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 .
Status of Claims
The present Office action is responsive to the Remarks and Amendments filed on 10-15-2025. As directed, claims 2 and 8 have been amended, claim 1 was previously canceled, and new claims 22-25 have been added. Thus, claims 2-25 are currently pending examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claim 8 to address a minor informality therein. The previously held claim objection is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, see Remarks as filed middle of page 8 through the top of page 10, that amended claim 2 adds the additional limitations of “when the received signals are indicative of the manually delivered chest compression, causing a visual display”, “when the received signals are indicative of the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated compression device, causing the visual display”, and finally “along with a message indicating that the automated chest compressions are being delivered to the victim” and therefore contends that claim 2 is subject matter eligible because the newly added features are not shown to be well-understood, routine, or conventional activities in the field of endeavor. Applicant concludes that the newly added features amount to significantly more than an abstract idea, and request withdrawal of the rejection under 35 USC 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Herken (US 8,942,803) contemplates using the at least one computer processor, when the received signals are indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions, causing a visual display to display the CPR chest compression information comprising at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions (Col. 3, lines 29-40 and lines 44-47 which detail the types of CPR feedback that can be given, and includes visual feedback as an example of the feedback provided to the rescuer, where the feedback instructs the rescuer on compressions, and thus the compressions are understood to be the manual type; Fig. 1 shows a display on the defibrillator; note each of Col. 3, lines 30-38, Col. 10, lines 20-29, and Col. 16, lines 42-64, which refer to a computerized controller, understood to include a processor).
Second, Tan teaches a system and method for supplying a rescuer information during the administration of CPR (abstract, lines 1-4), wherein a display (502) is configured to output graphical and textual information regarding chest compressions during the administration of CPR, and cause the visual display (502) to display modified CPR chest compression information by changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values, where the displayed information may include each of a compression waveform, compression rate, and compression depth (paragraph 12, lines 1-22; paragraph 113, lines 1-11; paragraph 119, lines 1-15; Fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one processor of Herken to be capable of causing the visual display to display modified CPR chest compression information by changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals such as for a compression waveform, compression rate, and/or compression depth, as taught by Tan, in order to readily display textual and/or numeric changes to various chest compression parameters such as by displaying a compression waveform, and/or the rate and the depth of compressions based on the received signals to provide feedback to the rescuer. Further, given that Herken illustrates that each of the compressions delivered manually, automatedly delivered by the AutoPulse, and automatedly delivered by the Lucas machine are vastly different (see Figs. 7-9), and Tan indicates that the displayed information can be modified based on the compression detection (see at least paragraph 119, lines 1-3), the device of modified Herken is further capable of changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device as compared to the manual compressions, resulting in a device and method that changes the display when the received signals are indicative of the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device by virtue of the differences between the compression waveform types outlined by Herken, and the updated visual display feedback taught by Tan.
Third, Sturdivant teaches a digital display panel (108) for outputting information related to an automated CPR device, in order to provide the user with feedback and information regarding the performance of the automated CPR device (paragraph 21, lines 1-6).
Thus, each of the newly amended additions to claim 2 do not illustrate an inventive concept that makes a contribution over the prior art, given that each of Herken, Herken in view of Tan, and Sturdivant contemplate the additional elements. Examiner maintains the rejection below.
Applicant argues, see Remarks as filed top of page 10 through page 11, that the newly amended limitations of claim 2 which require “along with a message indicating that the automated chest compressions are being delivered to the victim” are not contemplated by the prior art combination of Herken in view of Tan.
However, Sturdivant teaches a digital display panel (108) for outputting a message indicating that the automated chest compressions are being delivered to the victim, in order to provide the user with feedback and information regarding the performance of the automated CPR device (paragraph 21, lines 1-6, note that the “performance” of the automated CPR device taught would necessarily include an indication that the compressions were being delivered). Thus, Sturdivant will be relied on hereinbelow to overcome the deficiencies of Herken and Tan.
Examiner will maintain rejections under 35 USC 103 below.
Applicant argues, see Remarks as filed, page 12, that the newly amended limitations of claim 2 which require “along with a message indicating that the automated chest compressions are being delivered to the victim” are not contemplated by the combination of the ‘903 patent, Nilsson, or Tan.
However, Sturdivant teaches a digital display panel (108) for outputting a message indicating that the automated chest compressions are being delivered to the victim, in order to provide the user with feedback and information regarding the performance of the automated CPR device (paragraph 21, lines 1-6, note that the “performance” of the automated CPR device taught would necessarily include an indication that the compressions were being delivered). Thus, Sturdivant will be relied on hereinbelow to overcome the deficiencies of the ‘903 patent, Nilsson, and Tan.
Examiner will maintain double patenting rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 23, and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 2, lines 14-15, it is suggested that “the CPR chest compression information” be replaced with “the CPR information for chest compressions” for consistency with line 2.
At claim 23, line 4, it is suggested that “the CPR chest compression information” be replaced with “the CPR information for chest compressions” for consistency with claim 2, line 2.
At claim 25, line 4, it is suggested that a period be added to the end of the line.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2-21 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category, Yes
The claimed invention is to a method, and thus falls under one of the statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong I: Judicial Exception, Yes
Claim 2 recites:
“analyzing the received signals to distinguish between received signals indicative of manually delivered chest compressions and received signals indicative of automated chest compressions delivered by an automated chest compression device”.
These limitations, as presently drafted, are process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations in the human mind since the limitations merely recite analysis of signals related to manual verses automated compressions. The human mind is capable of performing these functions as the mind is able to observe and either quantitatively or qualitatively determine compression parameters while compressions are being performed, as well as observe different types of compressions being performed and differentiate between forms of delivered compressions. At present, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. As such, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea (Step 2, Prong I: YES).
Step 2A, Prong II: Integrated into practical Application, No
The claim recites the following additional elements:
“receiving, with at least one computer processor, signals indicative of motion of a chest of the victim during the chest compressions generated by at least one chest compression sensor;
causing a visual display to display the CPR chest compression information comprising at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions;
determining parameter values for at least one chest compression parameter based on the received signals;
with the a least one computer processor, when the received signals are indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions, causing a visual display to display the CPR chest compression information comprising at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions; and
with the at least one computer processor, when the received signals are indicative of the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device, causing the visual display to display modified CPR chest compression information by changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device”.
Reception of signals from the chest compression sensor related to motion of a victim’s chest during chest compressions is a data gathering step that is a form of insignificant pre-solution activity. The display and the modified display steps amount to insignificant post-solution activity. The use of a computer processor to perform these steps fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since it is merely used to perform the judicial exception and/or display the output of the judicial exception. Thus, these additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, each of the chest compression sensor, display, and processor are well-known, routine and conventional elements for use in providing CPR information to a rescuer (see Herken US 8,942,803: Col. 3, lines 29-47, note the sensors and controller and display of visual feedback), and the abstract idea does not improve the function of the sensor, the display, or the processor as presently claimed. Thus, the use of these additional elements does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the elements are generic and well-known in the art of CPR information retrieval and feedback, and the identified additional elements do not serve to apply the abstract idea with or by use of a particular machine, effect a transformation, or apply/use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment to avoid monopolizing the exception (Step 2, Prong II: NO).
Step 2B: Inventive concept, No
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong II, the additional elements merely recite insignificant pre/post-solution activities which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, the additional elements have been shown to be well-known, routine, and conventional (see Herken US 8,942,803: Col. 3, lines 29-47, note the sensors and controller and display of visual feedback). In addition, Tan (US 2015/0018695) teaches a system and method for supplying a rescuer information during the administration of CPR (abstract, lines 1-4), wherein a display (502) is configured to output graphical and textual information regarding chest compressions during the administration of CPR, and cause the visual display (502) to display modified CPR chest compression information by changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values, where the displayed information may include each of a compression waveform, compression rate, and compression depth (paragraph 12, lines 1-22; paragraph 113, lines 1-11; paragraph 119, lines 1-15; Fig. 7), rendering the modified display step obvious in light of Herken’s disclosure that each of the compressions delivered manually, automatedly delivered by the AutoPulse, and automatedly delivered by the Lucas machine are vastly different (see Figs. 7-9), and Tan’s indication that the displayed information can be modified based on the compression detection (see at least paragraph 119, lines 1-3). Further, Sturdivant teaches a digital display panel (108) for outputting information related to an automated CPR device, in order to provide the user with feedback and information regarding the performance of the automated CPR device (paragraph 21, lines 1-6), thus rendering the additional provision of the message indicating that the automated chest compressions are being delivered obvious. Therefore, the claim does not include an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 3 includes the following additional elements: an accelerometer for generating the signals indicative of motion of the chest.
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong II with respect to claim 2 above, the additional elements merely recite insignificant pre/post-solution activities which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as the recited accelerometer is merely used in a data gathering step. Further, the additional elements have been shown to be well-known, routine, and conventional (see Herken US 8,942,803: Col. 3, lines 29-47, note the sensors and controller and display of visual feedback; note the accelerometer assembly 17 discussed at Col. 4, lines 4-18). As previously established, the use of the accelerometer, the processor, and the display do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, claim 3 is ineligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 4 includes the following elements: “wherein the at least one chest compression parameter comprises compression rate or compression depth”.
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong I with respect to claim 2 above, these limitations, as presently drafted, are process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations in the human mind since the limitations merely recite obtaining measurement data related to chest compressions, and subsequently analyzing said measurement data. The human mind is capable of performing these functions as the mind is able to observe and either quantitatively or qualitatively determine compression rate and depth my counting and measurement. At present, nothing the claim precludes the steps from being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. As such, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea which are not integrated into a practical application. Thus, claim 4 is ineligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 5 includes the following elements: “wherein the at least one chest compression parameter comprises compression rate and compression depth”.
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong I with respect to claim 2 above, these limitations, as presently drafted, are process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations in the human mind since the limitations merely recite obtaining measurement data related to chest compressions, and subsequently analyzing said measurement data. The human mind is capable of performing these functions as the mind is able to observe and either quantitatively or qualitatively determine compression rate and depth my counting and measurement. At present, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. As such, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea which are not integrated into a practical application. Thus, claim 5 is ineligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 6 includes the following additional elements: wherein the automated chest compressions comprise at least one of chest compression delivered by a belt-based compression device or chest compressions delivered by a piston-based compression device.
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong I with respect to claim 2 above, these limitations, as presently drafted further limit a series of process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitations in the human mind since the limitations merely recite obtaining measurement data related to chest compressions, and subsequently analyzing said measurement data. The human mind is capable of performing these functions as the mind is able to observe and qualitatively determine the source of compressions as either belt-based or piston-based automated compressions. At present, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. As such, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea which are not integrated into a practical application. Thus, claim 6 is ineligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category, Yes
The claimed invention is to a method, and thus falls under one of the statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong I: Judicial Exception, Yes
Claim 7 recites:
“detecting features that are characteristic of the chest compressions in the generated compression waveform”.
These limitations, as presently drafted, are process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations in the human mind since the limitations merely recite analysis of compression waveform for characteristic features. The human mind is capable of performing these functions as the mind is able to graphically quantify data as a waveform, and determine graphical characteristics related to a variable and waveform. At present, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. As such, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea (Step 2, Prong I: YES).
Step 2A, Prong II: Integrated into practical Application, No
The claim recites the following additional elements: “generating, with the at least one computer processor, a compression waveform based on the received signals indicative of the motion of the chest during the chest compressions”.
Generation of waveform data from the chest compression signals, and detection of characteristics therein, are data gathering steps that are forms of insignificant post-solution activity. The use of a computer processor to perform these steps fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since it is merely used to perform the judicial exception and/or generate the output of the judicial exception. Thus, these additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the processor is a well-known, routine and conventional element for use in providing CPR information to a rescuer (see Herken US 8,942,803: Col. 3, lines 29-47, note the sensors and controller and display of visual feedback), and the abstract idea does not improve the function of the processor as presently claimed. Thus, the use of this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the element is generic and well-known in the art of CPR information retrieval and feedback, and the identified additional element does not serve to apply the abstract idea with or by use of a particular machine, effect a transformation, or apply/use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment to avoid monopolizing the exception (Step 2, Prong II: NO).
Step 2B: Inventive concept, No
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong II, the additional element merely recites insignificant pre/post-solution activities which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, the additional element has been shown to be well-known, routine, and conventional (see Herken US 8,942,803: Col. 3, lines 29-47, note the sensors and controller and display of visual feedback). Therefore, the claim does not include an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category, Yes
The claimed invention is to a method, and thus falls under one of the statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong I: Judicial Exception, Yes
Claim 8 recites:
“analyzing the received signals further comprises comparing, with the at least one computer processor, the detected features in the compression waveform to a predetermined criterion that distinguishes between the manually delivered chest compressions and the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device to identify portions of the receive signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions and portions of the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device”.
These limitations, as presently drafted, are process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations in the human mind since the limitations merely recite comparison of portions of a signal. The human mind is capable of performing these functions as the mind is able to compare data and determine differences therein. At present, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. As such, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea (Step 2, Prong I: YES).
Step 2A, Prong II: Integrated into practical Application, No
The claim recites the following additional elements: at least one computer processor.
Analysis, comparison, and identification of data points from the signals is a data gathering step that is a form insignificant post-solution activity. The use of a computer processor to perform these steps fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since it is merely used to perform the judicial exception and/or generate the output of the judicial exception. Thus, these additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the processor is a well-known, routine and conventional element for use in providing CPR information to a rescuer (see Herken US 8,942,803: Col. 3, lines 29-47, note the sensors and controller and display of visual feedback), and the abstract idea does not improve the function of the processor as presently claimed. Thus, the use of this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the element is generic and well-known in the art of CPR information retrieval and feedback, and the identified additional element does not serve to apply the abstract idea with or by use of a particular machine, effect a transformation, or apply/use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment to avoid monopolizing the exception (Step 2, Prong II: NO).
Step 2B: Inventive concept, No
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong II, the additional element merely recites insignificant pre/post-solution activities which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, the additional element has been shown to be well-known, routine, and conventional (see Herken US 8,942,803: Col. 3, lines 29-47, note the sensors and controller and display of visual feedback). Therefore, the claim does not include an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 9 includes the following additional limitations: “with the at least one computer processor, causing the visual display to display the generated compression waveform and the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions”.
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong II with respect to claims 2 and 7 above, the display and the modified display steps amount to insignificant post-solution activity. The use of a computer processor to perform these steps fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since it is merely used to perform the judicial exception and/or display the output of the judicial exception. Thus, these additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10 includes the following additional limitations: “wherein the generated compression waveform comprises at least one of an acceleration waveform, a velocity waveform, or a displacement waveform”.
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong I with respect to claim 7 above, generation of waveform data from the chest compression signals is a data gathering step that is a form insignificant post-solution activity. The use of a computer processor to perform these steps fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since it is merely used to perform the judicial exception and/or generate the output of the judicial exception. Thus, these additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and is ineligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 11 includes the following additional limitations: “wherein the detected features comprise at least one of a compression rate, a compression depth, a hold time, a velocity minimum-to-maximum time, a velocity amplitude, a compression width, a release time, a relaxation time, a variability of at least one compression parameter, or a shape of at least a portion of the compression waveform”.
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong I with respect to claim 7 above, detection of characteristics of a waveform, is a data gathering step that is a form of insignificant post-solution activity. The use of a computer processor to perform these steps fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since it is merely used to perform the judicial exception and/or generate the output of the judicial exception. Thus, these additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and the claim is ineligible.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 12 includes the following additional limitations: “wherein the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values comprises at least one alpha and/or numeric character displayed on the visual display”.
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong I with respect to claim 2 above, the display and the modified display steps amount to insignificant post-solution activity. The use of a computer processor to perform these steps fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since it is merely used to perform the judicial exception and/or display the output of the judicial exception.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 13 recites the following additional elements:
“receiving, with the at least one computer processor, signals generated by at least one physiological sensor indicative of physiological parameter information for the victim and, with the at least one computer processor, causing the visual display to display the physiological parameter information”.
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong I with respect to claim 2 above, reception of signals from the physiological sensor is a data gathering step that is a form of insignificant pre-solution activity. The use of a computer processor to perform these steps fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since it is merely used to perform the judicial exception and/or display the output of the judicial exception. Thus, these additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and is ineligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 14 includes the following additional limitations: “wherein the physiological parameter information comprises at least one of blood pressure information, electrocardiogram (ECG) information, blood flow information, chest impedance information, ventilation information, oxygenation information, or end tidal carbon dioxide information”.
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong I with respect to claims 2 and 13 above, generation of physiological data from the victim is a data gathering step that is a form insignificant post-solution activity. The use of a computer processor to perform these steps fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since it is merely used to perform the judicial exception and/or generate the output of the judicial exception. Thus, these additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and is ineligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category, Yes
The claimed invention is to a method, and thus falls under one of the statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong I: Judicial Exception, Yes
Claim 15 recites:
“analyzing to identify active compression-decompression chest compressions and ”.
These limitations, as presently drafted, are process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations in the human mind since the limitations merely recite analyzing measurement data related to chest compressions, and subsequently analyzing said measurement data. The human mind is capable of performing these functions as the mind is able to observe and either quantitatively or qualitatively determine compression parameters, as well as observe different types of compressions being performed and differentiate between forms of delivered compressions. At present, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. As such, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea (Step 2, Prong I: YES).
Step 2A, Prong II: Integrated into practical Application, No
The claim recites the following additional elements:
“at least one computer processor” and “causing the visual display to display the modified CPR chest compression information by changing the visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values to identify parameter values for the received signals indicative of the active compression-decompression chest compressions”.
Reception of signals from the physiological sensor is a data gathering step that is a form of insignificant pre-solution activity. The display and the modified display steps amount to insignificant post-solution activity. The use of a computer processor to perform these steps fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since it is merely used to perform the judicial exception and/or display the output of the judicial exception. Thus, these additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, each of the display and processor are well-known, routine and conventional elements for use in providing CPR information to a rescuer (see Herken US 8,942,803: Col. 3, lines 29-47, note the controller and display of visual feedback), and the abstract idea does not improve the function of the display or the processor as presently claimed. Thus, the use of these additional elements does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the elements are generic and well-known in the art of CPR information retrieval and feedback, and the identified additional elements do not serve to apply the abstract idea with or by use of a particular machine, effect a transformation, or apply/use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment to avoid monopolizing the exception (Step 2, Prong II: NO).
Step 2B: Inventive concept, No
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong II, the additional elements merely recite insignificant pre/post-solution activities which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, the additional elements have been shown to be well-known, routine, and conventional (see Herken US 8,942,803: Col. 3, lines 29-47, note the controller and display of visual feedback). Therefore, the claim does not include an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 16 includes the following additional limitations: “wherein changing the visual appearance of the at least one visual indication for the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions comprises removing the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values from the visual display”.
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong II with respect to claim 2 above, the display and the modified display steps amount to insignificant post-solution activity. The use of a computer processor to perform these steps fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since it is merely used to perform the judicial exception and/or display the output of the judicial exception. Thus, these additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 17 includes the following additional limitations: “wherein the at least one visual indication comprises at least one alpha and/or numeric character and wherein removing the at least one visual indication comprises removing the at least one alpha and/or numeric character from the visual display”.
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong II with respect to claim 2 above, the display and the modified display steps amount to insignificant post-solution activity. The use of a computer processor to perform these steps fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since it is merely used to perform the judicial exception and/or display the output of the judicial exception. Thus, these additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 18 includes the following additional limitations: “wherein the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values comprises a perfusion performance indicator”.
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong II with respect to claim 2 above, the display and the modified display steps amount to insignificant post-solution activity. The use of a computer processor to perform these steps fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since it is merely used to perform the judicial exception and/or display the output of the judicial exception. Thus, these additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 19 includes the following additional limitations: “wherein the perfusion performance indicator is based on compression rate and compression depth”.
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong II with respect to claim 2 above, the display and the modified display steps amount to insignificant post-solution activity. The use of a computer processor to perform these steps fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since it is merely used to perform the judicial exception and/or display the output of the judicial exception. Thus, these additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 20 includes the following additional limitations: “wherein the perfusion performance indicator comprises a graphical shape that changes in visual appearance based on the parameter values for the at least one chest compression parameter for the received signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions”.
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong II with respect to claim 2 above, the display and the modified display steps amount to insignificant post-solution activity. The use of a computer processor to perform these steps fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since it is merely used to perform the judicial exception and/or display the output of the judicial exception. Thus, these additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 21 includes the following additional limitations: “wherein removal of the perfusion performance indicator comprises ceasing the graphical shape from changing in visual appearance for the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions”.
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong II with respect to claim 2 above, the display and the modified display steps amount to insignificant post-solution activity. The use of a computer processor to perform these steps fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since it is merely used to perform the judicial exception and/or display the output of the judicial exception. Thus, these additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 24 includes the following additional limitations: “wherein changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values comprises modifying the at least one visual indication to deemphasize the at least one visual indication”.
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong II with respect to claim 2 above, the display and the modified display steps amount to insignificant post-solution activity. The use of a computer processor to perform these steps fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since it is merely used to perform the judicial exception and/or display the output of the judicial exception. Thus, these additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 25 includes the following additional limitations: “wherein modifying the at least one visual indication to deemphasize the at least one visual indication comprises making the at least one visual indication dimmer compared to when the received signals are indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions”.
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong II with respect to claim 2 above, the display and the modified display steps amount to insignificant post-solution activity. The use of a computer processor to perform these steps fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since it is merely used to perform the judicial exception and/or display the output of the judicial exception. Thus, these additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Thus, claims 2-21 and 24-25 are subject matter ineligible.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2-14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herken (US 8,942,803) in view of Tan (US 2015/0018695), and Sturdivant (US 2016/0213560).
Regarding claim 2, Herken discloses a computer-implemented method for providing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) information for chest compressions provided for a victim (abstract, lines 1-3; Col. 3, lines 17-38; Col. 10, lines 20-29; Col. 16, lines 42-64), the method comprising:
receiving, with at least one computer processor, signals indicative of motion of a chest of the victim during the chest compressions generated by at least one chest compression sensor (17) (Col. 3, lines 17-38; Col. 4, lines 4-10, 19-27, and 35-47; note each of Col. 10, lines 20-29 and Col. 16, lines 42-64, which refer to a computerized controller, understood to include a processor);
determining, with the at least one computer processor, parameter values for at least one chest compression parameter based on the received signals (Col. 3, lines 29-38; Col. 16, lines 28-34; note each of Col. 3, lines 30-38, Col. 10, lines 20-29, and Col. 16, lines 42-64, which refer to a computerized controller, understood to include a processor);
analyzing the received signals, with the at least one computer processor, to distinguish between received signals indicative of manually delivered chest compressions and received signals indicative of automated chest compressions delivered by an automated chest compression device (Col. 14, lines 25-55; note each of Col. 3, lines 30-38, Col. 10, lines 20-29, and Col. 16, lines 42-64, which refer to a computerized controller, understood to include a processor);
with the at least one computer processor, when the received signals are indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions, causing a visual display to display the CPR chest compression information comprising at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions (Col. 3, lines 29-40 and lines 44-47 which detail the types of CPR feedback that can be given, and includes visual feedback as an example of the feedback provided to the rescuer, where the feedback instructs the rescuer on compressions, and thus the compressions are understood to be the manual type; Fig. 1 shows a display on the defibrillator; note each of Col. 3, lines 30-38, Col. 10, lines 20-29, and Col. 16, lines 42-64, which refer to a computerized controller, understood to include a processor).
Herken fails to explicitly disclose:
with the at least one computer processor, when the received signals are indicative of the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device, causing the visual display to display modified CPR chest compression information by changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device along with a message indicating that the automated chest compressions are being delivered to the victim.
However, Tan teaches a system and method for supplying a rescuer information during the administration of CPR (abstract, lines 1-4), wherein a display (502) is configured to output graphical and textual information regarding chest compressions during the administration of CPR, and cause the visual display (502) to display modified CPR chest compression information by changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values, where the displayed information may include each of a compression waveform, compression rate, and compression depth (paragraph 12, lines 1-22; paragraph 113, lines 1-11; paragraph 119, lines 1-15; Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one processor of Herken to be capable of causing the visual display to display modified CPR chest compression information by changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals such as for a compression waveform, compression rate, and/or compression depth, as taught by Tan, in order to readily display textual and/or numeric changes to various chest compression parameters such as by displaying a compression waveform, and/or the rate and the depth of compressions based on the received signals to provide feedback to the rescuer.
Further, given that Herken illustrates that each of the compressions delivered manually, automatedly delivered by the AutoPulse, and automatedly delivered by the Lucas machine are vastly different (see Figs. 7-9), and Tan indicates that the displayed information can be modified based on the compression detection (see at least paragraph 119, lines 1-3), the device of modified Herken is further capable of changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device as compared to the manual compressions, resulting in a device and method that changes the display when the received signals are indicative of the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device by virtue of the differences between the compression types and the compression waveform types outlined by Herken, and the updated visual display feedback taught by Tan.
Modified Herken fails to disclose wherein a message is displayed indicating that the automated chest compressions are being delivered to the victim.
However, Sturdivant teaches a digital display panel (108) for outputting a message indicating that the automated chest compressions are being delivered to the victim, in order to provide the user with feedback and information regarding the performance of the automated CPR device (paragraph 21, lines 1-6, note that the “performance” of the automated CPR device taught would necessarily include an indication that the compressions were being delivered, as the ”performance” feedback would indicate that the compressions were being delivered in addition to feedback about the compressions/performance of the device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of modified Herken to further include a message to be displayed indicating that the automated chest compressions are being delivered to the victim, as taught by Sturdivant, in order to provide the user with feedback and information regarding the performance of the automated CPR device.
Regarding claim 3, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Herken further discloses wherein the signals indicative of the motion of the chest of the victim during the chest compressions comprise signals generated by at least one accelerometer (17) on the chest of the victim (Col. 3, lines 17-38; Col. 4, lines 4-10, 19-27, and 35-47; note each of Col. 10, lines 20-29 and Col. 16, lines 42-64, which refer to a computerized controller, understood to include a processor).
Regarding claim 4, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Modified Herken further discloses wherein the at least one chest compression parameter comprises at least one of compression rate or compression depth (Tan: paragraph 12, lines 1-22 and paragraph 113, lines 1-11; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Modified Herken further discloses wherein the at least one chest compression parameter comprises at least one of compression rate and compression depth (Tan: paragraph 12, lines 1-22 and paragraph 113, lines 1-11; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Herken further discloses wherein the automated chest compressions comprise at least one of chest compressions delivered by a belt-based compression device or chest compressions delivered by a piston-based compression device (Col. 2, lines 28-37).
Regarding claim 7, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Modified Herken further discloses wherein analyzing the received signals comprises:
generating, with the at least one computer processor, a compression waveform based on the received signals indicative of the motion of the chest during the chest compressions (Tan: paragraph 119, lines 1-15, see second waveform as chest compressions); and
detecting, with the at least one computer processor, features that are characteristic of the chest compressions in the generated compression waveform (Herken: Col. 14, lines 25-55).
Regarding claim 8, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 7, as discussed above.
Herken further discloses wherein analyzing the received signals further comprises comparing, with the at least one computer processor, the detected features in the compression waveform to a predetermined criterion that distinguishes between the manually delivered chest compressions and the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device to identify portions of the receive signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions and portions of the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device (Col. 2, lines 28-37; Col. 14, lines 25-55).
Regarding claim 9, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 7, as discussed above.
Modified Herken further discloses with the at least one computer processor, causing the visual display to display the generated compression waveform and the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions (Tan: paragraph 12, lines 1-22, paragraph 113, lines 1-11, and paragraph 119, lines 1-15, see Fig. 7 for display).
Regarding claim 10, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 7, as discussed above.
Modified Herken further discloses wherein the generated compression waveform comprises at least one of an acceleration waveform, a velocity waveform, or a displacement waveform (note Tan at paragraph 119, lines 1-15 for second waveform as chest compressions, see also Figs. 7-9 of Herken where the compression waveforms include a displacement waveform relative to depth of compression).
Regarding claim 11, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 8, as discussed above.
Modified Herken further discloses wherein the detected features comprise at least compression rate and compression depth (Tan: paragraph 12, lines 1-22; paragraph 113, lines 1-11; paragraph 119, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 12, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Modified Herken further discloses wherein the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameters values comprises an alpha and/or numeric character displayed on the visual display (Tan: paragraph 12, lines 1-22 see “textual”; see Fig. 7, where a compression rate as a number is displayed).
Regarding claim 13, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Currently modified Herken fails to disclose receiving, with the at least one computer processor, signals generated by at least one physiological sensor indicative of physiological parameter information for the victim and, with the at least one computer processor, causing the visual display to display the physiological parameter information.
However, Tan further teaches receiving, with the at least one computer processor, signals generated by at least one physiological sensor indicative of physiological parameter information for the victim and, with the at least one computer processor, causing the visual display to display the physiological parameter information to give the rescuer visual feedback regarding the patient’s ECG rhythm (paragraph 52, lines 1-5, see processor 22 and ECG leads; paragraph 55, lines 1-12; see paragraph 113, lines 1-11 and Fig. 7 for the display of the ECG waveform).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of he claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Herken to include receiving, with the at least one computer processor, signals generated by at least one physiological sensor indicative of physiological parameter information for the victim and, with the at least one computer processor, causing the visual display to display the physiological parameter information, as further taught by Tan, in order to give the rescuer visual feedback regarding the patient’s ECG rhythm during CPR.
Regarding claim 14, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 13, as discussed above.
Further modified Herken further discloses wherein the physiological parameter information comprises electrocardiogram (ECG) information (Tan: paragraph 52, lines 1-5, see processor 22 and ECG leads; paragraph 55, lines 1-12; see paragraph 113, lines 1-11 and Fig. 7 for the display of the ECG waveform).
Regarding claim 16, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Modified Herken currently fails to disclose wherein changing the visual appearance of the at least one visual indication for the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions comprises removing the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values from the visual display.
However, Tan further teaches wherein depth and rate numerals can be displayed to the user during the course of compressions (paragraph 16, lines 1-6; paragraph 23, lines 1-7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the visual appearance of the display by displaying numerals indicative of chest compression and depth to the user, as taught by Tan, in order to give the rescuer feedback in a numeric capacity as to the depth and rate of the performed compressions.
Further, given that Herken illustrates that the waveforms for compressions from manual and automated compressions are different in their depth and their rate (see Figs. 7-9), and as modified, modified Herken discloses displaying the compression waveform (Tan: paragraph 119, lines 1-15), it would have been alternately/additionally rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that changing the visual appearance of the at least one visual indication for the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions comprises removing the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values from the visual display, given that the compression waveforms between the manual and automated sources present different waveforms and different depths and compression rates (see Herken at Figs. 7-9), and since Tan indicates that the compression waveform, rate, and depth data is sensor-based and displayed (see Tan at paragraph 119, lines 1-15 and Figs. 7, 8B, 8E, 9B-C, 10B-C, and 11). In other words, in the case where the automated compressions are started following manual ones, then the waveform, depth, and rate information would be removed for the manual compressions, and that information for the automated compressions would be expected to be displayed in its place.
Regarding claim 17, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 16, as discussed above.
Modified Herken further discloses wherein the at least one visual indication comprises at least one alpha and/or numeric character and wherein removing the at least one visual indication comprises removing the at least one alpha and/or numeric character from the visual display (Tan: paragraph 16, lines 1-6; paragraph 23, lines 1-7; Herken: Figs. 7-9, where the compression waveform, rate and depth is expected to change when the source of compressions changes, such that the compression rate for the manual compressions would be removed and replaced with the compression rate for the automated compressions in accordance with their differences as outlined in Herken’s figures).
Regarding claim 18, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 16, as discussed above.
Currently modified Herken fails to disclose wherein the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values comprises a perfusion performance indicator.
However, Tan further teaches wherein the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values comprises a perfusion performance indicator so that the rescuer can aim to provide compressions at a rate and depth that optimizes the victim’s perfusion, given that the graphical shape of the fill of the PPI changes based on how well the compressions are performed (paragraph 116, lines 1-15; Figs. 9B-C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display and method of modified Herken such that the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values comprises a perfusion performance indicator, as taught by Tan, so that the rescuer can aim to provide compressions at a rate and depth that optimizes the victim’s perfusion, given that the graphical shape of the fill of the PPI changes based on how well the compressions are performed.
Regarding claim 19, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 18, as discussed above.
Modified Herken further discloses wherein the perfusion performance indicator is based on compression rate and compression depth (Tan: paragraph 116, lines 1-15; Figs. 9B-C).
Regarding claim 20, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 18, as discussed above.
Modified Herken further discloses wherein the perfusion performance indicator comprises a graphical shape that changes in visual appearance based on the parameter values for the at least one chest compression parameter for the received signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions (Tan: paragraph 119, lines 1-15; Figs. 9B-C, see how the fill of the PPI changes during manual compressions).
Regarding claim 21, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 20, as discussed above.
Currently modified Herken fails to disclose wherein removal of the perfusion performance indicator comprises ceasing the graphical shape from changing in visual appearance for the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions.
However, given that Tan teaches that the PPI indicator remains completely filled while compressions are adequately/ideally delivered (paragraph 119, lines 1-15 and Figs. 9B-C), and that Herken additionally discloses that the automated CPR compression devices aim to provide consistent and ideal compressions (Col. 7, lines 56-64 and Col. 8, lines 33-40), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that removal of the perfusion performance indicator comprises ceasing the graphical shape from changing in visual appearance for the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions, because the automated compressions delivered by either of the AutoPulse or Lucas devices are expected to be ideal compressions in terms of their perfusion.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herken (US 8,942,803) in view of Tan (US 2015/0018695), and Sturdivant (US 2016/0213560), as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Nilsson (US 2014/0180180).
Regarding claim 15, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Currently modified Herken fails to disclose with the at least one computer processor, analyzing the received signals to identify received signals indicative of active compression-decompression chest compressions and causing the visual display to display the modified CPR chest compression information by changing the visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values to identify parameter values for the received signals indicative of the active compression-decompression chest compressions.
However, Nilsson teaches a CPR compression device that includes a suction cup (abstract, lines 1-10; Fig. 1A) for providing active compression-decompression chest compressions (paragraph 38, see the description of the waveform for the device, note that 603 in Fig. 6A is a reference position, and the suction cup provides active decompression above this reference line at 615; note Figs. 6A-C for the particular waveform and its distinguishing features for the ACD device; paragraph 10, lines 1-8), where the active decompressions aid in avoiding injury to the user by providing the initial reference position (paragraph 26, lines 1-200.
Therefore, 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 method to include the capacity to detect active compression-decompression compressions via an automated device, the ACD compressions as taught by Nilsson, in order to provide the victim with decompression during CPRT that may help avoid injury to the user based on provision of an initial reference position.
Further, given that Nilsson explicitly shows that the ACD compressions include a distinct waveform (Figs. 6A-C), and modified Herken discloses the ability to display a compression waveform (Tan: paragraph 119, lines 1-15), and Herken discloses the ability for the controller to distinguish between types of compressions by their waveform, depth, rate, and period of compressions (Col. 14, lines 25-55; Figs. 7-9), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the methods steps of with the at least one computer processor of the modified Herken device, analyzing the received signals to identify received signals indicative of active compression-decompression chest compressions and causing the visual display to display the modified CPR chest compression information by changing the visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values to identify parameter values for the received signals indicative of the active compression-decompression chest compressions, since Nilsson provides that mechanical ACD compressions can advantageously reduce injury to the user, and both Herken and Tan provide disclosure that waveforms can be used to determine differences in compression types, and that waveforms can be displayed. Examiner additionally notes that the ACD waveforms in Nilsson’s Figures 6A-C are different from the other waveforms presented in Figures 7-9 of Herken, and thus it is reasonably expected that distinguishing features of the ACD waveform can be detected, and the different waveform can replace either an automated or manual waveform on the modified display.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herken (US 8,942,803) in view of Tan (US 2015/0018695), and Sturdivant (US 2016/0213560), as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Giarocco (US 2016/0206504).
Regarding claim 24, Herken in view of Tan and Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Modified Herken fails to disclose wherein changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values comprises modifying the at least one visual indication to deemphasize the at least one visual indication.
However, Giarocco teaches a system and method for CPR (abstract, lines 1-5; Fig. 1) wherein changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values comprises modifying the at least one visual indication to deemphasize the at least one visual indication in order to more prominently display relevant/helpful CPR information based on a user input related to the CPR performed (paragraph 36, lines 1-19, see “remove, obscure, dim, block, or minimize”; note paragraph 32, lines 1-6 which indicate the device can be used during either automated or manual compressions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of modified Herken to further include the capability of changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values comprising modifying the at least one visual indication to deemphasize the at least one visual indication, as taught by Giarocco, in order to more prominently display relevant/helpful CPR information based on a user input.
Regarding claim 25, Herken in view of Tan, Sturdivant, and Giarocco disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 24, as discussed above.
Modified Herken further discloses wherein modifying the at least one visual indication to deemphasize the at least one visual indication comprises making the at least one visual indication dimmer compared to when the received signals are indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions (Giarocco: paragraph 36, lines 1-19, see “remove, obscure, dim, block, or minimize”; note paragraph 32, lines 1-6 which indicate the device can be used during either automated or manual compressions).
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 2-8, 10-14, 16-18, and 20-21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9-11, and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,893,903 to Tan, hereinafter referred to as Tan ‘903, in view of Sturdivant (US 2016/0213560).
Regarding claim 2, Tan ‘903 a discloses a computer-implemented method for providing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) information for chest compressions provided for a victim (claim 1, lines 1-3 and 12-13, where the processor is understood to initiate the method steps), the method comprising:
receiving, with at least one computer processor, signals indicative of motion of a chest of the victim during the chest compressions generated by at least one chest compression sensor (claim 1, lines 4-8 and 12-15);
determining, with the at least one computer processor, parameter values for at least one chest compression parameter based on the received signals (claim 1, lines 18-19 and 12-13 for the processor);
analyzing the received signals, with the at least one computer processor, to distinguish between received signals indicative of manually delivered chest compressions and received signals indicative of automated chest compressions delivered by an automated chest compression device (claim 1, lines 12-24);
with the at least one computer processor, when the received signals are indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions, causing a visual display to display the CPR chest compression information comprising at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions (claim 1, lines 9-13 and 32-40); and
with the at least one computer processor, when the received signals are indicative of the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device, causing the visual display to display modified CPR chest compression information by changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device (claim 1, lines 41-45).
Tan ‘903 fails to disclose wherein a message is displayed indicating that the automated chest compressions are being delivered to the victim.
However, Sturdivant teaches a digital display panel (108) for outputting a message indicating that the automated chest compressions are being delivered to the victim, in order to provide the user with feedback and information regarding the performance of the automated CPR device (paragraph 21, lines 1-6, note that the “performance” of the automated CPR device taught would necessarily include an indication that the compressions were being delivered, as the ”performance” feedback would indicate that the compressions were being delivered in addition to feedback about the compressions/performance of the device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of Tan ‘903 to further include a message to be displayed indicating that the automated chest compressions are being delivered to the victim, as taught by Sturdivant, in order to provide the user with feedback and information regarding the performance of the automated CPR device.
Regarding claim 3, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Tan ‘903 further discloses wherein the signals indicative of the motion of the chest of the victim during the chest compressions comprise signals generated by at least one accelerometer (17) on the chest of the victim (claim 1, lines 4-6 and claim 10, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 4, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Tan ‘903 further discloses wherein the at least one chest compression parameter comprises at least one of compression rate or compression depth (claim 11, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 5, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Tan ‘903 further discloses wherein the at least one chest compression parameter comprises at least one of compression rate and compression depth (claim 11, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 6, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Tan ‘903 further discloses wherein the automated chest compressions comprise at least one of chest compressions delivered by a belt-based compression device or chest compressions delivered by a piston-based compression device (claim 16, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Tan ‘903 further discloses wherein analyzing the received signals comprises:
generating, with the at least one computer processor, a compression waveform based on the received signals indicative of the motion of the chest during the chest compressions; and
detecting, with the at least one computer processor, features that are characteristic of the chest compressions in the generated compression waveform (claim 1, lines 12-19).
Regarding claim 8, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 7, as discussed above.
Tan ‘903 further discloses wherein analyzing the received signals further comprises comparing, with the at least one computer processor, the detected features in the compression waveform to a predetermined criterion that distinguishes between the manually delivered chest compressions and the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device to identify portions of the receive signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions and portions of the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device (claim 1, lines 12-24 and claim 13, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 10, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 7, as discussed above.
Tan ‘903 further discloses wherein the generated compression waveform comprises at least one of an acceleration waveform, a velocity waveform, or a displacement waveform (claim 10, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 11, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 7, as discussed above.
Tan ‘903 further discloses wherein the detected features comprise at least one or more of a compression rate, a compression depth, a hold time, a velocity minimum-to-maximum time, a velocity amplitude, a compression width, a release time, a relaxation time, a variability of at least one compression parameter, or a shape of at least a portion of the compression waveform (claim 11, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 12, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Tan ‘903 further further discloses wherein the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameters values comprises an alpha and/or numeric character displayed on the visual display (claim 1, lines 32-40).
Regarding claim 13, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Tan ‘903 further discloses receiving, with the at least one computer processor, signals generated by at least one physiological sensor indicative of physiological parameter information for the victim and, with the at least one computer processor, causing the visual display to display the physiological parameter information (claim 17, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 14, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 13, as discussed above.
Tan ‘903 further discloses wherein the physiological parameter information comprises t least one of blood pressure information, electrocardiogram (ECG) information, blood flow information, chest impedance information, ventilation information, oxygenation information, or end tidal carbon dioxide information (claim 18, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 16, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Tan ‘903 further discloses wherein changing the visual appearance of the at least one visual indication for the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions comprises removing the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values from the visual display (claim 1, lines 41-46).
Regarding claim 17, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 16, as discussed above.
Tan ‘903 further discloses wherein the at least one visual indication comprises at least one alpha and/or numeric character and wherein removing the at least one visual indication comprises removing the at least one alpha and/or numeric character from the visual display (claim 1, lines 32-46).
Regarding claim 18, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 16, as discussed above.
Tan ‘903 further discloses wherein the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values comprises a perfusion performance indicator (claim 9, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 20, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 18, as discussed above.
Tan ‘903 further discloses wherein the perfusion performance indicator comprises a graphical shape that changes in visual appearance based on the parameter values for the at least one chest compression parameter for the received signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions (claim 9, lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 21, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 20, as discussed above.
Tan ‘903 further discloses wherein removal of the perfusion performance indicator comprises ceasing the graphical shape from changing in visual appearance for the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions (claim 9, lines 5-11).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9-11, and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,893,903 to Tan, hereinafter referred to as Tan ‘903, in view of Sturdivant (US 2016/0213560), as applied to claims 7 and 18 above, in further view of Tan (US 2015/0018695).
Regarding claim 9, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 7, as discussed above.
Presently modified Tan ‘903 further discloses the method comprising, with the at least one computer processor, causing the visual display to display the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions (claim 1, lines 32-40).
Tan ‘903 fails to disclose that a compression waveform is displayed.
However, Tan teaches a system and method for supplying a rescuer information during the administration of CPR (abstract, lines 1-4), wherein a display (502) is configured to output graphical and textual information regarding chest compressions during the administration of CPR, and cause the visual display (502) to display modified CPR chest compression information by changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values, where the displayed information may include each of a compression waveform, compression rate, and compression depth (paragraph 12, lines 1-22; paragraph 113, lines 1-11; paragraph 119, lines 1-15; Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one processor of modified Tan ‘903 to be capable of causing the visual display to display modified CPR chest compression information by changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals such as for a compression waveform, compression rate, and/or compression depth, as taught by Tan, in order to readily display textual and/or numeric changes to various chest compression parameters such as by displaying a compression waveform, and/or the rate and the depth of compressions based on the received signals to provide feedback to the rescuer.
Regarding claim 19, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 18, as discussed above.
Presently modified Tan ‘903 fails to disclose wherein the perfusion performance indicator is based on compression rate and compression depth.
However, Tan further teaches wherein the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values comprises a perfusion performance indicator so that the rescuer can aim to provide compressions at a rate and depth that optimizes the victim’s perfusion, given that the graphical shape of the fill of the PPI changes based on how well the compressions are performed (paragraph 116, lines 1-15; Figs. 9B-C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the perfusion performance indicator is based on compression rate and depth, as taught by Tan, given that the feedback is provided so that the rescuer can aim to provide compressions at a rate and depth that optimizes the victim’s perfusion by filling of the PPI on the display to optimize compressions.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9-11, and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,893,903 to Tan, hereinafter referred to as Tan ‘903, in view of Sturdivant (US 2016/0213560), as applied to claims 7 and 18 above, in further view of Nilsson (US 2014/0180180).
Regarding claim 15, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 18, as discussed above.
Presently modified Tan ‘903 fails to disclose with the at least one computer processor, analyzing the received signals to identify received signals indicative of active compression-decompression chest compressions and causing the visual display to display the modified CPR chest compression information by changing the visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values to identify parameter values for the received signals indicative of the active compression-decompression chest compressions.
However, Nilsson teaches a CPR compression device that includes a suction cup (abstract, lines 1-10; Fig. 1A) for providing active compression-decompression chest compressions (paragraph 38, see the description of the waveform for the device, note that 603 in Fig. 6A is a reference position, and the suction cup provides active decompression above this reference line at 615; note Figs. 6A-C for the particular waveform and its distinguishing features for the ACD device; paragraph 10, lines 1-8), where the active decompressions aid in avoiding injury to the user by providing the initial reference position (paragraph 26, lines 1-200.
Therefore, 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 method of modified Tan ‘903 to include the capacity to detect active compression-decompression compressions via an automated device, the ACD compressions as taught by Nilsson, in order to provide the victim with decompression during CPRT that may help avoid injury to the user based on provision of an initial reference position.
Further, given that Nilsson explicitly shows that the ACD compressions include a distinct waveform (Figs. 6A-C), and Tan ‘903 discloses the ability to display a compression waveform, and the ability for the controller to distinguish between types of compressions by their waveforms ((claim 1, lines 12-19), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the methods steps of with the at least one computer processor of the Tan ‘903, analyzing the received signals to identify received signals indicative of active compression-decompression chest compressions and causing the visual display to display the modified CPR chest compression information by changing the visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values to identify parameter values for the received signals indicative of the active compression-decompression chest compressions, since Nilsson provides that mechanical ACD compressions can advantageously reduce injury to the user.
Claims 24-25 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9-11, and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,893,903 to Tan, hereinafter referred to as Tan ‘903, in view of Sturdivant (US 2016/0213560), as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Giarocco (US 2016/0206504).
Regarding claim 24, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Modified Tan ‘903 fails to disclose wherein changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values comprises modifying the at least one visual indication to deemphasize the at least one visual indication.
However, Giarocco teaches a system and method for CPR (abstract, lines 1-5; Fig. 1) wherein changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values comprises modifying the at least one visual indication to deemphasize the at least one visual indication in order to more prominently display relevant/helpful CPR information based on a user input related to the CPR performed (paragraph 36, lines 1-19, see “remove, obscure, dim, block, or minimize”; note paragraph 32, lines 1-6 which indicate the device can be used during either automated or manual compressions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of modified Tan ‘903 to further include the capability of changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values comprising modifying the at least one visual indication to deemphasize the at least one visual indication, as taught by Giarocco, in order to more prominently display relevant/helpful CPR information based on a user input.
Regarding claim 25, Tan ‘903 in view of Sturdivant and Giarocco disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 24, as discussed above.
Modified Tan ‘903 further discloses wherein modifying the at least one visual indication to deemphasize the at least one visual indication comprises making the at least one visual indication dimmer compared to when the received signals are indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions (Giarocco: paragraph 36, lines 1-19, see “remove, obscure, dim, block, or minimize”; note paragraph 32, lines 1-6 which indicate the device can be used during wither automated or manual compressions).
Claims 2, 4-5,7-8, 10-11, 13-16, 18 and 20-21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6, 13, and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,285,384 to Tan, hereinafter referred to as Tan ‘384, in view of Sturdivant (US 2016/0213560).
Regarding claim 2, Tan ‘384 a discloses a computer-implemented method for providing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) information for chest compressions provided for a victim (claim 1, lines 1-3 and 11-12, where the processor is understood to initiate the method steps), the method comprising:
receiving, with at least one computer processor, signals indicative of motion of a chest of the victim during the chest compressions generated by at least one chest compression sensor (claim 1, lines 4-7);
determining, with the at least one computer processor, parameter values for at least one chest compression parameter based on the received signals (claim 1, lines 12-18);
analyzing the received signals, with the at least one computer processor, to distinguish between received signals indicative of manually delivered chest compressions and received signals indicative of automated chest compressions delivered by an automated chest compression device (claim 1, lines 19-25);
with the at least one computer processor, when the received signals are indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions, causing a visual display to display the CPR chest compression information comprising at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions (claim 1, lines 29-38); and
with the at least one computer processor, when the received signals are indicative of the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device, causing the visual display to display modified CPR chest compression information by changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device (claim 1, lines 34-46).
Tan ‘384 fails to disclose wherein a message is displayed indicating that the automated chest compressions are being delivered to the victim.
However, Sturdivant teaches a digital display panel (108) for outputting a message indicating that the automated chest compressions are being delivered to the victim, in order to provide the user with feedback and information regarding the performance of the automated CPR device (paragraph 21, lines 1-6, note that the “performance” of the automated CPR device taught would necessarily include an indication that the compressions were being delivered, as the ”performance” feedback would indicate that the compressions were being delivered in addition to feedback about the compressions/performance of the device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of Tan ‘384 to further include a message to be displayed indicating that the automated chest compressions are being delivered to the victim, as taught by Sturdivant, in order to provide the user with feedback and information regarding the performance of the automated CPR device.
Regarding claim 4, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Tan ‘384 further discloses wherein the at least one chest compression parameter comprises at least one of compression rate or compression depth (claim 2, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Tan ‘384 further discloses wherein the at least one chest compression parameter comprises at least one of compression rate and compression depth (claim 12, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Tan ‘384 further discloses wherein analyzing the received signals comprises:
generating, with the at least one computer processor, a compression waveform based on the received signals indicative of the motion of the chest during the chest compressions; and
detecting, with the at least one computer processor, features that are characteristic of the chest compressions in the generated compression waveform (claim 1, lines 12-25).
Regarding claim 8, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 7, as discussed above.
Tan ‘384 further discloses wherein analyzing the received signals further comprises comparing, with the at least one computer processor, the detected features in the compression waveform to a predetermined criterion that distinguishes between the manually delivered chest compressions and the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device to identify portions of the receive signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions and portions of the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions delivered by the automated chest compression device (claim 1, lines 12-28).
Regarding claim 10, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 7, as discussed above.
Tan ‘384 further discloses wherein the generated compression waveform comprises at least one of an acceleration waveform, a velocity waveform, or a displacement waveform (claim 1, lines 12-18).
Regarding claim 11, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 7, as discussed above.
Tan ‘384 further discloses wherein the detected features comprise at least one or more of a compression rate, a compression depth, a hold time, a velocity minimum-to-maximum time, a velocity amplitude, a compression width, a release time, a relaxation time, a variability of at least one compression parameter, or a shape of at least a portion of the compression waveform (claim 13, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 13, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Tan ‘384 further discloses receiving, with the at least one computer processor, signals generated by at least one physiological sensor indicative of physiological parameter information for the victim and, with the at least one computer processor, causing the visual display to display the physiological parameter information (claim 18, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 14, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 13, as discussed above.
Tan ‘384 further discloses wherein the physiological parameter information comprises t least one of blood pressure information, electrocardiogram (ECG) information, blood flow information, chest impedance information, ventilation information, oxygenation information, or end tidal carbon dioxide information (claim 19, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 15, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Tan ‘384 further discloses with the at least one computer processor, analyzing the received signals to identify received signals indicative of active compression-decompression chest compressions and causing the visual display to display the modified CPR chest compression information by changing the visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values to identify parameter values for the received signals indicative of the active compression-decompression chest compressions (claim 1, lines 12-28 and 36-46).
Regarding claim 16, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Tan ‘384 further discloses wherein changing the visual appearance of the at least one visual indication for the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions comprises removing the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values from the visual display (claim 1, lines 39-46).
Regarding claim 18, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 16, as discussed above.
Tan ‘384 further discloses wherein the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values comprises a perfusion performance indicator (claim 1, lines 36-38 and claim 6, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 20, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 18, as discussed above.
Tan ‘384 further discloses wherein the perfusion performance indicator comprises a graphical shape that changes in visual appearance based on the parameter values for the at least one chest compression parameter for the received signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions (claim 1, lines 36-46).
Regarding claim 21, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 20, as discussed above.
Tan ‘384 further discloses wherein removal of the perfusion performance indicator comprises ceasing the graphical shape from changing in visual appearance for the received signals indicative of the automated chest compressions (claim 1, lines 36-46).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6, 13, and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,285,384 to Tan, hereinafter referred to as Tan ‘384, in view of Sturdivant (US 2016/0213560), as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Herken (US 8,942,803).
Regarding claim 3, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Modified Tan ‘384 fails to disclose wherein the signals indicative of the motion of the chest of the victim during the chest compressions comprise signals generated by at least one accelerometer on the chest of the victim.
However, Herken teaches wherein the signals indicative of the motion of the chest of the victim during the chest compressions comprise signals generated by at least one accelerometer (17) on the chest of the victim, as a known device for determining motion of the victim’s chest (Col. 3, lines 17-38; Col. 4, lines 4-10, 19-27, and 35-47; note each of Col. 10, lines 20-29 and Col. 16, lines 42-64, which refer to a computerized controller, understood to include a processor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chest compression sensor of modified Tan ‘384 to be an accelerometer, as taught by Herken as a known device used for determining motion of the victim’s chest.
Regarding claim 6, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Modified Tan ‘384 fails to disclose wherein the automated chest compressions comprise at least one of chest compressions delivered by a belt- based compression device or chest compressions delivered by a piston-based compression device.
However, Herken teaches a method of determining type of compressions from either manual or automated (Col. 14, lines 25-55), wherein the automated chest compressions comprise at least one of chest compressions delivered by a belt-based compression device or chest compressions delivered by a piston-based compression device (Col. 2, lines 28-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the distinction of compression type of automated compressions between either a belt-based or piston-based device, given that Herken indicates that both are known devices for providing automated compressions during CPR.
Claims 9, 12, 17, and 19 rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6, 13, and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,285,384 to Tan, hereinafter referred to as Tan ‘384, in view of Sturdivant (US 2016/0213560), as applied to claims 2, 7, and 16 above, in further view of Tan (US 2015/0018695).
Regarding claim 9, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 7, as discussed above.
Tan ‘384 further discloses the method comprising, with the at least one computer processor, causing the visual display to display the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions (claim 1, lines 34-46).
Modified Tan ‘384 fails to disclose that a compression waveform is displayed.
However, Tan teaches a system and method for supplying a rescuer information during the administration of CPR (abstract, lines 1-4), wherein a display (502) is configured to output graphical and textual information regarding chest compressions during the administration of CPR, and cause the visual display (502) to display modified CPR chest compression information by changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values, where the displayed information may include each of a compression waveform, compression rate, and compression depth (paragraph 12, lines 1-22; paragraph 113, lines 1-11; paragraph 119, lines 1-15; Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one processor of modified Tan ‘384 to be capable of causing the visual display to display modified CPR chest compression information by changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals such as for a compression waveform, compression rate, and/or compression depth, as taught by Tan, in order to readily display textual and/or numeric changes to various chest compression parameters such as by displaying a compression waveform, and/or the rate and the depth of compressions based on the received signals to provide feedback to the rescuer.
Regarding claim 12, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Modified Tan ‘384 fails to disclose wherein the at least one visual indication comprises at least one alpha and/or numeric character displayed on the visual display.
However, Tan teaches a system and method for supplying a rescuer information during the administration of CPR (abstract, lines 1-4), wherein a display (502) is configured to output alpha and numeric information regarding chest compressions during the administration of CPR, as a means of easily providing feedback to the rescuer to alter or maintain compressions (paragraph 12, lines 1-22; paragraph 16, lines 1-6; paragraph 113, lines 1-11; paragraph 119, lines 1-15; Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one processor of modified Tan ‘384 to be capable of causing the visual display to display alpha and/or numeric values, as taught by Tan, as a means of easily providing feedback to the rescuer to alter or maintain compressions.
Regarding claim 17, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 16, as discussed above.
Tan ‘384 discloses removing displayed information from a display (claim 1, lines 36-46).
But, modified Tan ‘384 fails to disclose wherein the at least one visual indication comprises at least one alpha and/or numeric character and wherein removing the at least one visual indication comprises removing the alpha and/or numeric character from the display.
However, Tan teaches a system and method for supplying a rescuer information during the administration of CPR (abstract, lines 1-4), wherein a display (502) is configured to output alpha and numeric information regarding chest compressions during the administration of CPR, and cause the visual display (502) to display modified CPR chest compression information by changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values (paragraph 12, lines 1-22; paragraph 16, lines 1-6; paragraph 113, lines 1-11; paragraph 119, lines 1-15; Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one processor of modified Tan ‘384 to be capable of causing the visual display to display alpha and/or numeric values, as taught by Tan, in order to readily display textual and/or numeric changes to various chest compression parameters such as by displaying a compression waveform, and/or the rate and the depth of compressions based on the received signals to provide feedback to the rescuer.
Regarding claim 19, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 18, as discussed above.
Modified Tan ‘384 fails to disclose wherein the perfusion performance indicator is based on compression rate and compression depth.
However, Tan further teaches wherein the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values comprises a perfusion performance indicator so that the rescuer can aim to provide compressions at a rate and depth that optimizes the victim’s perfusion, given that the graphical shape of the fill of the PPI changes based on how well the compressions are performed (paragraph 116, lines 1-15; Figs. 9B-C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the perfusion performance indicator is based on compression rate and depth, as taught by Tan, given that the feedback is provided so that the rescuer can aim to provide compressions at a rate and depth that optimizes the victim’s perfusion by filling of the PPI on the display to optimize compressions.
Claims 24-25 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6, 13, and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,285,384 to Tan, hereinafter referred to as Tan ‘384, in view of Sturdivant (US 2016/0213560), as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Giarocco (US 2016/0206504).
Regarding claim 24, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2, as discussed above.
Modified Tan ‘384 fails to disclose wherein changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values comprises modifying the at least one visual indication to deemphasize the at least one visual indication.
However, Giarocco teaches a system and method for CPR (abstract, lines 1-5; Fig. 1) wherein changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values comprises modifying the at least one visual indication to deemphasize the at least one visual indication in order to more prominently display relevant/helpful CPR information based on a user input related to the CPR performed (paragraph 36, lines 1-19, see “remove, obscure, dim, block, or minimize”; note paragraph 32, lines 1-6 which indicate the device can be used during wither automated or manual compressions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of modified Tan ‘384 to further include the capability of changing a visual appearance of the at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values comprising modifying the at least one visual indication to deemphasize the at least one visual indication, as taught by Giarocco, in order to more prominently display relevant/helpful CPR information based on a user input.
Regarding claim 25, Tan ‘384 in view of Sturdivant and Giarocco disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 24, as discussed above.
Modified Tan ‘384 further discloses wherein modifying the at least one visual indication to deemphasize the at least one visual indication comprises making the at least one visual indication dimmer compared to when the received signals are indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions (Giarocco: paragraph 36, lines 1-19, see “remove, obscure, dim, block, or minimize”; note paragraph 32, lines 1-6 which indicate the device can be used during either automated or manual compressions).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest identified prior art related to the subject matter of claims 22-23 is Sturdivant (US 2016/0213560), which teaches a digital display panel (108) for outputting information related to an automated CPR device, in order to provide the user with feedback and information regarding the performance of the automated CPR device (paragraph 21, lines 1-6).
However, Sturdivant does not fairly contemplate providing a message indicating that the automated chest compressions are being delivered which comprises an instruction regarding use of the automated chest compression device responsive to a determination that the received signals are indicative of automated chest compressions, or separately switching between messages geared towards manual chest compressions and automated chest compressions.
Liden (US 2009/0270931) does indicate display of text instruction for automatic resuscitation (paragraph 36, lines 1-8), however the instructional steps of providing manual resuscitation are automated, the compressions are not automated (see Figs. 4A-6B). Liden further fails to contemplate switching between instructions for manual verses automated compressions.
Muhlsteff (WO 2017/072626) contemplates “if the variability in spontaneous pulse interval is below a maximum threshold, then the stop compressions function 80 is executed to instruct the compression robot 10 to stop delivering CPR compressions, and/or the ROSC indicator signal 84 is sent to the display component 60 to inform emergency responders that the automated CPR device of FIGURE 1 has detected potential ROSC”, but this does not include display of an instruction regarding use of the automated CPR device.
Thus, claims 22-23, and their intervening claims, are regarded as being patentably distinct over the prior art.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAIGE K. BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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 (571) 272-9034. 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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785