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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 10-14, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halsne (US 20080097533 A1; 4/24/2008) in view of Krause (US 20220346725 A1; 1/3/2022), and further in view of Keen (US 20190365333 A1; 12/5/2019).
Regarding claim 1, Halsne teaches a medical system comprising:
a Medical Device (MD) comprising at least one medical device speaker (Fig. 2-4; [0001]) wherein the MD is configured to provide therapy to a patient upon detection of a cardiac condition of the patient based on patient data ([0002] “defibrillator/monitor combinations”).
Halsne does not teach Wearable Medical Device (WMD) wherein the WMD is configured to provide therapy to a patient upon detection of a cardiac condition of the patient based on patient data. However, Krause teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 5) Wearable Medical Device (WMD) wherein the WMD is configured to provide therapy to a patient upon detection of a cardiac condition of the patient based on patient data (Fig. 5; [0007]-[0009]; [0023] “may be implemented in systems including any one or more implantable or external medical devices, including monitors, pacemakers, defibrillators, wearable external defibrillators”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Halsne to include these features as taught by Krause because a wearable defibrillator can be substituted for an external defibrillator ([0023]).
In the combination of Halsne and Krause, Halsne teaches a mobile device comprising at least one mobile device speaker (Fig. 5, 520; [0020]), wherein the mobile device is in communication with the WMD ([0020]).
The combination of Halsne and Krause does not teach mobile device comprising at least one processor. However, Keen teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 3) mobile device comprising at least one processor (Fig. 3). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Halsne and Krause to include this feature as taught by Keen because this is an obvious rearrangement of parts to have processor be part of mobile device (Fig. 3).
In the combination of Halsne, Krause, and Keen, Halsne teaches
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receive an indication of an audible to be output by the at least one medical device speaker of the WMD in a first language ([0019]; [0021]; [0027]); and
cause the at least one mobile device speaker to output the audible in a second language ([0019]; [0021]; [0027]).
In the combination of Halsne, Krause, and Keen, Halsne does not teach audible alert. However, Krause teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 5; [0083]; [0086]-[0087]; [0090]) that audible alert can be “message may be communicated to a user or device 2 to trigger a specific treatment (for example, instruct the patient or bystander 42 to utilize an AED” ([0088]; see also [0083]; [0086]-[0087]; [0090]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Halsne, Krause, and Keen to include this feature as taught by Krause because this is a suitable way to instruct and start using defibrillator ([0088]).
Claim 10 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 1 above.
Claim 19 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, in the combination of Halsne, Krause, and Keen, Halsne teaches wherein the indication is the audible alert in the first language output by the at least one medical device speaker (Fig. 4; [0007]; [0018]-[0019]).
Claim 11 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, in the combination of Halsne, Krause, and Keen, Halsne does not teach wherein the indication is a pre-alert signal. However, Keen teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 3) wherein the indication is a pre-alert signal ([0043]; [0045]; [0046]; [0053]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Halsne, Krause, and Keen to include this feature as taught by Keen because this enables broadcasting relevant info to potential assistants to locate victim ([0047]; [0048]-[0049]).
Claim 12 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 4, in the combination of Halsne, Krause, and Keen, Keen teaches wherein the pre-alert signal is output by the at least one medical device speaker, and wherein the pre-alert signal has a frequency and/or amplitude that is inaudible to humans (Fig. 3; [0043]; [0045]-[0046]; [0047] “Ultrasound communication may be a sound with frequency greater than 20 kHz and may be inaudible to the human ear”; [0048]-[0049] “listen for ultrasound communications”; [0053]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Halsne, Krause, and Keen to include this feature as taught by Keen because this enables broadcasting relevant info to potential assistants to locate victim ([0047]; [0048]-[0049]).
Claim 13 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 5, in the combination of Halsne, Krause, and Keen, Keen teaches wherein the pre-alert signal is an electronic communication transmitted by the WMD to the at least one processor of the mobile device. Fig. 3; [0043]; [0045]-[0046]; [0047] “Ultrasound communication may be a sound with frequency greater than 20 kHz and may be inaudible to the human ear”; [0048]-[0049] “listen for ultrasound communications”; [0053]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Halsne, Krause, and Keen to include this feature as taught by Keen because this enables broadcasting relevant info to potential assistants to locate victim ([0047]; [0048]-[0049]).
Claim 14 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 8, in the combination of Halsne, Krause, and Keen, Krause teaches wherein the audible alert comprises an alert associated with WMD conditions and/or associated with patient data ([0088] “message may be communicated to a user or device 2 to trigger a specific treatment (for example, instruct the patient or bystander 42 to utilize an AED”; see also [0083]; [0086]-[0087]; [0090]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Halsne, Krause, and Keen to include this feature as taught by Krause because this is a suitable way to instruct and start using defibrillator ([0088]).
Claim 17 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 18, in the combination of Halsne, Krause, and Keen, Halsne teaches wherein the second language is selected by the patient ([0017] “user input…to select the desired languages”) and/or based on a language setting of the mobile device.
Regarding claim 20, in the combination of Halsne, Krause, and Keen, Halsne teaches wherein the indication is a pre- alert signal or the audible alert output by the at least one medical device speaker of the WMD (Fig. 4; [0007]; [0018]-[0019]). Halsne does not teach wherein the indication is a pre-alert signal. However, Keen teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 3) wherein the indication is a pre-alert signal ([0043]; [0045]; [0046]; [0053]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Halsne, Krause, and Keen to include this feature as taught by Keen because this enables broadcasting relevant info to potential assistants to locate victim ([0047]; [0048]-[0049]).
Claim(s) 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halsne, Krause, and Keen as applied to claim(s) 1, 10 above, and further in view of Hankins (US 20130012151 A1; 1/10/2013).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Halsne, Krause, and Keen does not teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to display a visual alert in the second language corresponding to the audible alert on a display of the mobile device. However, Krause teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 5) wherein the at least one processor is further configured to display a visual alert corresponding to the audible alert on a display of the mobile device (Fig. 3; [0051]; [0088]-[0091] “visual alarm”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Halsne to include these features as taught by Krause because this enables having visual alert on mobile device of nearby user as additional communications (Fig. 3; [0051]; [0088]-[0091] “visual alarm”).
The combination of Halsne, Krause, and Keen does not teach in the second language. However, Hankins teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 2) in the second language ([0056] “changing the prompts on the screen to a foreign language) as necessary.”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Halsne, Krause, and Keen to display in second language as taught by Hankins because this can enhance communications with user ([0056]).
Claim 16 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 7 above.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halsne, Krause, and Keen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matos (US 20070299473 A1; 12/27/2007).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Halsne, Krause, and Keen does not teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to detect a language of a bystander, and cause the at least one mobile device speaker to output the audible alert in the detected language. However, Matos teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 4A) wherein the at least one processor is further configured to detect a language of a bystander, and cause the at least one mobile device speaker to output the audible alert in the detected language ([0105]; [0689] “foreign language recognition program (FoLanRec) to deal with a foreign language speaking enabler,”; [1289] In the event of a non-English speaking Enabler…Use foreign language voice prompts”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Halsne, Krause, and Keen to include these features as taught by Matos because this enables communication with foreign language speaker for device use ([0105]; [0689] “foreign language recognition program (FoLanRec) to deal with a foreign language speaking enabler,”; [1289] In the event of a non-English speaking Enabler…Use foreign language voice prompts”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6, 15 is/are 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.
The prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of claim 6 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, send a suppression communication to the WMD, in response to receiving the pre-alert signal, and wherein the suppression communication is operable to override the audible alert in the first language with the audible alert in the second language.
The prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of claim 15 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, in response to receiving the pre-alert signal, transmitting, via the mobile device, a suppression signal to the WMD; and overriding output of the audible alert in the first language with the second language.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan T Kuo whose telephone number is (408)918-7534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. PT.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/JONATHAN T KUO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
