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 I in the reply filed on 5/7/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/7/2026.
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 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: the limitation “an automated CPR device” (claims 3-4, line 3, the term “device” is a generic placeholder and the function in the current context is “automated CPR”).
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“an automated CPR device”: for example LUCAS® chest compression system manufactured by Stryker Corporation or CPR board of the AutoPulse® Resuscitation system manufactured by Zoll Medical®, see paragraphs 44 and 45 of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 10 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “seem” (line 4) is unclear as to what the limitation “seem” is trying to claim, if the applicant’s intention is to claim “seam”, suggest to be changed to --seam--.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joshi (2019/0008720).
PNG
media_image1.png
1249
1130
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Joshi discloses a manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) board (entire device shown in figs. 31D-31F) for slowly raising the head of a patient to a recommended elevation (paragraphs 0339-0344) comprising: a base (board comprising surface 3110, figs. 31D-31F, paragraph 0039); an adjustable incline (the incline is 2025, 2105, 3175 for fig. 31F and the incline includes 2025, 3185, 2105 for figs. 31D-31E) coupled to the base (board comprising surface 3110, figs. 31D-31F and paragraph 0039); an internal channel (see the annotated-Joshi figs. 31D-31F above) defined between the base and the incline (the internal channel is the channel that the wedge 2610 slides within, see the annotated-Joshi figs. 31D-31F and paragraphs 0339-0343); a removable wedge insert (2610, figs. 31D-31F and paragraphs 0339-0343) configured to be inserted into the internal channel (see paragraphs 0339-0344, Joshi stated that the wedge can be inserted and can also be constrained by the pocket 3175, or strap 3170 or coupling 3665, therefore, is removable, furthermore, see paragraph 0007 and claim 30 regarding the wedge insert being removable), wherein the wedge is configured to rotate the incline relative to the base as it is being inserted into the internal channel (figs. 31D-31F and paragraphs 0339-0344 and arrow 3199).
Regarding claim 2, Joshi discloses that the incline (2025, 2105, 3175 for fig. 31F and the incline includes 2025, 3185, 2105 for figs. 31D-31E) comprises a first incline portion (2025) coupled to the base; and a second incline portion (2105 for figs. 31D-31F or 3185 for figs. 31D-31E) coupled to the first incline portion, wherein the second incline portion is configured to rotate relative to the base as the wedge insert is inserted into the internal channel (see paragraphs 0339-0344).
PNG
media_image2.png
803
771
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Joshi discloses an indentation defined within a surface of the incline (defined within a surface of 2025 of incline, see the annotated-Joshi fig. 21A above), wherein the indentation is configured to accommodate at least a portion of an automated CPR device (see paragraph 0332, see the compressor 2105 comprising belt-based mechanism CC system 2014, which is accommodated by 2025 with the indentation, see the annotated-Joshi fig. 21A above, wherein the portion of an automated CPR device is 2104/2105).
Regarding claim 4, Joshi discloses an indentation (defined within a surface of 2025 of incline, see the annotated-Joshi fig. 21A above) defined within a surface of the first incline portion, wherein the indentation is configured to accommodate at least a portion of an automated CPR device (see paragraph 0332, see the compressor 2105 comprising belt-based mechanism CC system 2014, which is accommodated by 2025 with indentation, see the annotated-Joshi fig. 21A above, wherein the portion of an automated CPR device is 2104/2105).
Regarding claim 5, Joshi discloses at least one wall coupled to the base, wherein at least a portion of the incline rest upon the at least one wall when the CPR board is in an unactuated configuration (see fig. 31F, the wall is 3175, which rest below 2025 and is coupled to the base 3110, furthermore, when the CPR board is in an unactuated configuration, the incline (including 2025) would rest on the wall, see paragraphs 0343-0344).
Regarding claim 6, Joshi discloses that the internal channel is defined by a bottom surface of the incline, a top surface of the base, and at least one wall disposed between the incline and the base (see the annotated-Joshi figs. 31D-31F, for fig. 31D, the internal channel is defined by a top surface of 3110, wall 3665 and incline (2025), for fig. 31E, the internal channel is defined by a bottom surface of the incline 2025, a top surface of the base 3110 and a wall 3170, for fig. 31F, the internal channel is defined by a top surface of 3110, wall 3175, and bottom surface of incline 2025, see paragraphs 0339-0344).
Regarding claim 8, Joshi discloses that the second incline portion is configured to rotate about a joint disposed between the second incline portion and the first incline portion (see figs. 21A-21E, the second incline portion is 2105/2104 comprising 2750 (see paragraphs 0286 and 0332-0333), while the first incline portion is 2025, and as shown 2750 is connected to 2025 via a joint (motor 2195, figs. 21D-21E and paragraph 0286)).
Regarding claim 11, Joshi discloses that the wedge insert (2610) comprises at least one longitudinal wall comprising a tapered height (see the annotated-Joshi figs. 31D-31F).
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 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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi (2019/0008720) in view of Johnson (2022/0280366).
Regarding claim 7, Joshi discloses that the incline is configured to rotate about the base (Joshi discloses that the incline meets the base 3110 and the incline 2025 can rotate relative to 3110, see the annotated-Joshi figs. 31D-31F and paragraphs 0339-0344), but fails to disclose a joint between the incline and the base.
However, Johnson discloses a joint (344, figs. 3A-3B) between an incline (330) and a base (310, figs. 3A-3B, paragraphs 0041-0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base and the incline of Joshi to have the joint as taught by Johnson for the purpose of providing a low-profile hinge that allows the incline to be securely and rotatably mounted to the base (see paragraphs 0041-0044 of Johnson).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi (2019/0008720) in view of Williams (2022/0296464).
Regarding claim 9, Joshi fails to disclose that a plurality of adjustable head supports disposed on the incline.
However, Williams discloses a body support (11, fig. 6) comprising a plurality of adjustable head supports disposed on the body support (see 30 for the adjustable head supports, figs. 6-8 and paragraphs 0036-0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the incline of Joshi to have the plurality of adjustable head supports as taught by Williams for the purpose of securing the patient’s head to the incline in order to effectively position the patient for CPR (see paragraphs 0036-0038 of Williams).
PNG
media_image3.png
920
629
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the modified Joshi discloses that each of the plurality of adjustable head supports (30 of Williams) comprises a planar portion which is configured to be selectively parallel relative to the incline when the head support is an expanded position and bent along a seem when the head support is in an actuated position (see figs. 6-8 and paragraphs 0036-0038 of Williams, furthermore, relatively, the planar portion is selectively parallel relative to 18 of Williams, therefore, would be selectively parallel relative to the incline of Joshi).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi (2019/0008720) in view of Lu (CN 211795658).
Regarding claim 12, Joshi discloses that the wedge insert comprises a side surface (see the annotated-Joshi figs. 31D-31F above), but fails to disclose a plurality of markings disposed thereon, wherein each one of the plurality of markings corresponds to a relative angle between the incline and the base when the wedge insert has been inserted into the internal channel up to that respective of one the plurality of markings.
However, Lu teaches a side surface comprising markings comprising logos (see logos 102 in fig. 1 and paragraphs 0034 and 0044 of the English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the side surface of Joshi to have the marking as taught by Lu for the purpose of providing a logo to promote the brand of the board and the wedge of Joshi (see paragraphs 0034 and 0044 of Lu).
After the modification with Lu, there are a plurality of logos on the side surface, therefore, the markings/logos corresponds to a relative angle between the incline and the base when the wedge insert has been inserted into the internal channel up to that respective of one of the plurality of markings, since a viewer can view the relative distance and location of the logos relative to the base or the incline or the portion 3185 or 2105 of Joshi, see the annotated-Joshi figs. 31D-31F, it is noted that the claim does not claim the details of what the markings are).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liebman (4,266,759) is cited to show a head support.
Lurie (2017/0258677) (2018/0333328) (2019/0046394) (2021/0322264) (2023/0172801) (2016/0058660) (WO 2017/066770) (WO 2015/127102) is cited to show an elevation timing support for head up CPR.
Freeman (2018/0110667) is cited to show an adaptive body positioning for CPR.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU A VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 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, 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.
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights