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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by the applicant’s claim amendments. The examiner has changed the 35 USC § 102 rejection to a 35 USC § 103 rejection and cited Quan et al. in the following manner:
“Johnson discloses the variable-length segment as mentioned above but is silent as to the variable-length segment being a portion of time of the total signal. Quan teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0013]-[0014], [0123]-[0124], and [0167] to better predict defibrillation success (e.g. see [0124]) and maintain a most accurate predictor of defibrillation success (e.g. see [0167]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the variable-length segment being a portion of time of the total signal as taught by Quan in the system/method of Johnson, since said modification would provide the predictable results of better predicting defibrillation success (e.g. see [0124]) and maintaining a most accurate predictor of defibrillation success (e.g. see [0167]).”
Applicant’s arguments are directed solely whether to the previous reference Johnson teaches newly amended claim limitations, now taught by Quan, and are therefore unpersuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 73-92 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0010543 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Johnson”, in view of Quan et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0277228 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Quan”.
Regarding claim 73, Johnson discloses a defibrillator comprising: one or more capacitors (e.g. see [0068],[0109]-[0111]) for delivering a defibrillating shock to a patient; one or more electronic ports (e.g. see [0070]) for receiving signals from sensors for obtaining indications of an electrocardiogram (ECG) for the patient; a patient treatment module (e.g. see figures 2, 2A element 10, “AED”, [0069]) executable on one or more computer processors (e.g. see figure 2A element 22, [0070]) configured for receiving data representing an ECG signal; and determining, based on the data, whether the patient is in a shockable or non-shockable state (e.g. see figures 4A and 4B, elements 412 and 429), the determining including processing the ECG signal over a variable-length segment (e.g. see figures 4A and 4B elements 402 and 425. Note: The ECG signal is analyzed during the chest compressions, which may vary in length according to steps 402 and 404) according to a set of one or more parameters each representing a characteristic of a waveform of the signal (e.g. see [0100], [0119], Note: The “ASMA value” is being interpreted as the “one or more parameters”), and, based on the processing, determining if an accuracy threshold is met (e.g. see [0100], [0119]).
Johnson discloses the variable-length segment as mentioned above but is silent as to the variable-length segment being a portion of time of the total signal. Quan teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0013]-[0014], [0123]-[0124], and [0167] to better predict defibrillation success (e.g. see [0124]) and maintain a most accurate predictor of defibrillation success (e.g. see [0167]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the variable-length segment being a portion of time of the total signal as taught by Quan in the system/method of Johnson, since said modification would provide the predictable results of better predicting defibrillation success (e.g. see [0124]) and maintaining a most accurate predictor of defibrillation success (e.g. see [0167]).
Regarding claims 74 and 75, Johnson discloses the claimed invention but is silent as to the one or more computer processors are configured for determining if the variable-length segment includes a period of time sufficient to meet the accuracy threshold and accuracy of the determination that the patient is in a shockable state increases as a period of time of the variable-length segment increases. Quan teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0086] (“But although there is relatively large variation over short time periods, the variation is less over longer time windows, such as over 10 or more seconds. Thus, for example, AMSA values may be computed periodically over a short time period, and more general values may be computed by averaging or otherwise combining the individual measurements. A running average is represented by line 140”) to provide less variation over longer time windows (e.g. see [0086]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use longer sensing windows to increase accuracy as taught by Quan in the system/method of Johnson, since said modification would provide the predictable results of less variation over longer time windows.
Regarding claim 76, Johnson discloses the one or more computer processors are configured for accessing a set of clauses representing constraints on signal parameters, each of the signal parameters representing a characteristic of the waveform of the signal (e.g. see [0100], [0119]. The adjustable accuracy level requirements in [0100] will read on “clauses”).
Regarding claim 77, Johnson discloses each of the clauses is associated with a respective accuracy level, and the one or more computer processors are configured for evaluating at least one of the clauses against the signal to determine if the variable-length segment of the signal has met the accuracy threshold of the respective clause (e.g. see [0100], [0119]. The adjustable accuracy level requirements in [0100] will read on “clauses”).
Regarding claim 78, Johnson discloses a patient treatment circuit (e.g. see figure 2 element 30, [0077]) configured to delivery electrotherapy to the patient based on determining whether the patient is in a shockable or non-shockable state (e.g. see figures 4A and 4B, elements 412 and 429).
Regarding claim 79, Johnson discloses the claimed invention but is silent as to processing the variable-length segment of the ECG signal comprises: identifying one or more features of the variable-length segment based on an initial rule set corresponding to an initial time segment period, for determining whether an ECG rhythm represented by the ECG signal is shockable or non-shockable, based on the initial rule set, determining whether the ECG rhythm represented by the ECG signal is shockable or non-shockable or whether to extend the variable-length segment for further analysis, extending the initial time segment period of the variable-length segment by one or more additional segment periods, and identifying one or more features of the variable-length segment based on an adjusted rule set corresponding to an adjusted period, for updating the determination of whether the ECG rhythm is shockable or non-shockable. Quan teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0086] to provide less variation over longer time windows (e.g. see [0086]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use longer sensing windows to increase accuracy as taught by Quan in the system/method of Johnson, since said modification would provide the predictable results of less variation over longer time windows.
Regarding claims 80-84, Johnson discloses the claimed invention but is silent as to the initial time period is between 0.1 second and approximately 3 seconds, extending the variable-length segment comprises extending the variable-length segment by an additional time period of between 0.1 second and approximately 3 seconds, extending the variable-length time segment comprises extending the variable-length time segment by an additional time period of between 0.1 and 2 seconds, and the determination of whether the patient is in the shockable or non-shockable state is made after processing the variable-length segment of the ECG signal for less than 6 seconds, and a length of time for the variable-length segment being processed varies based on identity of features being used to make the determination of whether the patient is in a shockable or non-shockable state. Quan teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0062] to obtain better predictive value for the AMSA values (e.g. see [0062]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use longer sensing windows to increase accuracy as taught by Quan in the system/method of Johnson, since said modification would provide the predictable results of obtaining better predictive value for the AMSA values.
Regarding claim 85, Johnson discloses the processing comprises identifying whether an interruption in chest compressions has occurred and analyzing the variable-length segment of the signal during the chest compression interruption according to an initial rule set (e.g. see figures 4A and 4B, elements 404, 426, 428).
Regarding claim 86, Johnson discloses identifying whether the interruption in chest compressions has occurred comprises processing signals produced from at least one of an ECG electrode (e.g. see figures 4A and 4B, elements 402 and 425) and a motion sensor ([0133]).
Regarding claim 87, Johnson discloses the processing comprises analyzing the variable-length segment of the signal during chest compressions according to a continuous analysis rule set prior to an initial time period (e.g. see figures 4A and 4B, elements 402 and 425, [0088], [0099]).
Regarding claim 88, Johnson discloses the claimed invention except for the one or more computer processors are configured for storing the ECG signal in a buffer configured to hold data representing a processed time segment of the ECG signal. Quan teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in figure 9 elements 920 and 930, [0170] to provide means to store and recall the ECG data. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use storage medium as taught by Quan in the system/method of Johnson, since said modification would provide the predictable results of means to store and recall the ECG data.
Regarding claim 89, Johnson discloses the one or more computer processors are configured for causing the one or more capacitors to begin a charging sequence if the patient is determined to be shockable (e.g. see figure 4B element 430, [0100], [0105]).
Regarding claim 90, Johnson discloses an output circuit is configured to present a user interface (e.g. see figure 2A element 18, [0070]) configured for providing feedback indicating if the patient is in the shockable or non-shockable state (e.g. see figures 4A and 4B, elements 412 and 429).
Regarding claim 91, Johnson discloses the defibrillator comprises an ambulatory medical device (e.g. see [0183]).
Regarding claim 92, Johnson discloses the defibrillator comprises a wearable medical device (e.g. see [0183]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-1804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/P.C.E/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
