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 Request for Continued Examination filed on 04-16-2026. As directed, claims 2, 22, and 25 have been amended, claim 23 has been newly canceled, with claim 1 having been previously canceled, and new claims 26-36 have been added. Thus, claims 2-22 and 24-36 are currently pending examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04-16-2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended each of claims 2 and 25, and canceled claim 23, thereby obviating the previously held claim objections. Those objections to the claims are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant has amended claim 2 to incorporate previously indicated allowable subject matter into independent claim 2, and has amended claim 22 to be in independent form including the subject matter of claim 22 and any intervening claims into independent form. Each of these amendments obviate both the prior art rejections of record under 35 USC 103, and the prior held double patenting rejections, as the subject matter of each of claims 2 (incorporating previously indicated allowable claim 23) and claim 23 (amended to be written in independent form and to include any intervening claims from which indicated allowable claim 23 previously depended on) has been amended to include limitations not found in the prior art, nor in the claims of either of Tan (US 11,893,903) or Tan (12,285,384) (each relied on in the previous double patenting rejections of record).
Response to Arguments
While Applicant has overcome each of the previously held claim objections, the prior art rejections of record, and the double patenting rejections of record, upon further examination and collaboration with Technology Center Quality Assurance Specialists, the claims as presently construed do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101, as the claims are directed to a judicial exception (mental process) without significantly more, as is outlined hereinbelow. Therefore, the previously held rejection under 35 USC 101 will be updated and maintained below.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 24, line 2, it is suggested that “a visual appearance” be changed to “the visual appearance” as the limitation has been previously introduced in claim 2.
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 2-22 and 24-36 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;
determining parameter values for at least one chest compression parameter based on the received signals;
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 information for chest compressions comprising at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions along with a manual chest compression message comprising feedback for performing the manually delivered chest compressions to the victim;
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 information for chest compressions 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; and
replacing the manual chest compression message with a message indicating that the automated chest compressions are being delivered to the victim when the received signals are indicative of the automated chest compressions.”
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, as the claimed computer processor is merely recited as including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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; see Celik-Butler US 2008/0312565 at paragraph 41 for the known sensors, signal processor, and displays; see Patel US 2018/0221676 for its disclosure at paragraph 32 of well-known display and processor elements within a CPR defibrillator), 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, and/or merely include a processor with instructions to implement the abstract idea, or as a tool to perform the abstract idea, neither of which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, the additional elements have been shown to be well-known, routine, and conventional (Herken, Celik-Butler, and Patel). Because the claim elements merely recite insignificant pre/post-solution activities and merely link these activities to implementation by a generic processor, neither amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception, 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. Further, Herken provides that belt or piston-based chest compression devices are known (Col. 11, lines 23-24 and Col. 12, lines 4-5). 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; see Patel US 2018/0221676 for its disclosure at paragraph 32 of well-known display and processor elements within a CPR defibrillator), 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; see Patel US 2018/0221676 for its disclosure at paragraph 32 of well-known display and processor elements within a CPR defibrillator). 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; see Patel US 2018/0221676 for its disclosure at paragraph 32 of well-known display and processor elements within a CPR defibrillator), 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; see Patel US 2018/0221676 for its disclosure at paragraph 32 of well-known display and processor elements within a CPR defibrillator). 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 sensors and controller and display of visual feedback; see Celik-Butler US 2008/0312565 at paragraph 41 for the known sensors, signal processor, and displays; see Patel US 2018/0221676 for its disclosure at paragraph 32 of well-known display and processor elements within a CPR defibrillator), 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 sensors and controller and display of visual feedback; see Celik-Butler US 2008/0312565 at paragraph 41 for the known sensors, signal processor, and displays; see Patel US 2018/0221676 for its disclosure at paragraph 32 of well-known display and processor elements within a CPR defibrillator). 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 22 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 22 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;
Determining, with the at least one computer processor, parameter values for at least one chest compression parameter based on the received signals;
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 information for chest compressions comprising at least one visual indication representative of the determined parameter values for the received signals indicative of the manually delivered chest compressions along with a manual chest compression message comprising feedback for performing the manually delivered chest compressions to the victim;
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 information for chest compressions 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 comprising an instruction regarding use of 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, as the claimed computer processor is merely recited as including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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; see Celik-Butler US 2008/0312565 at paragraph 41 for the known sensors, signal processor, and displays; see Patel US 2018/0221676 for its disclosure at paragraph 32 of well-known display and processor elements within a CPR defibrillator), 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, and/or merely include a processor with instructions to implement the abstract idea, or as a tool to perform the abstract idea, neither of which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, the additional elements have been shown to be well-known, routine, and conventional (Herken, Celik-Butler, and Patel). Because the claim elements merely recite insignificant pre/post-solution activities and merely link these activities to implementation by a generic processor, neither amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim does not include an inventive concept, and the claim 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.
Claim 26 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 22 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 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 27 includes the following additional limitations: “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; detecting, with the at least one computer processor, features that are characteristic of the chest compressions in the generated compression waveform; and 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 received 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”.
As has been similarly outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong II with respect to claim 22 above, the signal reception, 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 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 28 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 22 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 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 29 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 22 and 28 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 30 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 30 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 sensors and controller and display of visual feedback; see Celik-Butler US 2008/0312565 at paragraph 41 for the known sensors, signal processor, and displays; see Patel US 2018/0221676 for its disclosure at paragraph 32 of well-known display and processor elements within a CPR defibrillator), 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 sensors and controller and display of visual feedback; see Celik-Butler US 2008/0312565 at paragraph 41 for the known sensors, signal processor, and displays; see Patel US 2018/0221676 for its disclosure at paragraph 32 of well-known display and processor elements within a CPR defibrillator). Therefore, the claim does not include an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 31 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 22 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 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 32 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 22 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 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 33 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 22 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 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 34 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 22 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 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 35 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 22 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 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 36 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 22 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 2-22 and 24-36 are subject matter ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAIGE 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights