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 § 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.
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) 1, 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160121131 A1 to Delise et al. (hereinafter “Delise”) in view of US 5285779 to Cameron et al. (hereinafter “Cameron”).
Regarding [Claim 1] and [Claim 7] Delise discloses a method/defibrillator (abstract, para 0006-0008, 0014, etc.), comprising: a first battery (para 0006, 0007, 0008 “first battery”); a second battery (para 0006, 0007, 0008 “second battery” or “power source”); a capacitor that stores defibrillation energy (para 0006-0008 “capacitor”); and a controller that controls, whether to use the second battery for the charging of the capacitor (para 0006-0008, para 0024-0026 “determine the available capacity of each of the batteries 12 and 16 and may regulate access to battery terminals depending on the power requirements of the capacitors 22”, “control circuitry or module 30”, “based on the charging rate or stored energy in the batteries 12, 16, especially after a shock has been deployed, the controller 30 selects whether to [] recharge the capacitors directly from the battery 12, recharge the capacitors directly from the battery 16 []”).
Delise fails to explicitly disclose having a voltage analyzer that measures a voltage of the first battery during charging of the capacitor by using the first battery and based on the voltage measured by the voltage analyzer, whether to use the second battery for the charging of the capacitor
Cameron from a similar field of endeavor teaches the charging circuit monitors the output voltage levels of both the battery and the AC-to-DC converter and enables or disables the power supplies in accordance to their ability to charge the storage capacitor within a predetermined amount of time (abstract, Col. 5, ln 1-30). 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 Delise with the known teachings of Cameron to provide the predictable result of charging the capacitor based on the ability of the battery/power source.
Regarding [Claim 3] Delise as modified by Cameron renders obvious the defibrillator according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the measured voltage of the first battery is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold and control the charging of the capacitor such that the capacitor is charged by using the second battery in a case where the voltage of the first battery is less than the threshold (see rejection of claim 1; Delise, para 0024-0026; Cameron, abstract, Col. 5, ln 1-30).
Regarding [Claim 4] Delise as modified by Cameron renders obvious the defibrillator according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to control the charging of the capacitor such that the capacitor is charged by using the second battery in a case where steepness of a voltage drop in the measured voltage of the first battery is greater than a predetermined threshold (see rejection of claim 1; Delise, para 0024-0026; Cameron, abstract, Col. 5, ln 1-30).
Regarding [Claim 5] Delise as modified by Cameron renders obvious the defibrillator according to claim 1, wherein the first battery and the second battery are primary batteries (Delise, para 0026 “both batteries 12 and 16 to recharge the capacitors 22”).
Regarding [Claim 6] Delise as modified by Cameron renders obvious the defibrillator according to claim 1, wherein the first battery is a replaceable battery, and the second battery is a built-in battery (Delise, para 0029, “Battery 12 may include a single four cell high discharge rate batter” which is understood to be replaceable; and “AC or DC battery charger for power source 16” which is understood to be built-in, at least to some extent; it is further noted that making components integral or separable is a matter of obvious engineering choice, see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); and In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delise as modified by Cameron, and further in view of US 20210093877 to Beyer et al. (hereinafter “Beyer”).
Regarding [Claim 2] Delise as modified by Cameron renders obvious the defibrillator according to claim 1, further comprising, wherein: a voltage of the second battery is smaller than the voltage of the first battery, and the voltage of the second battery is applied to the capacitor (para 0007, 0022 “a high discharge rate battery 12 and a high capacity power source 16”, para 0031; it is understood that the batteries could be arbitrary marked as first and/or second) but fails to disclose having a voltage boost circuit
Beyer, from a similar field of endeavor teaches the power supply (typically, but not necessarily 5V) is used both to power the electronics carried on the defibrillator unit 110 and to charge the high voltage capacitor 209. Thus, voltage booster 207 is arranged to boost the voltage from 5V to the desired operational voltage of the discharge capacitor 209 (para 0048). 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 Delise as modified by Cameron with the teachings Beyer to provide the predictable result of charging the capacitor to the desired operational voltage.
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