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 .
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 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 2-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,202,579 and claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,064,218. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2-20 of the pending application are encompassed by claims of the Patents.
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 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 2 recites cause the user interface to provide information to the acute care provider relating to performance of the at least one resuscitation related activity. The limitation of a wearable housing configured to be positioned on a wrist of the acute care provider, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting transmitter and controller, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the transmitter and controller language, “cause” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally watching another’s performance of a resuscitation activity and providing information. Similarly, the limitations of: receive and identify are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 2. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites a couple additional elements – transmitter and controller. The transmitter and controller are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using transmitter and controller amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 3-20.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Publication No. 2015/0087919 A1 to Johnson et al. (hereinafter “Johnson”) in view of US Publication No. 2004/0082888 A1 to Palazzolo et al. (hereinafter “Palazzolo”).
Concerning claim 2, Johnson discloses a device adapted to be wrist-worn by an acute care provider during a patient rescue event (paragraphs [0053], [0077]-[0082] – wrist worn device provides information about the quality of the CPR being performed by the rescuer), comprising:
a wearable housing configured to be positioned on a wrist of the acute care provider (paragraphs [0053], [0056], [0057], [0077]-[0082] – vibrations may be periodic felt by the user to synchronize the chest compression activities with the output, and other haptic feedback may be provided to indicate the user view information on the display);
a user interface configured to assist the acute care provider in performing at least one resuscitation related activity for the patient during the rescue event and for the acute care provider to input at least one marker confirming performance of the at least one resuscitation related activity (paragraphs [0053]-[0060] – performance of the resuscitation activity compared to a target performance, periodic vibrations indicate measured values within a range and other vibrations may be provided to alert the user to view information on the display which may include the values are not within the target range);
a transmitter configured to communicate with a remote computing device (paragraphs [0053]-[0060] – values are measured from analyzing the readings to determine a target value within a preferred range); and
at least one controller in communication with the user interface and the transmitter, configured to: cause the user interface to provide information to the acute care provider relating to performance of the at least one resuscitation related activity (paragraphs [0056]-[0060], [0077]-[0082] – vibrations (i.e., haptic output) is provided to the rescuer so that their performance may match a target performance; each of the smart watches may be paired with the system in discovery mode, thereby allowing the system to identify the care provider);
receive by the user interface the at least one marker confirming performance of the at least one resuscitation related activity (paragraphs [0056]-[0060] , [0077]-[0082] – vibrations (i.e., haptic output) is provided to the rescuer so that their performance may match a target performance; each of the smart watches may be paired with the system in discovery mode, thereby allowing the system to identify the care provider).
Johnson lacks specifically disclosing, however, Palazzolo discloses identify time information for the at least one marker received by the user interface; and cause the transmitter to transmit the at least one marker and the time information to the remote computing device, which is configured to produce a time-stamped record of the rescue event based on the received at least one marker and time information (paragraphs [0053]-[0055], [0079]-[0082] – time information is identified and mapped to a chart to produce a time-stamped record of the rescue event based on the received at least one marker and time information). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the time data disclosed by Palazzolo in the system of Johnson in order to provide time data showing resuscitation activity, thereby increasing accuracy of care provided.
Concerning claim 3, Johnson discloses wherein the at least one resuscitation related activity comprises at least one of performing chest compressions for the patient, performing ventilations for the patient, or administering medicine to the patient (paragraph [0059] – chest compressions are measured).
Concerning claim 14, Johnson lacks specifically disclosing, however, Palazzolo discloses wherein the time information determined by the at least one controller comprises an elapsed time between a start of the rescue event for the patient and receipt of the at least one marker by the user interface paragraphs [0053]-[0055], [0079]-[0082] – time information is identified and mapped to a chart to produce a time-stamped record of the rescue event based on the received at least one marker and time information). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the time data disclosed by Palazzolo in the system of Johnson in order to provide time data showing resuscitation activity, thereby increasing accuracy of care provided.
Concerning claim 15, Johnson discloses where the user interface comprises a touch screen display, and wherein the at least one marker comprises an indication of a level of force exerted against the touch screen display by the acute care provider when using the touch screen display to input the at least one marker (paragraphs [0056]-[0060] , [0077]-[0082])
Concerning claim 16, Johnson discloses wherein, when the level of force exerted on the touch screen display is below a predetermined minimum force, the at least one controller is configured to cause the user interface to request additional information about the at least one marker from the acute care provider to confirm that input of the at least one marker occurred intentionally (paragraphs [0056]-[0060] , [0077]-[0082])
Concerning claim 17, Johnson discloses wherein the at least one resuscitation related activity comprises administering medicine to the patient, and wherein the at least one controller is configured to cause the user interface to provide a prompt to the acute care provider to administer another dose of the medicine to the patient a predetermined time after the at least one marker is input by the acute care provider (paragraphs [0056]-[0060] , [0077]-[0082]).
Claim(s) 4-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Johnson in view of Palazzolo, and further in view of US Publication No. 2014/0085082 A1 to Lyon et al. (hereinafter “Lyon”).
Concerning claim 4, Johnson lacks specifically disclosing, however, Lyon discloses wherein the at least one marker comprises responses to a patient assessment questionnaire input by the acute care provider using the user interface (paragraphs [0026], [0027], [0037]-[0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the vibration pattern disclosed by Lyon in the system of Johnson in order to guide an acute care provider in performing a resuscitation activity, thereby increasing accuracy of care provided.
Concerning claim 5, Johnson lacks specifically disclosing, and Lyon discloses wherein the user interface comprises at least one of a microphone, a visual display, a touch screen display, a response button, or a motion sensor enclosed within or connected to the wearable housing (paragraphs [0026], [0027], [0037]-[0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the vibration pattern disclosed by Lyon in the system of Johnson in order to guide an acute care provider in performing a resuscitation activity, thereby increasing accuracy of care provided.
Concerning claim 6, Johnson lacks specifically disclosing, and Lyon discloses wherein wherein the user interface comprises a microphone configured to record speech by the acute care provider, and wherein the user interface is configured to select the at least one marker from a plurality of preset possible markers based on the recorded speech (paragraphs [0026], [0027], [0037]-[0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the vibration pattern disclosed by Lyon in the system of Johnson in order to guide an acute care provider in performing a resuscitation activity, thereby increasing accuracy of care provided.
Concerning claim 7, Johnson lacks specifically disclosing, and Lyon discloses wherein the at least one controller is configured to determine a treatment protocol for the patient based, at least one part, on the received at least one marker and provide guidance via the user interface for assisting the acute care provider in performing the at least one resuscitation related activity in accordance with the determined treatment protocol (paragraphs [0026], [0027], [0037]-[0042] – different patterns of vibrations are provided based on the performance of the resuscitation activity within and outside the range of target values to help train the acute care provider). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the vibration pattern disclosed by Lyon in the system of Johnson in order to guide an acute care provider in performing a resuscitation activity, thereby increasing accuracy of care provided.
Concerning claim 8, Johnson lacks specifically disclosing, and Lyon discloses wherein the determined treatment protocol is selected to treat at least one of the following patient conditions: stroke, dyspnea, traumatic arrest, myocardial infarction, or cardiac arrest (paragraphs [0026], [0027], [0037]-[0042] – different treatment is selected for different conditions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the varying treatment disclosed by Lyon in the system of Johnson in order to guide an acute care provider in performing a resuscitation activity, thereby increasing accuracy of care provided.
Concerning claim 9, Johnson lacks specifically disclosing, and Lyon discloses wherein assisting the acute care provider in performing the at least one resuscitation related activity comprises causing the user interface to provide an instruction to the acute care provider to repeat performance of the at least one resuscitation related activity a predetermined period of time after the at least one marker is input via the use interface (paragraphs [0026], [0027], [0037]-[0042] – different patterns of vibrations are provided based on the performance of the resuscitation activity within and outside the range of target values to help train the acute care provider). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the vibration pattern disclosed by Lyon in the system of Johnson in order to guide an acute care provider in performing a resuscitation activity, thereby increasing accuracy of care provided.
Concerning claim 10, Johnson lacks specifically disclosing, and Lyon discloses wherein the user interface is configured to assist the acute care provider in performing the at least one resuscitation related activity by providing feedback guidance encouraging the acute care provider to perform the at least one resuscitation related activity according to a target parameter value for the at least one resuscitation related activity (paragraphs [0026], [0027], [0037]-[0042] – different patterns of vibrations are provided based on the performance of the resuscitation activity within and outside the range of target values to help train the acute care provider). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the vibration pattern disclosed by Lyon in the system of Johnson in order to guide an acute care provider in performing a resuscitation activity, thereby increasing accuracy of care provided.
Concerning claim 11, Johnson lacks specifically disclosing, and Lyon discloses wherein the feedback guidance comprises at least one of a visual prompt, an audio prompt, or a haptic prompt encouraging the acute care provider to perform the at least one resuscitation related activity according to the target parameter value (paragraphs [0026], [0027], [0037]-[0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the vibration pattern disclosed by Lyon in the system of Johnson in order to guide an acute care provider in performing a resuscitation activity, thereby increasing accuracy of care provided.
Concerning claim 12, Johnson lacks specifically disclosing, and Lyon discloses further comprising at least one physiological sensor for measuring physiological information of the patient, the at least one physiological sensor comprising at least one of an electrocardiogram (ECG) electrode, a heart rate sensor, a pulse oximetry sensor, or a blood pressure sensor (paragraphs [0026], [0027], [0037]-[0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the vibration pattern disclosed by Lyon in the system of Johnson in order to guide an acute care provider in performing a resuscitation activity, thereby increasing accuracy of care provided.
Concerning claim 13, Johnson lacks specifically disclosing, however, Palazzolo discloses wherein the at least one controller is configured to cause the transmitter to transmit physiological information measured for the patient that is correlated in time with the at least one marker to the remote computing device along with the at least one marker and the time information paragraphs [0053]-[0055], [0079]-[0082] – time information is identified and mapped to a chart to produce a time-stamped record of the rescue event based on the received at least one marker and time information). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the time data disclosed by Palazzolo in the system of Johnson in order to provide time data showing resuscitation activity, thereby increasing accuracy of care provided.
Concerning claim 18, Johnson lacks specifically disclosing, and Lyon discloses a rescue management system, comprising: a communication gateway configured to be in wireless communication with a plurality of the devices adapted to be wrist-worn of claim 2 worn by a plurality of acute care providers, wherein each of the plurality of wrist-worn devices is configured to transmit the at least one marker and time information to the remote computing device via the communication gateway; and the remote computing device, wherein the remote computing device comprises at least one processor configured to :associate particular wrist-worn device(s) of the plurality of wrist-worn devices with respective acute care provider(s) of the plurality of acute care providers wearing the particular wrist-worn device(s), receive and process the at least one marker and the time information from one or more of the plurality of wrist-worn devices, and generate a rescue event summary comprising information indicative of a quality of care provided to the patient by the plurality of acute care providers based on the received at least one marker and time information from the one or more of the plurality of wrist-worn devices (paragraphs [0026], [0027], [0037]-[0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the vibration pattern disclosed by Lyon in the system of Johnson in order to guide an acute care provider in performing a resuscitation activity, thereby increasing accuracy of care provided.
Concerning claim 19, Johnson lacks specifically disclosing, and Lyon discloses wherein the rescue event summary comprises individual scores for the respective acute care provider(s) determined based, at least in part, on the at least one marker and time information received from the particular wrist-worn device(s) worn by the respective acute care provider(s)(paragraphs [0026], [0027], [0037]-[0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the vibration pattern disclosed by Lyon in the system of Johnson in order to guide an acute care provider in performing a resuscitation activity, thereby increasing accuracy of care provided.
Concerning claim 20, Johnson lacks specifically disclosing, and Lyon discloses wherein the rescue event summary further comprises a total score representative of quality of care provided to the patient by the plurality of acute care providers based on the received at least one marker and time information from the plurality of wrist-worn devices displayed along with the individual score(s) for the respective acute care provider(s) (paragraphs [0026], [0027], [0037]-[0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the vibration pattern disclosed by Lyon in the system of Johnson in order to guide an acute care provider in performing a resuscitation activity, thereby increasing accuracy of care provided.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights