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 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21 – 24, 29 – 34, 39, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Montague et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0093876).
Regarding claim 21, Montague discloses a medical device (e.g. 30) comprising: a watertight housing (e.g. 31; ¶ 187) comprising: a first portion (e.g. 42); a flange coupled to the first portion (e.g. Fig. 4 and ¶ 78) ; and a second portion (e.g. 31) comprising: a body portion removably coupled to the flange (e.g. Fig. 4), the body portion comprising a user interface (e.g. 41); and a bezel (e.g. 40) removably coupled to the body portion and extending around a periphery of the body portion (e.g. Fig. 4); and an electronic component (e.g. 43) mounted on the first portion (e.g. Fig. 4), electronically coupled with the user interface, and being substantially enclosed by the first portion and the second portion (e.g. Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 22, Montague discloses the medical device comprises an external defibrillator (e.g. ¶ 77).
Regarding claim 23, Montague discloses the bezel is configured to seal an interface between the flange and the body portion (e.g. Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 24, Montague discloses a housing for a medical device, the housing comprising: a first portion (e.g. 42); a flange coupled to the first portion (e.g. Fig. 4 and ¶ 78); and a second portion (e.g. 31) comprising: a body portion configured to be coupled to the flange (e.g. Fig. 4), the first portion and the second portion substantially enclosing an electronic component (e.g. 43) of the medical device when the body portion is coupled to the flange (e.g. Fig. 4); and a bezel (e.g. 40) extending around a periphery of the body portion (e.g. Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 29, Montague discloses the body portion comprises a user interface (e.g. 410), an output, or a control of the medical device (e.g. Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 30, Montague discloses the user interface, the output, or the control of the medical device is configured to be electrically connected to the electronic component of the medical device (e.g. Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 31, Montague discloses the body portion comprises: a first component configured to couple to the flange (e.g. Fig. 4; long walls of 31); and a second component configured to couple to the flange (e.g. Fig. 4; short walls of 31).
Regarding claim 32, Montague discloses the bezel as previously described. The limitations “configured to be press-fit onto the body” is a product by process limitation. Fig. 4 shows an exploded view showing that the bezel 40 is a separate piece. It extends around the periphery of the body, and therefore, forms the device as taught in the claims.
Regarding claim 33, Montague discloses the bezel is configured to seal an interface between the body portion and the flange from an external environment (e.g. Fig. 4 and ¶ 77, 187).
Regarding claim 34, Montague discloses the bezel is configured to be removably coupled to the body portion (e.g. Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 39, Montague discloses a portion of a housing, the portion comprising: a body portion (e.g. 31) configured to be coupled to a flange (e.g. Fig. 4), the body portion comprising: a user interface (e.g. 41) configured to be electrically coupled with an electronic component of a medical device (e.g. 43); and a bezel (e.g. 40) extending around a periphery of the body portion (e.g. Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 40, Montague discloses the bezel is configured to seal an interface between the body portion and the flange (e.g. Fig. 4).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 25 – 28 and 35 – 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montague et al.
Regarding claims 25 – 28 and 35 – 38, the present application claims multiple limitations which are well known in the art. Montague discloses that the body portions connected at the flange are a back cover 42 that is removable from the body portion 31, so as to allow a user to replace a battery 17. The claims recite limitations such as fasteners (i.e. screws, pins, bolts) that connect the two pieces (see claims 25 – 28) and a gasket and keying feature to form the connection (see claims 35 – 38). All of these are well known in the art to connect parts of a housing, especially removably in order to change a battery or the like. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the housing as taught by Montague with the well known features, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a sealed housing having a removable portion so that the power source is accessible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pham (US PGPUB 2020/0178411) teaches a sealing structure for an electronic device.
Christmas (US PGPUB 2019/0175928) teaches an AED having a cover which renders the housing watertight.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached on 571-270-3061. 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.
/JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights