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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 8, 15, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim should be amended to recite “the patient” in the following page/lines since “the patient” has already been introduced:
pg. 1, line 10
pg. 2, lines 14, 15, and 24
pg. 3, line 3
pg. 4, lines 21, 22
Regarding claim 1, the claim should be amended to recite “on a first side of the bag” on pg. 1 in line 15 to provide antecedent basis to the claim terminology.
Regarding claim 1, the claim should be amended to recite “on an opposite second side” on pg. 1 in line 18 to provide antecedent basis to the claim terminology.
Regarding claim 1, the claim should be amended to recite “the amount of bending” on pg. 2 in line 19 to make claim terminology consistent.
Regarding claim 2, the claim should be amended to recite “the amount of bending” in line 14 to make claim terminology consistent.
Regarding claim 8, the claim should be amended to recite “the patient” in lines 4 and 6 since the patient was previously introduced.
Regarding claim 15, the claim should be amended to recite “on a first side of the bag” in line 4 to provide antecedent basis to the claim terminology.
Regarding claim 15, the claim should be amended to recite “on an opposite second side” in lines 6-7 to provide antecedent basis to the claim terminology.
Regarding claim 18, the claim should be amended to recite “the patient” in lines 7 (2 instances), 12, and 13 since the patient was previously introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means to estimate the volume of the uncompressed resuscitation bag” in claim 1. The examiner notes that this limitation is being interpreted to mean a processor, as set forth in paragraph 94 of the published application.
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, 17, and 18 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitations “urge the I/O interface to produce a first indication of the plurality of indications” on pg. 4, line 6, “urge the I/O interface to produce a first indication of the plurality of indications” on pg. 5, line 4 and “urge the I/O interface to produce a second indication of the plurality of indications” on pg. 5, line 8. It is unclear if these first and second indications are the same indications as recited earlier in the claim (pg. 4, lines 1 and 9 for “first” and “second”, respectively).
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites “means to estimate the volume of the uncompressed resuscitation bag”. As noted above, this limitation is interpreted to mean “a processor”. This limitation is indented under the limitation “the at least one memory storing executable instructions to urge the at least one processor to:”. As such, in the context of this limitation, it is unclear what the “means” limitation is attempting to convey.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “urge the I/O to produce a first indication of the plurality of indications” in line 10. It is unclear if this first indication is the same indication or a different indication as recited in claim 16, line 3.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the limitation “urge the I/O interface to produce a first indication of the plurality of indications” in line 17. It is unclear if this first indication is the same indication as recited in claims 16 and/or 17 or a different indication. Similarly, the claim recites “urge the I/O interface to produce a second indication of the plurality of indications” in line 21. It is unclear if this second indication is the same indication as recited in claim 17 or if it is a different second indication.
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Timpe (US 4622976).
Regarding claim 20, Timpe discloses a resuscitation management system for a manual resuscitator, the system comprising:
a flex sensor (8:65-68 discloses “strain gauges”), the flex sensor configured to be attached to a resuscitation bag of the manual resuscitator (8:65-68 discloses that the strain gauges are position on the exterior of the bag 14 so that they would be configured to be attached to a resuscitation bag), the flex sensor configured to: measure an amount of bending of the flex sensor (8:65-68 discloses a strain gauge which would determine the level of deformation of the strain gauge which would include bending of the strain gauge since the strain gauge would be placed on the curved exterior surface of the bag 14); and generate an output signal indicative of the amount of bending of the flex sensor in an instance (8:65-68 discloses a strain gauge which would a measurement of strain which would correspond to the bending of the strain gauge as the bag inflates/deflates); and
at least one processor (circuit board 95), the at least one processor configured to: receive the output signal from the flex sensor (10:51-57 discloses the circuit board is used for bag volume determination); and detect a volume of the bag of the manual resuscitator in that instance (8:62-65 discloses determining bag volume during “any phase” of the procedure).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-16 and 19 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 17 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The claims in this application are allowed because the prior art of record fails to disclose either singly or in combination the claimed resuscitation management system.
The closest prior art of record is Timpe.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 2, Timpe fails to teach among all the limitations or render obvious a processor configurated to associate each output signal from the plurality of output signals with a ventilation delivered to a patient responsive to the amount of deflection of the flex sensor being equal to or more than a predetermined threshold, in combination with the total structure and function as claimed. As discussed above with respect to claim 20, Timpe discloses a flex sensor (8:65-68 discloses “strain gauges”), the flex sensor configured to be attached to a resuscitation bag of the manual resuscitator (8:65-68 discloses that the strain gauges are position on the exterior of the bag 14 so that they would be configured to be attached to a resuscitation bag), the flex sensor configured to: measure an amount of bending of the flex sensor (8:65-68 discloses a strain gauge which would determine the level of deformation of the strain gauge which would include bending of the strain gauge since the strain gauge would be placed on the curved exterior surface of the bag 14); and generate an output signal indicative of the amount of bending of the flex sensor in an instance (8:65-68 discloses a strain gauge which would a measurement of strain which would correspond to the bending of the strain gauge as the bag inflates/deflates); and at least one processor (circuit board 95), the at least one processor configured to: receive the output signal from the flex sensor (10:51-57 discloses the circuit board is used for bag volume determination); and detect a volume of the bag of the manual resuscitator in that instance (8:62-65 discloses determining bag volume during “any phase” of the procedure”). Timpe further discloses that the processor is configured to associate the output of the sensor signals with a ventilation delivered to a patient in response to the bag volume being below a predetermined threshold (6:42-52 discloses when a patient inhales, the bag volume decreases and the light source/photocell, which is an alternate embodiment to the strain gauge, can detect a selected minimum value of the bag volume). However, it is the examiner’s opinion that Timpe does not adequately teach or disclose associating an output with an inhalation in response to the bending of the flex sensor being equal to or more than a predetermined threshold, as required by the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY FREDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9 AM - 5 PM EST).
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, BHISMA MEHTA can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/COURTNEY B FREDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783