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
Claims 26-31, 36, 41-44 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected specie(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 4, 2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 25, 32-35, 37-40, 45-47, specifically independent claim 25, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,474,446. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationale:
Claim 25: U.S. 18/517,666
Claim 1: U.S. Pat. 9,474,446
A defibrillating system for providing defibrillation treatment to a patient…
A system comprising…
…a first computing device located…at least one processor and memory storing instructions…
…a defibrillating device comprising a processor and the memory configured to:
…the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: obtaining an ECG signal…determining whether the ECG is indicative of shockable rhythm;
causing a defibrillation treatment to be delivered…
obtaining first data indicative of the defibrillation treatment…
obtaining second data representing a portion of the ECG signal…
…receive…at least one (i) information indicative of the treatment of the victim by a first caregiver using the defibrillating device (ii) information indicative of a health status of the victim;
determine…that the treatment of the victim by the first caregiver using the defibrillating device is completed;
…causing the first computing device to transmit to the second computing device…the first data or the second data.
…and transmit the received information to a computing device.
As depicted above, the limitation of claim 25 of the present invention differ from claim 1 of U.S. Pat. No. ‘446 in that the system is directed towards determining whether the ECG is indicative of shockable rhythm and obtaining/transmitting first data indicative of the defibrillation treatment, which represents an obvious species of the generic system of U.S. Pat. ‘446, the generic claims are directed to information indicative of the treatment of the victim by a first caregiver using the defibrillating device and transmit the received information to a computing device.
Claim 25: U.S. 18/517,666
Claim 1: U.S. Pat. 9,795,800
A defibrillating system for providing defibrillation treatment to a patient…
A defibrillating system comprising…
…a first computing device located…at least one processor and memory storing instructions…
…a processor coupled to a memory…
…the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: obtaining an ECG signal…determining whether the ECG is indicative of shockable rhythm;
causing a defibrillation treatment to be delivered…
obtaining first data indicative of the defibrillation treatment…
obtaining second data representing a portion of the ECG signal…
…configured to perform operations comprising;
Analyzing a portion of the ECG signal…to determine whether to deliver shock therapy…
…in response determine whether to deliver shock therapy…
…associating the analyzed portion of the ECG data…
…determining that a treatment of the patient by a first caregiver…
…causing the first computing device to transmit to the second computing device…the first data or the second data.
…storing...the treatment event data in a profile associated with the patient…
As depicted above, the limitation of claim 25 of the present invention differs from claim 1 of U.S. Pat. No. ‘800 in that the system is directed towards causing a defibrillation treatment to be delivered, which represents an obvious species of the generic system of U.S. Pat. ‘800, i.e. the generic claims are directed to determine that a treatment of the patient by a first caregiver and storing the treatment event data in a profile associated with the patient.
Claim 25: U.S. 18/517,666
Claim 1: U.S. Pat. 11,864,859
A defibrillating system for providing defibrillation treatment to a patient…
A defibrillating system…comprising…electrode pads; a first computing device…configured to transmit data…a second computing device
…a first computing device located…at least one processor and memory storing instructions…
…at least one processor…and a memory storing instructions…to perform operations comprising…
…the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: obtaining an ECG signal…determining whether the ECG is indicative of shockable rhythm;
causing a defibrillation treatment to be delivered…
obtaining first data indicative of the defibrillation treatment…
obtaining second data representing a portion of the ECG signal…
…receiving cardiac data indicative of a cardiac rhythm in a patient…
…determining…whether the ECG signal is indicative of a shockable rhythm or a non-shockable rhythm;
…identifying a portion of the ECG signal that is associated with a defibrillation treatment…
…causing the defibrillation treatment to be delivered…
…receiving chest compression data, and health status data of the patient…
…causing the first computing device to transmit to the second computing device…the first data or the second data.
…causing the first computing device …to transmit to the second computing device…treatment data…
As depicted above, the limitation of claim 25 of the present invention differs from claim 1 of U.S. Pat. No. ‘800 in that the system of ‘800 is directed towards receiving chest compression data, and health status data of the patient, which represents an obvious species of the generic system of U.S. application 18/517666.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 25, 32-35, 37-40 & 45-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Packer et al. (US 2012/0123224) in view of Tan et al. (WO 2011/100534).
Claim 25.
Packer discloses:
A defibrillating system for treating a patient at a rescue scene…
E.G. via system 100, including defibrillator 112 and patient 102 at an emergency scene (Fig. 1A; [0025]-[0027]).
…a first computing device at the rescue scene configured to transmit data to a second computing device at the scene…
E.G. via defibrillator 112 wirelessly communicating with table 116 (Fig. 1A; [0026]-[0030]).
…at least one processor and memory storing executable instructions:…
E.G. via processor 402 and memory 404 implementing the disclosed operation ([0088]-[0089]).
…obtaining an ECG signal via the first computing device…
E.G. via the disclosed patient-connected ECG electrodes that supply cardiac signals to the defibrillator ([0027], [0083]).
…determining whether the ECG signal indicated a shockable rhythm:…
E.G. via the disclosed defibrillator that analyzed the ECG to determine shockability [0050].
…causing the defibrillator treatment through electrode pads..
E.G. via the disclosed defibrillator that delivers shock through patient-connected electrodes ([0027], [0050]).
…obtaining first data indicative of the delivered defibrillation treatment…
E.G. via the disclosed pre-shock and post-shock delay measurements providing timing information associated with delivered shocks (Fig. 2A; [0063]).
…obtaining second data representing an ECG portion associated with the treatment:
E.G. via the disclosed ECG acquisition and trace presentation during the monitored rescue ([0070], [0083]).
…transmitting at least one of the first or second data during or upon completion of treatment:
E.G. via the disclosed wireless ECG transmission and ongoing treatment-report transfers from the defibrillator to the tablet ([0030], [0083]-[0084]).
Packer et al. does not expressly disclose the added requirement that the shockability determination be based upon an ECG trace corresponding to an analysis period and associated with the obtained ECG signal.
Tan et al. analyzes the patient’s ECG waveform to determine shockability and expressly describes extending a reconfirmation analysis period after chest compressions cease when noise reduces the reliability of the preceding analysis (pp. 27-28; Figs. 6A-6B). The observed ECG waveform corresponds to the claimed traces, and the reconfirmation interval corresponds to the claimed analysis period.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement Tan’s ECG reconfirmation analysis in Packer’s defibrillator to improve the reliability of the shockability determination when compression artifacts or other noise impair ECG analysis. This applies a known analysis technique to a similar ECG-based defibrillation system, with the predictable result of determining shockability from the patient’s ECG waveform over a reconfirmation interval. Both systems already acquire and process ECG signals to guide defibrillation, providing a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Claim 32.
…patient treatment characteristics data comprising at least one of the listed compression or ventilation characteristics:
E.G. Packer discloses chest-compression depth and rate measurements ([0028]-[0030], [0083]).
Claim 33.
…patient treatment characteristic data comprising at least one of patient airway status, rescue breathing data, or blood-flow data:
E.G. Packer discloses sensed ventilation rate and volume, corresponding to rescue breathing data ([0032]-[0034]).
Claim 34.
…health status data comprising at least one the listed physiological measurements or an ECG trace:
E.G. Packer discloses patient ECG information and an ECG trace ([0030], [0070]).
Claim 35.
The rejection of claim 34 is incorporated.
…the ECG trace including the identified ECG portion:
E.G. Packer’s acquired ECG data is represented graphically as an ECG trace ([0070], [0076]). The trace represent the corresponding acquired signal portion.
Claim 38.
…associating each of multiple ECG portions with a corresponding treatment event:
E.G. Packer associates received data with individual treatment cycles and gathers ECG data during those cycles ([0074]-[0076], [0083]).
It would have been obvious to retain the disclosed cycle association for the ECG data, permitting correlation of the patient’s cardiac response with the corresponding treatment cycle during review.
Claim 39.
…identifying multiple treatment events:
E.G. Packer identifies successive treatment cycles ([0075], [0083]).
…transmitting a representation of an ECG portion associated with a particular event to the second computing device at the rescue scene:
E.G. Packer transfers acquired ECG data to tablet 116 ([0076]; Fig. 1A). Retaining the cycle association during transfer would permit the receiving tablet to correlate the ECG portion with the corresponding treatment cycle.
Claim 46.
…one or more of the recited pads, computing device, processor, and memory forming at least part of an automated external defibrillator:
E.G. Tan expressly discloses an AED incorporating ECG processing and defibrillation components (Figs. 2-2A).
Implementing the ECG analysis and shock-delivery operations of the modified Packer system in Tan’s AED architecture would provide automated rhythm assessment using a established defibrillator components, with predictable operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 37, 40, 45 & 47 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 prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, in combination with the inherited limitations: treatment-time-based boundaries for a predetermine-duration ECG portion (claim 37); event selection and display of the corresponding ECG portion (claim 40); secure-protocol configuration and transmission of the recited data (claim 45); and display of the recited cardiac pathology data in association with the ECG signal (claim 47).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 28, 2026 have been considered.
Prior-art rejections: The previous claim rejections of claims 25, 32-35, 37-40 and 45-47 under 35 U.S.C. §102 over Packer et al. are withdrawn. Claims 25, 32-35, 38-39 and 46 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Packer et al. in view of Tan et al., as detailed above. Tan teaches analyzing the patient’s ECG waveform over a reconfirmation period to determine whether a shockable rhythm exists (pp. 27-28; Figs 6A-6B). Incorporating this analysis into Packer would improve reliability when noise or compression artifacts impair the initial rhythm determination. Accordingly, applicant’s argument concerning Packer alone does not overcome the newly stated combination.
Claims 37, 40, 45 and 47: The previous prior-art rejections are withdrawn. The additional limitations, considered with the inherited limitations, distinguish these claims over the prior art of record.
Double patenting: Applicant states that a terminal disclaimer was filed with the response; however, no terminal disclaimer is of record. That statement does not obviate the non-statutory double patenting rejections. The rejections, as set forth in this action, are maintained.
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 NICOLE F JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/NICOLE F JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights