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 .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-16 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “13” and "14" have both been used to designate the same drive mechanism structure (see Figs. 1-2 in comparison to Figs. 3-4. For example, the rectangular box associated with “14” in Fig. 2 is labeled with “13” in Fig. 4).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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 assembly mechanically connected with the contact pad and operatively connected with the controller, wherein the compression assembly is adapted to move the contact pad in a first direction in response to a compression signal from the controller” in claim 1. It appears that the corresponding structure from the disclosure is a chest pad 12a, piston shaft 12, and drive mechanism 14 (Figure 1 appears to show “compression assembly 13” including the structures 12, 12a, 14).
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 Objections
Claims 6-8, 10, 12, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 3 recites “the blood flow parameters” and Examiner suggests --the one or more blood flow parameters-- to use consistent language with claim 5, line 3.
Claim 7, line 2 recites “the chest pad” and Examiner suggests --the contact pad-- to use consistent language.
Claim 7, lines 2-3 recite “the blood flow parameters” and Examiner suggests --the one or more blood flow parameters-- to use consistent language.
Claim 8, line 1 recites “the blood flow parameters” and Examiner suggests --the one or more blood flow parameters-- to use consistent language.
Claim 10, line 1 recites “the blood flow parameter includes” and Examiner suggests --the one or more blood flow parameters include-- to use consistent language.
Claim 12, line 2 recites “assemby” which appears to be a typographical error for --assembly--.
Claim 15, the last two lines recite “the blood flow parameters” and Examiner suggests --the one or more blood flow parameters-- to use consistent language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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 1, line 8 recites “the drive mechanism” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2, lines 3-4 recite “the position assembly” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9, line 1 recites “the blood flow monitor” which lacks antecedent basis. It appears this should instead state --the blood flow detector--.
Claim 10, lines 1-2 recite “the blood flow parameter includes a blood flow direction in the artery” which is confusing because claim 8 already requires that the blood flow parameters comprise “a blood flow direction through the artery.” It is unclear whether the “blood flow direction in the artery” is intended to be distinct from the “blood flow direction through the artery.” If this is meant to refer to the same parameter, Examiner suggests deleting this phrase because claim 8 already requires that the blood flow parameters comprise a blood flow direction through the artery.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 5, lines 1-2 recite “a blood flow detector … coupled with a vascular system of the patient” which is directed to or encompassing a human. Examiner suggests --a blood flow detector … configured to be coupled with a vascular system of the patient--.
Claim 16, line 2 recites “the thorax is positioned between the contact pad and the backboard” which is directed to or encompassing a human. Examiner suggests --a thorax is configured to be positioned between the contact pad and the backboard--.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ehrstedt et al. (2022/0125676).
Regarding claim 1, Ehrstedt discloses a device for administering cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR device 100, Fig. 1) comprising:
a chest contact pad (chest suction cup 116, Fig. 1);
a controller (controller 204, Fig. 2);
a compression assembly (central unit 104, including compression mechanism 112 that has a motor-driven piston 114, Fig. 1; see the first two sentences of [0043]) mechanically connected with the contact pad (piston 114 connects to suction cup 116, see Fig. 1, Figs. 24-25) and operatively connected with the controller (controller 204 is in electrical communication with the compression mechanism, see Fig. 2 and lines 8-10 of [0045]), wherein the compression assembly is adapted to move the contact pad (116) in a first direction (a vertical direction, such as compressing downwards towards the chest) in response to a compression signal from the controller (piston 114 is retracted/extended in a vertical, downward direction to apply a chest compression, see the last sentence of [0043]. The controller 204 provides instructions for chest compressions, see the first sentence of [0046]);
a frame (guide rods 300, 300, and edges 302, Fig. 3) supporting the drive mechanism (central unit 104 is considered the drive mechanism, as it may “include a number of electronic components to drive the motor-driven piston 114” see lines 6-8 of [0043]. The central unit 104 has an adjustment mechanism 118 “surrounding the compression mechanism 112”, see para. [0044]. Thus, the frame supports the drive mechanism as seen in Figs. 1-2), wherein the frame (300, 300, 302, Fig. 3) comprises one or more positioning mechanisms (guide rods 300, 300, Fig. 3), connected with the controller (“guide rods 300 are automatically movable by a controller 204” see the first two sentences of [0057] and Fig. 2), and wherein the one or more positioning mechanisms (300) move the compression assembly and contact pad (“adjustment mechanism 118 surrounding the compression mechanism 112 … structured to adjust the compression mechanism 112 and the resulting compression point to any location within the adjustment mechanism 118” see para. [0044], and “guide rods 300 are attached to the motor-driven piston… guide rods 300 can be adjusted in both the x-axis and the y-axis direction to place the suction cup 116 at a desired location on the patient” see para. [0055] and Fig. 3. Both the compression assembly and the contact pad are moved by the guide rods) relative to the frame (300, 300, 302) based on a position signal from the controller (the “guide rods 300 are automatically movable by a controller 204 … Drivers (not shown) may be attached to the linear actuators which are driven based on instructions received from the controller 204” see para. [0057]. The instruction(s) associated with this automatic movement are considered position signal(s) because they adjust a position).
Regarding claim 2, Ehrstedt discloses wherein the frame comprises one or more arms (exterior edges 302, Fig. 3) supporting the compression assembly (the compression assembly is supported by the guide rods 300 that extend from and are supported by the edges 302, see Fig. 2), wherein the positioning mechanisms (300) are connected with respective ones of the arms (302, see Fig. 3), and wherein the positioning mechanisms (300) are adapted to move the position assembly (adjustment mechanism 118, Fig. 3, is considered a position assembly) and contact pad relative to a thorax of a patient (guide rods 300 may be linear actuators and the exterior edges 302 of the adjustment mechanism may also include linear actuators to position the suction cup 116 in a desired location, see lines 1-7 of [0057]).
Regarding claim 3, Ehrstedt discloses wherein the frame (300, 300, 302, Fig. 3) is adapted to support the compression assembly (104, 112, 114, Fig. 1) and contact pad (116) above a left ventricle of a human patient (the suction cup 116 delivers CPR compressions to the patient, see lines 1-5 of [0043], and the position of the suction cup can be adjusted in both the x-axis and y-axis to a desired location on the patient, see para. [0055]. Thus, the frame is “adapted” to support the contact pad above a left ventricle based upon the adjustable location of the suction cup 116. It is further noted that CPR compressions are known to be applied over the heart and the suction cup 116 does not need to be exclusively over the left ventricle, nor over the entirety of the left ventricle to read on the claim. Instead, the frame merely needs to be adapted to/capable of positioning the suction cup such that at least a portion of the suction cup is above a portion of the left ventricle).
Regarding claim 16, Ehrstedt discloses further comprising a backboard (base member 108, Fig. 1, shown to be supporting the back side of the patient’s 122 torso) connected (via legs 106, Fig. 1, Fig. 3) with the frame (300, 300, 302, see Fig. 3), wherein the thorax (see the patient 122 torso in Fig. 1) is positioned between the contact pad (116, Fig. 1) and the backboard (108, Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrstedt et al. (2022/0125676) in view of Sturdivant (2016/0213560).
Regarding claim 4, Ehrstedt discloses wherein the compression assembly (central unit 104, including compression mechanism 112 that has a motor-driven piston 114, Fig. 1) moves the contact pad (116) in the first direction (extending downward towards the chest) in response to the compression signal to deliver one or more chest compressions (controller 204 provides instructions to the compression mechanism, see the first sentence of [0046]). Ehrstedt does not specifically state the contact pad delivers one or more chest compressions to the left ventricle.
Sturdivant teaches a related CPR system (Fig. 1A) in which the contact pad (main housing 102, Fig. 1A) delivers one or more chest compressions to the left ventricle (“may be desirable to position the main housing 102 or compression mechanism portion of the housing so that the compression pressure is concentrated on the left ventricle” see the last two sentences of [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ehrstedt device to have the contact pad positioned over the left ventricle as taught by Sturdivant because this is stated to be a desirable position to concentrate compression pressure for CPR.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Ehrstedt/Sturdivant device discloses further comprising a blood flow detector (sensor(s) 220, Fig. 2 of Ehrstedt; which sense a physiological parameter including “blood flow” see lines 1-12 of [0050]) connected with the controller (204, see Fig. 2) and coupled with a vascular system of the patient (a blood flow sensor would necessarily be at least operatively coupled with the vascular system in order to sense the blood flow), wherein the detector (220) provides a signal to the controller (204, Fig. 2) comprising one or more blood flow parameters of the patient (the sensor(s) 220 “transmit information to controller 104 … sensing a physiological parameter of a patient and to output a physiological parameter sensor signal that is indicative of a dynamic value of the parameter” see the first two sentences of [0050]. The blood flow sensor(s) output a physiological parameter sensor signal indicative of a dynamic value of the blood flow).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Ehrstedt/Sturdivant device discloses wherein the controller (204, Fig. 2 of Ehrstedt) monitors the one or more blood flow parameters (the blood flow sensor(s) 220 “transmit information to controller 104 … sensing a physiological parameter of a patient and to output a physiological parameter sensor signal that is indicative of a dynamic value of the parameter” see the first two sentences of [0050] of Ehrstedt) in coordination with delivery of the chest compressions (the blood flow is detected as part of the CPR treatment, and used as feedback), wherein the controller adjusts a compression parameter of the chest compressions in response to the blood flow parameters (“based on the information from the one or more sensors 220, the controller 204 can adjust a compression position by the adjustment mechanism 208. For example, based on the ETCO2 reading or a blood flow reading, the controller 204 may determine that the compression position needs to be adjusted to be more directly over a center of a patient's chest and may instruct the adjustment mechanism 208 to move the compression position in the adjustment plane” see para. [0051] of Ehrstedt).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Ehrstedt/Sturdivant device discloses wherein the controller (204) causes the one or more positioning mechanisms (300) to adjust a position of the chest pad (116) relative to the left ventricle in response to the blood flow parameters (“based on the information from the one or more sensors 220, the controller 204 can adjust a compression position by the adjustment mechanism 208. For example, based on the ETCO2 reading or a blood flow reading, the controller 204 may determine that the compression position needs to be adjusted to be more directly over a center of a patient's chest and may instruct the adjustment mechanism 208 to move the compression position in the adjustment plane” see para. [0051] of Ehrstedt. This adjustment to the center of the chest is a movement relative to the left ventricle).
Claim(s) 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrstedt et al. (2022/0125676) in view of Sturdivant (2016/0213560) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Eibl et al. (2017/0332995).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Ehrstedt/Sturdivant device is silent regarding wherein the blood flow parameters comprise a blood velocity in an artery and a blood flow direction through the artery.
Eibl teaches a related sensing device (device 102, Fig. 1) for assessing hemodynamic properties of a patient (see Abstract), such as during CPR (see lines 1-4 of [0085]) to help indicate whether the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) has occurred (see lines 6-8 of [0111]). The device includes a blood flow detector (sensor with ultrasound transducer 1804 and receiver 1806, Figs. 18-19) configured to detect blood flow parameters comprising a blood velocity (“interpret the velocity of the blood on each compression” see lines 10-16 of [0116], see also para. [0121]-[0122] describing the Doppler ultrasound determining the velocity of blood flow through the blood vessel) in an artery (such as the carotid artery 104/106, see Fig. 1 and the first two sentences of [0104]) and a blood flow direction through the artery (“device 102 may be configured to detect relative blood flow (in one or more directions, such as forward or backward flow) through a particular vessel (e.g., the carotid artery, brachial artery, femoral artery, jugular, etc.)” see the first sentence of [0111]). Detecting blood flow velocity may be used as feedback to adjust CPR (see lines 1-16 of [0116]). Detecting blood flow direction “may aid significantly in diagnosing various ailments or determining whether one or more health-related events have taken place. For example, a change in blood flow direction may indicate … CPR has been successful” (i.e., ROSC, see para. [0213]). An indication of ROSC is accompanied by an instruction that CPR compressions should cease (see the last four lines of [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blood flow detector of Ehrstedt/Sturdivant to be a Doppler ultrasound flow sensor that determines blood flow velocity in an artery and blood flow direction through the artery as taught by Eibl because these blood flow parameters can be used to provide feedback to adjust CPR performance, and to indicate a return of spontaneous circulation so the device can be instructed to cease chest compressions.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Ehrstedt/Sturdivant/Eibl device discloses wherein the blood flow monitor (sensing device 102 of Eibl, which includes Doppler ultrasound transducer 1804 and receiver 1806, Figs. 18-19 of Eibl) is a Doppler ultrasound flow monitor (“Doppler ultrasound modules” see para. [0121]; “transducer pair 1802 can detect blood flow direction by the sign (i.e., positive or negative) of the Doppler shift” see para. [0213] of Eibl).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Ehrstedt/Sturdivant/Eibl device discloses wherein the blood flow parameter includes a blood flow direction in the artery (“device 102 may be configured to detect relative blood flow (in one or more directions, such as forward or backward flow) through a particular vessel (e.g., the carotid artery, brachial artery, femoral artery, jugular, etc.)” see the first sentence of [0111] of Eibl), and wherein the controller determines a return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) based on the blood flow direction (“device 102 may be configured to detect relative blood flow (in one or more directions, such as forward or backward flow) through a particular vessel … Measurement of relative carotid flow rate may be the most effective way to automatically detect ROSC” see para. [0111] of Eibl; and “a change in blood flow direction may indicate … CPR has been successful” (i.e., ROSC, see the last sentence of [0213] of Eibl).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Ehrstedt/Sturdivant/Eibl device discloses wherein ROSC is determined by a change in the direction of blood flow (“a change in blood flow direction may indicate … CPR has been successful” (i.e., ROSC, see the last sentence of [0213] of Eibl). Thus, the prior art demonstrates that a change in the direction of blood flow is indicative of a return to normal, spontaneous circulation. The modified device does not specifically state the change is from a bi-directional blood flow to a unidirectional blood flow. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that normal circulation is expected to have unidirectional blood flow in a given artery, and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Ehrstedt/Sturdivant/Eibl to determine ROSC by a change from a bi-directional blood flow to a unidirectional blood flow, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (a change in direction of blood flow is indicative of a return to normal, spontaneous circulation), discovering the optimum or workable ranges (the change being from bi-direcitonal to unidirectional) involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Ehrstedt/Sturdivant/Eibl device discloses wherein, when ROSC is detected, the controller (204, Ehrstedt, as modified by Eibl) signals the compression assembly to cease the chest compressions (see the last four lines of [0018] of Eibl. The modified device is controlled to cease chest compressions upon detection of ROSC).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Ehrstedt/Sturdivant/Eibl device discloses further comprising an indicator (“sensory output device including at least one of (i) a graphical display and (ii) an auditory display” … see lines 23-25 of [0007] of Eibl; and “the sensory output device is configured to generate a sensory output indicating the occurrence of the detected estimated return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) event” see the last four lines of [0018] of Eibl; see also lines 8-12 of [0128]) connected with the controller (204, Ehrstedt, as modified by Eibl), wherein the indicator is adapted to alert medical personnel when ROSC is detected (a graphical display or auditory display/speaker that generates sensory output is adapted to alert nearby medical personnel).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Ehrstedt/Sturdivant/Eibl device discloses wherein the indicator generates one or more of a visual and an audible alert signal when ROSC is detected (graphical display or auditory display/speaker, see lines 23-25 of [0007] of Eibl; and “the sensory output device is configured to generate a sensory output indicating the occurrence of the detected estimated return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) event” see the last four lines of [0018] of Eibl; see also lines 8-12 of [0128]).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Ehrstedt/Sturdivant/Eibl device discloses wherein a least one of the one or more positioning mechanisms comprises a manual positioner (Ehrstedt states the guide rod(s) 300 may be manually movable, see the first two sentences of [0056]), the device further comprising an output device (user interface 218 of Ehrstedt, as modified by Eibl’s output device including graphical display and/or audible speaker) connected with the controller (204, see Fig. 2 of Ehrstedt), wherein the output device communicates instructions to medical personnel to reposition the compression assembly relative to the left ventricle (“controller 204 may output an alert on the user interface [210] for a rescuer to manually adjust the compression position by the adjustment mechanism 208” see the last sentence of [0051] of Ehrstedt. This manual movement will be relative to the left ventricle) based on the blood flow parameters (“based on the … blood flow reading, the controller 204 may determine that the compression position needs to be adjusted to be more directly over a center of a patient’s chest … controller 204 may output an alert to the user interface [210] for a rescuer to manually adjust the compression position by the adjustment mechanism 208” see para. [0051] of Ehrstedt).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lampe (2021/0045967) discloses a related CPR system that indicates restored cardiac activity when the blood flow occurs more naturally and substantially in a forward direction. Shiran et al. (2021/0077344) discloses a related CPR feedback system with ultrasound imaging, and states ideally the compressions should be above the left ventricle. Jeppsson (2014/0221883) discloses a related CPR system with a movable frame. Burcher et al. (2010/0210947) discloses a related ultrasonic vascular flow sensor for CPR feedback. Chapman et al. (2018/0168922) discloses a related CPR system that performs compressions at different chest compressions, including compressions providing more direct compression on the left ventricle. Itnati (2010/0198117) discloses a related CPR system with a position/angle altering mechanism for dynamically altering an x-y position of the sternum compressing element. Lampe et al. (2023/0048327) discloses a related ultrasound blood flow sensor for a CPR system that determines blood flow direction. Beard et al. (2022/0265510) discloses a related CPR system that determines if the left ventricle is being compressed sufficiently.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1473. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30 (Eastern).
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MILLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785