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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 2, claims 4-16 in the reply filed on September 05, 2025 is acknowledged.
In response to Applicant’s argument that: “claims 17-20 have been amended to depend from elected claim 4, Applicant respectfully asserts that these amendments render claims 17-20 directed to elected Group 2. New claims 21-23 ultimately depend from elected claim 4. Because claims 21-23 require all of the elements of elected claim 4, Applicant respectfully asserts that claims 21-23 are also directed to elected Group 2,” the Examiner disagrees.
Claims 17-23 are clearly a device claim while claims 4-16 is a method claim. Claim 17 as a device claim cannot be depended from a method claim 4.
Since Applicant has elected Group 2, claims 4-16 without traverse, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Hence, claims 4-16 are pending. Claims 17-23 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4, 6-9, 11, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lampe (US 2021/0045967, hereinafter Lampe ‘967).
In re claim 4, Lampe ‘967 teaches a method, comprising: detecting blood flow through an artery of a subject during a time interval (0062, 0066, 0069, 0070, etc.); detecting blood flow through a vein of the subject during the time interval (0062, 0066, 0069, 0070, etc.); and determining whether blood is spontaneously flowing through a body of the subject (0068) by comparing the blood flow through the artery of the subject during the time interval and the blood flow through the vein of the subject during the time interval (0062, 0084, 0087, 0088).
In re claim 6, Lampe ‘967 teaches wherein the artery and the vein are substantially parallel to each other (fig. 2A).
In re claim 7, Lampe ‘967 teaches wherein the artery comprises a carotid artery and the vein comprises a jugular vein (0085, 0091).
In re claim 8, Lampe ‘967 teaches wherein determining whether blood is spontaneously flowing through the body of the subject by comparing the blood flow through the artery of the subject during the time interval and a direction of blood flow through the vein of the subject during the time interval comprises: determining that both a direction of the blood flow through the artery of the subject during the time interval and a direction of the blood flow through the vein of the subject are away from a heart of the subject or toward the heart of the subject (0024, 0047-0049); and in response to determining that both the direction of the blood flow through the artery of the subject during the time interval and the direction of the blood flow through the vein of the subject are away from a heart of the subject or toward the heart of the subject (0024, 0047-0049), determining that the subject has received a chest compression during the time interval (0023, 0062-0075).
In re claim 9, Lampe ‘967 teaches wherein determining whether blood is spontaneously flowing through the body of the subject by comparing the blood flow through the artery of the subject during the time interval and the blood flow through the vein of the subject during the time interval comprises: determining that the blood flow through the vein during the time interval is indicative of pulsatile flow (Applicant define [0022]: “the term “pulse,” and its equivalents, refers to pulsatile,”; 0023, 0033, 0038, 0083); and in response to determining that the blood through the vein during the time interval is indicative of pulsatile flow, determining that the subject has received a chest compression during the time interval (0023, 0033, 0038, 0083).
In re claim 11, Lampe ‘967 teaches wherein determining whether blood is spontaneously flowing through the body of the subject by comparing the blood flow through the artery of the subject during the time interval and the blood flow through the vein of the subject during the time interval comprises: determining that a direction of the blood flow through the artery of the subject during the time interval is different than a direction of the blood flow through the vein of the subject; and in response to determining that the direction of the blood flow through the artery of the subject during the time interval is different than the direction of the blood flow through the vein of the subject, determining that blood is spontaneously flowing through the body of the subject (0062, 0070).
In re claim 14, Lampe ‘967 teaches further comprising: determining a velocity or volume of the blood flow through the artery during the time interval; determining a velocity or volume of the blood flow through the vein during the time interval (0026, 0033, 0038, 0083); determining an efficacy of chest compression administered during the time interval by analyzing the velocity or volume of the blood flow through the artery during the time interval and the velocity or volume of the blood flow through the vein during the time interval (0049-0050, 0052, 0053, 0062-0065); and outputting an indication of the efficacy of the chest compression (0049-0050, 0052, 0053, 0062-0065, 0089-0090).
In re claim 15, Lampe ‘967 teaches wherein determining whether blood is spontaneously flowing through the body of the subject by comparing the blood flow through the artery of the subject during the time interval and the blood flow through the vein of the subject during the time interval comprises: determining that a direction of the blood flow through the artery of the subject during the time interval is away from a heart of the subject (0024, 0048); determining that a direction of the blood flow through the vein of the subject during the time interval is toward the heart of the subject (0024, 0048); and in response to determining that the direction of the blood flow through the artery of the subject during the time interval is away from the heart of the subject and determining that the direction of the blood flow through the vein of the subject during the time interval is toward the heart of the subject, determining that blood is spontaneously flowing through the body of the subject (0068-0070).
In re claim 16, Lampe ‘967 teaches further including: in response to determining that blood is spontaneously flowing through the body of the subject, outputting an instruction to cease chest compressions on the subject (0046, 0049, 0091).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampe ‘967 in view of Sasaki (US 2013/0006111, hereinafter Sasaki ‘111).
In re claim 5, Lampe ‘967 fails to teach wherein detecting the blood flow through the artery of the subject during the time interval comprises determining a Doppler shift of a first ultrasound beam reflected from blood in the artery, and wherein detecting the blood flow through the vein of the subject during the time interval comprises determining a Doppler shift of the first ultrasound beam or a second ultrasound beam reflected from blood in the vein; but Lampe ‘967 teaches wherein detecting the blood flow through the artery of the subject during the time interval comprises determining a Doppler flow through the vein of the subject during the time interval comprises determining a Doppler
Sasaki ‘111 teaches determining a Doppler shift of a first ultrasound beam reflected from blood in the artery, and wherein detecting the blood flow through the vein of the subject during the time interval comprises determining a Doppler shift of the first ultrasound beam or a second ultrasound beam reflected from blood in the vein (0134, 0136, 0137).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Lampe ‘967 to include the features of Sasaki ‘111 in order to present the response or the like of a venous blood flow relative to an arterial blood flow or pulsation.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampe ‘967.
In re claim 12, Lampe ‘967 fails to explicitly teach wherein determining whether blood is spontaneously flowing through the body of the subject by comparing the blood flow through the artery of the subject during the time interval and the blood flow through the vein of the subject during the time interval comprises: determining that the blood flow through the vein during the time interval is non-pulsatile; and in response to determining that the blood through the vein during the time interval is non-pulsatile, determining that blood is spontaneously flowing through the body of the subject.
Note that Applicant describes: [0043] During spontaneous circulation without chest compressions, the blood flow through the vein 110 is non-pulsatile. However, during chest compressions, the blood flow through the vein 110 is pulsatile at a pulse frequency that is equivalent to the chest compression frequency.
Lampe ‘967 teaches determining that the blood flow through the vein during the time interval is
Hence, it would have been obvious to try to use the same method of claim 4 during the time interval that a chest compression is not used in order to determine if chest compression is necessary at all and/or provide baseline feedback before a chest compression is used.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 13 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 prior arts fail to teach:
Claim 10. The method of claim 4, wherein determining whether blood is spontaneously flowing through the body of the subject by comparing the blood flow through the artery of the subject during the time interval and the blood flow through the vein of the subject during the time interval comprises: determining an amplitude of the blood flow through the artery during the time interval; determining an amplitude of the blood flow through the vein during the time interval; determining a ratio of the amplitude of the blood flow through the artery during the time interval and the amplitude of the blood flow through the vein during the time interval; determining that the ratio is below a threshold; and in response to determining that the ratio is below the threshold, determining that the subject has a received a chest compression during the time interval.
Claim 13. The method of claim 4, wherein determining whether blood is spontaneously flowing through the body of the subject by comparing the blood flow through the artery of the subject during the time interval and the blood flow through the vein of the subject during the time interval comprises: determining an amplitude of the blood flow through the artery during the time interval; determining an amplitude of the blood flow through the vein during the time interval; determining a ratio of the amplitude of the blood flow through the artery during the time interval and the amplitude of the blood flow through the vein during the time interval; determining that the ratio is above a threshold; and in response to determining that the ratio is above the threshold, determining that blood is spontaneously flowing through the body of the subject.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO JOSEPH PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KEITH M RAYMOND can be reached at (571)270-1790. 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.
/BO JOSEPH PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798