DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This office action is responsive to the election filed on 09/01/2026. As directed by the election: no claims have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. The applicant has elected species A (related to figs. 3A-3B). Thus, claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application with claims 5, 8, and 10-11 withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election without traverse of species A (related to figs. 3A-3B) in the reply filed on 09/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5, 8, and 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/01/2026. Regarding claims 8 and 10-11, they are withdrawn due to being drawn to non-elected species E (figs. 7A-7B) in the case of claim 8 and species F (figs. 8A-8C) in the case of claims 10-11.
Claims 5, 8, and 10-11 currently have the identifier “(Original)”, and should instead read –(Withdrawn)—according to the species election.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference numeral “302” in fig. 3B, and reference numeral “1006” in fig. 10 is not present in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “the hand being a first hand, wherein the strap comprises an adjustable portion configured to change a diameter of the strap to accommodate a size of the first hand and a size of the second hand, the size of the first hand being different than the size of the second hand.” It is suggested to replace this language with –the strap comprises an adjustable portion configured to change diameter to accommodate different sized hands of the user—to clarify that the hand of the user is not being positively claimed and avoid potential 101 issues regarding claims directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
8. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“securing device” in claim 1 line 5, claim 12 line 3, and claim 13 line 5 is being interpreted as a strap or the like according to paragraph [0028] of the specification. Recitation of the “securing device” in claims 2, 6, 7, and 14 are not being interpreted under 112f because they are being modified with sufficient structure.
“adjustable portion” in claim 3 line 2.
“adjustment component” in claim 6 lines 6-7 and claim 9 line 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claims 3, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the second hand" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “adjustable portion” in claim 3 line 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure recites “an adjustable portion” in paragraph [0044], but does not provide any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitation “adjustment component” in claim 6 lines 6-7 and claim 9 line 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure recites “an adjustment component” in paragraphs [0052] and [0058], but does not provide any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
11. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
12. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 recites “a resuscitation assistance device comprising: an elastic band, a strap, an adhesive, a glove, or a magnet configured to removably attach to a hand of a rescuer” in claims 2-4 and claim 16 recites the same language in lines 1-3 without further limiting the claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
13. 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.
14. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
15. Claim(s) 1-2, 13-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Oppenheimer et al. (US 2017/0181925).
Regarding claim 1, Oppenheimer discloses a resuscitation assistance device, comprising: a body (fig. 8A, pad or plate 802) configured to be disposed on a chest of a subject ([0103] states that pad 802 is placed on the patient’s chest), the body having a first surface and a second surface (fig. 8A, the first surface is defined as the side of 802 opposite strap 804 and the second surface is defined as the side of 802 which straps 804 is located on), wherein the first surface is configured to contact the chest of the subject ([0103] states that pad 802 is placed on the patient’s chest); a securing device coupleable to the second surface of the body (fig. 8A, straps 804), the securing device configured to releasably secure the body to a hand of a user ([0103] states that the rescuer places their hands in space 806 defined by the straps 804, see fig. 8A, where the rescuer can remove their hands); and a sensor configured to detect a compression of the body between the chest of the subject and the hand of the user (fig. 8A, sensor 808 which detects the pressure applied to the pad or plate 802, see [0102]).
Regarding claim 2, Oppenheimer discloses the device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the securing device comprises: a strap configured to wrap around the hand of the user to releasably secure the body to the hand of the user (fig. 8A, straps 804 define a space 806 which receives the hands of the user, see [0103]).
Regarding claim 13, Oppenheimer discloses a cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) assistance device, comprising: a body (fig. 8A, pad or plate 802) configured to be disposed on a chest of a subject ([0103] states that pad 802 is placed on the patient’s chest), the body having a first surface and a second surface (fig. 8A, the first surface is defined as the side of 802 opposite strap 804 and the second surface is defined as the side of 802 which straps 804 is located on), wherein the first surface is configured to contact the chest of the subject and the body is configured to transfer pressure from a user to the chest of the subject ([0103] states that the rescuer applies compressive pressure to the pad or plate 802 thereby compressing the patient’s chest); a securing device coupleable to the second surface of the body (fig. 8A, straps 804), the securing device being configured to releasably secure the body to a hand of the user ([0103] states that the rescuer places their hands in space 806 defined by the straps 804, see fig. 8A); and a sensor configured to detect the pressure from the user to the chest of the subject (fig. 8A, sensor 808 which detects the pressure applied to the pad or plate 802, see [0102]).
Regarding claim 14, Oppenheimer discloses the device of claim 13 and further discloses wherein the securing device comprises a strap configured to wrap around the hand of the user to releasably secure the body to the hand of the user (fig. 8A, straps 804 define a space 806 which receives the hands of the user, see [0103]).
Regarding claim 15, Oppenheimer discloses a system, comprising: a resuscitation assistance device comprising: a strap configured to removably attach to a hand of a rescuer (fig. 8A, straps 804 define a space 806 which receives the hands of the user, see [0103], where the rescuer can remove their hands from space 806 thereby making the attachment removable), a sensor configured to detect compressions by the rescuer on a chest of a subject (fig. 8A, sensor 808 which detects the pressure applied to the pad or plate 802, see [0102]), and a transceiver configured to transmit a communication signal indicating the compressions by the rescuer on the chest of the subject ([0102] states that pressure sensor 808 can include a wireless transmitter to communicate to the wearable computing device 120c); and a monitor configured to receive the communication signal ([0102] states that wearable computing device 120c receives the signal from the sensor 808) and to output a recommendation to the rescuer based on an analysis of the compressions by the rescuer on the chest of the subject (see fig. 7, pressure gauge 702 and [0095] which states that the wearable computing device 120c can instruct the user regarding the correct compression pressure).
Regarding claim 16, Oppenheimer discloses the system of claim 15 and further discloses wherein the resuscitation assistance device comprises a strap configured to removably attach to the hand of the rescuer (fig. 8A, straps 804 define a space 806 which receives the hands of the user, see [0103], where the rescuer can remove their hands from space 806 thereby making the attachment removable).
Regarding claim 18, Oppenheimer discloses the system of claim 15 and further discloses wherein the monitor is configured to: determine a chest compression parameter by analyzing the compressions by the rescuer on the chest of the subject ([0094] states that information regarding a rescuer’s chest compressions are obtained by computing device 120c regarding depth, pressure, and rate); and determine that the chest compression parameter is above a first threshold or below a second threshold (fig. 7, pressure gauge 702 shows improper pressures labelled with “low” representing a first threshold and “heavy” representing a second threshold), wherein the recommendation comprises an instruction to adjust the chest compression parameter ([0095] states that the computing device 120c instructs the user regarding the correct pressure via the pressure gauge where “good” indicates a proper pressure).
Regarding claim 19, Oppenheimer discloses the system of claim 18 and further discloses wherein the chest compression parameter comprises a frequency of the compressions or a depth of the compression ([0094] states that computing device 120c presents information regarding the depth of the compressions and the compression rate of the rescuer’s chest compressions).
Regarding claim 20, Oppenheimer discloses the system of claim 18 and further discloses wherein the monitor is configured to generate the recommendation by analyzing an additional physiological parameter of the subject ([0108]-[0109] states that other sensors 1002 and 1004, see fig. 10, can detect a flow or oxygenation and transmit it to computing devices 120a-d to advise the intervention team to modify or otherwise improve resuscitation efforts), the additional physiological parameter comprising a blood oxygenation ([0108] states a tissue oxygenation can be measured), a heart rate (fig. 7, compression timer 704 includes a heart rate and a timer before ending compressions), or a velocity of blood in a blood vessel of the subject ([0108] states a vascular flow can be measured which is indicative of blood velocity).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. Claim(s) 3, 6-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppenheimer in view of Vokes et al. (US 2023/0355469).
Regarding claim 3, Oppenheimer discloses the device of claim 2, but is silent of the straps being adjustable to accommodate the hand of a user where the hand being a first hand, wherein the strap comprises an adjustable portion configured to change a diameter of the strap to accommodate a size of the first hand and a size of the second hand, the size of the first hand being different than the size of the second hand.
However, Vokes teaches of a compression apparatus for supporting the inside of the dominant hand of a person administering CPR which includes a strap (fig. 3, 2) with an adjustable portion (fig. 3, hook or loop sections 3a and 3b are detachably connected and/or meshed together, see [0025]) for the purpose of allowing adjustment ([0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the straps of Oppenheimer with hook and loop portions as taught by Vokes for the purpose of allowing adjustment for improved comfort when using the device (Vokes [0007]).
The modified device of Oppenheimer reads on the hand of a user where the hand being a first hand, wherein the strap comprises an adjustable portion configured to change a diameter of the strap to accommodate a size of the first hand (Vokes fig. 3, hook and loop portions 3a and 3b allow adjustment of the diameter of strap 2) and a size of the second hand, the size of the first hand being different than the size of the second hand (Vokes fig. 3, adjustment provided by portions 3a and 3b would allow hands of different sizes to comfortably use the apparatus 1).
Regarding claim 6, Oppenheimer discloses the device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the securing device comprises: a strap configured to wrap around the hand of the user ([0103] states that the rescuer places their hands in space 806 defined by the straps 804, see fig. 8A), but does not expressly disclose that the strap comprising a first portion of a hook and loop fastener; a second portion of the hook and loop fastener coupled to the second surface of the body, wherein the strap is configured to tighten around the hand of the user using an adjustment component.
However, Vokes teaches of a compression apparatus for supporting the inside of the dominant hand of a person administering CPR which includes a strap (fig. 3, 2) with an adjustable portion (fig. 3, hook or loop sections 3a and 3b are detachably connected and/or meshed together, see [0025]) for the purpose of allowing adjustment ([0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the straps of Oppenheimer with hook and loop portions as taught by Vokes for the purpose of allowing adjustment for improved comfort when using the device (Vokes [0007]).
The modified device of Oppenheimer reads on the strap comprising a first portion of a hook and loop fastener (Vokes fig. 3, hooks and/or loops section 3a); a second portion of the hook and loop fastener coupled to the second surface of the body (Vokes fig. 3, hooks and/or loops section 3b), wherein the strap is configured to tighten around the hand of the user using an adjustment component (Vokes fig. 3, hook and loop portions 3a and 3b allow adjustment of the diameter of strap 2).
Regarding claim 7, Oppenheimer discloses the device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the securing device comprises: a strap configured to wrap around the hand of the user ([0103] states that the rescuer places their hands in space 806 defined by the straps 804, see fig. 8A), but does not expressly disclose that the strap comprising a first coupling component; and a second coupling component coupled to the second surface of the body.
However, Vokes teaches of a compression apparatus for supporting the inside of the dominant hand of a person administering CPR which includes a strap (fig. 3, 2) with an adjustable portion (fig. 3, hook or loop sections 3a and 3b are detachably connected and/or meshed together, see [0025]) for the purpose of allowing adjustment ([0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the straps of Oppenheimer with hook and loop portions as taught by Vokes for the purpose of allowing adjustment for improved comfort when using the device (Vokes [0007]).
The modified device of Oppenheimer reads on the strap comprising a first coupling component (Vokes fig. 3, hooks and/or loops section 3a); and a second coupling component coupled to the second surface of the body (Vokes fig. 3, hooks and/or loops section 3b).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Oppenheimer reads on claim 7 and further reads on wherein the strap is configured to tighten around the hand of the user using an adjustment component (Vokes fig. 3, hook and loop portions 3a and 3b allow adjustment of the diameter of strap 2).
18. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppenheimer in view of Giacometti et al. (US 2018/0092802).
Regarding claim 4, Oppenheimer discloses the device of claim 2, but does not expressly disclose wherein the strap comprises an elastic band.
However, Giacometti teaches of a system for monitoring performance of a resuscitation activity on a patient which includes sensor devices embedded into a glove of a user (fig. 3 shows a glove with sensors 110c and 112c) where the glove is made of elastane ([0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the material of the straps of Oppenheimer with the elastane material as taught by Giacometti in order to improve comfort for the user.
The modified device of Oppenheimer reads on wherein the strap comprises an elastic band (Giacometti [0114] states that suitable comfortable materials include elastane, and because the straps of Oppenheimer are meant to hold the user’s hands, a suitable comfortable material such as elastane would be obvious to use).
19. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppenheimer in view of Centen et al. (US 2009/0171257).
Regarding claim 12, Oppenheimer discloses the device of claim 1 and further discloses a raised heel (fig. 8D, 812) located on the plate or pad 802 which allows the rescuer to rest their hand against it to maintain proper CPR position. However, Oppenheimer does not expressly disclose a brace configured to secure around a wrist of the user to position the hand and wrist of the user for performing CPR, wherein the brace is coupled to at least one of the body or the securing device.
However, Centen teaches of a support device for assisting a wearer in the administration of CPR (fig. 8) which secures around a wrist of the user (fig. 8, wrist modules 10, 11 are held by compression strap 8) to position the hand and wrist of the user for performing CPR ([0011] states the support device provides support for the wearer’s wrist, hand, or forearm during CPR).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Oppenheimer with the support device as taught by Centen to limit rescuer fatigue (Centen [0002]-[0004], [0008]).
The modified device of Oppenheimer reads on a brace configured to secure around a wrist of the user (fig. 8, wrist modules 10, 11 are held by compression strap 8) to position the hand and wrist of the user for performing CPR ([0011] states the support device provides support for the wearer’s wrist, hand, or forearm during CPR), wherein the brace is coupled to at least one of the body or the securing device (the resultant device of Oppenheimer fig. 8A and Centen fig. 8 appears to have the brace coupled in the same way as the application as shown in figure 9 of the drawings. Additionally, the brace of Centen is coupled via the rescuer’s body, the current claims do not recite a direct coupling of the brace to the body or securing device. Further, the brace of Centen can be considered part of the securing device as is suggested in paragraph [0039] of the application specification).
20. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppenheimer in view of Ochs et al. (US 2010/0049266).
Regarding claim 17, Oppenheimer discloses the system of claim 15, but does not expressly disclose that the monitor comprises a monitor-defibrillator.
However, Ochs teaches of a CPR coaching device that is to be placed on the chest of a patient during CPR which includes a monitor (fig. 5, user interface 214 which includes a display, see [0026], for prompting the user) in a monitor-defibrillator (fig. 5, user interface 214 is part of defibrillator 310).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Oppenheimer with the defibrillator including a user interface as taught by Ochs to allow delivery of defibrillating shocks to a patient in cardiac arrest (Ochs [0017]) between sessions of administering CPR.
Conclusion
21. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Larsen (WO-2019137763) discloses a plate with a handle to assist in CPR. Kelly (US 5,496,257) discloses a portable apparatus to assist CPR which monitors various CPR aspects to ensure proper CPR administration.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Z CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571)272-5139. 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.
/THOMAS Z CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights