resuscitation to the subject”. Therefore, the rejection is maintained. It is noted that applicant’s disclosure of the structure of the concave dells as shown in figs 2a-b differ from Morgan’s structure comprising a pair of concave finger pads, as applicant’s first concave dell (220) substantially extends across an entire top surface of the top housing and a second concave dell (221) is disposed within the first concave dell (200), while Morgan teaches two concave dells that are disposed on a portion of a top surface of the housing and are disposed side-by-side, however, Morgan’s concave dells are considered to read on applicant’s claimed invention as presented.
Applicant argues on page 8, second full paragraph of applicant’s remarks, that no reasonable rationale is required to arrive at the combination of features recited in claim 1, as Kelly’s device is directed to distributing force during chest compression, whereas Morgan’s recess merely facilitate the finger placement for infant CPR, which would require substantial redesign of Kelly’s force applying surface and would alter the manner in which compressive forces are applied through the device. However, Kelly discloses that the device may be used on an infant by providing a smaller compression pad (14), and further discloses that in such a configuration, the surface (16) could be configured so that a rescuer can apply CPR with two fingers (col 5, ln 9-31), and furthermore, the surface (16) can be contoured to match the contours of a user’s hand (col 4, ln 28-47). Morgan teaches a device for providing CPR to an infant including a contoured top surface, wherein the contoured top surface comprises a concave dell and a second concave dell (220) for allowing a user to position fingers in concave dells to provide compression to an infant using two fingers) (col 14, ln 48-59). Therefore, because Kelly discloses that the device may be used to perform CPR on an infant using two fingers, and a top surface may be contoured to match the contours of a user’s hand, and Morgan teaches a contoured top surface comprising a pair of concave dells to facilitate administering CPR to an infant using two fingers, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan, upon seeing Morgan’s disclosure, to modify the device of Kelly by providing the top surface with a concave dell comprising two finger pads on a top surface configured to provide guide a hand placement of a rescuer administrating a cardiopulmonary resuscitation to a subject and including a secondary dell comprising a second finger pad configured to facilitate administration of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation force to an infant as taught by Morgan in order to allow the device to be used for CPR on an infant by repeated press-release movements using a concave dell comprising a pair of concave finger pads disposed on the top surface of the housing (Morgan, abstract) to cause the device to distribute the pressing force substantially evenly to the infant (Morgan, col 14, ln 52-56). Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 8, third full paragraph-page 9, first paragraph of applicant’s remarks, that neither Kelly or Morgan discloses that the force received through the concave dell is transmitted through the housing and distributed over a larger chest-contacting area. However, as shown in the annotated fig 1 above, bottom surface (14) is shown to have a length L that is larger than a length of an extending portion of top surface (16), and therefore the surface area of the bottom surface would be larger than the surface area of the top surface) (fig 1a, col 5, ln 9-12). Furthermore, Kelly does not sole disclose applying force by via a flat top surface, as the device may include a contoured element (not shown) that is shaped to match the contours of a user’s hand (col 4, ln 33-37) and can be sized to be used for performing CPR on an infant using two fingers (col 5, ln 16-31)), and therefore, providing Kelly with a contoured surface comprising a pair of concave finger pads disposed at a midpoint between two lateral ends of the device and sized to be used for performing CPR on an infant using two fingers would have a smaller surface area than a chest region of an infant. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS YOUNG SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-5260. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Stanis can be reached on 571-272-5139. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS Y SUL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights