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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority to foreign priority Application No. DE10/20191106311 filed on April 24, 2019.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on June 11, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claim 1, 9, 11, and 13 has been amended, claims 3 and 12 claims are still canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-20 presently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 9 of the remarks that the 112(b) rejections on the claims. Previously, examiner states that the claim has an indefinite issue. Applicant has amended that claim to advance prosecution. Applicant response is persuasive; the previous 112(b) rejections has been hereby withdrawn.
Applicant is arguing that the rejection does not read on the limitations the device configured for identifying an inhalation by the fact that a pressure required for maintaining the defined respiratory gas flow decreases over time and/or is configured for identifying an exhalation by the fact that a pressure required for maintaining the defined respiratory gas flow increases over time in claim 1. Examiner disagrees as the examiner is reading the limitation “configured for” language in claim 1 that the device is able to register a course of the parameter over time and also identify an inhalation by the fact that a pressure required for maintaining the defined respiratory gas flow decreases over time. However, Sharifi teaches wherein the control device (16) is configured for identifying an inhalation by the fact that a pressure required for maintaining the defined respiratory gas flow decreases over time (para. 0034). Sharifi is brought in that controller is able to register some type of profile depending on some inhalation. Ahmadi/Li are who are teaching that the pressure is parameter that is being considered. One would motivated to modify the control device of Modified Li to include identifying an inhalation by the fact that a pressure required for maintaining the defined respiratory gas flow decreases over time as taught by Sharifi for the purpose of the ventilator being able to apply pressure at a pressure setting to support the patient's spontaneous inhalation effort (para. 0034).
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the remarks that, because the Appeal Board reversed the rejection of claim 3, the pending claims should be now allowable as the claim limitation was brought into the independent claim. The Examiner acknowledges the Board’s decision revering the previous rejection. However, the Board’s reversal does not preclude the Examiner from making a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on a different rationale or a different combination of prior art, where appropriate. The present rejection under 103 is based on a new analysis/different finding than those considerate by the Board. The Examiner maintains the previously cited prior art, as set forth in this current Office Action.
In response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to dependent claim(s) have been considered but are moot as explained above.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 the limitation “counterbalance breathing activity of patient” in line 8. The instant specification defines the counterbalancing as when the control device captures the pressure which must be applied by the ventilation device for maintain the defined respiratory gas flow (Page 25). Examiner is interpreting “counterbalance breathing activity of patient” as adjusting the pressure supplied by the ventilation device to the patient to maintain the respiratory gas flow.
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 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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Ahmadi (CN 102361661 A) in view of Sharifi et al. (US 20180289911 A1), hereafter as Sharifi.
Regarding Claim 1, Ahmadi discloses a system (single respirator 100; Picture 1; para. 0012) for supplying respiratory gas (para. 0012), wherein the system comprises (i) at least one ventilation device ( blower 162; Picture 1; para. 0013) comprising at least one respiratory gas source (air passage 120; oxygen passage 140; Picture 1; para. 0014-0015) for generating a respiratory gas stream and (ii) at least one control device (controller 180; Picture 1; para. 0015-0020 ) which is configured for generating at least one defined respiratory gas flow for ventilation by the ventilation device and monitoring at least one parameter characteristic of a pressure (para. 0015-0016) by at least one sensor device (sensor 126 and 146; Picture 1; para. 0016), the at least one parameter characterizing that pressure at which the ventilation device admits the respiratory gas stream for maintaining the defined respiratory gas flow in order to counterbalance breathing activity of a patient (para. 0017-0020), and the control device registering a course of the parameter over time (Fig 2; para. 0026-0027) examiner notes that the parameters are looked at over time 5-15 seconds) as a pressure profile, wherein the control device (controller 180; Picture 1; para. 0015-0020) is configured for setting an admixing of oxygen into the respiratory gas stream depending on the pressure profile (para. 0017-0029).
Ahmadi does not specifically disclose wherein the control device is configured for identifying an inhalation by the fact that a pressure required for maintaining the defined respiratory gas flow decreases over time.
However, Sharifi teaches wherein the control device (16) is configured for identifying an inhalation by the fact that a pressure required for maintaining the defined respiratory gas flow decreases over time (para. 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control device of Ahmadi to include identifying an inhalation by the fact that a pressure required for maintaining the defined respiratory gas flow decreases over time as taught by Sharifi for the purpose of the ventilator being able to apply pressure at a PSV pressure setting to support the patient's spontaneous inhalation effort. This pressure may be provided in accord with a prescribed or default pressure support-over-time profile (para. 0034).
Regarding Claim 9, Modified Ahmadi discloses the system of claim 1, wherein at least (a) applies (para. 0017-0029).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 11, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Li (US 20060065270 A1) in view of Schwaibold et al. (US 20190160242 A1), hereafter as Schwaibold, Sharifi et al. (US 20180289911 A1), hereafter as Sharifi, and White (US 20030154977 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Li discloses a system (system 50; Figure 5; Paragraph 51) for supplying respiratory gas (Paragraph 10), wherein the system comprises at least one ventilation device ( blower/motor unit 80; Figure 5; Paragraph 51) comprising at least one respiratory gas source for generating a respiratory gas stream (ventilation flow 82; Figure 5; Paragraph 29 and 51) and (ii) at least one control device (non-linear feedforward controller 64; Figure 5; Paragraph 51) which is configured for generating at least one defined respiratory gas flow for ventilation by the ventilation device (Paragraph 51) and monitoring at least one parameter (para. 16, 18, 30-31) characteristic of a pressure by at least one sensor device (pressure sensor 68; Figure 5; Paragraph 51), the at least one parameter characterizing that pressure at which the ventilation device admits the respiratory gas stream (ventilation flow 82; Figure 5; Paragraph 51) for maintaining the defined respiratory gas flow in order to counterbalance breathing activity of a patient (flow 57; Figure 5; Paragraph 51),
Li does not disclose the control device registering a course of the parameter over time as a pressure profile.
However, Schwaibold teaches the control device (control unit 3; Fig. 1; para. 0026, 0031-0036, 0043, 0053, 0055-0056, 0058, 0065-0069) registering a course of the parameter over time as a pressure profile (Fig. 3; para. 0036, 0048, 0058, 0077-0080).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of Li to include the control device registering a course of the parameter over time as a pressure profile as taught by Schwaibold for the purpose determining the current pressure and determining the respiratory phase of the patient (para. 0079). Also, to give a visual representation of what is going on in the device and the parameter over time.
Modified Li does not specifically disclose does not specifically disclose wherein the control device is configured for identifying an inhalation by the fact that a pressure required for maintaining the defined respiratory gas flow decreases over time.
However, Sharifi teaches wherein the control device (16) is configured for identifying an inhalation by the fact that a pressure required for maintaining the defined respiratory gas flow decreases over time (para. 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control device of Modified Li to include identifying an inhalation by the fact that a pressure required for maintaining the defined respiratory gas flow decreases over time as taught by Sharifi for the purpose of the ventilator being able to apply pressure at a PSV pressure setting to support the patient's spontaneous inhalation effort. This pressure may be provided in accord with a prescribed or default pressure support-over-time profile (para. 0034).
Modified Li does not disclose wherein the system further comprises at least one humidification device for humidification of the respiratory gas stream and/or at last one heating device for heating of the respiratory gas stream.
However, White teaches wherein the system further comprises at least one humidification device (humidifier 10; Figure 1; Paragraph 0038) for humidification of the respiratory gas stream (Paragraph 10-11) and/or at last one heating device (heating plate 9, heating element 15; Figure 1; Paragraph 38, 41, 0044-0045) for heating of the respiratory gas stream (Paragraph 0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Modified Li to include the system further comprises at least one humidification device (humidifier 10; Figure 1; Paragraph 0038) for humidification of the respiratory gas stream (Paragraph 0038-0039) and/or at last one heating device (heating element 15; Figure 1; Paragraph 0038,44,45) for heating of the respiratory gas stream (Paragraph 0038) as taught by White for the purpose of avoiding condensation (Paragraph 0002).
White further teaches for setting a humidification and/or heating of the respiratory gas stream (Paragraph 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system and pressure profile of Modified Li to include setting a humidification and/or heating of the respiratory gas stream (Paragraph 0039) as taught by White for the purpose reduce condensation within the inspiratory conduit and to raise the temperature of the gases provided to the patient (Paragraph 0039).
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Li discloses the system (system 50; Figure 5; Paragraph 51; Li) of claim 1, wherein the control (control unit 3; Fig. 1; para. 0026, 0031-0036, 0043, 0053, 0055-0056, 0058, 0065-0069; Schwaibold) further is configured for determining at least one characteristic variable that is characteristic of the breathing activity of the patient based on the pressure profile (Fig. 3; para. 0036, 0048, 0058, 0077-0080; Schwaibold).
Regarding Claim 4, Modified Li discloses the system (system 50; Figure 5; Paragraph 51; Li) of claim 1, wherein the control device (control unit 3; Fig. 1; para. 0026, 0031-0036, 0043, 0053, 0055-0056, 0058, 0065-0069; Schwaibold) further is configured for determining at least one breathing event on the basis of the pressure profile (event 45; Fig.3; para. 0080-0081; Schwaibold).
Regarding Claim 6, Modified Li discloses the system (system 50; Figure 5; Paragraph 51; Li) of claim 1, wherein the control device (non-linear feedforward controller 64; Figure 5; Paragraph 51; Li) further is configured for setting at least one instrument parameter of the ventilation device depending on the pressure profile (target flow rate signal 52; Figure 5, Figure 7- 8B; Paragraph 51; Li).
Regarding Claim 7, Modified Li discloses the system (system 50; Figure 5; Paragraph 51; Li) of claim 6, wherein the instrument parameter and/or ventilation parameter is set depending on an identified breathing pattern and/or breathing event (Claim 1; lines 6-9 Paragraph 14 and 15; Li).
Regarding Claim 11, Modified Li discloses the system of claim 1, wherein at least (b) applies (humidifier 10; Figure 1; Paragraph 0038; heating plate 9, heating element 15; Figure 1; Paragraph 38, 41, 0044-0045; White).
Regarding Claim 16, Modified Li discloses the system (system 50; Figure 5; Paragraph 51; Li) of claim 15, and the hose device (Claim 9) (back pressure 90 ; Figure 5; Paragraph 51; Li)
Modified Li does not disclose that the hose device comprises at least one heatable ventilation hose which comprises at least one part of a sensor unit for capturing at least one variable characteristic of humidity and/or temperature and/or comprises at least one ventilation hose which is gradually heatable over its length and/or comprises at least one heatable ventilation hose comprising at least one heater separable from the ventilation hose, the heater being equippable and further usable as intended with a new comprises at least one ventilation hose which is gradually heatable over its length.
However, White teaches wherein the hose device ( inspiratory conduit 14; Figure 1; Paragraph 0038) further comprises at least one heatable ventilation hose which comprises at least one part of a sensor unit (sensor 30; Figure 1; Paragraph 0045) or capturing at least one variable characteristic of humidity (Paragraph 0042, 0044, 0045) and/or temperature (Paragraphs 0045) and/ or comprises at least one ventilation hose which is gradually heatable over its length (Paragraph 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system and hose device of Modified Li to comprises at least one heatable ventilation hose which comprises at least one part of a sensor unit (sensor 30; Figure 1; Paragraph 0045) or capturing at least one variable characteristic of humidity (Paragraph 0042, 0044, 0045) and/or temperature (Paragraphs 0045) and/ or comprises at least one ventilation hose which is gradually heatable over its length (Paragraph 0047) as taught by White for the purpose of preventing unsafe conduit temperatures and eventual conduit melt a heating element current safety limit can be determined (Paragraph 0049).
Regarding Claim 17, Modified Li discloses the system (system 50; Figure 5; Paragraph 51; Li) of claim 1, wherein the control device (non-linear feedforward controller 64; Figure 5; Paragraph 51; Li) is configured for administering a defined respiratory volume (Paragraph 15; Li) within a specified inspiration time by the ventilation device through the defined respiratory gas flow (Claim 17; Li).
Regarding Claim 18, Modified Li discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the defined respiratory gas flow has a flow rate within a range of 0-110 1/min (Figure 7-8B; Examiner notes all the graphs show a range of L/min all lower than 110; Li).
Regarding claim 20, Modified Li discloses a method of providing a patient with respiratory gas (blower outlet 88; Figure 5; Paragraph 51; Li) , wherein the method comprises connecting the patient to the system (system 50; Figure 5; Paragraph 51; Li) of claim 1 (Figure 5; Li).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Schwaibold, Sharifi, and White, as applied to claim 1, in view of Aslam (US 20150059739 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Li discloses the system (system 50; Figure 5; Paragraph 51; Li) of claim 1, wherein the control device (control unit 3; Fig. 1; para. 0026, 0031-0036, 0043, 0053, 0055-0056, 0058, 0065-0069; Schwaibold) is configured for transmitting the pressure profile (Fig. 3; para. 0048, 0077-0080; Schwaibold).
Modified Li does not disclose that control device is configured for the pressure profile to a network device.
However, Aslam teaches that control device is configured for transmitting the pressure profile to a network device (electronic device 13; Figure 5; Paragraph 0046-0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Modified Li to include the system further comprises is configured for transmitting the pressure profile to a network device (electronic device 13; Figure 5; Paragraph 0046-0047) as taught by Aslam for the purpose of receive/transmit patient details/progress (Paragraph 0046).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li Schwaibold, Sharifi, and White, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Nelson et al. (US 20200188624 A1), hereafter as Nelson.
Regarding Claim 8, Modified Li discloses the system (system 50; Figure 5; Paragraph 51) of claim 1, wherein the control device (control unit 3; Fig. 1; para. 0026, 0031-0036, 0043, 0053, 0055-0056, 0058, 0065-0069; Schwaibold).
Modified Li does not specifically disclose the controller further is configured for setting at least one flow rate of the respiratory gas flow depending on a saturation of the respiratory gas flow with oxygen by the ventilation device.
However, Nelson teaches controller (controller 240 or 540; Fig. 2 or 5; para. 0082) further is configured for setting at least one flow rate of the respiratory gas flow depending on a saturation of the respiratory gas flow with oxygen by the ventilation device (para. 0083-0084).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of Modified Li to be configured for setting at least one flow rate of the respiratory gas flow depending on a saturation of the respiratory gas flow with oxygen by the ventilation device (para. 0083-0084) as taught by Nelson for the purpose a correction or compensation may be used to account for variations in the oxygen concentration, thereby increasing an accuracy of the concentration of oxygen delivered to the patient (para. 0084).
Regarding Claim 10, Modified Li discloses the system (system 50; Figure 5; Paragraph 51) of claim 8,
The modified Li does not specifically disclose wherein an oxygen in the respiratory gas flow is decreased when a flow rate of the respiratory gas flow is increased.
However, Nelson teaches wherein an oxygen content in the respiratory gas flow is decreased when a flow rate of the respiratory gas flow is increased (para. 0083-0084).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Modified Li to wherein an oxygen content in the respiratory gas flow is decreased when a flow rate of the respiratory gas flow is increased (para. 0084) as taught by Nelson for the purpose of compensating for the decreased oxygen content of the gas to deliver accurate concentration of oxygen to the patient (para. 0084).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Schwaibold, Sharifi, and White, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Richardson (US 5752506 A).
Regarding Claim 13, Modified Li discloses a system of claim 1,
However, Modified Li does not disclose the heating device being configured for heating the respiratory gas stream at least during inspiration to 36-38°C and the humidification device being configured for humidifying the respiratory gas stream with a relative humidity within a range of 90-100%.
Richardson teaches that the heating device being configured for heating the respiratory gas stream during inspiration to 37°C and the humidification device being configured for humidifying the respiratory gas stream with a relative humidity within a range of 90-100% (Paragraph 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system and hose device of Modified Li the heating device being configured for heating the respiratory gas stream during inspiration to 37°C and the humidification device being configured for humidifying the respiratory gas stream with a relative humidity within a range of 90-100% (Paragraph 6) as taught by Richardson for the purpose of desired humidity and temperature comfortable for the patient (Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 14, Modified discloses the system of claim 13, Modified Li does not disclose wherein the control device is configured for setting the humidification and/or heating depending on at least one sensor-captured variable.
White further discloses wherein the control device (control 11; Figure 1; Paragraph 0038 and 0041) is configured for setting the humidification and/or heating (heating element 15; Figure 1; Paragraph 0042, 0044) depending on at least one sensor-captured (sensor 30; Figure 1; Paragraph 0045) variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system and pressure profile of Li to include control device (control 11; Figure 1; Paragraph 0038 and 0041) is configured for setting the humidification and/or heating (heating element 15; Figure 1; Paragraph 0042, 0044) depending on at least one sensor-captured (sensor 30; Figure 1; Paragraph 0045) variable as taught by White for the purpose reduce condensation within the inspiratory conduit and to raise the temperature of the gases provided to the patient (Paragraph 0039).
Claim(s) 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwaibold, Sharifi, and White, as applied to claim 1, in view of Hill (US 20010035186 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Modified Li discloses the system (system 50; Figure 5; Paragraph 51) of claim 1, wherein the system further comprises at least one hose device (back pressure 90 ; Figure 5; Paragraph 51) comprising at least one ventilation hose (Paragraph 10) couplable to the ventilation device (motor unit 80; Figure 5; Paragraph 51) having a respiratory gas stream (ventilation flow 82; Figure 5; Paragraph 51).
Modified Li does not disclose that the system comprises the hose device that supplies gas stream to a patient interface.
Hill teaches that the system (system 30; Figure 1; Paragraph 31) has the hose device that supplies gas stream to a patient interface (patient interface 42; Figure 1; Paragraph 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system and hose device of Modified Li wherein the has the hose device that supplies gas stream to a patient interface (patient interface 42; Figure 1; Paragraph 36) as taught by Hill for the purpose communicating a supply of breathing gas to the airway of a patient (Paragraph 36).
Regarding Claim 19, Modified Li discloses the system (system 50; Figure 5; Paragraph 51) of claim 1,
Modified Li does not disclose that the system configured for being operated with a nasal cannula or a respiratory mask as that patient interface.
Hill teaches that the system (system 30; Figure 1; Paragraph 31) is configured for being operated with a nasal cannula or a respiratory mask (Paragraph 36; Examiner notes: Hill disclose that the patient interface could be invasive or non-invasive and the examples included a nasal cannula or “nasal” mask which can be interpreted as a respiratory mask) as that patient interface (patient interface 42; Figure 1; Paragraph 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system and hose device of Modified Li, wherein the has the system is configured for being operated with a nasal cannula or a respiratory mask (Paragraph 36) as that patient interface (patient interface 42; Figure 1; Paragraph 36) as taught by Hill for the purpose communicating a supply of breathing gas to the airway of a patient (Paragraph 36).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MAAP A ELLABIB whose telephone number is (571)272-5879. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, KENDRA CARTER can be reached on (571) 272-9034. 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.
/MAAP AHMED ELLABIB/Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights