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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 02 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive, in light of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Covey et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0277991 – previously cited) in view of Hull et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0254844).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 – 10, and 12 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Covey et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0277991 – previously cited) in view of Hull et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0254844).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 9, and 18, Covey discloses an external defibrillator (e.g. 10), a set of electrodes (e.g. 74, 76), and a method of using, comprising a temperature sensor (e.g. 501 and ¶ 58) configured to sense a temperature of the set of electrodes (e.g. ¶ 58 – 59); a memory configured to store temperature data representing a history of temperatures sensed by the temperature sensor, wherein the temperature is one of the temperatures (e.g. ¶ 58 – 59); and a transceiver configured to send the temperature data to an external device (e.g. ¶ 45).
Covey fails to teach an energy harvesting component configured to harvest energy from an ambient energy source when the set of electrodes is separated from the external defibrillator.
Hull teaches it is known to use a harvesting component that harvests ambient energy to power one or more sensors (e.g. ¶ 5 – 6) in order to avoid requiring battery maintenance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode pouch/case as taught by Covey with an energy harvesting component as taught by Hull, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of logging storage conditions of AED pads even when a battery or power source is unavailable.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 19, Covey discloses the invention as previously discussed. Hull teaches it is known to use the recovered DC energy to power sensors, a memory, and a transceiver (e.g. ¶ 36). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode pouch/case as taught by Covey with an energy harvesting component as taught by Hull, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of logging storage conditions of AED pads even when a battery or power source is unavailable.
Regarding claims 4, 6, and 17, Covey discloses electrodes are stored in a separate pouch (e.g. ¶ 26) and the external defibrillator is stored in a case (e.g. ¶ 27 – 28); and the temperature sensor is configured to sense the temperature of the set of electrodes in response to an interrogation signal received from the external defibrillator or the case (e.g. ¶ 57 – 59).
Regarding claims 5, 13, 15, and 16, Covey in view of Hull discloses the transceiver is configured to send the temperature data to the external device when interrogated (e.g. ¶ 45), but fails to explicitly state that it is in response to one of the temperatures in the history of temperatures satisfying a threshold. Using thresholds in this way is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Covey in view of Hull to send the temperature data once it hits a threshold, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of saving energy by sending data automatically and only when necessary.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Covey discloses the temperature sensor is configured to periodically sense the temperature of the set of electrodes (e.g. ¶ 37).
Regarding claim 12, Covey discloses the output device is configured to output an indication of a usability of the external defibrillator by analyzing the temperature data (e.g. ¶ 45).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 11, and 20 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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.
/JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights