DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/30/2025. Per the amendment, claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-9, 19, and 21 are canceled; claims 2, 4, 7, and 20 are currently amended; and claims 10-18 and 22-23 are as previously presented. As such, claims 2, 4, 7, 10-18, 20, and 22-23 are pending in the instant application.
All objections and rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) made in the Office Action mailed on 09/30/2025 are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
All rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn in light of the amendments. The amendments filed on 12/30/2025 recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (e.g., one or more sensors disposed in a housing configured to be placed on a chest of the subject, tactile beats, and utilizing the output of a pattern of haptic feedback to adjust the CPR treatment to a subject by prompting a switch in the rescuer performing CPR).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner acknowledges, in accordance with 37 CFR §1.98(d)(1) and (2), the IDS filed on 01/06/2023 complies with 37 CFR §1.98(a)(2). Accordingly, all references have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4, 7, 10-18, 20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “one or more sensors disposed in a housing configured to be placed on a chest of the subject and upon which a rescuer places his/her hands to provide CPR to the subject” in lines 5-6. It is unclear if the hands of the rescuer are being positively recited, or if the housing is further configured to provide a location for the rescuer to placement of their hands such that CPR may be provided to the subject. It is recommended by the Examiner to reword or rewrite this limitation as one interpretation of the limitation, as currently written, may be directed to or encompass a human organism. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation of claim 2 will be interpreted as – one or more sensors disposed in a housing configured to be placed on a chest of the subject, where the housing is further configured to receive hands of a rescuer such that CPR may be provided to the subject.
Claims 4, 7, 10-18, 20, and 22-23 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 4, 7, 10-18, 20, and 22-23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kellum (US 20090240295 A1) in view of Centen & Patel (US 2008/0171311 A1) in view of Eerden (US 20100211127 A1) in further view of Liden (US 20090270931 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kellum discloses a computer-implemented method of managing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) treatment to a subject (Abstract), comprising instructions stored in memory (memory element, [0056], lines 19-22; [0056], lines 1-4, where the instructions are stored in the memory element) for execution by at least one processor (one or more microprocessors; [0056], lines 22-23), the method (Abstract) comprising:
obtaining information indicative of CPR being performed on the subject from one or more sensors (one or more sensors of chest compression module 216; [0050], lines 16-20);
generating at least one CPR quality parameter based on the information indicative of CPR being performed on the subject ([0046], lines 1-4); and
generating feedback regarding the information indicative of CPR being performed on the subject ([0047], lines 11-17).
Kellum fails to explicitly disclose the one or more sensors are disposed in a housing configured to be placed on a chest of the subject and upon which a rescuer places his/her hands to provide CPR to the subject.
However, Centen & Patel teaches one or more sensors (accelerometer 16) are arranged within a housing (glove, where the glove may be a plastic shell, [0050], last sentence of paragraph; [0051], lines 17-19; [0057], second to last sentence of paragraph), where the housing (glove, where the glove may be a plastic shell, [0050], last sentence of paragraph) is placed on a patient’s chest (Fig. 1; [0044]) and a user places their hands on the housing (glove, where the glove may be a plastic shell, [0050], last sentence of paragraph, where it would be well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that a user’s hand would be placed upon the plastic shell) during a performance of CPR chest compressions ([0044]; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kellum with Centen & Patel such that the one or more sensors one or more sensors of chest compression module 216; [0050], lines 16-20) are disposed in a housing (Centen & Patel: glove, where the glove may be a plastic shell, [0050], last sentence of paragraph; [0051], lines 17-19; [0056], last sentence of paragraph; [0057], second to last sentence of paragraph; Figs. 3 and 6) configured to be placed on a chest of the subject (Centen & Patel: Fig. 1; [0044]) and upon which a rescuer places his/her hands to provide CPR to the subject (Centen & Patel: glove, where the glove may be a plastic shell, [0050], last sentence of paragraph, where it would be well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that a user’s hand would be placed upon the plastic shell) to increase ease of use for the rescuer while performing CPR on a patient (Centen & Patel: [0020], line 8).
Kellum is silent to determining whether the at least one CPR quality parameter is within a predetermined range based on one or more target CPR parameters.
However, Eerden teaches elements (50) that correspond to an evaluation of a compression cycle with respect to evaluation criteria ([0026], lines 6-9), where the evaluation criteria may include minimum and maximum values for peak compression, a max compression depth for release, a min and a max frequency, and a max inactivity interval ([0011], lines 7-11). Eerden further teaches the elements (50) may include percentage notations indicating a percentage of compressions during an individual compression cycle that satisfy the respective evaluation criteria, such as a percentage of compressions that are within a predetermined and acceptable range of compression depths ([0027], lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kellum with Eerden such that the method taught by Kellum as modified further comprises determining whether the at least one CPR quality parameter ([0046], lines 1-4) is within a predetermined range based on one or more target CPR parameters (Eerden: [0026], lines 6-9; [0027], lines 1-7) to increase the likelihood of the patient’s survival (Eerden: [0008], line 2).
Kellum further teaches feedback provided via vibration ([0047], lines 11-12), where vibration can be broadly interpreted as a tactile beat or tap. Hence, Kellum teaches generating tactile beats (tactile beats provided via vibration; [0047], lines 11-12) for the rescuer to follow in providing chest compression (feedback provided to a rescuer may include the following: to start compressions, stop compressions, be alerted that chest compression quality is deteriorating, increase pressure, decrease pressure, push a different distance into a victim's chest, retract further after compression, or take some other action related to the treatment, see [0047], lines 11-17). But Kellum as modified fails to teach the tactile beats provided with a haptic vibrator positioned within the housing.
However, Centen & Patel teaches at least one feedback component arranged within a housing (glove, where the glove may be a plastic shell, see [0057], second to last sentence of paragraph), where the at least one feedback component provides visual feedback or a selection of choices for a rescuer while performing CPR on a patient ([0056], last sentence of paragraph). Additionally, Centen & Patel teaches other types of feedback may be implemented, such as tactile feedback, where tactile feedback may be a small vibration ([0105], lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Kellum with Centen & Patel such that the tactile beats (tactile beats provided via vibration; [0047], lines 11-12) are provided with a haptic vibrator (Kellum [0047], lines 11-12 and Centen & Patel [0105], lines 1-3, where it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a haptic vibrator, which is a well-known device to provide tactile feedback) positioned within the housing (Centen & Patel [0057], second to last sentence of paragraph, where the at least one feedback component is the haptic vibrator) to facilitate feedback and guidance of CPR to the user (Centen & Patel [0021]).
Kellum as modified further teaches generating a pattern of haptic feedback with the haptic vibrator (Centen & Patel [0105], lines 1-3, where tactile feedback, such as a small vibration, may be implemented to control the rate of compression, and a rate of compression is a pattern, hence a pattern of haptic feedback is generated; Kellum [0047], lines 11-12 and Centen & Patel [0105], lines 1-3, where the haptic vibrator is a well-known device to provide tactile and haptic feedback) when the at least one CPR quality parameter falls outside of the predetermined range (Kellum [0047], lines 11-17; Eerden [0026], lines 6-9 and [0027], lines 1-7). Kellum as modified fails to teach the above method as a prompt to switch the rescuer with another rescuer performing CPR.
However, Liden teaches providing feedback generated as a prompt to change rescuers when performing CPR (see Audible Instructions Table on Pg. 3, following [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Kellum with Liden such that a pattern of haptic feedback is generated with a haptic vibrator (Centen & Patel [0105], lines 1-3, where tactile feedback, such as a small vibration, may be implemented to control the rate of compression, and a rate of compression is a pattern, hence a pattern of haptic feedback is generated; Kellum [0047], lines 11-12 and Centen & Patel [0105], lines 1-3, where the haptic vibrator is a well-known device to provide tactile and haptic feedback) when at least one CPR quality parameter falls outside of the predetermined range (Kellum [0047], lines 11-17; Eerden [0026], lines 6-9 and [0027], lines 1-7) as a prompt to switch the rescuer with another rescuer performing CPR (Liden: see Audible Instructions Table on Pg. 3, following [0056]) to ensure CPR is provided to a patient with a consistent chest compression depth and chest compression rate during the duration of CPR being performed.
Regarding claim 4, Kellum as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 2, but is silent to wherein the pattern of haptic feedback (Centen & Patel [0105], lines 1-3, where tactile feedback, such as a small vibration, may be implemented to control the rate of compression, and a rate of compression is a pattern, hence a pattern of haptic feedback is generated) is generated after a set period of time has elapsed since application of CPR has been detected by the one or more sensors.
However, Centen & Patel teaches at least one ECG sensor to take an ECG reading taken for a predetermined length of time ([0080], lines 1-6), where feedback is generated after said predetermined length of time ([0080], lines 8-16; [0045], lines 14-18, where sensor 18 is an ECG sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Kellum with Centen & Patel such that the pattern of haptic feedback (Centen & Patel: pattern of vibration tactile feedback; [0105], lines 1-3) is generated after a set period of time has elapsed since application of CPR has been detected (Centen & Patel: [0080], lines 1-6; [0080], lines 8-16; [0045], lines 14-18) by the one or more sensors (one or more sensors of chest compression module 216; [0050], lines 16-20) to improve the feedback provided to the rescuer and optimize the CPR provided to the patient (See MPEP §2144.05 Section II).
Regarding claim 7, Kellum as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 4, wherein the pattern of haptic feedback (Centen & Patel: pattern of vibration tactile feedback; [0105], lines 1-3) comprises a continuous vibration pattern (Centen & Patel: [0105], lines 1-3, where it is inherent vibration tactile feedback to control the rate of compression would be a pattern of continuous and consistent metronomic vibrations over a time period to ensure compressions are performed during said time period are at an accurate and consistent rate).
Regarding claim 10, Kellum as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 2, wherein the information indicative of CPR being performed on the subject comprises at least one of chest compression depth and chest compression rate ([0040], lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 11, Kellum as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 10, wherein the feedback ([0047], lines 11-17) comprises information regarding at least one of the chest compression depth and the chest compression rate ([0047], lines 4-11, where the feedback provided to a rescuer is determined based on the timing, presence, and/or absence of chest compressions; [0047], lines 11-17, where the feedback may include information on adjustments of compression depth and/or the frequency, or rate, of compressions).
Regarding claim 12, Kellum as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 2, wherein the at least one CPR quality parameter ([0046], lines 1-4) includes a quality score of the CPR being provided to the subject (chart 122 displays information relating to the quality of the CPR being provided; [0042], lines 18-25, where a segment of poor-quality chest compressions may be reflected on chart 122 with a specific color or pattern; [0046], lines 1-4, where the graph is chart 122; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Kellum as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 12, wherein the quality score (chart 122 displays information relating to the quality of the CPR being provided; [0042], lines 18-25, where a segment of poor-quality chest compressions may be reflected on chart 122 with a specific color or pattern; [0046], lines 1-4, where the graph is chart 122; Fig. 4) is indicative of an instantaneous quality of CPR administered to the subject ([0053], where the graphic display is chart 122, and real time data analyzed using chart 122 indicates a quality of CPR administered to the subject at a instantly current time).
Regarding claim 14, Kellum as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 12, but is silent to wherein the quality score is indicative of an average quality of CPR administered to the subject.
However, Centen & Patel teaches a standardized measure of CPR quality based on an average compression rate ([0065], second to last sentence of paragraph; [0135], lines 3-4; [0138], lines 1-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Kellum with Centen & Patel such that the quality score (chart 122 displays information relating to the quality of the CPR being provided; [0042], lines 18-25, where a segment of poor-quality chest compressions may be reflected on chart 122 with a specific color or pattern; [0046], lines 1-4, where the graph is chart 122; Fig. 4) is indicative of an average quality of CPR administered to the subject (Centen & Patel: [0065], second to last sentence of paragraph; [0135], lines 3-4; [0138], lines 1-8) to provide an overall summary of the quality of a rescuer’s CPR performance to indicate if the rescuer is responding correctly (Centen & Patel: [0128], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, Kellum as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 2, wherein the feedback is at least one of audible feedback and visual feedback ([0047], lines 11-17, where feedback may be audible feedback provided by a speaker or readout, or visual feedback provided by a display screen).
Regarding claim 16, Kellum as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 2, but is silent to wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one accelerometer.
However, Centen & Patel teaches at least one sensor which may include an accelerometer (16), where the accelerometer (16) measures compression depth ([0054], lines 11-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Kellum with Centen & Patel such that the one or more sensors (one or more sensors of chest compression module 216; [0050], lines 16-20) comprise at least one accelerometer (Centen & Patel: accelerometer 16) to accurately calculate chest compression depth (Centen & Patel: [0066], lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 17, Kellum as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 2, wherein the one or more target CPR parameters (Eerden: evaluation criteria for elements 50; [0026], lines 6-9) include at least one of a chest compression parameter and a ventilation parameter (Eerden: a max compression depth for release; [0011], lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 18, Kellum as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 17, wherein the chest compression parameter (Eerden: a max compression depth for release; [0011], lines 7-11) is based on at least one of chest compression depth (Eerden: a max compression depth for release is based on chest compression depth; [0011], lines 7-11) and chest compression rate.
Regarding claim 20, Kellum as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 2, wherein the housing (Centen & Patel: glove, where the glove may be a plastic shell, [0050], last sentence of paragraph) is arranged so as to rest adjacent to a rescuer's hands during performance of CPR chest compressions (Centen & Patel: Figs. 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 22, Kellum as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 2, wherein the at least one CPR quality parameter ([0046], lines 1-4) is based at least in part on a calculation of an indication of the rescuer's fatigue ([0046], lines 1-5, where segment 140 of the graph is based at least in part on a calculation; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 23, Kellum as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 22, wherein the indication of the rescuer's fatigue ([0046], lines 1-5, where segment 140 of the graph is based at least in part on a calculation; Fig. 4) is based at least in part on at least one of chest compression depth and chest compression rate (segment 140, where the segment indicates a period of poor-quality chest compressions being administered and segment 140 of chart 122 is derived on data in event table 96, where event table 96 includes a chest compression rate value column 102, [0040], lines 1-4; [0042], line 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the amendments filed on 12/30/2025 necessitate new ground(s) of rejection.
On page 8 of the Remarks (filed on 12/30/2025), Applicant argues Kellum, Eerden, Liden, and Centen, whether considered individually or in combination, all fail to teach or suggest "one or more sensors disposed in a housing configured to be placed on a chest of the subject and upon which a rescuer places his/her hands to provide CPR to the subject" and "a haptic vibrator positioned within the housing". However, Kellum in combination with Centen does teach one or more sensors disposed in a housing configured to be placed on a chest of the subject and upon which a rescuer places his/her hands to provide CPR to the subject (see 103 rejection of claim 2 above).
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues the combination of Kellum, Eerden and Liden fails to teach or suggest at least one processor to be configured to "generat[e] tactile beats for the rescuer to follow in providing chest compression" with "the tactile beats [being] provided with a haptic vibrator positioned within the housing" and to "generat[e] a pattern of haptic feedback with the haptic vibrator when the at least one CPR quality parameter falls outside of the predetermined range as a prompt to switch the rescuer with another rescuer performing CPR". However, Kellum in combination with Eerden, Liden, and Centen does teach at least one processor to be configured to "generat[e] tactile beats for the rescuer to follow in providing chest compression" with "the tactile beats [being] provided with a haptic vibrator positioned within the housing" and to "generat[e] a pattern of haptic feedback with the haptic vibrator when the at least one CPR quality parameter falls outside of the predetermined range as a prompt to switch the rescuer with another rescuer performing CPR" (see 103 rejection of claim 2 above).
On pages 8-9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Liden does not disclose that a pattern of haptic feedback is generated with a haptic vibrator when the at least one CPR quality parameter falls outside of the predetermined range as a prompt to switch the rescuer with another rescuer performing CPR”. However, Kellum in combination with Liden, Eerden, and Centen does teach a pattern of haptic feedback is generated with a haptic vibrator when the at least one CPR quality parameter falls outside of the predetermined range as a prompt to switch the rescuer with another rescuer performing CPR (see 103 rejection of claim 2 above).
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues none of the cited references whether considered individually or in combination teach or suggest both "generating tactile beats for the rescuer to follow in providing chest compression" with "the tactile beats [being] provided with a haptic vibrator positioned within the housing" and to "generating a pattern of haptic feedback with the haptic vibrator when the at least one CPR quality parameter falls outside of the predetermined range as a prompt to switch the rescuer with another rescuer performing CPR". However, Kellum in combination with Centen, Eerden, and Liden does teach both "generating tactile beats for the rescuer to follow in providing chest compression" with "the tactile beats [being] provided with a haptic vibrator positioned within the housing" and "generating a pattern of haptic feedback with the haptic vibrator when the at least one CPR quality parameter falls outside of the predetermined range as a prompt to switch the rescuer with another rescuer performing CPR" (see 103 rejection of claim 2 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bishay & Powers (WO 2008015623 A2): Regarding a device that provides tactile feedback to coach a rescuer during the administration of CPR.
Strand et al. (US 8939922 B2): Regarding a system and method for monitoring parameters during CPR and a feedback module to provide tactile feedback to a user performing CPR based on the monitored parameters.
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 ABIGAYLE DALE whose telephone number is (571)272-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:45am to 5:45pm ET.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/ABIGAYLE DALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785