DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 29. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-23 and 33-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No 2011/0202100 granted to Tan et al (hereinafter “Tan”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No 2004/0138713 granted to Stickney et al (hereinafter “Stickney”).
In reference to claims 21, 33, and 34, Tan discloses a system comprising a chest compression device configured to administer chest compressions to a patient [e.g. paragraph 0014]; and a defibrillator [e.g. AED 10] comprising: a measurement circuit configured to detect an electrocardiogram (ECG) of the patient [e.g. paragraphs 0051-0052]; 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. Figure 3A: steps 302, 304, 306]. Tan, however, fails to describe a sensor, a treatment circuit, and a processor to determine a viability index. Stickney discloses a sensor configured to detect a non-ECG physiological parameter of the patient [e.g. paragraph 0032; electrodes 32, 34, 36, 38]; a treatment circuit [e.g. energy delivery circuit 52] configured to output an electrical shock to the patient; and a processor [e.g. processor 41] configured to: determine a viability index of the patient by: determining that the ECG is indicative of coarse ventricular fibrillation (VF) [e.g. paragraph 0032]; and determining that the non-ECG physiological parameter of the patient is above a first threshold [e.g. paragraph 0032; Figure 3: step 62]; cause the treatment circuit to output the electrical shock to the patient [e.g. paragraph 0032; Figure 3: step 64]; determine that a heart viability of the patient is sufficient by comparing the viability index to a second threshold [e.g. Figure 3: step 68]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Tan, to include the determination of a viability index as taught by Stickney, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of only administering therapy when deemed absolutely necessary by taking into account multiple factors.
In reference to claims 22 and 35, Tan discloses a system for providing chest compressions and a defibrillator but fails to describe 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. Stickney discloses this in paragraph [0021] and [0025]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Tan, to include the non-ECG physiological parameters as taught by Stickney, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of only administering therapy when deemed absolutely necessary by taking into account multiple factors.
In reference to claims 23 and 38, Tan discloses 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. paragraphs 0055 and 0063].
In reference to claim 36, Tan discloses a system for providing chest compressions but fails to describe where the processor is configured to analyzed the ECG by determining coarse VF. Stickney discloses wherein analyzing the ECG comprises determining that the patient has coarse VF [e.g. paragraph 0032]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Tan, with the determination of a coarse VF as taught by Stickney, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of determining of a shock should be administered.
In reference to claim 37, Tan discloses delaying administration of chest compressions after the electrical shock is administered to the patient [e.g. paragraph [0075] and Figure 4B: step 431].
In reference to claim 39, Tan discloses a system for providing chest compressions but fails to describe the user interface is further configured to output, to the user, an instruction to administer trans-thoracic pacing to the patient after the electrical shock is administered to the patient. Stickney discloses in Figure 3: step 74. It would have been have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Tan to include pacing as taught by Stickney, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of having effective shock and pacing therapy.
In reference to claim 40, Tan discloses 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 0058-0059].
Claims 24-29 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stickney in view of Tan.
In reference to claim 24, Stickney discloses a method, comprising: determining that an ECG of a patient is indicative of VF or ventricular tachycardia (VT) [e.g. paragraph 0032]; determining a viability index of the patient by analyzing the ECG of the patient [e.g. paragraph 0032]; 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. Figure 3: steps 62 and 64]; determining that a heart viability of the patient is sufficient by comparing the viability index to a threshold [e.g. Figure 3: step 68]. Stickney, however, fails to disclose 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. Tan discloses this in paragraph [0075]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Stickney to include a delay in chest compressions after a shock is administered as taught by Tan, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of allowing to determine if the shock provided the effective treatment and if compressions are needed.
In reference to claim 25, Stickney discloses analyzing a non-ECG physiological parameter of the patient [e.g. paragraph 0032; electrodes 32, 34, 36, 38].
In reference to claim 26, Stickney discloses 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. paragraphs 0021 and 0025].
In reference to claim 27, Stickney discloses wherein analyzing the ECG comprises determining that the patient has coarse VF [e.g. paragraph 0032].
In reference to claims 28 and 29, Stickney discloses a method of shock treatment, however fails to disclose delaying administration of chest compressions after the electrical shock is administered to the patient. Tan discloses this in paragraph [0075] and Figure 4B: step 431. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Stickney to include a delay in chest compressions after a shock is administered as taught by Tan, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of allowing to determine if the shock provided the effective treatment and if compressions are needed.
In reference to claim 31, Stickney discloses a method of shock treatment but fails to describe causing administration of ventilation to a patient during a pause between administration of electrical shock and chest compressions. Tan discloses this in paragraphs [0058-0059]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Stickney to include administering ventilation as taught by Tan, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of monitoring other physiological parameters of the patient by allowing for an increase in oxygen.
In reference to claim 32, Stickney discloses a method of shock treatment but fails to describe determining if a patient has blood circulation during a pause between administration of electrical shock and chest compressions. Tan discloses this in paragraph [0009]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Stickney to include checking for blood circulation as taught by Tan, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of monitoring other physiological parameters of the patient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADIA AHMAD MAHMOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-3975. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/NADIA A MAHMOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796