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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 4-12 in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3, 13-20 are cancelled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-12, 21-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20060074284 A1 to Juola et al. (hereinafter “Juola”) in view of US 20210093877 A1 to Beyer et al. (hereinafter “Beyer”).
Regarding claim 4. (Original) Juola discloses a medical device accessory (para 0017, 0018), comprising: a plug configured to be coupled to a medical device (para 00018 “connector to provide a connection to electrical monitoring equipment”); an electrode (para 0041 “electrode”); a gel coated on the electrode (para 0017 “electrode [] a conductive gel”)
and comprising a dielectric material (para 0017 “first or second dielectric layer”); and a conductive trace embedded in the plug (para 0017 “metallic conductor”).
But fails to disclose wherein a sensor is configured to identify a readiness of the medical device accessory by detecting a capacitance of a capacitor comprising the electrode, the gel, and the conductive trace.
Beyer, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches having a voltage sensor to read the voltage of the capacitor to determine when to switch between boost stage and when the AED is charged suitable for use and the sensed voltage is provided to controller 202 which is configured to transmit a ready for discharge message to the phone 105 over cable 113 when the capacitor 209 is charged sufficiently to deliver a defibrillation shock (para 0064). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Juola with the teachings of Beyer to provide the predictable result of transmitting a ready for discharge message to the phone when the capacitor is charged sufficiently to deliver a defibrillation shock.
Regarding claim 5. (Original) Juola as modified by Beyer renders obvious the medical device accessory of claim 4, wherein the gel comprises a hydrogel that comprises an electrolyte (Juola, para 0041).
Regarding claim 6. (Original) Juola as modified by Beyer renders obvious the medical device accessory of claim 5, wherein the readiness of the medical device accessory is indicative of a hydration of the hydrogel (Juola, para 0041; it is noted that the claim as recited does not provide any limitations/details on how hydration of the hydrogel is determined. As written, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, any indication provided could be determined to be taken as indication of a hydration of the hydrogel).
Regarding claim 7. (Original) Juola as modified by Beyer renders obvious the medical device accessory of claim 4, wherein the sensor is comprised in the medical device (Beyer, para 0064; it is noted that the placement of the senor, without any evidence of criticality, is an obvious matter of design choice; see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Regarding claim 8. (Original) Juola as modified by Beyer renders obvious the medical device accessory of claim 4, further comprising: the sensor embedded in the plug (Beyer, para 0064; it is noted that the placement of the senor, without any evidence of criticality, is an obvious matter of design choice; see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Regarding claim 9. (Original) Juola as modified by Beyer renders obvious the medical device accessory of claim 8, further comprising: an antenna configured to induce a current in the sensor in response to receiving an electromagnetic signal from an external device (Juola para 0006-0007, 0044, 0053; Beyer para 0064).
Regarding claim 10. (Original) Juola as modified by Beyer renders obvious the medical device accessory of claim 9, wherein a frequency of the electromagnetic signal is in a range of 10 to 2500 MHz (Juola para 0052, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 11. (Original) Juola as modified by Beyer renders obvious the medical device accessory of claim 4, further comprising: an output device configured to output an indication of the readiness of the medical device accessory (Beyer, para 0064).
Regarding claim 12. (Original) Juola as modified by Beyer renders obvious the medical device accessory of claim 11, wherein the output device comprises a light, a screen, a speaker, or a transceiver (Beyer, para 0064).
Regarding claim 21. (New) Juola as modified by Beyer renders obvious the medical device accessory of claim 4, further comprising an electrically insulative substrate disposed on the electrode, the electrode being disposed between the electrically insulative substrate and the gel (Juola, para 0017).
Regarding claim 22. (New) Juola as modified by Beyer renders obvious the medical device accessory of claim 21, further comprising a housing enclosing the plug, the electrode, the electrically insulative substrate, and the gel, the housing being configured to hold the plug in a position such that the gel is disposed between the electrode and the sensor (Juola para 0017).
Regarding claim 23. (New) Juola as modified by Beyer renders obvious the medical device accessory of claim 4, further comprising: an antenna electrically coupled to the sensor, a current being induced in the sensor in response to the antenna receiving an electromagnetic signal from an external transmitter (Juola para 0006-0007, 0044, 0053; Beyer para 0064), wherein the sensor is embedded in the plug (Beyer, para 0064; it is noted that the placement of the senor, without any evidence of criticality, is an obvious matter of design choice; see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Regarding claim 24. (New) Juola as modified by Beyer renders obvious the medical device accessory of claim 4, wherein the medical device is an external defibrillator and the sensor is comprised in the external defibrillator (Juola, para 0049, 0050; Beyer para 0064, 0071, etc.).
Regarding claim 25. (New) Juola as modified by Beyer renders obvious the medical device accessory of claim 12, wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit a communication signal comprising an indication of the readiness of the medical device accessory (Beyer, para 0064).
Regarding claim 26. (New) Juola as modified by Beyer renders obvious the medical device accessory of claim 4, wherein the sensor is further configured to detect a physiological parameter of a subject connected to the medical device accessory (Beyer, para 0041).
Regarding claim 27. (New) Juola as modified by Beyer renders obvious the medical device accessory of claim 26, wherein the physiological parameter includes an electrocardiogram (ECG), an electroencephalogram (EEG), an electrooculogram (EOG), or an electromyograph (EMG) (Beyer, para 0041).
Regarding claim 28. (New) Juola as modified by Beyer renders obvious the medical device accessory of claim 4, further comprises a processor configured to determine, by analyzing the capacitance, whether the medical device accessory is usable or expired; and output an indication of whether the medical device accessory is expired or usable (para 0007-0009, 0057-0058, 0060, 0261 etc.).
Regarding claim 29. (New) Juola as modified by Beyer renders obvious the medical device accessory of claim 28, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine that the capacitance is above a threshold; output an indication that the medical device accessory is expired; and output an instruction to replace the medical device accessory (para 0007-0009, 0057-0058, 0060, 0216etc.).
Regarding claim 30. (New) Juola as modified by Beyer renders obvious the medical device accessory of claim 28, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine that the capacitance is below a threshold; and output an indication that the medical device accessory is usable (para 0261).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 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, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights