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)(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.
Claims 26-28, 35-37, 39 and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Freeman et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number: US 2012/0123223 A1, hereinafter “Freeman”- APPLICANT CITED).
Regarding claims 26, 28 and 43, Freeman teaches a shared resource medical system (i.e. a clinical decision support system e.g. Fig.1, [0061]) comprising:
a portable defibrillator (e.g. 212 Fig.1) that includes a display screen (e.g. 224 Fig.1, [0062], [0065]), a memory, and at least one processor (e.g. 230 Fig.1);
at least one defibrillator sensor (e.g. 222,224, Fig.1 claim 5) configured to be communicably coupled to the portable defibrillator; and
an ultrasound transducer (e.g. [0015], [0082] claim 5) configured to be communicably coupled to the portable defibrillator;
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receive first physiological data from the at least one defibrillator sensor (e.g. [0066]),
receive and process second physiological data from the ultrasound transducer to generate an ultrasound image (e.g. [0082]),
control the display screen to provide, in a user interface, (a) the ultrasound image (e.g. [0082]), and (b) defibrillator information that is derived from the first physiological data wherein the information includes an ECG waveform (e.g. [0066], [0071]).
Regarding claim 27, Freeman further teaches a hard button associated with a first predetermined function of the portable defibrillator (e.g. Fig.11 shows a defibrillator panel with buttons); wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the display screen to provide, in the user interface, a soft button associated with a second predetermined function of the portable defibrillator (e.g. [0065]).
Regarding claims 35-37, Freeman teaches that the display screen is a touch sensitive display screen; and the at least one processor is configured to control the touch sensitive display screen to provide, in the user interface, a soft button associated with a predetermined function and the predetermined function is associated with the portable defibrillator and with the ultrasound image (e.g. [0065]: touchscreen, user can initiate measurements with a double tap or selecting zoom icon and using two fingers or a finger and thumb to view measurements on the touchscreen,[0082]).
Regarding claim 39, Freeman teaches that a power supply configured to supply power to the at least one processor and the ultrasound transducer (e.g. Fig.1, [0070] Note: while a power supply is not shown, the system necessarily comprises a power supply to power/charge the components of the system).
Regarding claim 41, Freeman further teaches a ventilation sensor, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive third physiological data from the ventilation sensor (e.g. [0015]: ventilation flow rate sensor); process the third physiological data to generate a capnography parameter; and control the display screen to provide, in the user interface, the capnography parameter (e.g. [0061],[0062]: respiratory distress).
Regarding claim 42, Freeman further teaches at least one of a blood pressure monitor or an oximeter (e.g. [0015],[0079]).
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 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number: US 2012/0123223 A1, hereinafter “Freeman”- APPLICANT CITED) in view of Gatzke (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number: US 2003/0163045 A1, hereinafter “Gatzke”).
Regarding claim 29, Freeman teaches the claimed invention as discussed above except for the at least one processor is further configured to control the display screen to provide the ultrasound image and the defibrillator information simultaneously.
In a similar field of endeavor, Gatzke teaches that it is well known to display a measured ECG signal and an ultrasound signal simultaneously on the same screen (e.g. [0033] Fig.3A,3B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ultrasound signal and the ECG information obtained from the defibrillator in the teachings of Freeman to be simultaneously displayed on the same screen as taught by Gatzke in order to provide the predictable results of providing a complete detailed view of the obtained measurements.
Claims 30-33, 38 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number: US 2012/0123223 A1, hereinafter “Freeman”- APPLICANT CITED) in view of Cohen et al (U.S. Patent Number: US 7006865, hereinafter “Cohen”- APPLICANT CITED).
Regarding claims 30-32, Freeman teaches the claimed invention as discussed above except for the system further comprising a printer and the at least one processor is further configured to control the printer to generate a hardcopy of the defibrillator information.
In a similar field of endeavor, Drew teaches a Cohen teaches a shared resource medical system comprising a defibrillator and also comprises a printer and at least one processor configured to control the printer to generate a hardcopy of the defibrillator information (e.g. Col. 3 lines 22-40, col. 12 lines 25-30, col. 13 lines 14-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Freeman to include a printer as taught by Drew in order to provide the predictable results of being able to provide the clinician with details regarding the patient’s condition for review and for their records.
Regarding claim 33, Freeman teaches the claimed invention as discussed above except for a wireless network adapter and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the wireless network adapter to send at least a portion of the defibrillator information to a remote location.
In a similar field of endeavor, Cohen teaches a shared resource medical system comprising a wireless network adapter, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the wireless network adapter to send at least a portion of the defibrillator information to a remote location (e.g. Col.12 lines 57-col 13 line 6, claim 16). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings Freeman to include a wireless network adapter that is controlled by the processor to send at least a portion of the defibrillator information to a remote location as taught by Cohen in order to provide the predictable results of being able to alert the clinician.
Regarding claims 38 and 45, Freeman teaches the claimed invention as discussed above except for the processor being configured to store at least a portion of the defibrillator information and the ultrasound image in the memory and store information comprising one or more of the defibrillator information or the ultrasound image in the memory; and enable data review based on the stored information.
In a similar field of endeavor, Cohen teaches a shared resource medical system comprising a processor being configured to store at least a portion of the defibrillator information and collected sensor data in memory and enable data review based on the stored information ( col. 3 lines 35-50, col. 4 lines 28-40, col. 12 lines 26-31, 53-55, col. 13 lines 14-27). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the defibrillator and ultrasound data collected in the teachings of Freeman to be logged as data for further review as taught by Cohen in order to provide the predictable results of being able to collect and store patient related data for further diagnostic analyses.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number: US 2012/0123223 A1, hereinafter “Freeman”- APPLICANT CITED) in view of Savage et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number: US 2010/00241181 A1, hereinafter “Savage”).
Regarding claim 34, Freeman teaches the claimed invention as discussed above and while they teach that the system comprises a defibrillator (e.g. clams 4, 5,[0061) they do not specifically teach the system further comprises defibrillation paddles.
In a similar field of endeavor, Savage teaches that it is well known to use paddles with handles instead of defibrillation pads to defibrillate the patient (e.g. [0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Freeman to have defibrillation paddles as taught by Savage in order to provide the predictable results of providing the ability to manipulate the electrodes and providing adequate safety for the rescuer.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number: US 2012/0123223 A1, hereinafter “Freeman”- APPLICANT CITED) in view of Simmons et al (U.S. Patent Number: US 5701904, hereinafter “Simmons”).
Regarding claim 44, Freeman teaches the claimed invention as discussed above except for the system further comprising an endoscope, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive endoscopy data from the endoscope; process the endoscopy data to generate an endoscopy image; and control the display screen to provide, in the user interface, the endoscopy image.
In a similar field of endeavor, Simmons teaches a shared resource medical system (e.g. Abstract, Fig.1) comprising an endoscope (i.e. rhino-laryngoscope e.g. col. 3 lines 54-57) and comprising a processor configured to: receive endoscopy data from the endoscope; process the endoscopy data to generate an endoscopy image; and control the display screen (i.e. video display e.g. 25 Fig.1) to provide, in the user interface, the endoscopy image (e.g. col. 4 lines 34-42). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system in the teachings Freeman to include an endoscope to collect and display image data on the monitor as taught by Simmons of in order to provide the predictable results of providing the clinician with additional tools to treat the patient.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number: US 2012/0123223 A1, hereinafter “Freeman”) in view of Elghazzawi (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0004814 A1, hereinafter “Elghazzawi”).
Regarding claim 44, Freeman teaches the claimed invention as discussed above except for the system further comprising a global positioning system device.
In a similar field of endeavor, Elghazzawi teaches a system (e.g. Fig. 2) comprising a defibrillator and that also comprises global positioning system tracking unit (e.g. [0065]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Freeman to include a GPS tracking unit as taught by Elghazzawi in order to provide the predictable results of being able to provide the emergency services unit the exact location of the patient for quicker response times.
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 26-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. US 10124185. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both dirceted to a shared resource medical system comprising: a portable defibrillator that includes a display screen, a memory, and at least one processor; at least one defibrillator sensor configured to be communicably coupled to the portable defibrillator; and an ultrasound transducer configured to be communicably coupled to the portable defibrillator; wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive first physiological data from the at least one defibrillator sensor, receive second physiological data from the ultrasound transducer, process the second physiological data to generate an ultrasound image, and control the display screen to provide, in a user interface, (a) the ultrasound image, and (b) defibrillator information that is derived from the first physiological data. The instant application is broader and overlaps the subject matter of US Patent US 10124185. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
Claims 26-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. US 11241583. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed to a shared resource medical system comprising: a portable defibrillator that includes a display screen, a memory, and at least one processor; at least one defibrillator sensor configured to be communicably coupled to the portable defibrillator; and an ultrasound transducer configured to be communicably coupled to the portable defibrillator; wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive first physiological data from the at least one defibrillator sensor, receive second physiological data from the ultrasound transducer, process the second physiological data to generate an ultrasound image, and control the display screen to provide, in a user interface, (a) the ultrasound image, and (b) defibrillator information that is derived from the first physiological data. The instant application is broader and overlaps the subject matter of US Patent US 11241583. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
Claims 26-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. US 10391326. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed to a shared resource medical system comprising: a portable defibrillator that includes a display screen, a memory, and at least one processor; at least one defibrillator sensor configured to be communicably coupled to the portable defibrillator; and an ultrasound transducer configured to be communicably coupled to the portable defibrillator; wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive first physiological data from the at least one defibrillator sensor, receive second physiological data from the ultrasound transducer, process the second physiological data to generate an ultrasound image, and control the display screen to provide, in a user interface, (a) the ultrasound image, and (b) defibrillator information that is derived from the first physiological data. The instant application is broader and overlaps the subject matter of US Patent US 10391326. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
Claims 26-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12194306. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed to a shared resource medical system comprising: a portable defibrillator that includes a display screen, a memory, and at least one processor; at least one defibrillator sensor configured to be communicably coupled to the portable defibrillator; and an ultrasound transducer configured to be communicably coupled to the portable defibrillator; wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive first physiological data from the at least one defibrillator sensor, receive second physiological data from the ultrasound transducer, process the second physiological data to generate an ultrasound image, and control the display screen to provide, in a user interface, (a) the ultrasound image, and (b) defibrillator information that is derived from the first physiological data. The instant application is broader and overlaps the subject matter of US Patent US 10124185. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maschke (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number: US 2007/0038256 A1, hereinafter “Maschke”) teaches a mobile defibrillator comprising an ultrasound device (e.g. Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALLIKA DIPAYAN FAIRCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-7043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8 am-5pm 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, BENJAMIN KLEIN can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/MALLIKA D FAIRCHILD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights