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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s amendment which was received by the office on July 2, 2026. Claims 33-62 are currently pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendment filed on 7/2/2026 amending claim 33 to clarify the language the 112(b) rejections made against claim 33-46 in the office action of 4/3/2026 have been withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 33-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 33 has been amended to recite “provide assistance to determine what treatment is needed for the patient based at least in part on communication with at least one of the medical device and the first computing device and processing by the first computing device of the second portion of the care protocol module,” however the original disclosure does not provide support for the amended claim language. The original disclosure broadly states that the AED can offload some of the functions to a remote companion device and the cloud-based service can stream back to the rescue site appropriate audio commands to assist in the treatment of the patient, see para. [0029]. The original disclosure does not disclose that the second computing device provides assistance in determining what treatment is needed based on communication with at least one of the medical device and/or the first computing device and processing by the first computing device of the second portion of the care protocol module, therefore the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 34-46 directly or indirectly depend from claim 33 and are also rejected to for the reasons stated above regarding claim 33.
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.
Claims 33-46 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 33 has been amended to recite “provide assistance to determine what treatment is needed for the patient based at least in part on communication with at least one of the medical device and the first computing device and processing by the first computing device of the second portion of the care protocol module,” which recites that the second computing device determines what treatment is needed based at least in part on communication with at least one of the medical device and the first computing device and processing by the first computing device” which is unclear regarding on which elements the “at least in part” is referring to when determining what the treatment is based on. Is the “at least in part” referring to communication with the medical device and/or communication with first computing device and/or processing by the first computing device? Is the “at least in part” referring to communication with the medical device and/or communication with first computing device and additionally based on processing by the first computing device? If the “at least in part” is referring to communication with the medical device and/or communication with first computing device and additionally based on processing by the first computing device, then wouldn’t the second computing device be in communication with the first computing device, clarification is required. Claims 34-46 directly or indirectly depend from claim 33 and are also rejected to for the reasons stated above regarding claim 33. For the purposes of examination, as best understood, claim 33 has been interpreted to include the determination of what treatment is needed being based on communication with the medical device and/or communication with first computing device and additionally based on processing by the first computing device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 47-62 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In view of the art relevant to the claimed invention the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, within the context of the other claim elements, a medical device that includes a user interface, wireless communication system, a memory and a processor that is configured to detect presence of a computing device separate from the medical device, attempt to offload a second portion of the care protocol module to the computing device via the wireless communication system, in response to the attempt to offload the second portion of the care protocol module succeeding, receive data associated with the second portion of the care protocol module from the computing device via the wireless communication system, in response to the attempt to offload the second portion of the care protocol module failing, continue with, or return to, a stand-alone operation of the medical device, and output instructions for treating the patient via the user interface module, the instructions being provided by the received data associated with the second portion of the care protocol module or data associated with the first portion of the care protocol module. The closest prior includes US 2013/0296719 to Packer et al. and US 2010/0114252 to Torgerson which discloses medical devices which can communicate to share processing power but do not teach or reasonably suggest the specifics of the device as claimed within claim 47 including the processor being configured to attempt to offload a second portion of the care protocol module to the computing device via the wireless communication system, in response to the attempt to offload the second portion of the care protocol module succeeding, receive data associated with the second portion of the care protocol module from the computing device via the wireless communication system, in response to the attempt to offload the second portion of the care protocol module failing, continue with, or return to, a stand-alone operation of the medical device, and output instructions for treating the patient via the user interface module.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections Under 35 USC 112
As stated above, in view of the amendment filed on 7/2/2026 amending claim 33 to clarify the language the 112(b) rejections made against claim 33-46 in the office action of 4/3/2026 have been withdrawn.
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 JENNIFER L GHAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5844. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM - 3:30PM ET.
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 on (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.
/JG/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/REX R HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights