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 Species III, i.e. claims 73-78, 81, 83 and newly submitted claims 88-95 in the reply filed on November 24, 2025 is acknowledged.
The examiner notes that the listing of the elected claims, per the ‘Applicant’s Remarks’ filed on November 24, 2025 is different then the claims listed above. The applicant states that the election involves claims 73-79, 81-83 and 88-95. Per the restriction requirement submitted on October 2, 2025, claim 79 is part of the ‘species II’ grouping and claim 82 is of the ‘species I’ grouping (and is currently cancelled). Based on the election and the claims grouped in the restriction requirement responded to, the above claims will be examined.
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) 68, 73-78, 81, 83 & 88-95 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biel et al. (US 20180168508) in view of Hresko et al. (US 2017/0296056).
Biel et al. discloses an externally worn defibrillation device including:
68.
physiological sensing circuitry coupled to electrodes configured to be applied to a patient and generate physiological signals representative of cardiac activitiy E.G. [0073]-[0075].
therapy delivery circuitry configured to provide therapeutic electrical therapy E.G. [0073].
at least one processor configured to process the physiological signals and control therapy delivery E.G. [0073]-[0076].
detector circuitry configured to detect the presence or absence of an electrical connection and generate an alert responsive thereto via alarm module 326 ([0073]-[0076]).
a user interface configured to output the alert to the patient E.G. [0076].
Biel et al. does not explicitly disclose that the detected connection condition is associated with a rechargeable battery configured to provide power to the processor.
Hresko discloses a wearable ambulatory medical device including:
a rechargeable battery configured to provide power to a controller/processor [0018].
monitoring operational status conditions including failed connections, battery-related conditions, improperly assembled components, and associated patient notifications [0095]
detection of charge profile faults and presentation of service notifications to the patient [0096]
corrective actions including detaching and re-attaching the device battery to restore operational status [0097]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to the invention to modify Biel’s connection-monitoring and alert circuitry to monitor battery connection conditions within the battery-powered wearable medical device of Hresko since Hresko teaches monitoring battery-related operational anomalies and notifying the patient thereof. Such a modification merely applies a known connection-loss detection technique to a known device component and yields the predictable results of identifying battery connection conditions and alerting the patient. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 417.
Claims 73-78 & 81
Claims 73-78 and 81 fall with claim 68 because the applicant has not separately argued the claims and the cited references continue to teach the additionally recited limitations as set forth in the prior office action
83.
Biel et al. discloses physiological sensing circuitry, a processor and detector circuitry configured to detect the presence or absence of an electrical connection and generate an alert responsive thereto, E.G. [0073]-[0076].
Hresko discloses a rechargeable battery configured to provide power to a controller/processor [0018], monitoring battery-related operational conditions and connection failures [0095], battery fault detection and notification [0096] and detaching and re-attaching the battery to restore operational status [0097].
It would have been obvious to apply Biel’s known connection-monitoring technique to the battery subsystem of Hresko to detect battery connection conditions and provide corresponding patient alerts, yielding predictable results. KSR.
88.
Claim 88 falls with claim 83. Biel et al. teaches a user interface configured to output an alert to a patient, [0076].
89.-90.
Claims 89-90 fall with claim 88. Biel et al. teaches configurable alarm profiles and alarm management functionality [0076]. Temporarily pausing an alert in response to user input and reinstating the alert after expiration of the pause period would have been an obvious design choice for managing patient notifications.
91.
Claim 91 falls with claim 88. Biel et al. teaches audible alerts provided to a patient in response to detected fault conditions [0076]. A tactile alert represents a known equivalent notification mechanism for wearable medical devices.
92-94.
Claims 92-94 fall with claim 91. Biel et al. teaches audible alarm notifications [0076]. Adjusting alarm frequency characteristics during patient fitting or based on patient hearing capability would have been an obvious matter of design choice to improve detectability of the alarm by a particular patient.
95.
Claim 95 falls with claim 83. Hresko teaches battery-related fault conditions and battery charging operations ([0095]-[0097]). It would have been obvious to terminate the alert upon insertion of the rechargeable battery into a charger because such insertion indicated corrective action has been taken with respect to the battery condition that triggered the alert.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the following points in which the examiner provide a reason(s) as to why the arguments are not persuasive:
The applicant argues that Biel’s et al. falloff detector is not associated with a rechargeable battery and that Biel and Hresko fail to teach or suggest a battery detachment circuit configured to detect a condition indicative of presence or absence of an electrical connection configured to provide power to at least one processor from a rechargeable battery.
The arguments is not persuasive. Biel et al. teaches detector circuitry configured to detect the presence or absence of an electrical connection and generate an alert responsive thereto [0073]-[0076]. Hresko teaches a battery-powered wearable medical device having a rechargeable battery configured to provide power to a controller/processor [0018], monitoring operational status conditions including failed connections and battery-related conditions, battery fault detection and patient notification, and corrective actions including detaching and re-attaching the device battery to restore operational status ([0095]-[0097]).
The rejection does not rely on Biel et al. to teach a rechargeable battery condition. Rather, Biel et al. is relied upon for its teaching of connection-monitoring circuitry and corresponding alert generation, while Hresko is relied upon for its teaching of a rechargeable battery-powered wearable medical device having battery-related operational conditions and patient notifications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply Biel’s known connection-monitoring technique to the battery subsystem of Hresko in order to detect battery conditions and provide corresponding patient alerts, yielding the predictable results of improving device operational awareness and reliability. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 68, 73-78, 81, 83 & 88-95 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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