Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Pub. Patent Application No.: US 2006/0149322 A1 to Merry et al. that was published in 2006 (hereinafter “Merry”) and in further in view of United States Pub. Patent Application No.: US 2011/0117878 Al to Barash et al. that published in 2011 (hereinafter “Barash”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. NO.: US 2015/0178457Al to Grimley that was filed in 2012.
PNG
media_image1.png
536
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Merry discloses 19. (New) A medical equipment management system comprising: a defibrillation device comprising: one or more sensors comprising electrodes configured to couple to a patient and configured to gather medical data from the patient, (see paragraphs 125 where the locations of the defibrillators A, B and G are stored with the time data points and the abstract)
a location system configured to: receive one or more signals from a geolocation system, : (see element 100 in FIG. 23 that communicates with the server and device in elements 2040 and 2060)
determine a geospatial location of the defibrillation device based on the received one or more signals, and transmit the geospatial location of the defibrillation device (see hospital 77 and paragraph 9-12 and 125) (see paragraphs 9-12 and paragraph 78 where each is shown with the location information derived from a reader or a GPS device) (see paragraphs 125 where the locations of the defibrillators A, B and G are stored with the time data points and the abstract)
(see paragraphs 125 where the locations of the defibrillators A, B and G are stored with the time data points and the abstract)
PNG
media_image2.png
438
625
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
400
624
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Merry is silent as to but Grimely teaches “ for reception by a remote device; and the remote device comprising one or more processors that are configured to: receive the geospatial location of the defibrillation device, generate a device map having a defibrillator icon graphically illustrated at the geospatial location of the defibrillation device, (see FIG 24-25 where the patient is shown in an emergency location via an icon and in FIG. 25 he is on a highway and in paragraph 78 and paragraph 88 where the location of the cell phone and the defibrillation devices are provided for the multiple users and FIG. 29 and claims 1 -9; see paragraph 42-47 and data 302; see also paragraph 89-82 where the doctor on the cell phone display 1900 can depress 1910 to 1920 to show the airway video, CPR video audition and data and ROSC data and in FIG. 21 the doctor can see when the pads are on or off and the time stamp as 1800 and then preview the data 1810-1820) {see paragraph 88 where the location of the cell phone and the defibrillation devices are provided for the multiple users and FIG. 29 and claims 1-9; see also paragraph 89-82 where the doctor on the cell phone display 1900 can depress 1910 to 1920 to show the airway video, CPR video audition and data and ROSC data and in FIG. 21 the doctor can see when the pads are on or off and the time stamp as 1800 and then preview the data 1810-1820)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the lime the invention was made to combine the teachings of Grimley with the disclosure of Merry with a reasonable expectation of success since Grimley teaches that safety may be improved by determining a location of the medical device cell phone. Then from the patient data the cell phone can receive data and then collect this data 302 and provide this data to a remote location and a server. Video and medical data can be provided al the location of the individual having a medical emergency and this can be used for remote medical participants to help with the medical treatment from remote professionals. For example, a doctor in a remote location using only a cell phone can control the life saving device to shock the patient and administer therapy at the location of the emergency. See abstract and paragraphs 42 to 49 of Grimley.
Merry is silent as to but Barash teaches “..and show information about a relative location of the defibrillation device with respect to a location of the remote device”. (see paragraph 7 and 11 and 54 and 64 and FIG. 5, where the location of the emergency is shown);
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Barash with the disclosure of Merry with a reasonable expectation of success since Barash teaches that safety may be improved by determining a location of the medical device and a location of the individual having a medical emergency and then transmitting that information to a mobile device 110. The mobile device may display the map 124 for the user's handheld device. The user may then determine that the person is having an issue and then speak to the person easily by depressing a touchscreen button 112 and then determine their own location and the location of the emergency and then can proceed to that location if able to save a life. See abstract.
PNG
media_image4.png
811
580
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
509
624
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 20-26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Pub. Patent Application No.: US 2006/0149322 A1 to Merry et al. that was published in 2006 (hereinafter “Merry”) and in further in view of United States Pub. Patent Application No.: US 2011/0117878 Al to Barash et al. that published in 2011 (hereinafter “Barash”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. NO.: US 2015/0178457Al to Grimley that was filed in 2012.
Merry is silent but Barash teaches 20. (New) The medical equipment management system of claim 19, wherein the one or more processors are configured to show the information by showing a legend indicating a relative distance between icons on the device map. (see FIG. 5 element 506 where a victim is located at a mapped location and a lay responder can be located in the circle 502 and a number of selected responders are shown as 508-156 and where some of the selected responders include an EKG device for a predictive diagnosis when they arrive at the victim; see paragraph 180-187 and 136-144)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Barash with the disclosure of Merry with a reasonable expectation of success since Barash teaches that safety may be improved by determining a location of the medical device and a location of the individual having a medical emergency and then transmitting that information to a mobile device 110. The mobile device may display the map 124 for the user's handheld device. The user may then determine that the person is having an issue and then speak to the person easily by depressing a touchscreen button 112 and then determine their own location and the location of the emergency and then can proceed to that location if able to save a life. See abstract.
Merry is silent but Barash teaches “21. (New) The medical equipment management system of claim 19, wherein the one or more processors are configured to show the information by showing a segment between icons with a textual distance identifier. (see FIG. 5 element 506 where a victim is located at a mapped location and a lay responder can be located in the circle 502 and a number of selected responders are shown as 508-156 and where some of the selected responders include an EKG device for a predictive diagnosis when they arrive at the victim; see paragraph 180-187 and 136-144)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Barash with the disclosure of Merry with a reasonable expectation of success since Barash teaches that safety may be improved by determining a location of the medical device and a location of the individual having a medical emergency and then transmitting that information to a mobile device 110. The mobile device may display the map 124 for the user's handheld device. The user may then determine that the person is having an issue and then speak to the person easily by depressing a touchscreen button 112 and then determine their own location and the location of the emergency and then can proceed to that location if able to save a life. See abstract.
Merry is silent but Barash teaches “..22. (New) The medical equipment management system of claim 19, wherein the one or more processors are configured to show the information by showing directional and/or distance indicators between the remote device and the defibrillation device represented by the defibrillator icon. (see FIG. 5 element 506 where a victim is located at a mapped location and a lay responder can be located in the circle 502 and a number of selected responders are shown as 508-156 and where some of the selected responders include an EKG device for a predictive diagnosis when they arrive at the victim; see paragraph 180-187 and 136-144)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Barash with the disclosure of Merry with a reasonable expectation of success since Barash teaches that safety may be improved by determining a location of the medical device and a location of the individual having a medical emergency and then transmitting that information to a mobile device 110. The mobile device may display the map 124 for the user's handheld device. The user may then determine that the person is having an issue and then speak to the person easily by depressing a touchscreen button 112 and then determine their own location and the location of the emergency and then can proceed to that location if able to save a life. See abstract.
BARASH teaches “...23. (New) The medical equipment management system of claim 22, wherein the one or more processors are configured to show the directional and/or distance indicators in response to a selection of the defibrillator icon by a user of the remote device. (see FIG. 5 where the victim is shown as element 504 and a circle is drawn around as 502 to determine the first responders and Rd4 is located on the next block and RC2 is also located a block away as is Ra1 and Rb2; see paragraph 51-54 where the responder/rescuer individual can be provided with a cell phone and turn by turn directions to the victim; and where the responder has equipment on the way to the victim 504; In this manner, responder 104A may indicate that he or she will bring an AED, so that the other responders (104B and 104C) do not go out of their way to gather the defibrillator at 106C).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Barash with the disclosure of Merry with a reasonable expectation of success since Barash teaches that safety may be improved by determining a location of the medical device and a location of the individual having a medical emergency and then transmitting that information to a mobile device 110. The mobile device may display the map 124 for the user's handheld device. The user may then determine that the person is having an issue and then speak to the person easily by depressing a touchscreen button 112 and then determine their own location and the location of the emergency and then can proceed to that location if able to save a life. See abstract.
Grimley teaches “...24. (New) The medical equipment management system of claim 22, wherein the one or more processors are configured to show the directional and/or distance indicators in response to a selection of the defibrillator device from a list of defibrillators. (see FIG 8-9 where the patient’s medical data is shown as elements 410 and 304; see paragraph 61 where a drug list can also be shown that has been administered to the patient; see paragraph 58-61 where the doctor can shock the patient with the icons 334)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the lime the invention was made to combine the teachings of Grimley with the disclosure of Merry with a reasonable expectation of success since Grimley teaches that safey may be improved by determining a location of the medical device cell phone. Then from the patient data the cell phone can receive data and then collect this data 302 and provide this data to a remote location and a server. Video and medical data can be provided al the location of the individual having a medical emergency and this can be used for remote medical participants to help with the medical treatment from remote professionals. For example, a doctor in a remote location using only a cell phone can control the life saving device to shock the patient and administer therapy at the location of the emergency. See abstract and paragraphs 42 to 49 of Grimley.
Grimley teaches “..25. (New) The medical equipment management system of claim 19, wherein the remote device is a mobile phone or tablet. (See FIG. 4 where the mobile phone 102 is shown next to the defib device; see FIG. 29 where the location with a zero altitude on a map is shown of the patient and the defibrillation device and the cell phone in the town and on the street; see paragraph 41 where the GPS may also be provided with the data; see paragraph 42 where the device is a touch screen and the device is shown as element 302 for each of the devices).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Grimley with the disclosure of Merry since Grimely teaches that safety may be improved by determining a location of the medical device ceil phone and receive data and collect this data 302 and providing this data to a remote location and a server. Video and medical data can be provided with the location of the individual having a medical emergency and this can be used for remote participates to help the medical treatment from remote professionals. See abstract and paragraphs 42 to 49 of Grimley.
Grimely teaches “...26. (New) The medical equipment management system of claim 19, wherein the device map further includes icons of other defibrillators illustrated at geospatial locations of the other defibrillators within a given distance between the other defibrillators and the remote device”. . (see FIG. 23 where the device 100 is a mobile IOS phone that receives the data from the local defib device and that is uploaded to the server 2050; see FIG> 25 interface where the user and the defib location is shown on a real time map 2210; see paragraph 80-88)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the lime the invention was made to combine the teachings of Grimley with the disclosure of Merry with a reasonable expectation of success since Grimley teaches that safety may be improved by determining a location of the medical device cell phone. Then from the patient data the cell phone can receive data and then collect this data 302 and provide this data to a remote location and a server. Video and medical data can be provided al the location of the individual having a medical emergency and this can be used for remote medical participants to help with the medical treatment from remote professionals. For example, a doctor in a remote location using only a cell phone can control the life saving device to shock the patient and administer therapy at the location of the emergency. See abstract and paragraphs 42 to 49 of Grimley.
Claim 27 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Pub. Patent Application No.: US 2006/0149322 A1 to Merry et al. that was published in 2006 (hereinafter “Merry”) and in further in view of United States Pub. Patent Application No.: US 2011/0117878 Al to Barash et al. that published in 2011 (hereinafter “Barash”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. NO.: US 2015/0178457Al to Grimley that was filed in 2012 and in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: 20110130636 A1 to Daniels that was filed in 2011.
Daniels teaches “....27. (New) The medical equipment management system of claim 19, wherein the geospatial location of the defibrillation device comprises one or more of an altitude or elevation of the defibrillation device”. (see paragraph 16 and 39-47 and 54 and 65-68 where the uav take the device with an elevation to the person who needs an emergency procedure at the second elevation)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the lime the invention was made to combine the teachings of DANIELS with the disclosure of Merry with a reasonable expectation of success since DANIELS teaches that safety may be improved by determining a location of the emergency and then providing a swarm of drones to the area to provide a medical device that is a defib unit 83. The drone in a remote location using the flight propulsion and mapping and then deliver the device to a user so the user can control the lifesaving device to shock the patient and administer therapy at the location of the emergency. See paragraph 65-68.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Pub. Patent Application No.: US 2006/0149322 A1 to Merry et al. that was published in 2006 (hereinafter “Merry”) and in further in view of United States Pub. Patent Application No.: US 2011/0117878 Al to Barash et al. that published in 2011 (hereinafter “Barash”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. NO.: US 2015/0178457Al to Grimley that was filed in 2012.
PNG
media_image6.png
565
624
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Merry is silent as to but Grimley teaches “..28. (New) The medical equipment management system of claim 27, wherein the device map illustrates a three-dimensional location of the defibrillation device”. (see FIG. 22 where a defib. Device is provided to the patient and the video and audio is sent to the doctor via display 1900; see FIG. 9 where the doctor may depress icon 334 to shock the patient)
Grimley teaches “...29. (New) The medical equipment management system of claim 19, wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive the geospatial location of the defibrillation device via one or more of a cellular data transceiver or a Wi-Fi transceiver of the remote device. (see FIG. 23 where the device 100 is a mobile IOS phone that receives the data from the local defib device and that is uploaded to the server 2050; see FIG> 25 interface where the user and the defib location is shown on a real time map 2210; see paragraph 80-88)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the lime the invention was made to combine the teachings of Grimley with the disclosure of Merry with a reasonable expectation of success since Grimley teaches that safety may be improved by determining a location of the medical device cell phone. Then from the patient data the cell phone can receive data and then collect this data 302 and provide this data to a remote location and a server. Video and medical data can be provided al the location of the individual having a medical emergency and this can be used for remote medical participants to help with the medical treatment from remote professionals. For example, a doctor in a remote location using only a cell phone can control the life saving device to shock the patient and administer therapy at the location of the emergency. See abstract and paragraphs 42 to 49 of Grimley.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim 30 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Daniels.
Daniels discloses “...30. (New) A non-transitory computer readable medium within a mobile device, the non- transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored upon that, when executed by one or more processors of the mobile device, cause the one or more processors to carry out operations comprising: (see paragraph 58-68 and claims 1-10 where the uav has a map with the defibrator device being with the uav on the map and to deliver it to the patient in need;
receiving a geospatial location for a defibrillation device, wherein the geospatial location comprises geographic coordinates of the defibrillation device and an altitude or elevation of the defibrillation device; (see where the uav take the device with an elevation to the person who needs an emergency procedure at the second elevation) (see paragraph 16 and 39-47 and 54 and 65-68 where the uav take the device with an elevation to the person who needs an emergency procedure at the second elevation)
PNG
media_image7.png
780
1240
media_image7.png
Greyscale
generating a device map having a defibrillator icon graphically illustrated at the geospatial location of the defibrillation device; and
showing information about a relative location of the defibrillation device with respect to the mobile device”. (see map in claim 4 and paragraph 68 where the defibrillation device is shown together on the map and then is provided using waypoints to the mobile device that summoned the drone for the person and the landing point can show the drone, user mobile device, patient and defibrillation device together)
Claims 31-34 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels and in further in view of United States Pub. Patent Application No.: US 2011/0117878 Al to Barash et al. that published in 2011 (hereinafter “Barash”)
Daniels is silent but Barash teaches 31. (New) The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 30, wherein showing the information comprises showing a legend indicating a relative distance between icons on the device map. (see FIG. 5 element 506 where a victim is located at a mapped location and a lay responder can be located in the circle 502 and a number of selected responders are shown as 508-156 and where some of the selected responders include an EKG device for a predictive diagnosis when they arrive at the victim; see paragraph 180-187 and 136-144)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Barash with the disclosure of Daniels with a reasonable expectation of success since Barash teaches that safety may be improved by determining a location of the medical device and a location of the individual having a medical emergency and then transmitting that information to a mobile device 110. The mobile device may display the map 124 for the user's handheld device. The user may then determine that the person is having an issue and then speak to the person easily by depressing a touchscreen button 112 and then determine their own location and the location of the emergency and then can proceed to that location if able to save a life. See abstract.
Barash teaches “...32. (New) The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 30, wherein showing the information comprises showing a segment between icons with a textual distance identifier. (see FIG. 5 element 506 where a victim is located at a mapped location and a lay responder can be located in the circle 502 and a number of selected responders are shown as 508-156 and where some of the selected responders include an EKG device for a predictive diagnosis when they arrive at the victim; see paragraph 180-187 and 136-144)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Barash with the disclosure of Daniels with a reasonable expectation of success since Barash teaches that safety may be improved by determining a location of the medical device and a location of the individual having a medical emergency and then transmitting that information to a mobile device 110. The mobile device may display the map 124 for the user's handheld device. The user may then determine that the person is having an issue and then speak to the person easily by depressing a touchscreen button 112 and then determine their own location and the location of the emergency and then can proceed to that location if able to save a life. See abstract.
Barash teaches “...33. (New) The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 30, wherein showing the information comprises showing directional and/or distance indicators between the mobile device and the defibrillation device represented by the defibrillator icon. (see FIG. 5 element 506 where a victim is located at a mapped location and a lay responder can be located in the circle 502 and a number of selected responders are shown as 508-156 and where some of the selected responders include an EKG device for a predictive diagnosis when they arrive at the victim; see paragraph 180-187 and 136-144)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Barash with the disclosure of Daniels with a reasonable expectation of success since Barash teaches that safety may be improved by determining a location of the medical device and a location of the individual having a medical emergency and then transmitting that information to a mobile device 110. The mobile device may display the map 124 for the user's handheld device. The user may then determine that the person is having an issue and then speak to the person easily by depressing a touchscreen button 112 and then determine their own location and the location of the emergency and then can proceed to that location if able to save a life. See abstract.
Barash teaches “...34. (New) The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 33, wherein the directional and/or distance indicators are shown in response to a selection of the defibrillator icon by a user of the remote device”. (see FIG. 5 where the victim is shown as element 504 and a circle is drawn around as 502 to determine the first responders and Rd4 is located on the next block and RC2 is also located a block away as is Ra1 and Rb2; see paragraph 51-54 where the responder/rescuer individual can be provided with a cell phone and turn by turn directions to the victim; and where the responder has equipment on the way to the victim 504; In this manner, responder 104A may indicate that he or she will bring an AED, so that the other responders (104B and 104C) do not go out of their way to gather the defibrillator at 106C).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Barash with the disclosure of Daniels with a reasonable expectation of success since Barash teaches that safety may be improved by determining a location of the medical device and a location of the individual having a medical emergency and then transmitting that information to a mobile device 110. The mobile device may display the map 124 for the user's handheld device. The user may then determine that the person is having an issue and then speak to the person easily by depressing a touchscreen button 112 and then determine their own location and the location of the emergency and then can proceed to that location if able to save a life. See abstract.
Claims 35-38 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels and in further in view of United States Pub. Patent Application No.: US 2011/0117878 Al to Barash et al. that published in 2011 (hereinafter “Barash”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. NO.: US 2015/0178457Al to Grimley that was filed in 2012.
Grimley teaches “...35. (New) The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 33, wherein the directional and/or distance indicators are shown in response to a selection of the defibrillator device from a list of defibrillators. (see FIG 8-9 where the patient’s medical data is shown as elements 410 and 304; see paragraph 61 where a drug list can also be shown that has been administered to the patient; see paragraph 58-61 where the doctor can shock the patient with the icons 334)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the lime the invention was made to combine the teachings of Grimley with the disclosure of Daniels with a reasonable expectation of success since Grimley teaches that safety may be improved by determining a location of the medical device cell phone. Then from the patient data the cell phone can receive data and then collect this data 302 and provide this data to a remote location and a server. Video and medical data can be provided al the location of the individual having a medical emergency and this can be used for remote medical participants to help with the medical treatment from remote professionals. For example, a doctor in a remote location using only a cell phone can control the life saving device to shock the patient and administer therapy at the location of the emergency. See abstract and paragraphs 42 to 49 of Grimley.
Grimley teaches “...36. (New) The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 30, wherein the mobile device is a mobile phone or tablet”. (See FIG. 4 where the mobile phone 102 is shown next to the defib device; see FIG. 29 where the location with a zero altitude on a map is shown of the patient and the defibrillation device and the cell phone in the town and on the street; see paragraph 41 where the GPS may also be provided with the data; see paragraph 42 where the device is a touch screen and the device is shown as element 302 for each of the devices).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Grimley with the disclosure of Daniels since Grimely teaches that safety may be improved by determining a location of the medical device ceil phone and receive data and collect this data 302 and providing this data to a remote location and a server. Video and medical data can be provided with the location of the individual having a medical emergency and this can be used for remote participates to help the medical treatment from remote professionals. See abstract and paragraphs 42 to 49 of Grimley.
Grimely teaches “...37. (New) The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 30, wherein the device map further includes icons of other defibrillators illustrated at geospatial locations of the other defibrillators within a given distance between the other defibrillators and the remote device. (see FIG. 23 where the device 100 is a mobile IOS phone that receives the data from the local defib device and that is uploaded to the server 2050; see FIG> 25 interface where the user and the defib location is shown on a real time map 2210; see paragraph 80-88)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the lime the invention was made to combine the teachings of Grimley with the disclosure of Daniels with a reasonable expectation of success since Grimley teaches that safety may be improved by determining a location of the medical device cell phone. Then from the patient data the cell phone can receive data and then collect this data 302 and provide this data to a remote location and a server. Video and medical data can be provided al the location of the individual having a medical emergency and this can be used for remote medical participants to help with the medical treatment from remote professionals. For example, a doctor in a remote location using only a cell phone can control the life saving device to shock the patient and administer therapy at the location of the emergency. See abstract and paragraphs 42 to 49 of Grimley.
Daniels is silent as to but Grimley teaches “..38. (New) The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 30, wherein the device map illustrates a three-dimensional location of the defibrillation device.” (see FIG. 22 where a defib. Device is provided to the patient and the video and audio is sent to the doctor via display 1900; see FIG. 9 where the doctor may depress icon 334 to shock the patient)”.
See statement above.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 19-38 are rejected under obviousness double patenting in view of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.: 12042244 that recites “..automated external defibrillator (AED) comprising:
one or more sensors comprising electrodes configured to couple to a patient and configured to gather medical data from the patient;
a display on the AED; and
a location display system configured to:
receive first data associated with a geospatial location of the AED and second data associated with a geospatial location of the patient,
create a device/patient map with map icons comprising an AED location icon graphically illustrated at the geospatial location of the AED and a patient location icon graphically illustrated at the geospatial location of the patient, and
provide the device/patient map at the display on the AED.”.
The only difference is in claim of the present claims it recites a device and patient map. The current claim recites “a medical equipment management system comprising: a defibrillation device comprising: one or more sensors comprising electrodes configured to couple to a patient and configured to gather medical data from the patient, a location system configured to: receive one or more signals from a geolocation system, determine a geospatial location of the defibrillation device based on the received one or more signals, and transmit the geospatial location of the defibrillation device for reception by a remote device; and the remote device comprising one or more processors that are configured to: receive the geospatial location of the defibrillation device, generate a device map having a defibrillator icon graphically illustrated at the geospatial location of the defibrillation device, and show information about a relative location of the defibrillation device with respect to a location of the remote device”. The claims are otherwise identical.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 30-38 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Receiving: insignificant extra solution activity
Generating a map: mental process with pen and paper (no specific details about the icon nor the map; i.e. a 3D map)
Showing: displaying data (insignificant extra solution activity)
This is an abstract idea that requires a processor a mobile device and a GPS component. This is an abstract idea can be manually made by an orderly to record the locations of the devices at different hospitals. The only items left are the map relative to a mobile device.
Step 1: Are the claims are directed to an article, machine, manufacturing an article or a process. This is a statutory class of subject matter as it is a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Step 2: The claims recited an abstract idea. Abstract ideas can be grouped as a mathematical concept, a mental process, and certain methods of organizing human activity can be an abstract idea. The claims are directed to human activity.
Step 2a: Do the claims have an integration into a practical application, or an additional element or combination that imposes a meaningful limit of the judicial exception such that the claim is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. These can include improvements to a technology, reducing or transforming an article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05c), applying or using the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond linking the use to a particular technological environment such that the claim is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05€ and Vanda memorandum). Also limitations that are not indicative include adding the words apply it, or more mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity or a general linking or a field of use or a technological environment. They do not.
Step 2b is the combination of the steps unconventional? Limitations of an inventive concept include improvements to the functioning of a computer, applying using a machine with the judicial exception, reducing the article to a different thing, applying the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
Improvements can pertain to improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or a computer functionality. No.
Well understood, routine and conventional changes are excluded under step 2a. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Improvements can be found in McRo where animation tasks were held to be improvements v. Affinity labs. The feature that leads to the improvement must be in the claim.
A claim limitation can integrate a judicial exception by implementing the exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(b). A generic computer that is specifically programmed does not automatically overcome the exception and it must integrate the judicial exception.
A claim limitation can integrate a judicial exception by using or applying the judicial exception beyond general linking the use to a particular technological environment such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the invention.
(For Example 37 of the USPTO Guidance: A method rearranging icons on a GUI by tracking the icons are selected or the amount of memory allocated to the icon, and then ranking the icons, and then placing those icons that are the most used next to or closest to the start icon of the computer based on the amount of use. Step 1 does this claim fall into a statutory category? Yes, the claim recites a method and a series of steps and is a process. Step 2A prong 1: is there a judicial exception recited and the specific limitations and if they are within the groupings of abstract ideas within the claim. Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, of a method of organizing human activity or a mental process or a process of a concept in the human mind. The nominal recitation of a processor does not take it out of the mental process grouping. Step 2A prong 2. Is the judicial exception or combination provided claimed in a manner that provides meaningful limits on the judicial exception that is more than an attempt to draft around the judicial exception. Are they integrated into a practical application of the improvement. Yes, as a whole the mental process is integrated into a practical application of the mental process. Therefore, the claim is eligible versus performing Step 2B as there is no inventive concept recited).
For example, Example 38, organizing patient records, Step 1: the claim is directed to a process and a series of steps; Step 2A it recites an abstract idea of organizing activity. Step 2A prong two: Is there any additional element or combination of elements that recite more than the judicial exception or is more than an attempt to draft around the judicial exception. The claims recite 1. Storing, 2. Remote access, 3. Converting by a content server, automatically generating a message, and transmitting data. This combination of additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the combination of elements recite an improvement over the prior art systems by allowing remote systems to share information in real time in a standardized format. Step 2A is no and the claim is eligible).
For example, example 38 claim 2 step 2a prong one the claims recite 1. Storing providing access and messaging. This is a method of organizing human activity. The claims recite performance of claim limitations using generic computer components but does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity; this claim 2 recites an abstract idea; Step 2a, prong 2; are there any additional elements that apply on or rely on the judicial exception in a manner that provides meaningful limitations? The claims recite storing information on a memory in a network based storage devices. The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea as the components are at a high level of generality. Step 2B are there elements or combination of elements that are more than the abstract of idea. The claims recite networked memory. This is implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer. Step 2B is no the claim does not provide the inventive concept and is not significantly more than the abstract idea and the claim is not eligible).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666