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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive to overcome the current rejections. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bishay (US 6,293,962) and JP 2020-6249.
However, the Examiner would like to address some of the applicant’s arguments filed 12/16/2025 regarding the characterization of the Riffard reference and what the claims currently recite. The applicant argues that there would be no reason to modify Riffard to be human-carriable. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Riffard explicitly discloses on the first page of the English Translation that was previously provided that the housing is a “mobile storage space” and that the current invention addresses issues with thermal stresses during transport and that the invention allows the transportation of a product such as a defibrillator. Furthermore, in order for the housing to be temporarily installed anywhere would REQUIRE the housing to be transportable to the installation location. This would all imply that the device is designed to be carried and moved by humans.
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 also 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 limitations that invoke 35 USC 112(f)are:
“means for regulating the temperature in a case” in claim 1, which is disclosed on page 4 of the original specification as being a device or material which actively adds thermal energy to the inside of the case either by transferring thermal energy from the outside of the case into the case or by converting another type of energy into thermal energy within the case or which actively removes thermal energy from the case either by transferring it to the outside of the case or by converting thermal energy within the case into another form of energy.
“sensors for detecting the temperature” in claim 3, which is disclosed on page 9 of the specification as a thermometer.
“sensors for detecting a technical status, a battery status, and/or a removal of the AED” in claim 4, which is disclosed on page 10 of the original specification as optical or acoustic-sensing devices.
“means for indicating a position of the case” in claim 5, which is disclosed on pages 9 and 10 of the original specification as being a GPS antenna or a localization device using a mobile network.
“means for communication” in claim 6, which is disclosed on pages 10 and 11 of the original specification as a radio transmitter, a wireless network module, a low-power wide area network (LPWAN) module, or Bluetooth module or a module for communication via mobile network.
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riffard et al. (WO 2020/069947, hereinafter Riffard; all citations are to the included English Translation) in view of Bishay (US 6,293,962).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 9, 10 and 17, Riffard discloses a case100/200 for an AED (see page 1, par. 1). All components of the case are within a single, interconnected cavity, as shown below, such that airflow F16-F20 flows freely within the single cavity:
PNG
media_image1.png
430
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The case includes thermal insulation (page 2, par. 4, and page 3, par. 11). A phase-change material 115 is included within the cavity such that the material absorbs thermal energy upon melting and releases thermal energy upon returning to a solid (page 2, par. 2, page 4, second to last paragraph). The case is disclosed as mobile, transportable and not wired to stationary electricity (page 1, 2nd paragraph), such that the case is suitable for being carried by a human, if so desired by a user. A microcontroller controls the phase change material (page 2).
Riffard is silent as to there specifically being a handle on the case. Attention is directed to Bishay, which also discloses a portable defibrillator case, and thus is analogous art with Riffard (See abstract Col. 1, lines 7-14). Bishay discloses that the housing can have a handle 26 located on the door (Col. 4, lines 5-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date to include the handle of Bishay to the portable housing of Riffard in order to provide a convenient area to grasp the door of the housing.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Riffard discloses external photovoltaic cells 141 are connected to a battery within the case through an access point (pages 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 3, Riffard discloses temperature sensors 160 are included within the case.
Regarding claim 4, Riffard discloses an optical sensor is included to detect a control status of the AED (page 5).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 14 and 15, Riffard discloses a means for communication is included, which can indicate a location of the device (page 7).
Regarding claim 8, Riffard discloses there are subcavities within the cavity of the case capable of taking sensors and accessories, if so desired by the user:
PNG
media_image2.png
430
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Riffard discloses a means for regulating temperature. Bishay also discloses a means for regulating temperature, and thus is analogous art with Riffard. Specifically, Bishay teaches that one can regulate temperature utilizing a compressor-based air conditioner, which inherently operates using the phase change of a liquid/gas coolant (i.e., the Joule-Thomson effect) (Col. 5, lines 4-10). Therefore, Riffard and Bishay teach art-recognized equivalents for regulating temperature, and substituting the air-conditioner of Bishay for the phase-change material of Riffard would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date as the substitution as it would have the predictable result of regulating temperature within the case.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riffard and Bishay in view of Brun et al. (US 2018/0328630, hereinafter Brun).
Riffard, as modified above, discloses a means for regulating temperature. Brun also discloses a means for regulating temperature, and thus is analogous art with Riffard. Specifically, Brun teaches that one can regulate temperature utilizing a thermoelectric transducer which increases and decreases temperature based on a polarity of voltage applied (par. 0026). Therefore, Riffard and Brun teach art-recognized equivalents for regulating temperature, and substituting the thermoelectric transducer of Brun for the phase-change material of Riffard would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date as the substitution as it would have the predictable result of regulating temperature within the case.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riffard in and Bishay in view of JP 2020-6249 (hereinafter Japanese Patent; all citations are to the included English Translation).
Regarding claim 18, Riffard, as modified, discloses the applicant’s basic invention, but it silent as to using polystyrene insulation over metal. The Japanese Patent also a defibrillator storage device (see abstract), and thus is analogous art with Riffard. Specifically, the Japanese Patent teaches a metallic heat shield 16,18,20 and 22 and a polystyrene insulating material 12c and 12d on the inside of the metal surface. Therefore, Riffard and the Japanese Patent teach art-recognized equivalents for insulation, and substituting the polystyrene and metal of the Japanese Patent for the insulation of Riffard would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date as the substitution as it would have the predictable result of regulating temperature within the case.
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 Eric D Bertram whose telephone number is (571)272-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-6pm Central Time.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/Eric D. Bertram/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796