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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,138,202. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayes et al., US Pg. Pub. No. (2016/0367415) referred to hereinafter as Hayes.
As per claim 1, Hayes teaches a system for use with an emergency transport vehicle, the system comprising: an electronic device configured for communicating with a network (see at least abstract, summary, Para 27, 63, 68); a medical device for providing care to a patient; an inertial sensor coupled to the medical device (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 94) and configured to generate a signal representing a change in velocity of the medical device (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16, 21, 40, 76,119); and a controller in communication with the inertial sensor and the network (see at least abstract, summary, Para 27, 63, 68), the controller comprising a processor and a non-transitory storage medium having stored thereon a program that (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 104), when executed by the processor, is configured to: monitor the signal generated by the inertial sensor for changes relative to a predetermined threshold (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 88, 102,), and in response to an event occurring in which the signal exceeds the predetermined threshold, to transmit data across the network to alert a remote user of the electronic device that a crash has occurred (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 16, 40, 88).
As per claim 2, Hayes teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to, in response to the event occurring in which the signal exceeds the predetermined threshold: generate a waveform based on the signal received from the inertial sensor, and store the waveform at an overwritable address in the non-transitory storage medium (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 102, 112-116, 133-134).
As per claim 3, Hayes teaches a system of claim 2, wherein the data transmitted across the network to alert the remote user of the electronic device includes the waveform (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 102, 112-116, 133-134).
As per claim 4, Hayes teaches a system of claim 2, wherein the data transmitted across the network to alert the remote user of the electronic device includes one or more parameters associated with the waveform (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 102, 112-116, 133-134).
As per claim 5, Hayes teaches a system of claim 4, wherein the one or more parameters associated with the waveform include at least one of: a peak magnitude of an acceleration component, an average magnitude of an acceleration component, a peak magnitude and direction of acceleration, an average magnitude and direction of acceleration, a duration of the event, and a duration in which acceleration exceeds a predetermined threshold (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 102, 112-116, 133-134).
As per claim 6, Hayes teaches a system of claim 2, wherein the waveform overwrites an earlier waveform in the non-transitory storage medium when a quantity of waveforms stored in the non-transitory storage medium exceeds a predetermined quantity (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 102, 112-116, 133-134).
As per claim 7, Hayes teaches a system of claim 2, wherein the controller is further configured to, in response to the event occurring in which the signal exceeds the predetermined threshold, generate an entry in an event log stored in the non-transitory storage medium, the entry comprising one or more parameters associated with the waveform (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 102, 112-116, 133-134).
As per claim 8, Hayes teaches a system of claim 7, wherein the entry overwrites an earlier entry in the event log when a quantity of entries in the event log exceeds a predetermined quantity (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 102, 112-116, 133-134).
As per claim 9, Hayes teaches a system of claim 7, further comprising a satellite navigation receiver configured to receive location data; wherein the controller is configured to determine a location of medical device using the location data; and wherein the entry further comprises the location of the medical device during the event (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 102, 112-116, 133-134).
As per claim 10, Hayes teaches a system of claim 9, wherein the controller is further configured to determine a speed of the medical device using the location data; and wherein the entry further comprises the speed of the medical device during the event (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 102, 112-116, 133-134).
As per claim 11, Hayes teaches a system of claim 7, wherein the entry further comprises a unique identifier for the waveform (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 102, 112-116, 133-134).
As per claim 12, Hayes teaches a system of claim 7, wherein the controller further comprises a communication module configured to: transmit the data to the electronic device across the network, and receive service information; and wherein the program is further configured to generate a service entry in the event log (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 102, 112-116, 133-134).
As per claim 13, Hayes teaches a system of claim 7, wherein the program is further configured to calculate a damage rating based on the one or more parameters of the entry in the event log; and wherein the damage rating corresponds to a service interval (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 102, 112-116, 133-134).
As per claim 14, Hayes teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the controller further comprises a communication module configured to transmit the data to the electronic device across the network (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 102, 112-116, 133-134).
As per claim 15, Hayes teaches a system of claim 14, wherein the communication module is configured for communicating with a cellular network (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 102, 112-116, 133-134).
As per claim 16, Hayes teaches a system of claim 14, wherein the communication module is configured for communicating with a wireless network (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 102, 112-116, 133-134).
As per claim 17, Hayes teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the medical device comprises a patient transport apparatus including a support structure having a base, a support frame, and a patient support deck defining a patient support surface to support the patient (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 102, 112-116, 133-134).
As per claim 18, Hayes teaches a system of claim 17, further comprising a sensor in communication with the controller and configured to detect when the patient transport apparatus is secured to the emergency transport vehicle; and wherein the data transmitted to the electronic device includes an indication of whether the patient transport apparatus was secured to the emergency transport vehicle during the event (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 102, 112-116, 133-134).
As per claim 19, Hayes teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the predetermined threshold is stored in the non-transitory storage medium (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 102, 112-116, 133-134).
As per claim 20, Hayes teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the data transmitted across the network to alert the remote user of the electronic device includes at least one of: a peak magnitude of an acceleration component, an average magnitude of an acceleration component, a peak magnitude and direction of acceleration, an average magnitude and direction of acceleration, a duration of the event, and a duration in which acceleration exceeds a predetermined threshold (see at least abstract, summary, Para 5, 12, 16, 21, 40, 102, 112-116, 133-134).
Conclusion
Please refer to from 892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSSA A SHAAWAT whose telephone number is (313)446-6592. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached on 571-270-7429. 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.
/MUSSA A SHAAWAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665