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 .
Priority
Claims 21-29 and 31-41 are deemed to have an effective filing date of November 9, 2020 as the priority applications filed on or before 10/18/2018 do not provide support for viability index of the patient being determined by the ECG diagnosis and the non-ECG physiological parameter, for a heart viability being sufficient determined by comparing the viability index to a second threshold, and for in response to determining that the heart viability being sufficient, outputting, to the chest compression device, an instruction to pause the chest compressions … .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to the Amendment filed June 23, 2026.
In view of the Amendment, the objection to claim 30, as set forth in the Office Action dated 03/19/2026, is withdrawn.
Claim 29 is amended.
Claim 30 is canceled.
Claim 41 is added.
Claims 21-29 and 31-41 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-29 and 31-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the transition word “wherein” is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 24-26, 28-29, 31-35, 37-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0185240 to von Schenck et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Schenck”).
Referring to claim 24, Schneck discloses a method (e.g., paragraph [0014]: CPR chest compression systems, storage media that store programs and methods), comprising: determining that an ECG of a patient is indicative of VF or ventricular tachycardia (VT) (e.g., paragraph [0103]: the value of the ECG indicates that a patient rhythm has changed from non-shockable to shockable, for example Ventricular Fibrillation); determining a viability index of the patient by analyzing the ECG of the patient (e.g., paragraph [0103]: stoppage criterion/patient viability index is determined by analyzing the ECG); in response to determining that the ECG of the patient is indicative of VF or VT, causing an electrical shock to be administered to the patient (e.g., paragraphs [0103] and [0061]: therapy other device 495, such as defibrillation shocks can be coordinated and/or synchronized with operation of the CPR mechanism); determining that a heart viability of the patient is sufficient by comparing the viability index to a threshold (e.g., paragraph [0061]: if the defibrillation shock has been successful implies that a heart viability of a patient has been compared to a threshold to determine success); and in response to determining that the heart viability of the patient is sufficient, delaying administration of chest compressions after the electrical shock is administered to the patient (e.g., paragraphs [0061]: a pause occurs after the defibrillation shock to detect ECG and if the defibrillation shock has been successful, the operation of the CPR machine is not restarted; and [0098]-[0099]: instructed pause is long enough to complete the ECG analysis defibrillator after the shock and it is desirable to avoid having a compression immediately after the shock that might mechanically stimulate the heart).
With respect to claim 25, Schenck discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the threshold being a first threshold, wherein determining the viability index of the patient further comprises analyzing a non-ECG physiological parameter of the patient, wherein the non-ECG physiological parameter is greater than a second threshold (e.g., paragraphs [0105]-[0108] where the stoppage criterion indicates a heart viability of the patient as it stops compressions so that therapy can be delivered to the heart).
As to claim 26, Schenck discloses the method of claim 25, wherein the non-ECG physiological parameter of the patient comprises an airway CO2 of the patient, an EtCO2 of the patient, a blood flow rate of the patient, a blood pressure of the patient, a pulse oxygenation of the patient, or a pulse of the patient (e.g., paragraph [0066] of Schenck: sensors 451 (Fig. 4) can be configured to detect a physiological parameter of the patient including airway CO2, …).
With respect to claim 28, Schenck discloses the method of claim 24, wherein delaying administration of the chest compressions after the electrical shock is administered to the patient comprises: pausing the administration of the chest compressions to the patient (e.g., paragraphs [0061]: a pause occurs after the defibrillation shock to detect ECG and if the defibrillation shock has not been successful, the operation of the CPR machine would be restarted; and [0098]-[0099]: instructed pause is long enough to complete the ECG analysis in the defibrillator after the shock and it is desirable to avoid having a compression immediately after the shock that might mechanically stimulate the heart).
As to claim 29, Schenck discloses the method of claim 24, wherein delaying administration of the chest compressions after the electrical shock is administered to the patient comprises: outputting, to a mechanical chest compression device or to a user, an instruction to delay the administration of the chest compressions after the electrical shock is administered to the patient (e.g., paragraph [0061]: Therapy from the defibrillator can be coordinated and synchronized with the operation of the compression mechanism 448 to pause compressions for delivery of a defibrillation shock, afterwards detection of ECG, and decision of whether its operation need to be restarted – which implies that the defibrillator outputs an instruction to the chest compression device to delay chest compressions after the electrical shock is administered).
With respect to claim 31, Schenck discloses the method of claim 24, further comprising: during a pause between administration of the electrical shock and the administration of the chest compressions after the electrical shock, causing administration of ventilation to the patient (e.g., paragraphs [0095]-[0096]: a pause instruction to check patient condition includes ventilation and can be synchronized with the defibrillator 495 such as during the pause after shock [0061]).
As to claim 32, Scheck discloses the method of claim 24, further comprising: during a pause between administration of the electrical shock and the administration of the chest compressions after the electrical shock, determining whether the patient has spontaneous blood circulation (e.g., paragraphs [0066]: a sensor that measures the detection of Return of Spontaneous Circulation (ROSC) that refers to blood circulation; and [0107]: if there is any appreciable blood pressure during the time when compressions are paused, a check for return of spontaneous [blood] circulation would be indicated).
Regarding claim 33, Schenck discloses a medical device (e.g., Title: CPR Chest Compression System), comprising: a measurement circuit configured to detect an ECG of a patient (e.g., paragraphs [0061]: compression mechanism 448 may pause the compressions for after-shock detection of ECG; [0098]: other device 495 defibrillator could perform a computer analysis of the ECG); a treatment circuit configured to output an electrical shock to the patient (e.g., paragraph [0061]: therapy from other device 495, such as defibrillation shocks can be coordinated and/or synchronized with the operation of the CPR machine); and a processor (e.g., Fig. 4, processor 420 and corresponding paragraphs) configured to: determine that the ECG is indicative of VF or VT (e.g., paragraph [0103]: the value of the ECG indicates that a patient rhythm has changed from non-shockable to shockable, for example Ventricular Fibrillation); determine a viability index of the patient by analyzing the ECG of the patient (e.g., paragraph [0103]: the value of the ECG indicates that a patient rhythm has changed from non-shockable to shockable, for example Ventricular Fibrillation); in response to determining that the ECG of the patient is indicative of VF or VT, cause the treatment circuit to output the electrical shock to the patient (e.g., paragraphs [0061]: compression mechanism can pause the compressions for delivery of a defibrillation shock and [0103]); determine that a heart viability of the patient is sufficient by comparing the viability index to a threshold (e.g., paragraph [0061]: if the defibrillation shock has been successful implies that a heart viability of a patient has been compared to a threshold to determine success); and in response to determining that the heart viability of the patient is sufficient, cause a delay in an administration of chest compressions after the electrical shock is administered to the patient (e.g., paragraphs [0061]: a pause occurs after the defibrillation shock to detect ECG and if the defibrillation shock has been successful, the operation of the CPR machine is not restarted).
With respect to claim 34, Schenck discloses the medical device of claim 33, the threshold being a first threshold, the medical device further comprising: a sensor configured to detect a non-ECG physiological parameter of the patient (e.g., paragraph [0066]: sensors 451 (Fig. 4) can be configured to detect a physiological parameter of the patient including airway CO2, …), wherein the processor is configured to determine the viability index of the patient by analyzing the non-ECG physiological parameter of the patient, and wherein the non-ECG physiological parameter is greater than a second threshold (e.g., paragraphs [0105]-[0108] where the stoppage criterion indicates a heart viability of the patient as it stops compressions when a threshold is met so that therapy can be delivered to the heart).
As to claim 35, Schenck discloses the medical device of claim 34, wherein the sensor comprises an airway CO2 sensor, a blood flow sensor, a blood pressure sensor, a pulse oxygenation sensor, or a pulse sensor (e.g., paragraph [0066] of Schenck: sensors 451 (Fig. 4) can be configured to detect a physiological parameter of the patient including airway CO2, …).
With respect to claim 37, Schenck discloses the medical device of claim 33, wherein the processor is configured to cause the delay in the administration of the chest compressions after the electrical shock is administered to the patient by outputting, to a chest compression device, an instruction to delay the administration of the chest compressions after the electrical shock is administered to the patient (e.g., paragraph [0061]: Therapy from the defibrillator can be coordinated and synchronized with the operation of the compression mechanism 448 to pause compressions for delivery of a defibrillation shock, afterwards detection of ECG, and decision of whether its operation need to be restarted – which implies that the defibrillator outputs an instruction to the chest compression device to delay chest compressions after the electrical shock is administered).
As to claim 38, Schenck discloses the medical device of claim 33, further comprising: a user interface device capable of outputting, to a user, an instruction to delay the administration of the chest compressions after the electrical shock is administered to the patient (e.g., Abstract and paragraphs [0009] and [0016]: CPR system includes a user interface that outputs a human-perceptible check patient prompt to alert an attendant to check the patient during the pause, which includes checking the patient’s pulse; and [0133] interface outputs to a user “restarting in 3, 2, 1” instructing the user of the delay/pause – see also Figs. 19-20 of user interfaces with instructions for the delay).
With respect to claim 39, Schenck discloses the medical device of claim 38, wherein the user interface is further capable of outputting, to the user, an instruction to administer trans-thoracic pacing to the patient after the electrical shock is administered to the patient (e.g., paragraph [0063]: user interface 414 may be used for outputting data to alert the rescuer/user, etc.).
As to claim 40, Schenck discloses the medical device of claim 38, wherein the user interface is further configured to output, to the user, an instruction to administer ventilation to the patient after the electrical shock is administered to the patient (e.g., paragraphs [0061]: therapy from other device 395 can also be a ventilator; [0063]: user interface 414 may be used for outputting data to alert the rescuer/user, etc.; and [0096]: there are a number of possibilities for generating/outputting a pause instruction including ventilation).
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.
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.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schenck in view of US Patent No. 6,148,233 to Owen et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Owen”).
Regarding claim 21, Schenck discloses a system (e.g., Title: CPR Chest Compression System), comprising: a chest compression device configured to administer chest compressions to a patient (e.g., Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0052]-[0053]: compression mechanism 448 and retention structure 444 are configured to perform CPR compressions to the chest of the patient); and a defibrillator (e.g., paragraph [0061]: other device 495 (Fig. 4) can be a defibrillator) comprising: a measurement circuit configured to detect an electrocardiogram (ECG) of the patient (e.g., paragraphs [0061]: compression mechanism 448 may pause the compressions for after-shock detection of ECG; [0098]: other device 495 defibrillator could perform a computer analysis of the ECG); a sensor configured to detect a non-ECG physiological parameter of the patient (e.g., paragraph [0066]: sensors 451 (Fig. 4) can be configured to detect a physiological parameter of the patient including airway CO2, …); a treatment circuit configured to output an electrical shock to the patient (e.g., paragraph [0061]: therapy from other device 495, such as defibrillation shocks can be coordinated and/or synchronized with the operation of the CPR machine); and a processor (e.g., Fig. 4, processor 420 and corresponding paragraphs) configured to: determine a viability index of the patient by: determining that the ECG is indicative of ventricular fibrillation (VF) (e.g., paragraph [0103]: the value of the ECG indicates that a patient rhythm has changed from non-shockable to shockable, for example Ventricular Fibrillation); and determining that the non-ECG physiological parameter of the patient is above a first threshold (e.g., paragraphs [0105]-[0108] where the stoppage criterion indicates a heart viability of the patient as it stops compressions so that therapy can be delivered to the heart); cause the treatment circuit to output the electrical shock to the patient (e.g., paragraph [0061]: compression mechanism can pause the compressions for delivery of a defibrillation shock); determine that a heart viability of the patient is sufficient by comparing the viability index to a second threshold (e.g., paragraph [0061]: if the defibrillation shock has been successful implies that a heart viability of a patient has been compared to a threshold to determine success); and in response to determining that the heart viability of the patient is sufficient, output, to the chest compression device, an instruction to pause the chest compressions after the electrical shock is administered to the patient (e.g., paragraphs [0061]: a pause occurs after the defibrillation shock to detect ECG and if the defibrillation shock has been successful, the operation of the CPR machine is not restarted; and [0098]: defibrillator instructs the CPR mechanism to pause the compressions so it can defibrillate). Schenck differs from the claimed invention in that it does not expressly disclose that the determined ventricular fibrillation is coarse. However, Owen, in a related art: defibrillation system, teaches that treatable cardiac rhythms include ventricular fibrillation (coarse) and high rate ventricular tachycardia (e.g., column 1, lines 13-19 and column 28, lines 5-36). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of determining that the ECG is indicative of coarse ventricular fibrillation as the same can be treated as taught by Owen. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the system of Schenck so that the determined ventricular fibrillation is coarse in view of the teachings of Owen that such was treatable by a defibrillation shock, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to claim 22, Schenck in view of Owen teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the non-ECG physiological parameter of the patient comprises an airway CO2 of the patient, an end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2) of the patient, a blood flow rate of the patient, a blood pressure of the patient, a pulse oxygenation of the patient, or a pulse of the patient (e.g., paragraph [0066] of Schenck: sensors 451 (Fig. 4) can be configured to detect a physiological parameter of the patient including airway CO2, …).
As to claim 23, Schenck in view of Owen teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the defibrillator further comprises a user interface device configured to output, to a user, an instruction to check for a pulse of the patient or to administer ventilation to the patient when the chest compression device pauses the chest compressions after the electrical shock is administered to the patient (e.g., Abstract and paragraphs [0009] and [0016]: CPR system includes a user interface that outputs a human-perceptible check patient prompt to alert an attendant to check the patient during the pause, which includes checking the patient’s pulse).
Claims 27 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schenck in view of Owen.
With respect to claim 27, Schneck discloses the method of claim 24, wherein analyzing the ECG comprises determining that the patient has VF (e.g., paragraph [0103]: the value of the ECG indicates that a patient rhythm has changed from non-shockable to shockable, for example Ventricular Fibrillation), but does not expressly disclose that the analyzed VF determination is coarse.
As to claim 36, Schenck discloses the medical device of claim 33, wherein the processor is configured to analyze the ECG to determine VF (e.g., paragraph [0103]: the value of the ECG indicates that a patient rhythm has changed from non-shockable to shockable, for example Ventricular Fibrillation), but does not expressly disclose that the determined VF is coarse VF.
However, Owen, in a related art: defibrillation system, teaches that treatable cardiac rhythms include ventricular fibrillation (coarse) and high rate ventricular tachycardia (e.g., column 1, lines 13-19 and column 28, lines 5-36). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of analyzing that the ECG is indicative of coarse ventricular fibrillation as the same can be treated as taught by Owen. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the system/medical device of Schenck so that the determined ventricular fibrillation is coarse in view of the teachings of Owen that such was treatable by a defibrillation shock, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 41 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE M VOORHEES whose telephone number is (571)270-3846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571 272-8506. 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.
/CATHERINE M VOORHEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights