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 Amendment
The amendment filed April 2, 2026 has been entered. No claims have been amended. Claim 7 was previously withdrawn. Currently, claims 1-6 and 8 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (p. 5) the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection that claim 1 is unpatentable over Vaisnys et al. (US 2011/0213433) in view of Carlin et al. (US 2018/0018866) because Carlin et al., used to teach the specific pattern of light and sound notifications required by claim 1, also teaches colored LED strobing 224 (fig. 12a). Applicant acknowledges that Carlin et al. discloses white LED strobing 226 is off during the audible pulsations 222, as presented in the previous Office action, but argues because the colored LED strobing 224 are on when the sounds are on, the prior art does not teach or suggest the limitation, “at least a half part of each of periods in which the third mode is executed overlaps timewise with a corresponding one of periods in which the second mode is executed; and each of periods in which the second mode is executed during the notification period overlaps with a corresponding one of periods in which the third mode is executed and a corresponding one of periods in which the fourth mode is executed”.
In response, claim 1 requires, “An automated external defibrillator comprising:… a notifier that notifies a user… the notifier has a display unit that includes a light source, and a sounder that generates an alert sound”. Carlin et al. teaches a display unit with a sounder 32 and more importantly, with “a light source” (“white LED strobe array 24” [0129]), with its pattern of notification presented in Figure 12a. This white LED strobe array 24 is a separate light source from other light sources such as white LED main array 22, colored LED strobe array green 25, red 26, and amber/blue 27 ([0129]). The specific patterned relationship between the on/off modes of sounder 32 and the on/off modes of white LED strobe array 24 meet the currently claimed limitations and does not appear to be contested by the applicant. The presence of any additional light sources (“white LED main array 22… colored LED strobe array green 25, red 26, and amber/blue 27” [0129]) and their modes of operation are irrelevant to what is required by the claim as the claim only requires limitations directed to “a light source, and a sounder”. The Office action presents modifying Vaisnys et al. with the teachings of Carlin et al. to try the alert sequence pattern of alternating light 226 and sound 222 as shown in Figure 12a as it is a sequence that is known in the art for effectively providing alerts of various types (both light and sound) to the user, such an alternating pattern would reduce energy expenditure of the device, and the results of such a modification would have been reasonably predictable. The Office action does not propose incorporating the entirety of the notification system of Carlin et al., and does not propose incorporating the pattern of the colored LED strobing 224. Even if it is argued that incorporating Carlin et al. into Vaisnys et al. would necessarily require incorporating both the colored LED strobing 224 and the white LED strobing 226, this combination would still teach the claimed limitation as the separate light sources for generating the colored LED strobing and the white LED strobing yield the white LED strobe array 24 meeting the current language of claim 1.
Applicant argues (p. 6) there is no motivation to combine the prior art. As stated above, the previous Office action only proposes amending Vaisnys et al. to try the alert sequence pattern of alternating light 226 and sound 222, as shown in Figure 12a and does not propose incorporating the entirety of the notification system. Providing such an alternating pattern would reduce energy expenditure of the device, and the results of such a modification would have been reasonably predictable.
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.
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.
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(s) 1-3, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaisnys et al. (US 2011/0213433) in view of Carlin et al. (US 2018/0018866).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Vaisnys et al. teaches an automated external defibrillator and method comprising: a detector 210 that detects an abnormality of the automated external defibrillator ([0077], [0080], [0093], [0118-0119]); and a notifier 160, 204, 235, 170 (fig. 4) that notifies a user of the detection of the abnormality within a predetermined period when the detector has detected the abnormality; wherein: the notifier has a display unit 170 that includes a light source 235 ([0083]), and a sounder 160 that generates an alert sound ([0064]) during a notification period; the display unit executes a first mode and a second mode alternately and one or more times respectively (“flashing patterns” [0024]), so that the display unit makes the light source emit light with a first intensity in the first mode (on), and the display unit either makes the light source emit light with a second intensity lower in power consumption than the first intensity, or makes the light source not emit light in the second mode (off); the sounder executes a third mode and a fourth mode alternately and one or more times respectively (“series of “chirp” sounds” [0083]; “chirp once every 5 seconds or 30 seconds” [0097]), so that the sounder generates the alert sound with a third intensity in the third mode (chirp or other alert sound), and the sounder either generates the alert sound with a fourth intensity lower in power consumption than the third intensity, or does not generate the alert sound in the fourth mode (off).
Vaisnys et al. discloses does not expressly disclose at least a half part of each of periods in which the first mode is executed overlaps timewise with a corresponding one of periods in which the fourth mode is executed; and at least a half part of each of periods in which the third mode is executed overlaps timewise with a corresponding one of periods in which the second mode is executed; each of periods in which the second mode is executed during the notification period overlaps with a corresponding one of periods in which the third mode is executed and a corresponding one of periods in which the fourth mode is executed. Carlin et al. teaches it is known in the art of delivering audio/visual alerts to the user by providing an alternating sequence of visual 226 and audible 222 alerts (fig. 12a), where at least a half part of each of the periods in which a first mode of light is emitted overlaps timewise with a corresponding one of periods in which a fourth mode of no generation of alert sound is executed; and at least a half part of each of periods in which a third mode of sound is emitted overlaps timewise with a corresponding one of periods in which a second mode of no generation of light is executed; each of periods in which the second mode is executed during the notification period overlaps with a corresponding one of periods in which the third mode is executed and a corresponding one of periods in which the fourth mode is executed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the alert sequence pattern of alternating light and sound as taught by Carlin et al. as it is a sequence that is known in the art for effectively providing alerts of various types (both light and sound) to the user, such an alternating pattern would reduce energy expenditure of the device, and the results of such a modification would have been reasonably predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Vaisnys et al. in view of Carlin et al. disclose at least nine tenth of the period in which the first mode is executed overlaps timewise with the period in which the fourth mode is executed; and at least a nine tenth part of the period in which the third mode is executed overlaps timewise with the period in which the second mode is executed (fig. 12a).
Regarding claim 3, Vaisnys et al. in view of Carlin et al. disclose the period in which the first mode is executed and the period in which the third mode is executed do not overlap timewise with each other (fig. 12a).
Regarding claim 5, Vaisnys et al. in view of Carlin et al. disclose the second mode is a mode in which the display unit does not make the light source emit light; the fourth mode is a mode in which the sounder does not generate alert sound; the sounder executes the fourth mode in the period in which the display unit executes the first mode; and the display unit executes the second mode in the period in which the sounder executes the third mode (fig. 12a).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaisnys et al. (US 2011/0213433) in view of Carlin et al. (US 2018/0018866)and further in view of Jean-Pierre (US 2008/0114490) and Sullivan et al. (US 2013/0127624).
Regarding claim 4, Vaisnys et al. does not expressly disclose wherein each of the period in which the first mode is executed, the period in which the second mode is executed, the period in which the third mode is executed, and the period in which the fourth mode is executed has a length not more than 1,000 milliseconds. Vaisnys et al. however teaches that the frequency of visual and audible indicators can be programmed to change according to ambient environments ([0086], [0091], [0132], [0144], [0145]). Jean-Pierre teaches a known period of executing a visual indicator to a user is at a rate of 1 Hz ([0055]), therefore providing a first and second mode length of time no more than 1,000 milliseconds. Sullivan et al. teaches a known period of executing an audible indicator is approximately 10 milliseconds to 10 seconds with a frequency of approximately 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz ([0043]), therefore providing a third and fourth mode length of no more than 1,000 milliseconds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vaisnys et al. to select periods for the first, second, third and fourth modes to comprise a length not more than 1,000 milliseconds as taught by Jean-Pierre and Sullivan et al. as they are known durations of executing and not executing a visual and audible indicator, such a modification would have been reasonably predictable and would not have altered the overall operation of the device.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaisnys et al. (US 2011/0213433) in view of Carlin et al. (US 2018/0018866)and further in view of Martin et al. (US 6,448,887).
Regarding claim 8, Vaisnys et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the display unit is configured to make the light source emit light with the second intensity in the second mode, and wherein the sounder is configured to generate the alert sound with the fourth intensity in the fourth mode. Martin et al. teaches it is known in the art to provide a first stage of light and sound of a first intensity and a second stage of light and sound of a second intensity, where instead of a normally “off” mode, the second intensity of light and second intensity of sound is preferred, and “insures that the user continues to receive audio, visual and/or tactile alarm information for a protracted period of time after the beginning of an alarm event. This greatly enhances the probability that the indicated alarm action will in fact be accomplished.” (col. 3, lines 30-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vaisnys et al. to try using lower intensities of light and sound, such as the second intensity in the second mode and the fourth intensity in the fourth mode as taught by Martin et al. as a notification style that enhances the probability that the user continues to receive audio and visual alarm information.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERICA S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-7pm, flex.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/ERICA S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights