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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Adams does not disclose that the capacitor is charged to the second voltage when the potentially shockable rhythm is maintained for a threshold validation time. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As seen in figures 4a-4c, in step 56/58/60, a potentially shockable rhythm is detected. In order for the capacitor to be charged to the second voltage in step 92H/78F/66F, the rhythm must first be confirmed in step 88/74/62. Therefore, the rhythm must be maintained for however long it takes to detect the rhythm in step 56/58/60 and then be confirmed in step 88/74/62. This time period is considered a “threshold validation time.” The rejections are still considered proper.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not necessarily 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 limitations that invoke 112(f) are:
“a support structure” in claim 1, which covers any structure disclosed in par. 0030 of the original specification;
“control circuitry” in claims 1 and 11, which covers the structure recited in claims 9 and 18, respectively;
“a measurement circuit” in claims 2 and 12, which is disclosed as an ECG sensor in par. 0073 of the original specification;
“a Rhythm Recognition Detector (RRD) module” in claims 8 and 17, which is disclosed as embedded logic in par. 0092 of the original specification; and
“means for enabling” in claim 15, which is disclosed as a cancel switch in par. 0104 of the original specification.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-12, 14-20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medema (US 2019/0076666) in view of Adams et al. (US 5,449,377, hereinafter Adams).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18-20 and 26, Medema discloses a defibrillator as seen in figure 1. A wearable support structure 170 has WCD circuitry as seen in figure 2, including a power source 240, a charger 250 (par. 0053), an energy storage module/capacitor 252 necessarily having a rated voltage, output circuitry 257, control circuitry 230 and therapy electrodes 204 and 208. The control circuitry is configured to implement a charging scheme to charge the capacitor to a voltage (par. 0053, 0064). Medema discloses a sensor 209 and a measurement circuit 220 so that the WCD/RRD circuitry can detect and confirm a heart arrhythmia and charge the capacitor to an appropriate level as described above to deliver a shock (par. 0044-0048). However, Medema is silent as to charging the capacitor to a first intermediate voltage below the rated voltage and charging the capacitor to a second voltage greater than the rated voltage.
Attention is directed to the secondary reference of Adams, which also discloses a defibrillator, and thus is analogous art with Medema. Adams discloses that the capacitor of the defibrillator is charged to a first voltage 110 or 112 that is below the rated voltage and then the capacitor is charged to a second voltage 124 that is above the rated voltage upon detection of a shockable arrhythmia (Col. 15, line 59-Col. 16, line 10). Figures 4a-4c show that a shockable ventricular arrhythmia is detected at step 62/74/88 and, in response, the capacitor is charged to an intermediate voltage in step 66A/78A/92B. If the detected arrhythmia remains, then the capacitor will later be overcharged to a voltage above the rated voltage of the capacitor in step 66F/78F/92H (see abstract, Col. 5, line 13-Col. 6, line 25). As seen in figures 4a-4c, in step 56/58/60, a potentially shockable rhythm is detected. In order for the capacitor to be charged to the second voltage in step 92H/78F/66F, the rhythm must first be confirmed in step 88/74/62. Therefore, the rhythm must be maintained for however long it takes to detect the rhythm in step 56/58/60 and then be confirmed in step 88/74/62. This time period is considered a “threshold validation time.” The rejections are still considered proper. In figure 4a, the intermediate voltage is maintained until the arrhythmia is confirmed at step 96. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date to modify Medema to use the charging scheme of Adams in order to apply countershocks of increasing voltage to best ensure therapy success (Col. 4, line 29-Col. 5, line 10 for motivation).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 7, 14, 15, 22 and 23, Medema discloses confirming the shockable rhythm and providing a human perceptible warning that delivery of shock is imminent. A user can then cancel the shock based on the warning, or else the capacitor is charged and a shock is delivered is no cancellation is received (par. 0067-0069).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medema and Adams in view of Crook et al. (US 2023/0285761, hereinafter Crook)
Medema, as modified above, discloses the applicant basic invention, but is silent as to determining the health of the capacitor based on charging time and/or self-discharge rate. Attention is directed to the Crook reference, which also discloses a defibrillator with an energy storage capacitor (par. 0006, 0146, 0152, 0154), and thus is analogous art with Medema. Crook discloses that the health of the capacitor can be determined by tracking charging time of a long period of time (see title, abstract, par. 0056 0080, 00134). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date to modify Medema to determine that the health of the capacitor by tracking charging time of the capacitor of a long period of time as taught by Crook in order to determine a failure state of the battery before performance of the device suffers (par. 0005-0008 for motivation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 24 and 25 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric D Bertram whose telephone number is (571)272-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-6pm Central Time.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/Eric D. Bertram/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights