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 .
Claims 5-8 have been amended. Claims 9-11 have been added. Claims 1-4 were previously cancelled. Claims 5-11 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-11 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 5 recites “at least one means for attaching the device onto the patient….” The specification discusses the means for attaching the device onto the patient as being a strap or a clip ([0025]).
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 6 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 6 recites the limitation "the identification means" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0005293 A1) in view of Skocic (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0034479 A1) and Gao (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0055074 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yoo discloses a device for registering a patient in the event of an accident with multiple causalities and/or locating a member of the emergency team, the device comprising:
at least one interface configured for a wireless data-transmitting connection between the device and a data-processing unit (Paragraphs [0014], [0023] and [0034] discuss a personal identification terminal including a display unit for displaying information and transmitting information to a server wirelessly.); and
at least one means for attaching the device onto a patient or a member of the emergency team (Paragraph [0014] discusses a band part which can be used to attach the device to the user’s body.);
wherein the device is configured to wirelessly transmit a person-specific identifier via the wireless data-transmitting connection, wherein the person-specific identifier is stored in the device (Paragraphs [0060] discusses the personal information being stored on the device worn by the patient and being transferred to the central server.);
wherein the device is configured to read out the person-specific identifier of the patient or the member of the emergency team (Paragraphs [0044-0045] discuss the information provision unit configured to be used to obtain identity information using RFID technology.);
but Yoo does not explicitly disclose:
a data-processing unit of an emergency vehicle;
a panic button configured that, when depressed, triggers an alarm; and
a light element on the device, the light element configured to emit a plurality of light colors each indicative of a triage category of the patient.
Skocic teaches:
a data-processing unit of an emergency vehicle (Paragraphs [0025] and [0030] discuss the transportation sector, which include emergency vehicles, can include computing devices to which the responder and patient data is sent.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo to include an a data processing unit of an emergency vehicle, as taught by Skocic, “for establishing an infrastructure coordinating efforts between different emergency response functions, such as first responders at the scene of disaster, treatment sector, transport sector and temporary shelters/relocation centers (Skocic, Paragraph [0025]).,”
Gao teaches:
a panic button configured that, when depressed, triggers an alarm (Paragraph [0066] discusses the electronic triage tag including alarm signaling.); and,
a light element on the device, the light element configured to emit a plurality of light colors each indicative of a triage category of the patient (Paragraph [0066] discusses the tag including a series of LED lights that are color-coded and light up based on the status of the wearer.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo to include a panic button and a light element, as taught by Gao, in order to “provide medical personnel with the ability to take pre-emptive action before a patient's condition degrades severely (Gao, Paragraph [0020]).,”
Regarding claim 6, Yoo does not appear to explicitly disclose a releasable retaining device on the identification means.
Skocic teaches a releasable retaining device on an identification means (Paragraph [0029] discusses the card being swiped by a card reader, construed as a releasable retaining device.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo to include an retaining device, as taught by Skocic, in order to be used to help “identify[] an individual during a mass casualty situation (Skocic, Paragraph [0005]).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The previous 101 rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The prior art rejections have been updated to reflect Applicant’s amendments. Examiner notes that for claims 7-8, the prior rejections have been withdrawn. Claims 9-11 are also not subject to a prior art rejection as they depend from claim 8.
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 Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 MT.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached at (571)272-8109. 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.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686