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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20120010543 A1) in view of Freeman (US 20050267536 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson teaches a Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) system that is usable by a rescuer to care for a patient (Fig. 2, see abstract), the CPR system comprising: a base device (Fig. 2A, [0070]); a processor disposed in the base device (Fig. 2a, processor 22), the processor to compute (paragraph 0039 “to adjust the target compression depth based at least in part on the information about the physiological parameter of the person”) a first target depth value based at least in part on a first information (step 952 or step 956 in fig. 14, see [0170] or [0172]) representative of chest compressions (see [0158], occurs during the time period between steps 950- 954 as shown in fig. 14 and “an initial time period” as disclosed in [0167]), and a second target depth value based at least in part on a second information representative of chest compressions (step 962 in fig. 14 or a repeated measure of compression depth at step 956 from second feedback loop of steps 964, 968 and 970 in fig. 14), the second target depth value different from the first target depth value (paragraph 0176 “On the other hand, if the trend is indicative of patient deterioration, at box 968, the system sets a new CPR compression target depth”); and a force detection sensor to detect an amount of force (paragraph 0129 “Circuitry and processing for the detection of chest compression phase timing information can include a pressure sensor and/or an accelerometer”) that is exerted during a chest compression during the first time period (paragraph 0167 “During this time, the system also receives information about one or more physiological parameters and determines if the target CPR compression depth is effective [e.g., performs calculations to determine whether certain thresholds are satisfied and/or whether the observed values for the physiological parameters are improving]. At the end of the initial time period, the system updates the target CPR compression depth based on the information about the physiological parameter, stored the updated target depth, and provides information about the updated target CPR compression depth to the rescuer”; the physiological parameters being measured in this initial time period come from the sensors as disclosed in paragraph 0170), wherein the processor computes the second target depth value based at least in part on the amount of detected force (paragraphs 0175 and 0176 disclose how the second depth value is determined based on the physiological data at step 962 which come from sensors such as pressure sensor).
Johnson is silent on a counter disposed in the base device, the counter to determine a first number of detected chest compressions during a first time period and a second number of detected chest compressions during a second time period and wherein the processor to compute a first target depth value based at least in part on the first number of detected chest compressions, and a second target depth value based at least in part on the second number of detected chest compressions, the second target depth value different from the first target depth value.
However, Freeman teaches a similar CPR system comprising a counter (‘Detect & Increment Chest Compressions Counter’, see [0070]) disposed in the base device 10 (AED 10, fig. 1), the counter to determine a first number of detected chest compressions during a first time period and a second number of detected chest compressions during a second time period (see fig. 6A and [0067] where the first time period is before the CPR state time interval is checked and the second time period is after the interval is checked and counter is reset); and wherein the processor (fig. 3, see [0060]) to compute a first target depth value based at least in part on the first number of detected chest compressions (“outputting "Push Harder" voice/text prompts and return to `Detect & Increment Chest Compression count` state”, see [0070]), and a second target depth value (“outputting the prompt "Push With Less Force”, see [0071]), based at least in part on the second number of detected chest compressions, the second target depth value different from the first target depth value (Note: the second target depth value corresponding to “less force” would be different from the first target depth value corresponding to “push harder”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson to include a counter disposed in the base device, the counter to determine a first number of detected chest compressions during a first time period and a second number of detected chest compressions during a second time period for the purpose of providing a device for assisting a rescuer in delivering therapy to a patient, with suitable processor configured to provide appropriate prompts via an interface to the rescuer in order to assist the rescuer in delivering effective therapy to the patient (see [0028] and [0067]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Johnson teaches the system of claim 1.
Freeman further teaches wherein the second target depth value is less than the first target depth value (“outputting the prompt "Push With Less Force”, see [0071]. Note: the second target depth value corresponding to “less force” would be less from the first target depth value corresponding to “push harder”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Johnson teaches the system of claim 1.
Johnson further teaches a memory (‘memory’, see [0039]), the memory storing a lookup table and the first target depth value and the second target depth value are determined based at least in part on the lookup table (“look-up new CPR compression target depth”, see [0158]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Johnson teaches the system of claim 1.
Johnson further teaches wherein the first target depth value includes a first target depth value range (“the target depth can be displayed as a range of preferred depths”, see [0155] and fig. 12B) and the second target depth value includes a second target depth value range (fig. 12B, see [0155]), further wherein the second target depth value range is different from the first target depth value range (“new target depth”, see step 970 in fig. 14).
Regarding claim 5, modified Johnson teaches the system of claim 1.
Freeman further teaches wherein the counter determines a third number of detected chest compressions during a third time period and the processor computes a third target depth value based at least in part on the third number of detected chest compressions (see repeated loop of `Detect & Increment Chest Compression count` state disclosed in [0070], which suggest and teach third target depth value associated with third number of detected chest compression).
Regarding claim 6, modified Johnson teaches the system of claim 5.
Freeman further teaches wherein the third target depth value is different from the second target depth value (the target value depends on the depth value evaluated at each detected number of compressions so the new third target could be different from the previous second target, see [0070]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Johnson teaches the system of claim 5.
Freeman further teaches wherein the third target depth value is the same as the second target depth value (the target value depends on the depth value evaluated at each detected number of compressions so the new third target could be the same as the previous second target, see [0070]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Johnson teaches the system of claim 1.
Johnson further teaches a memory (‘memory’, see [0039]).
Johnson is silent on the memory storing a maximum decrease in depth value, wherein the difference between the first target depth value and the second target depth value is not more than the maximum decrease in depth value.
However, Johnson does teach a variance in the CPR compression depth being not too large (see [0177] “if the variance in the CPR compression depth is too large [e.g., greater than 0.5 inches]”) and that the system can determine an adjustment in the target compression depth that is a fraction of an inch and prompt the rescuer to increase or decrease the compression depth by the determined amount (see [0159]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson such that the memory stores a maximum decrease in depth value, wherein the difference between the first target value and the second target value is not more than the maximum decrease in depth value, for the purpose of providing a predetermined variance in the CPR compression depth being an effective and safe value to ensure an optimal determination of a desirable target depth during CPR.
Regarding claim 9, modified Johnson teaches the system of claim 1.
Johnson further teaches a memory (‘memory’, see [0039]).
Johnson is silent on the memory storing an initial target depth value, the initial target depth value being greater than the first target depth value and the second target depth value.
However, Johnson does teach that the system can determine an adjustment in the target compression depth that is a fraction of an inch and prompt the rescuer to increase or decrease the compression depth by the determined amount (see [0159]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson such that the initial target depth value being greater than the first target depth value and the second target depth value, in order to ensure the rescuer to effectively decrease the compression depth according to an optimal determination of a desirable target compression depth during CPR (see [0159]).
Regarding claim 10, Johnson teaches a Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) system that is usable by a rescuer to care for a patient (Fig. 2, see abstract), the CPR system comprising: a base device (Fig. 2A, [0070]); a processor disposed in the base device (Fig. 2a, processor 22), the processor to compute (paragraph 0039 “to adjust the target compression depth based at least in part on the information about the physiological parameter of the person”) a first target depth value based at least in part on a first information (step 952 or step 956 in fig. 14, see [0170] or [0172]) representative of chest compressions (see [0158], occurs during the time period between steps 950- 954 as shown in fig. 14 and “an initial time period” as disclosed in [0167]), and a second target depth value based at least in part on a second information representative of chest compressions (step 962 in fig. 14 or a repeated measure of compression depth at step 956 from second feedback loop of steps 964, 968 and 970 in fig. 14), the second target depth value different from the first target depth value (paragraph 0176 “On the other hand, if the trend is indicative of patient deterioration, at box 968, the system sets a new CPR compression target depth”); a memory disposed in the base device (‘memory’, see [0039]); and a force detection sensor to detect an amount of force (paragraph 0129 “Circuitry and processing for the detection of chest compression phase timing information can include a pressure sensor and/or an accelerometer”) that is exerted during a chest compression during the first time period (paragraph 0167 “During this time, the system also receives information about one or more physiological parameters and determines if the target CPR compression depth is effective [e.g., performs calculations to determine whether certain thresholds are satisfied and/or whether the observed values for the physiological parameters are improving]. At the end of the initial time period, the system updates the target CPR compression depth based on the information about the physiological parameter, stored the updated target depth, and provides information about the updated target CPR compression depth to the rescuer”; the physiological parameters being measured in this initial time period come from the sensors as disclosed in paragraph 0170), wherein the processor computes the second target depth value based at least in part on the amount of detected force (paragraphs 0175 and 0176 disclose how the second depth value is determined based on the physiological data at step 962 which come from sensors such as pressure sensor).
Johnson is silent on the processor computing a first target depth value based at least in part on the first number of detected chest compressions, and a second target depth value based at least in part on the second number of detected chest compressions, the second target depth value different from the first target depth value.
However, Freeman teaches a similar CPR system comprising the processor (fig. 3, see [0060]) to compute a first target depth value based at least in part on the first number of detected chest compressions (“outputting "Push Harder" voice/text prompts and return to `Detect & Increment Chest Compression count` state”, see [0070]), and a second target depth value (“outputting the prompt "Push With Less Force”, see [0071]), based at least in part on the second number of detected chest compressions, the second target depth value different from the first target depth value (Note: the second target depth value corresponding to “less force” would be different from the first target depth value corresponding to “push harder”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson to include the processor to compute a first target depth value based at least in part on the first number of detected chest compressions, and a second target depth value based at least in part on the second number of detected chest compressions, the second target depth value different from the first target depth value, as suggested and taught by Freeman, for the purpose of providing a device for assisting a rescuer in delivering therapy to a patient, with suitable processor configured to provide appropriate prompts via an interface to the rescuer in order to assist the rescuer in delivering effective therapy to the patient (see [0028] and [0067]).
Johnson is silent on the memory storing an initial target depth value, the initial target depth value being greater than the first target depth value and the second target depth value.
However, Johnson does teach that the system can determine an adjustment in the target compression depth that is a fraction of an inch and prompt the rescuer to increase or decrease the compression depth by the determined amount (see [0159]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson such that the initial target depth value being greater than the first target depth value and the second target depth value, in order to ensure the rescuer to effectively decrease the compression depth according to an optimal determination of a desirable target compression depth during CPR (see [0159]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Johnson teaches the system of claim 10.
Freeman further teaches wherein the second target depth value is less than the first target depth value (“outputting the prompt "Push With Less Force”, see [0071]. Note: the second target depth value corresponding to “less force” would be less from the first target depth value corresponding to “push harder”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Johnson teaches the system of claim 10.
Johnson further teaches wherein the memory stores a lookup table and the first target depth value and the second target depth value are determined based at least in part on the lookup table (“look-up new CPR compression target depth”, see [0158]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Johnson teaches the system of claim 10.
Johnson further teaches wherein the first target depth value includes a first target depth value range (“the target depth can be displayed as a range of preferred depths”, see [0155] and fig. 12B) and the second target depth value includes a second target depth value range (fig. 12B, see [0155]), further wherein the second target depth value range is different from the first target depth value range (“new target depth”, see step 970 in fig. 14).
Regarding claim 14, modified Johnson teaches the system of claim 10.
Freeman further teaches wherein the processor computes a third target depth value based at least in part on the third number of detected chest compressions (see repeated loop of `Detect & Increment Chest Compression count` state disclosed in [0070], which suggest and teach third target depth value associated with third number of detected chest compression).
Regarding claim 15, modified Johnson teaches the system of claim 14.
Freeman further teaches wherein the third target depth value is different from the second target depth value (the target value depends on the depth value evaluated at each detected number of compressions so the new third target could be different from the previous second target, see [0070]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Johnson teaches the system of claim 14.
Freeman further teaches wherein the third target depth value is the same as the second target depth value (the target value depends on the depth value evaluated at each detected number of compressions so the new third target could be the same as the previous second target, see [0070]).
Regarding claim 17, Johnson teaches a Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) system that is usable by a rescuer to care for a patient (Fig. 2, see abstract), the CPR system comprising: a base device (Fig. 2A, [0070]); a processor disposed in the base device (Fig. 2a, processor 22), the processor to compute (paragraph 0039 “to adjust the target compression depth based at least in part on the information about the physiological parameter of the person”) a first target depth value based at least in part on a first information (step 952 or step 956 in fig. 14, see [0170] or [0172]) representative of chest compressions (see [0158], occurs during the time period between steps 950- 954 as shown in fig. 14 and “an initial time period” as disclosed in [0167]), and a second target depth value based at least in part on a second information representative of chest compressions (step 962 in fig. 14 or a repeated measure of compression depth at step 956 from second feedback loop of steps 964, 968 and 970 in fig. 14), the second target depth value different from the first target depth value (paragraph 0176 “On the other hand, if the trend is indicative of patient deterioration, at box 968, the system sets a new CPR compression target depth”); a memory disposed in the base device (‘memory’, see [0039]); and a force detection sensor to detect an amount of force (paragraph 0129 “Circuitry and processing for the detection of chest compression phase timing information can include a pressure sensor and/or an accelerometer”) that is exerted during a chest compression during the first time period (paragraph 0167 “During this time, the system also receives information about one or more physiological parameters and determines if the target CPR compression depth is effective [e.g., performs calculations to determine whether certain thresholds are satisfied and/or whether the observed values for the physiological parameters are improving]. At the end of the initial time period, the system updates the target CPR compression depth based on the information about the physiological parameter, stored the updated target depth, and provides information about the updated target CPR compression depth to the rescuer”; the physiological parameters being measured in this initial time period come from the sensors as disclosed in paragraph 0170), wherein the processor computes the second target depth value based at least in part on the amount of detected force (paragraphs 0175 and 0176 disclose how the second depth value is determined based on the physiological data at step 962 which come from sensors such as pressure sensor).
Johnson is silent on the processor computing a first target depth value based at least in part on the first number of detected chest compressions, and a second target depth value based at least in part on the second number of detected chest compressions, the second target depth value different from the first target depth value.
However, Freeman teaches a similar CPR system comprising the processor (fig. 3, see [0060]) to compute a first target depth value based at least in part on the first number of detected chest compressions (“outputting "Push Harder" voice/text prompts and return to `Detect & Increment Chest Compression count` state”, see [0070]), and a second target depth value (“outputting the prompt "Push With Less Force”, see [0071]), based at least in part on the second number of detected chest compressions, the second target depth value different from the first target depth value (Note: the second target depth value corresponding to “less force” would be different from the first target depth value corresponding to “push harder”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson to include the processor to compute a first target depth value based at least in part on the first number of detected chest compressions, and a second target depth value based at least in part on the second number of detected chest compressions, the second target depth value different from the first target depth value, as suggested and taught by Freeman, for the purpose of providing a device for assisting a rescuer in delivering therapy to a patient, with suitable processor configured to provide appropriate prompts via an interface to the rescuer in order to assist the rescuer in delivering effective therapy to the patient (see [0028] and [0067]).
Johnson is silent on the memory storing a maximum decrease in depth value, the difference between the first target depth value and the second target depth value not more than the maximum decrease in depth value.
However, Johnson does teach a variance in the CPR compression depth being not too large (see [0177] “if the variance in the CPR compression depth is too large [e.g., greater than 0.5 inches]”) and that the system can determine an adjustment in the target compression depth that is a fraction of an inch and prompt the rescuer to increase or decrease the compression depth by the determined amount (see [0159]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson such that the memory stores a maximum decrease in depth value, wherein the difference between the first target value and the second target value is not more than the maximum decrease in depth value, for the purpose of providing a predetermined variance in the CPR compression depth being an effective and safe value to ensure an optimal determination of a desirable target depth during CPR.
Regarding claim 18, modified Johnson teaches the system of claim 17.
Freeman further teaches wherein the second target depth value is less than the first target depth value (“outputting the prompt "Push With Less Force”, see [0071]. Note: the second target depth value corresponding to “less force” would be less from the first target depth value corresponding to “push harder”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Johnson teaches the system of claim 17.
Freeman further teaches wherein the processor computes a third target depth value based at least in part on the third number of detected chest compressions (see repeated loop of `Detect & Increment Chest Compression count` state disclosed in [0070], which suggest and teach third target depth value associated with third number of detected chest compression).
Regarding claim 20, modified Johnson teaches the system of claim 19.
Freeman further teaches wherein the third target depth value is different from the second target depth value (the target value depends on the depth value evaluated at each detected number of compressions so the new third target could be different from the previous second target, see [0070]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 5-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10272013 in view of Johnson (US 20120010543 A1) and Freeman (US 20050267536 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims of US Patent No. 10,272,013 in view of Johnson and/or Freeman teach essentially all the claimed features as described above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chapman (US 20060229680 A1) discloses a CPR protocol using chest compression counter, Freeman (US 20110301511 A1) discloses an assisted CPR device with depth and counter parameters
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKHIL A JAYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6099. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 5712729034. 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.
/AKHIL A JAYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785