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 arguments filed on 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection. However, given that claim 1 is still being rejected by Olson, Examiner addresses the following argument:
Applicant argues that Olson’s test after AED use is independent of the result from the test before AED use. While Examiner acknowledges that the AED test after use is independent of the result from the AED before use, Examiner notes that in the new grounds of rejection (discussed below in section Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 102) the subsequent diagnosis no longer corresponds to “the test after AED use”.
As discussed in section Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 102 (In re claim 1), the “initial diagnosis” now corresponds to the “direct test of voltage of battery cells” and the “subsequent diagnosis” now corresponds to a processing period after the “direct test of voltage of battery cells”. As discussed in Olson, the battery is determined to be abnormal as a function of the information recorded on battery memory during the initial self-diagnosis (Olson: col. 5, lines 39-46; Examiner notes that processing circuitry displays the “battery failure” on “status indicator gage” to reflect abnormality determined during the “direct test of voltage of battery cells”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Olson et al. (US 6,366,809).
In re claim 1, Olson discloses a defibrillator (abstract) comprising:
processing circuitry (Fig. 6a); and
a memory (76) storing a program (col. 4, lines 17-20),
wherein,
when executed on the processing circuitry, the program causes the processing circuitry to, in an initial self-diagnosis (col. 5, lines 34-50: “direct test of voltage of battery cells”)
*calculate battery usage (col. 5, lines 3-8: “amount of power remaining”) of a battery (Fig. 6b) configured to supply power to the defibrillator;
*record, on a battery memory (18), information related to the battery usage (col. 4, lines 22-35; col. 5, lines 8-12); and
record, on the battery memory, regardless of the calculated battery usage (col. 5, lines 37-39: “voltage level sensing circuits…operate independently of battery status indicator gauge”), information indicating that the battery usage exceeds a predetermined value (col. 5, lines 24-25: “updates memory component…to reflect a battery failure”) in response to voltage of the power supplied from the battery being below a threshold (col. 5, lines 39-42), and
when executed on the processing circuitry, the program causes the processing circuitry to, in a subsequent self-diagnosis (processing period after “direct test of voltage of battery cells” described in col. 5, lines 34-50)
as a function of the information recorded on the battery memory indicates that the battery usage exceeds the predetermined value in the initial self-diagnosis, determine that the battery is abnormal (col. 5, lines 39-46; Examiner notes that processing circuitry displays the “battery failure” on “status indicator gage” to reflect abnormality determined during the “direct test of voltage of battery cells” ).
*Regarding the “calculation of battery usage...” and “record on battery memory…”, it is apparent that the calculation of battery usage (process described in col. 5, lines 3-19) would occur during the initial self-diagnosis (col. 5, lines 34-50: “direct test of voltage of battery cells”) as the memory component and processing circuitry work together to provide an ongoing indication of the remaining battery energy (col. 5, lines 30-32).
In re claim 12, Olson discloses, wherein the battery is determined to be abnormal in the subsequent self-diagnosis regardless of battery voltage check conducted during the subsequent self-diagnosis (col. 5, lines 8-19) battery will be determined to be abnormal if “battery usage” falls below threshold value. Examiner notes for substantially the same reasons as described above (see *), it is apparent that the calculation of battery usage would also occur during the subsequent self-diagnosis)
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, 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.
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 2, 3, and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (US 6,366,809) in view of Morgan (US 5,591,213).
In re claim 2, Olson discloses wherein,
when executed on the processing circuitry, the program causes the processing circuitry to:
conduct first self-diagnosis (col. 6, lines 47-49 : “daily self-test”) in which the voltage is measured with first current (inherent) supplied from the battery to the defibrillator;
conduct second self-diagnosis (col. 6, lines 47-49 : “weekly self-test”) in which the voltage is measured with second current (inherent) supplied from the battery to the defibrillator; and
record, on the battery memory, the battery information indicating that the battery usage exceeds a predetermined value (col. 5, lines 42-45) in response to the voltage being below the threshold (col. 5, lines 39-42 : “predetermined value”) during the second self-diagnosis (col. 5, lines 63-67).
Olson does not disclose
second current, which is higher than the first current.
Morgan discloses an analogous defibrillator that preforms tests prior to being deployed (abstract). Morgan further discloses that in some cases test frequency may need to be adjusted to preserve battery life, as some tests require more power than others (col. 4, lines 48-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the defibrillator of Olson to include the high current requirement for more infrequent tests, as taught in Morgan. One would have been motivated to make this modification because tests that demand higher power will require the battery to supply more current to the defibrillator at the same voltage level (inherent).
In re claim 3, Olson discloses, wherein
intervals for the second self-diagnosis (col. 6, lines 49-52: “daily self-test”) are longer than those for the first self-diagnosis (col. 6, lines 53-54 : “weekly self-test”).
In re claim 6, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Olson)
a capacitor (Fig. 3: 44) configured to be supplied with the power from the battery and to store power for an electric shock (col. 4, lines 8-10 : “defibrillating countershock”)
wherein, when executed on the processing circuity, the program further causes the processing circuitry to:
cause power not to be supplied from the battery to the capacitor during the first self-diagnosis (col 6. lines 49-51, 55-59 : “weekly self-test also includes” (the second diagnosis includes additional features (i.e., charging the capacitor) that are not included in the first diagnosis)) ; and
cause the power for the electric shock to be supplied from the battery to the capacitor during the second self-diagnosis (col. 6, lines 55-59: “high voltage generation circuit” (high voltage generation circuit charges capacitors (col. 4, lines 8-10)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (US 6,366,809) in view of Freeman et al. (US 2016/0274162).
In re claim 7, Olson does not disclose wherein,
when executed on the processing circuitry, the program further causes the processing circuitry to cause the battery information to be transmitted to a management server.
However, Freedman discloses a defibrillator with the ability to communicate self-test (includes battery related self-tests [0188]) results to a remote server [0141].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the defibrillator of Olson to include the ability to transmit battery information to a server, as taught by Freedman. One would have been motivated to make this modification because storing test information can help address impending device failures (Freedman, [0171]).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (US 6,366,809) in view of Schweizer et al. (US 6,223,077).
In re claim 8, Olson discloses wherein, when executed on the processing circuitry, the program further causes the processing circuitry to:
cause the battery information not to be recorded on the battery memory until a predetermined period of time has passed (col. 5, lines 50-55; (failure of memory component will prevent battery information from being recorded for a period of time))
Olson does not disclose
the ability to detect that a battery pack including the battery is attached to the defibrillator
However, Schweizer discloses an analogous defibrillator capable of detecting if battery communication has been lost (Fig. 3, 222) and periodically rechecking the battery to see if communication has been restored (Fig 3, 224).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the defibrillator of Olson to include the ability to detect if the battery is properly attached to the defibrillator, as taught by Schweizer. One would have been motivated to make this modification because an improperly connected battery would prevent the defibrillator from functioning.
In re claim 9, Olson does not disclose wherein when executed on the processing circuitry, the program further causes the processing circuitry to
detect that a battery pack including the battery is attached to the defibrillator; and
causes comparison of the voltage with the threshold not to be conducted until a predetermined period of time has passed since it is detected that the battery pack is attached to the defibrillator.
Schweizer discloses an analogous defibrillator capable of detecting if battery communication has been lost (Fig. 3, 222) and periodically rechecking the battery to see if communication has been restored (Fig 3, 224). Schweizer further discloses only comparing the voltage to a threshold value (Fig. 4, 232) after additional monitoring (230) has been completed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the defibrillator of Olson to include the ability to detect if the battery is properly attached to the defibrillator, as taught by Schweizer. One would have been motivated to make this modification because an improperly connected battery would prevent the defibrillator from functioning.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (US 6,366,809) in view of Obel et al. (US 6,748,273).
In re claim 10, Olson discloses wherein,
when executed on the processing circuitry, the program further causes the processing circuitry to calculate a fluctuation in battery usage (col. 4, lines 39-40, “remaining power”)
Olson does not disclose
the calculation being based on a time integral of current supplied from the battery.
However, Obel discloses an analogous battery status detecting circuit (col. 2, lines 2-8) that measures charge depletion using the time integral of the current (col. 4, lines 9-15) supplied from the battery (inherent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery fluctuation calculation in Olson to include using the time integral of the current, as taught by Obel. One would have been motivated to make this modification both because the time integral of the current is known in the art and because the results, i.e. determining total charge consumed (Obel: col. 4, lines 9-12), are reasonably predictable.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-4pm CT.
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.
/OLIVIA WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights