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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 4/15/2024. As directed by the Preliminary amendment, claims 1-21 are canceled, and claims 22-41 have been added. Thus, claims 22-41 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner suggests rephrasing “indicates at least one an amount” to “indicates at least one of an amount” to overcome a grammatical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 25 and 38 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.
Regarding claims 25 and 38, the claims recite “a common device” in line 1 of each claim. However, it is unclear if the claim intends to recite that the sensor is integrated in a device that is common to both the first mobile computing device and the sensor, meaning that the sensor and mobile computing device are integrated together, or if the sensor is integrated in a device that is commonly known in the art to comprise a sensor. If the former is intended, then examiner suggests rephrasing the claim to “wherein the sensor is integrated within the first mobile computing device” for clarity. If the latter is intended, then it is unclear what exactly constitutes “a common device” within the arts. For these reasons, the claims are rendered indefinite. For examination purposes, examiner interprets that the sensor is integrated in a device that is common to both the first mobile computing device and the sensor, meaning that the sensor and mobile computing device are integrated together.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 22-23, 25-26, 29-30, and 32-36, and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (US 20150087919 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Johnson teaches a system, comprising: a sensor (paragraph 64 “As described above, the smart watch device can include sensors that monitor the rescuer”); a first mobile computing device (Fig. 1, 120; see paragraph 45); and a second computing device (Fig. 1, defibrillator 108; paragraph 67 “For example, the data can be sent from the wrist-worn device to a computing device in a defibrillator using a wireless protocol”), wherein the sensor is configured to collect, in real-time during a medical task performed by a first user of the first mobile computing device (paragraph 64 teaches the sensor collecting data while a user wearing the first device is performing chest compressions which is a medical task), performance data indicating at least one of motion of the sensor, a defibrillation energy, a gas composition, or blood-flow data (paragraph 44 “In some embodiments, the wrist-worn device can include one or more sensors to track the physiological state of the rescuer by monitoring factors of the rescuer such as pulse and blood oxygen level”), and provide the performance data to the first mobile computing device (paragraph 64 “Also, the feedback provided to the rescuer on the smart watch can integrate information about rescuer blood oxygen level, pulse, or both in order to determine the feedback to be provided to the rescuer” where feedback is provided to the first computing device and this feedback integrates the data from the sensor), wherein the first mobile computing device is configured to transmit the performance data to the second computing device through a wireless network (paragraph 60 “For example, the defibrillator 302 can communicate with the smart watch 320 using a wireless technology standard for exchanging data over short distances, such as Bluetooth technology, which uses short-wavelength radio transmissions in the ISM band from 2400-2480 MHz to form personal area networks (PANs) with high levels of security. Thus, the defibrillator 302 and the smart watch 320 each include a transmitter and a receiver for sending and receiving the wireless communications”), and wherein the second computing device is configured to record a time entry comprising the performance data (paragraph 67 “For example, the process can receive data indicative of one or more of the patient's blood pressure, heart rate, and inspired CO2. At box 604, this data is sent to a computing device. For example, the data can be sent from the wrist-worn device to a computing device in a defibrillator using a wireless protocol”), a time at which the medical task was performed (paragraph 65 “In another example the system combines information about the length of time the rescuer has performed CPR with the rescuer fatigue information to determine a rescuer fatigue score” where the system is able to calculate amount of time CPR was performed, which would reasonably also require understanding when the task was started and stopped), and an identification of the first user (paragraph 81 “Additionally, the central server system 920 may store records 932, 934, 936 that include information associated with each of the rescuers for various rescuers in the system. Information about the each of the rescuers may then be associated with an identification number or other identifier, and stored by the central server system 920 for later access”).
Regarding claim 23, Johnson teaches the system of claim 22.
Johnson further teaches wherein the medical task comprises a medical treatment task or a medical training task (paragraph 7 “In some aspects, a system for managing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) treatment to a person in need of emergency assistance by a rescuer includes a wrist-worn feedback device configured to be worn on the wrist of a rescuer performing CPR” where CPR treatment is a medical treatment task).
Regarding claim 25, Johnson teaches the system of claim 22.
Johnson further teaches wherein the sensor is integrated in a common device with the first mobile computing device (paragraph 7 “The wrist-worn feedback device also includes one or more sensors integrated into an inner surface of the band” wherein the sensor and mobile computing device are both integrated into a common device that is the smart watch).
Regarding claim 26, Johnson teaches the system of claim 22.
Johnson further teaches wherein the sensor and the first mobile computing device are configured to be mounted together on a subject of the medical task (paragraph 7 teaches the sensor integrated into the wrist-worn feedback device; Fig. 1 shows the feedback device 120 mounted on a subject of the medical task).
Regarding claim 29, Johnson teaches the system of claim 22.
Johnson further teaches wherein the second computing device is remote from the first mobile computing device (paragraph 62 “The smart watch 400 also includes a wireless transmitter/receiver 410. Information collected by the blood pressure sensor 402, pulse oximetry sensor 404, and colorimeter 408 can be sent to a remote processing device, such as a remotely located computing device or a computing device in a defibrillator via the wireless transmitter/receiver 410”), wherein the second computing device is configured to transmit a prompt to perform the medical task to the first mobile computing device, and wherein the first mobile computing device is configured to present the prompt (paragraph 62 “The information received by the wireless transmitter/receiver 410 can be used to provide feedback to the rescuer about his/her performance during the rescue event. For example, the smart watch 400 can receive information to cause a display device 412 in the smart watch 400 to display information and feedback to the rescuer, such as the information and feedback described herein” wherein the information being received is being transmitted from the second computing device).
Regarding claim 30, Johnson teaches the system of claim 22.
Johnson further teaches wherein the sensor comprises a pressure sensor, a displacement sensor, or a motion sensor (paragraph 77 “For example, each of the smart watches can include an accelerometer and the two wearers can shake hands or give a high five such that the accelerometers in each of the watches will concurrently measure a motion”), wherein the medical task comprises a chest compression task (Fig. 6, 606), and wherein the performance data indicates at least one an amount of pressure applied and a rate of chest compressions (paragraph 53 “The displayed information about the chest compressions includes rate 206 (e.g., number of compressions per minute) and depth 204 (e.g., depth of compressions in inches or millimeters). The rate and depth of compressions can be determined by analyzing accelerometer readings”).
Regarding claim 32, Johnson teaches the system of claim 22.
Johnson further teaches wherein the sensor comprises an oxygen sensor (paragraph 61 teaches oxygen sensor 404), and wherein the performance data indicates an oxygen perfusion of a subject of the medical task (paragraph 61 “In general, the pulse oximetry sensor 404 can be used to provide a (wirelessly) connected medical device, such as a defibrillator, with indications of the blood oxygen level and pulse rate of a rescuer wearing the device”).
Regarding claim 33, Johnson teaches the system of claim 22.
Johnson further teaches wherein the first mobile computing device is configured to: receive, from the second computing device or another computing device, information comprising at least one of a description of the medical task, instructions for performing the medical task (paragraph 58 “FIG. 3 shows a portable defibrillator 302 and ancillary components arranged to provide feedback and instruction to rescuers via a smart watch 320” where the defibrillator is the second computing device providing instructions to the first mobile computing device), or an indication to perform the medical task at a particular time; and present a prompt based on the information received at the first mobile computing device from the second computing device or the other computing device (paragraph 65 “The defibrillator may cause the cycling arrows 502 to be displayed based on the occurrence of various events. In one example, the cycling arrows 502 may be displayed after a set time period has elapsed since rescuer 104 began applying chest compressions”; Fig. 5 shows the arrows 502 as a prompt on the first mobile computing device).
Regarding claim 34, Johnson teaches the system of claim 22.
Johnson further teaches wherein the first mobile computing device comprises a wearable device (Fig. 1, wherein 120 is wearable wrist-worn watch).
Regarding claim 35, Johnson teaches a method, comprising: using a sensor (paragraph 64 “As described above, the smart watch device can include sensors that monitor the rescuer”), collecting, in real-time during a medical task performed by a first user (paragraph 64 teaches the sensor collecting data while a user wearing the first device is performing chest compressions which is a medical task) of a first mobile computing device (Fig. 1 where the first user is wearing first mobile computing device 120), performance data indicating at least one of motion of the sensor, a defibrillation energy, a gas composition, or blood-flow data (paragraph 44 “In some embodiments, the wrist-worn device can include one or more sensors to track the physiological state of the rescuer by monitoring factors of the rescuer such as pulse and blood oxygen level), and providing the performance data to the first mobile computing device (paragraph 64 “Also, the feedback provided to the rescuer on the smart watch can integrate information about rescuer blood oxygen level, pulse, or both in order to determine the feedback to be provided to the rescuer” where feedback is provided to the first computing device and this feedback integrates the data from the sensor); transmitting the performance data from the first mobile computing device to a second computing device through a wireless network (paragraph 60 “For example, the defibrillator 302 can communicate with the smart watch 320 using a wireless technology standard for exchanging data over short distances, such as Bluetooth technology, which uses short-wavelength radio transmissions in the ISM band from 2400-2480 MHz to form personal area networks (PANs) with high levels of security. Thus, the defibrillator 302 and the smart watch 320 each include a transmitter and a receiver for sending and receiving the wireless communications” wherein the defibrillator is a second computing device); and recording, at the second computing device, a time entry comprising the performance data (paragraph 67 “For example, the process can receive data indicative of one or more of the patient's blood pressure, heart rate, and inspired CO2. At box 604, this data is sent to a computing device. For example, the data can be sent from the wrist-worn device to a computing device in a defibrillator using a wireless protocol”), a time at which the medical task was performed (paragraph 65 “In another example the system combines information about the length of time the rescuer has performed CPR with the rescuer fatigue information to determine a rescuer fatigue score” where the system is able to calculate amount of time CPR was performed, which would reasonably also require understanding when the task was started and stopped), and an identification of the first user (paragraph 81 “Additionally, the central server system 920 may store records 932, 934, 936 that include information associated with each of the rescuers for various rescuers in the system. Information about the each of the rescuers may then be associated with an identification number or other identifier, and stored by the central server system 920 for later access”).
Regarding claim 36, Johnson teaches the method of claim 35.
Johnson further teaches wherein the medical task comprises a medical treatment task or a medical training task (paragraph 7 “In some aspects, a system for managing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) treatment to a person in need of emergency assistance by a rescuer includes a wrist-worn feedback device configured to be worn on the wrist of a rescuer performing CPR” where CPR treatment is a medical treatment task).
Regarding claim 38, Johnson teaches the method of claim 35.
Johnson further teaches wherein the sensor is integrated in a common device with the first mobile computing device (paragraph 7 “The wrist-worn feedback device also includes one or more sensors integrated into an inner surface of the band” wherein the sensor and mobile computing device are both integrated into a common device that is the smart watch).
Regarding claim 39, Johnson teaches the method of claim 35.
Johnson further teaches comprising mounting the sensor and the first mobile computing device together on a subject of the medical task (paragraph 7 teaches the sensor integrated into the wrist-worn feedback device; Fig. 1 shows the feedback device 120 mounted on a subject of the medical task).
Regarding claim 40, Johnson teaches the method of claim 35.
Johnson further teaches wherein the second computing device is remote from the first mobile computing device (paragraph 62 “The smart watch 400 also includes a wireless transmitter/receiver 410. Information collected by the blood pressure sensor 402, pulse oximetry sensor 404, and colorimeter 408 can be sent to a remote processing device, such as a remotely located computing device or a computing device in a defibrillator via the wireless transmitter/receiver 410”), and the method comprises: transmitting a prompt to perform the medical task from the second computing device to the first mobile computing device; and presenting the prompt at the first mobile computing device (paragraph 62 “The information received by the wireless transmitter/receiver 410 can be used to provide feedback to the rescuer about his/her performance during the rescue event. For example, the smart watch 400 can receive information to cause a display device 412 in the smart watch 400 to display information and feedback to the rescuer, such as the information and feedback described herein” wherein the information being received is being transmitted from the second computing device).
Regarding claim 41, Johnson teaches the method of claim 35.
Johnson further teaches comprising: receiving, at the first mobile computing device, from the second computing device or another computing device, information comprising at least one of a description of the medical task, instructions for performing the medical task (paragraph 58 “FIG. 3 shows a portable defibrillator 302 and ancillary components arranged to provide feedback and instruction to rescuers via a smart watch 320” where the defibrillator is the second computing device providing instructions to the first mobile computing device), or an indication to perform the medical task at a particular time; and presenting a prompt at the first mobile computing device based on the information received at the first mobile computing device from the second computing device or the other computing device (paragraph 65 “The defibrillator may cause the cycling arrows 502 to be displayed based on the occurrence of various events. In one example, the cycling arrows 502 may be displayed after a set time period has elapsed since rescuer 104 began applying chest compressions”; Fig. 5 shows the arrows 502 as a prompt on the first mobile computing device).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 24, 31, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20150087919 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Johnson teaches the system of claim 22.
Johnson further teaches wherein the first mobile computing device comprises a display (paragraph 45 “Each of the rescuers 104, 106 wears a wrist-worn device 120, 122, such as a smart watch, with a curved form factor display 121, 123. The wrist-worn devices 120, 122 provide feedback to the rescuers performing the CPR on the victim 102”), and wherein the first mobile computing device is configured to display, on the display, information about a subject of the medical task (paragraph 51 “In other examples, the smart watch may just serve as a front end for a remote system and be configured to display information generated by the defibrillator or associated computing device”).
Johnson does not specifically teach wherein the information being displayed is about a defibrillation shock administered to a subject of the medical task.
However, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Johnson, such that the information displayed on the display is information about a defibrillation shock administered to a subject of the medical task, for the purpose of the rescuer being able to monitor when a shock is going to occur so that they can step back from the patient and prepare themselves for the defibrillator providing a shock.
Regarding claim 31, Johnson teaches the system of claim 22.
Johnson does not specifically teach wherein the sensor comprises a capnometer, and wherein the performance data indicates a concentration of carbon dioxide exhaled by a subject of the medical task.
However, Johnson does teach sensor feedback such as inspired carbon dioxide (see [0004] and [0067]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Johnson to include a capnometer, to measure a concentration of carbon dioxide exhaled by the patient, for the purpose of providing suitable important feedback information of carbon dioxide level from the patient (see [0004]).
Regarding claim 37, Johnson teaches the method of claim 35.
Johnson further teaches wherein the first mobile computing device comprises a display (paragraph 45 “Each of the rescuers 104, 106 wears a wrist-worn device 120, 122, such as a smart watch, with a curved form factor display 121, 123. The wrist-worn devices 120, 122 provide feedback to the rescuers performing the CPR on the victim 102”), and wherein the method comprises displaying, on the display, information about a subject of the medical task (paragraph 51 “In other examples, the smart watch may just serve as a front end for a remote system and be configured to display information generated by the defibrillator or associated computing device”).
Johnson does not specifically teach wherein the information being displayed is about a defibrillation shock administered to a subject of the medical task.
However, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Johnson, such that the information displayed on the display is information about a defibrillation shock administered to a subject of the medical task, for the purpose of the rescuer being able to monitor when a shock is going to occur so that they can step back from the patient and prepare themselves for the defibrillator providing a shock.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20150087919 A1) in view of Packer (US 20120123224 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Johnson teaches the system of claim 22.
Johnson further teaches wherein the medical task is a subset of a set of tasks of a medical treatment protocol (paragraph 65 “In one example, the cycling arrows 502 may be displayed after a set time period has elapsed since rescuer 104 began applying chest compressions. A particular CPR protocol may require switching of rescuers at certain predefined periodic intervals (e.g., every 2 minutes)” wherein performing chest compressions is a medical task subset of a CPR protocol that includes other tasks such as providing ventilation using a ventilation bag as taught in paragraph 44).
Johnson does not specifically teach wherein the first mobile computing device is configured to: receive additional performance data from one or more other mobile computing devices, the additional performance data characterizing performance of one or more additional subsets of the set of tasks of the medical treatment protocol.
However, Johnson already teaches a system wherein additional computing devices form part of the same network as the first mobile computing device, and further discloses receiving information from the central control system by these devices (see [0075], [0076] and [0079]). Furthermore, Johnson also teaches that “wrist-worn devices 120, 122 can be smart watches” and effectively be a wearable computer including a data processor, memory, input and output, wherein the smart watch collects information from internal sensors, controls or retrieves data from other instruments or computers and communicate with the defibrillator 108 or another computing device (see [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Johnson, such that the first mobile computing device is configured to: receive additional performance data from one or more other mobile computing devices, the additional performance data characterizing performance of one or more additional subsets of the set of tasks of the medical treatment protocol, for the purpose of providing quick and direct communication among various rescuers as well as communication to the central control system to help manage efficiently the work by team of rescuers who are responding to person in need of CPR assistance (see [0005]).
Modified Johnson is silent wherein the first mobile computing device is configured to export a summary of the performance data and the additional performance data.
However, Packer teaches wherein a first mobile computing device (Fig. 1A, tablet 116) configured to export a summary of performance data (paragraph 61 “FIG. 2A is a screen shot of a tablet device showing a summary of rescuer performance in a CPR setting”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first mobile computing device of Johnson, such that the first mobile computing device is configured to: export a summary of the performance data and the additional performance data, for the purpose of providing quick feedback to the rescuers regarding their compression quality parameters (see Packer paragraph 61).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20150087919 A1) in view of McEwen (US 20170079537 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Johnson teaches the system of claim 22.
Johnson is silent wherein the first mobile computing device is configured to transmit a message and a location of the first mobile computing device to an emergency facility remote from the first mobile computing device.
However, McEwen teaches a mobile computing device (device 200) is configured to transmit a message (paragraph 25 “a WD may include a display having various data to be displayed and/or transmitted to a potential rescuer and/or emergency personnel” wherein one skilled in the art would reasonably expect that transmitting data to emergency personnel comprises transmitting some sort of message) and a location of the first mobile computing device to an emergency facility remote from the first mobile computing device (paragraph 25 “Once the health related event is detected, the WD may transmit its location (e.g., via a wireless signal medium) to a healthcare and/or emergency facility”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first mobile computing device of Johnson, such that the first mobile computing device is configured to: transmit a message and a location of the first mobile computing device to an emergency facility remote from the first mobile computing device, for the purpose of alerting emergency personnel so they can identify the health of the wearer and quickly arrive on the scene (paragraph 24 “Additionally, the communicative capabilities may be utilized as an alert for various healthcare and/or emergency personnel”).
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 22-26 and 29-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 9, 10, 14, 20, 21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,376,441 (hereinafter ‘441) in view of Johnson (US 20150087919 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated and/or made obvious by the cited patent.
Regarding claims 22 and 35, ‘441 teaches the first mobile computing device (claim 1). ‘441 does not specifically teach a sensor configured to collect, in real-time during a medical task performed by a first user of the first mobile computing device, performance data indicating at least one of motion of the sensor, a defibrillation energy, a gas composition, or blood-flow data, and provide the performance data to the first mobile computing device; a second computing device wherein the first mobile computing device is configured to transmit the data to the second computing device through a wireless network and wherein the second computing devices is configured to record the performance data, a time at which the medical task was performed, and an identification of the first user.
However, Johnson teaches a sensor configured to collect, in real-time during a medical task performed by a first user of the first mobile computing device (paragraph 64 teaches the sensor collecting data while a user wearing the first device is performing chest compressions which is a medical task), performance data indicating at least one of motion of the sensor, a defibrillation energy, a gas composition, or blood-flow data (see paragraph 44), and provide the performance data to the first mobile computing device (paragraph 64 “Also, the feedback provided to the rescuer on the smart watch can integrate information about rescuer blood oxygen level, pulse, or both in order to determine the feedback to be provided to the rescuer” where feedback is provided to the first computing device and this feedback integrates the data from the sensor); a second computing device (Fig. 1, defibrillator 108, see paragraph 67) wherein the first mobile computing device is configured to transmit the data to the second computing device through a wireless network (see paragraph 60) and wherein the second computing devices is configured to record the performance data (see paragraph 67), a time at which the medical task was performed (see paragraph 65), and an identification of the first user (see paragraph 81).
Thus, it would have been obvious to modify ‘441 with a sensor in order to provide real time feedback to a user performing the medical task, a second computing device to perform data calculations and have a larger computing system outside of the mobile computing device. It would been obvious to further modify ‘441 for the purpose of providing quick and secure communication between the computing devices (see paragraph 60) and to store information and data about each rescuer and rescue attempt for future access (see paragraph 81).
Regarding claim 23 and 36, ‘441 teaches the disclosed invention (claim 1).
Regarding claim 24 and 37, ‘441 teaches the disclosed invention (claim 21).
Regarding claim 25 and 38, ‘441 does not specifically teach wherein the sensor is integrated in a common device with the first mobile computing device. However, it would be obvious to modify ‘441 accordingly for the purpose not needing another device for the user to operate and making operation of the device easier and more efficient. Additionally, it is not patentably distinct to integrate the sensor in a common device with the first mobile computing device. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 26 and 39, ‘441 does not teach mounting the sensor and the first mobile computing device together on a subject of the medical task. However, it would be obvious to modify ‘441 so the sensor and first mobile computing device are mounted together on a subject of the medical task for the purpose of allowing the sensor to directly contact the subject for quicker and more accurate measurements. Additionally, it is not patentably distinct to integrate the sensor and the first mobile computing device together. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 29 and 40, ‘441 teaches the disclosed invention (claim 1 and 20).
Regarding claim 30, ‘441 teaches wherein the medical task comprises a chest compression task, and wherein the performance data indicates at least one an amount of pressure applied and a rate of chest compressions (claim 14). ‘441 is silent wherein the sensor comprises a pressure sensor, a displacement sensor, or a motion sensor. However, it would be obvious for the sensor to be one of the claimed sensor devices in order to provide feedback on the performance of chest compressions as taught in claim 14.
Regarding claim 31, ‘441 teaches the disclosed invention (claims 8-9).
Regarding claim 32, ‘441 teaches the disclosed invention (claims 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 33 and 41, ‘441 teaches the disclosed invention (claim 1).
Regarding claim 34, ‘441 teaches the disclosed invention (claim 1).
Claim 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,376,441 (hereinafter ‘441) in view of Johnson (US 20150087919 A1) as described above and in further view of Packer (US 20120123224 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated and/or made obvious by the cited patent.
Regarding claim 27, ‘441 teaches disclosed invention (claim 1). ‘441 does not teach exporting a summary of the performance data and additional performance data.
However, Packer teaches wherein a first mobile computing device (Fig. 1A, tablet 116) configured to export a summary of performance data (paragraph 61 “FIG. 2A is a screen shot of a tablet device showing a summary of rescuer performance in a CPR setting”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the first mobile computing device of ‘441, such that the first mobile computing device is configured to: export a summary of the performance data and the additional performance data, for the purpose of providing quick feedback to the rescuers regarding their compression quality parameters (see Packer paragraph 61).
Claim 28 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,376,441 (hereinafter ‘441) in view of Johnson (US 20150087919 A1) as described above and in further view of McEwen (US 20170079537 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated and/or made obvious by the cited patent.
Regarding claim 28, ‘441 is silent wherein the first mobile computing device is configured to transmit a message and a location of the first mobile computing device to an emergency facility remote from the first mobile computing device.
However, McEwen teaches a mobile computing device (device 200) is configured to transmit a message (paragraph 25 “a WD may include a display having various data to be displayed and/or transmitted to a potential rescuer and/or emergency personnel” wherein one skilled in the art would reasonably expect that transmitting data to emergency personnel comprises transmitting some sort of message) and a location of the first mobile computing device to an emergency facility remote from the first mobile computing device (paragraph 25 “Once the health related event is detected, the WD may transmit its location (e.g., via a wireless signal medium) to a healthcare and/or emergency facility”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first mobile computing device of ‘441, such that the first mobile computing device is configured to: transmit a message and a location of the first mobile computing device to an emergency facility remote from the first mobile computing device, for the purpose of alerting emergency personnel so they can identify the health of the wearer and quickly arrive on the scene (paragraph 24 “Additionally, the communicative capabilities may be utilized as an alert for various healthcare and/or emergency personnel”).
Claims 22-26 and 28-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, 13, 18, 34-45, 39 of U.S. Patent No. 11,857,487 (hereinafter ‘487) in view of Johnson (US 20150087919 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated and/or made obvious by the cited patent.
Regarding claims 22 and 35, ‘487 teaches the first mobile computing device (claim 1). ‘487 does not specifically teach a sensor configured to collect, in real-time during a medical task performed by a first user of the first mobile computing device, performance data indicating at least one of motion of the sensor, a defibrillation energy, a gas composition, or blood-flow data, and provide the performance data to the first mobile computing device; a second computing device wherein the first mobile computing device is configured to transmit the data to the second computing device through a wireless network and wherein the second computing devices is configured to record the performance data, a time at which the medical task was performed, and an identification of the first user.
However, Johnson teaches a sensor configured to collect, in real-time during a medical task performed by a first user of the first mobile computing device (paragraph 64 teaches the sensor collecting data while a user wearing the first device is performing chest compressions which is a medical task), performance data indicating at least one of motion of the sensor, a defibrillation energy, a gas composition, or blood-flow data (see paragraph 44), and provide the performance data to the first mobile computing device (paragraph 64 “Also, the feedback provided to the rescuer on the smart watch can integrate information about rescuer blood oxygen level, pulse, or both in order to determine the feedback to be provided to the rescuer” where feedback is provided to the first computing device and this feedback integrates the data from the sensor); a second computing device (Fig. 1, defibrillator 108, see paragraph 67) wherein the first mobile computing device is configured to transmit the data to the second computing device through a wireless network (see paragraph 60) and wherein the second computing devices is configured to record the performance data (see paragraph 67), a time at which the medical task was performed (see paragraph 65), and an identification of the first user (see paragraph 81).
Thus, it would have been obvious to modify ‘487 with a sensor in order to provide real time feedback to a user performing the medical task, a second computing device to perform data calculations and have a larger computing system outside of the mobile computing device. It would been obvious to further modify ‘487 for the purpose of providing quick and secure communication between the computing devices (see paragraph 60) and to store information and data about each rescuer and rescue attempt for future access (see paragraph 81).
Regarding claim 23 and 36, ‘487 teaches the disclosed invention (claim 1).
Regarding claim 24 and 37, ‘487 teaches displaying information about a subject of the medical task (claim 18). ‘487 does not specifically teach wherein the information being displayed is about a defibrillation shock administered to a subject of the medical task.
However, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of ‘487, such that the information displayed on the display is information about a defibrillation shock administered to a subject of the medical task, for the purpose of the rescuer being able to monitor when a shock is going to occur so that they can step back from the patient and prepare themselves for the defibrillator providing a shock.
Regarding claim 25 and 38, ‘487 does not specifically teach wherein the sensor is integrated in a common device with the first mobile computing device. However, it would be obvious to modify ‘487 accordingly for the purpose not needing another device for the user to operate and making operation of the device easier and more efficient. Additionally, it is not patentably distinct to integrate the sensor in a common device with the first mobile computing device. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 26 and 39, ‘487 does not teaches the disclosed invention. However, it would be obvious to modify ‘487 so the sensor and first mobile computing device are mounted together on a subject of the medical task for the purpose of allowing the sensor to directly contact the subject for quicker and more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 28, ‘487 teaches the disclosed invention (claims 34 and 35).
Regarding claim 29 and 40, ‘441 teaches the disclosed invention (claim 1 and 13).
Regarding claim 30, ‘487 teaches wherein the medical task comprises a chest compression task, and wherein the performance data indicates at least one an amount of pressure applied and a rate of chest compressions (see claim 7). ‘487 is silent wherein the sensor comprises a pressure sensor, a displacement sensor, or a motion sensor. However, it would be obvious for the sensor to be one of the claimed sensor devices in order to provide feedback on the performance of chest compressions as taught in claim 7.
Regarding claim 31, ‘487 teaches the disclosed invention (claims 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 32, ‘487 teaches the disclosed invention (claims 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 33 and 41, ‘487 teaches the disclosed invention (claim 1).
Regarding claim 34, ‘487 teaches the disclosed invention (claim 39).
Claim 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,857,487 (hereinafter ‘487) in view of Johnson (US 20150087919 A1) as described above and in further view of Packer (US 20120123224 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated and/or made obvious by the cited patent.
Regarding claim 27, ‘487 teaches disclosed invention (claim 1). ‘487 does not teach exporting a summary of the performance data and additional performance data.
However, Packer teaches wherein a first mobile computing device (Fig. 1A, tablet 116) configured to export a summary of performance data (paragraph 61 “FIG. 2A is a screen shot of a tablet device showing a summary of rescuer performance in a CPR setting”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the first mobile computing device of ‘487, such that the first mobile computing device is configured to: export a summary of the performance data and the additional performance data, for the purpose of providing quick feedback to the rescuers regarding their compression quality parameters (see Packer paragraph 61).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKHIL A JAYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6099. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 5712729034. 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.
/AKHIL A JAYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights