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 .
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 30 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the threshold" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is believed that claim 30 should depend upon claim 29. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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) 26 – 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yannopoulos et al. (WO 2020/018923 – in IDS) in view of Kaufman et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0374428 – in IDS).
Regarding claims 26, 36, and 37, Yannopoulos discloses a cardiac arrest classification and treatment system and computer-implemented method for monitoring and classifying a cardiac arrest rhythm comprising: an electrocardiograph (ECG) device (e.g. ¶ 43) for receiving ECG data produced from electrical signals of a ventricular fibrillation event detected in a patient (e.g. ¶ 29 – 32, 43); a processor; and a memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to implement (e.g. ¶ 44): a coronary perfusion pressure (CPP) classifier comprising a CPP model and one or more parameters of the CPP model (e.g. ¶ 54 – 58), and configured to: generate a CPP determination based on the CPP model, the parameters of the CPP model, and the ECG data, the CPP determination indicating a predicted CPP of the patient (e.g. ¶ 54 – 58); a therapy determinator (e.g. ¶ 29 – 34) configured to: direct delivery of defibrillation therapy to the patient (e.g. ¶ 29 – 34 and 57); and direct delivery of CPR compressions to the patient based on the CPP determination (e.g. ¶ 4), but fails to specifically recite the ischemia classifier.
Kaufman teaches it is known to use an ischemia classifier comprising an ischemia model and one or more parameters of the ischemia model (e.g. ABSTRACT, ¶ 118 – 120), and configured to: generate an ischemia determination based on the ischemia model, the parameters of the ischemia model, and the ECG data, the ischemia determination indicating whether the ventricular fibrillation event has been caused by heart muscle ischemia (e.g. ¶ 118 – 120, 160 - 162). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention as taught by Yannopoulos with the ischemia classifier as taught by Kaufman, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of efficiently and effectively improving the blood flows and pressures generated by the chest compressions.
Regarding claims 27, 39, and 40, Yannopoulos discloses a cardioversion success classifier configured to generate a likelihood of cardioversion success based on the ECG data, and wherein the therapy determinator is further configured to: select a time window during which to direct delivery of defibrillation therapy based on the likelihood of cardioversion success (e.g. ¶ 29 – 34, 104 – 112); direct a pause in the delivery of CPR compressions to the patient during the time window (e.g. ¶ 29 – 34, 54 – 58); and direct the delivery of defibrillation therapy to the patient during the time window (e.g. ¶ 54 – 58).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Yannopoulos discloses the likelihood of cardioversion success is based on the CPP determination and the likelihood of cardioversion success is determined to be high when the CPP determination is equal to or greater than a threshold (e.g. ¶ 104 – 112).
Regarding claim 30, Yannopoulos discloses the threshold is 15 mmHg (e.g. TABLE 2).
Regarding claim 31, Yannopoulos discloses an output device, and wherein directing the delivery of defibrillation therapy comprises producing an output directing a user to deliver defibrillation therapy (e.g. ¶ 123 – 125).
Regarding claim 32, Yannopoulos discloses a defibrillation device electrically coupleable to the patient for the delivery of defibrillation therapy and configured to deliver a defibrillation shock to the patient in response to the direction to delivery defibrillation therapy (e.g. ¶ 110).
Regarding claims 33 and 38, Yannopoulos discloses the therapy determinator is further configured to determine a rate and pressure of CPR compressions to be delivered to the patient (e.g. ¶ 54 – 58).
Regarding claim 34, Yannopoulos discloses an output device and wherein directing the delivery of CPR compressions comprises producing an output directing a user to deliver CPR compressions at the determined rate and pressure (e.g. ¶ 123 – 125).
Regarding claim 35, Yannopoulos discloses an automated CPR module arrangeable to deliver CPR compressions to the patient at the determined rate and pressure in response to the direction to deliver CPR compressions (e.g. ¶ 54 – 58).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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 at 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.
/JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796