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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 1/13/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 10 and 12 have been amended. Claims 1-17 are pending in the instant application, wherein claims 16 and 17 remain withdrawn in response to restriction.
Applicant has amended claim 12 to address a minor informality; the objection to the claims is withdrawn.
Drawings
Figure 8A should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as it was applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 13 should read “the ambient gas” because it is understood to be referring to that of line 5
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-8, 10, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 6 and 14 (and thus their dependent claims 7, 8 and 15), it is unclear whether “a breathing cavity” in the dependent claims is the same or different from the breathing cavity now recited in the independent claims. As best understood, they are the same, but it is then unclear whether “or mask” (from the independent claims) should also be included in the dependent claims, particularly with regards to claims 8 and 11 as discussed below.
Regarding claims 8 and 11, the independent claims have been amended to recite “a breathing cavity or mask,” which renders it unclear if claims 8 and 11 are reciting a different mask, or are intended to exclude the breathing cavity in lieu of the alternatively claimed mask, or if the independent claims should just recite a breathing cavity, i.e. remove “or mask” from the independent claims 1 and 10 [see e.g. the suggestion below], with the dependent claims stipulating that the breathing cavity is a mask.
Regarding claim 10 (and thus its dependent claim 11), line 9 recites “a breathing cavity,” but lines 14-15 have been amended to recite “a breathing cavity or mask,” wherein it is unclear in the claim if the two breathing cavities are the same or different, particularly since one is presented in alternative with “mask.” For purposes of examination, the breathing cavities will be considered the same and required by the claim, i.e. claim 10 will be read as if lines 14-15 recite “the breathing cavity
Claim Interpretation
An “absolute pressure sensor” in claim 9 is understood in view of para [0042] of the instant specification to be a pressure sensor that detects the altitude of a breathing regulator.
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 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 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale (US 4,648,397; hereinafter “Beale”) in view of Fromage (US 2013/0306073 A1; hereinafter “Fromage”).
Regarding claim 1, Beale discloses a breathing regulator (Fig. 1), comprising:
a source gas (within oxygen supply 74);
a second stage regulator (oxygen valve 60) in fluid communication with the source gas (Fig. 1; abstract);
a dilution valve (air valve 76) in fluid communication with gas (from air supply 76), wherein the dilution valve comprises a size-variable restriction (col. 4, lines 28-58; where the opening area (A11) of the air valve is variable, inferring a size-variable restriction) [and see also Fromage (dilution valve 24 in Fig. 1, para [0046]) regarding well-known dilution valve/size-variable restriction structure];
a controller (controller 50) in electrical communication with the dilution valve, the second stage regulator, and a plurality of sensors (comprising pressure transducers 66, 78, 80), wherein the controller is configured to:
determine a mass flow of the source gas (MO2, col. 3, line 32-col. 5, line 3)
determine a mass flow of the gas (Mair, col. 3, line 32-col. 5, line 3); and
vary the size-variable restriction of the dilution valve ([the setting/adjustment of] corresponding area of the openings of oxygen valve 60 and air valve 62 for a particular valve displacement command, col. 4, lines 46-58) based on a pressure in a breathing cavity or mask (mask suction pressure P1) (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 59-62) (signal PC is compared with the demand signal, P1…resultant pressure error, ΔPE, is then biased between the two gas valves 60,62 and serves as a valve [displacement] command, col. 3, lines 37-40) and the mass flow of the pressurized source gas and/or the mass flow of the ambient gas ([t]he valve [displacement] command bias is derived as shown in the following analysis…the ratio of the mass of each gas, col. 3, line 64-col. 4, line 58) to provide a stable mixture of the ambient gas and the pressurized source gas (FIO2) to a user throughout a duration of an entire breath (col. 3-4; i.e. for every breath taken while the aircraft maintains a given altitude).
Beale is silent regarding a first stage regulator in fluid communication with the source gas and the second stage regulator, that the source gas is pressurized (although Beale does monitor the pressure of the source gas, see col. 4, line 67-col. 5, line 2, inferring that its pressure is variable and thus it is pressurizable), that the air supply is ambient gas, and a mixing chamber in fluid communication with the second stage regulator and the dilution valve. However, these were well-known components of aircraft breathing regulators before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as demonstrated by Fromage, who teaches a first stage regulator (pressure regulator 98) (Fig. 1) in fluid communication with a source gas (within source of breathable gas 8) and a second stage regulator (main valve 60), that the source gas is pressurized (pressurized source of breathable gas, para [0035]), that the dilution air supply (through dilution gas supply line 14, 15) is ambient gas (Fig. 1; dilution gas is air and the source of dilution gas is the cabin 10 of the aircraft, para [0038]), and a mixing chamber (Fig. 1; the breathable gas and the dilution gas are mixed in the respiratory gas supply line 16, para [0038]) in fluid communication with the second stage regulator (main valve 60) and the dilution valve (dilution valve 24) (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beale to include a first stage regulator in fluid communication with the source gas and the second stage regulator, that the source gas is pressurized, that the air supply is ambient gas, and a mixing chamber in fluid communication with the second stage regulator and the dilution valve as taught by Fromage, in order to utilize common components according to their typical uses to predictably provide a mask-mounted breathing regulator that utilizes a typical pressurized oxygen source with typical up-stream step-down pressure regulator, easily sourced air/dilution gas via readily-available cabin air, and provides for mixing the air and oxygen upstream of the mask cavity in order to predictably deliver a homogenous gas mixture at the desired FiO2 to the user (Fromage paras [0001-4]).
Regarding claim 3, Beale in view of Fromage teaches the breathing regulator of claim 1, wherein Beale further discloses wherein the mass flow of the pressurized source gas is determined based at least in part on a setting (the opening area A12 of valve 60) of the second stage regulator ([t]he mass flow of each gas is proportional to the valve opening area and the supply pressure, col. 4, lines 1-58).
Regarding claim 9, Beale in view of Fromage teaches the breathing regulator of claim 1, further comprising an absolute pressure sensor (cabin altitude sensor 68) configured to provide an absolute pressure signal to the controller (col. 2, lines 62-66). Additionally or alternatively, Fromage educates modified Beale to include an absolute pressure sensor (aircraft pressure sensor 42) configured to provide an absolute pressure signal to the controller (Fig. 1; para [0047]), in order to provide the predictable result of providing the controller with sufficient and/or robust information for accurately controlling the breathing regulator (Beale col. 3-4; Fromage paras [0047-48] and [0068]).
Regarding claim 10, Beale discloses a breathing regulator control system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a source gas (within oxygen supply 74);
a second stage regulator (oxygen valve 60) in fluid communication with the source gas (Fig. 1; abstract);
a dilution valve (air valve 76) in fluid communication with gas (from air supply 76), wherein the dilution valve comprises a size-variable restriction (col. 4, lines 28-58; where the opening area (A11) of the air valve is variable, inferring a size-variable restriction) [and see also Fromage (dilution valve 24 in Fig. 1, para [0046]) regarding well-known dilution valve/size-variable restriction structure];
a breathing cavity (inherent within mask 64) (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 56-62) [see also Fromage Fig. 1 regarding common aircraft mask structure];
a controller (controller 50) in electrical communication with the dilution valve, the second stage regulator, and a plurality of sensors (comprising pressure transducers 66, 78, 80), wherein the controller is configured to:
determine a mass flow of the source gas (MO2, col. 3, line 32-col. 5, line 3);
determine a mass flow of the gas (Mair, col. 3, line 32-col. 5, line 3); and
vary the size-variable restriction of the dilution valve ([the setting/adjustment of] corresponding area of the openings of oxygen valve 60 and air valve 62 for a particular valve displacement command, col. 4, lines 46-58) based on a pressure in a breathing cavity or mask (mask suction pressure P1) (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 59-62) (signal PC is compared with the demand signal, P1…resultant pressure error, ΔPE, is then biased between the two gas valves 60,62 and serves as a valve [displacement] command, col. 3, lines 37-40) and the mass flow of the pressurized source gas and/or the mass flow of the ambient gas ([t]he valve [displacement] command bias is derived as shown in the following analysis…the ratio of the mass of each gas, col. 3, line 64-col. 4, line 58) to provide a stable mixture of the ambient gas and the pressurized source gas (FIO2) to a user throughout a duration of an entire breath (col. 3-4; i.e. for every breath taken while the aircraft maintains a given altitude).
Beale is silent regarding a first stage regulator in fluid communication with the source gas and the second stage regulator, that the source gas is pressurized (although Beale does monitor the pressure of the source gas, see col. 4, line 67-col. 5, line 2, inferring that its pressure is variable and thus it is pressurizable), that the air supply is ambient gas, and a mixing chamber in fluid communication with the second stage regulator and the dilution valve and the breathing cavity. However, these were well-known components of aircraft breathing regulators before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as demonstrated by Fromage, who teaches a first stage regulator (pressure regulator 98) (Fig. 1) in fluid communication with a source gas (source of breathable gas 8) and a second stage regulator (main valve 60), that the source gas is pressurized (pressurized source of breathable gas, para [0035]), that the dilution air supply (through dilution gas supply line 14, 15) is ambient gas (Fig. 1; dilution gas is air and the source of dilution gas is the cabin 10 of the aircraft, para [0038]), and a mixing chamber (Fig. 1; the breathable gas and the dilution gas are mixed in the respiratory gas supply line 16, para [0038]) in fluid communication with the second stage regulator (main valve 60) and the dilution valve (dilution valve 24) and the breathing cavity (respiratory chamber 9) (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beale to include a first stage regulator in fluid communication with the source gas and the second stage regulator, that the source gas is pressurized, that the air supply is ambient gas, and a mixing chamber in fluid communication with the second stage regulator and the dilution valve and the breathing cavity as taught by Fromage, in order to utilize common components according to their typical uses to predictably provide a mask-mounted breathing regulator that utilizes a typical pressurized oxygen source with typical step-down pressure regulator, easily sourced air/dilution gas from readily-available cabin air, and provides for mixing the air and oxygen upstream of the mask cavity in order to predictably deliver a homogenous gas mixture at the desired FiO2 to the user (Fromage paras [0001-4]).
Regarding claim 11, Beale in view of Fromage teaches the breathing regulator control system of claim 10, wherein Beale further discloses wherein the breathing cavity is a mask (mask 64) (Beale Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 56-62).
Regarding claim 12, Beale discloses a method for providing a stable mixture of air and oxygen (FIO2) to a user throughout an entire breath (col. 3-4; i.e. for every breath taken while the aircraft maintains a given altitude), comprising:
providing a second stage regulator (oxygen valve 60) with a source gas (oxygen from oxygen supply 74) (Fig. 1; abstract);
providing, via the second stage regulator, a chamber (inherent in mask 64) with the source gas (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 56-59);
providing, via a dilution valve (air valve 76), the chamber with gas (from air supply 76), wherein the dilution valve comprises a size-variable restriction (col. 4, lines 28-58; where the opening area (A11) of the air valve is variable, inferring a size-variable restriction) [and see also Fromage (dilution valve 24 in Fig. 1, para [0046]) regarding well-known dilution valve/size-variable restriction structure];
determining, via a controller (controller 50) in electrical communication with the dilution valve, the second stage regulator, and a plurality of sensors (comprising pressure transducers 66, 78, 80), a mass flow of the pressurized source gas (MO2, col. 3, line 32-col. 5, line 3);
determining, via the controller, a mass flow of ambient gas (Mair, col. 3, line 32-col. 5, line 3);
varying, via the controller, the size-variable restriction of the dilution valve ([the setting/adjustment of] corresponding area of the openings of oxygen valve 60 and air valve 62 for a particular valve displacement command, col. 4, lines 46-58 in view of col. 2, line 56-col. 3, line 40) based on a pressure in a breathing cavity or mask (mask suction pressure P1) (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 59-62) (signal PC is compared with the demand signal, P1…resultant pressure error, ΔPE, is then biased between the two gas valves 60,62 and serves as a valve [displacement] command, col. 3, lines 37-40) and the mass flow of the pressurized source gas and/or the mass flow of the ambient gas ([t]he valve [displacement] command bias is derived as shown in the following analysis…the ratio of the mass of each gas, col. 3, line 64-col. 4, line 58).
Beale is silent regarding the second stage regulator being provided via a first stage regulator, that the source gas is pressurized (although Beale does monitor the pressure of the source gas, see col. 4, line 67-col. 5, line 2, inferring that its pressure is variable and thus it is pressurizable), that the air supply is ambient gas, and that the chamber receiving the gases is specifically a mixing chamber in addition to the breathing cavity. However, these were well-known components of aircraft breathing regulators before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as demonstrated by Fromage, who teaches a first stage regulator (pressure regulator 98) (Fig. 1) for providing a source gas (from source of breathable gas 8) to a second stage regulator (main valve 60), that the source gas is pressurized (pressurized source of breathable gas, para [0035]), that the dilution air supply (through dilution gas supply line 14, 15) is ambient gas (Fig. 1; dilution gas is air and the source of dilution gas is the cabin 10 of the aircraft, para [0038]), and a mixing chamber (Fig. 1; the breathable gas and the dilution gas are mixed in the respiratory gas supply line 16, para [0038]) for receiving gases that is separate from the breathing cavity (respiratory chamber 9) (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beale to include the second stage regulator being provided via a first stage regulator, that the source gas is pressurized, that the air supply is ambient gas, and that the chamber receiving the gases is specifically a mixing chamber in addition to the breathing cavity as taught by Fromage, in order to utilize common components according to their typical uses to predictably provide a mask-mounted breathing regulator that utilizes a typical pressurized oxygen source with typical step-down pressure regulator, easily sourced air/dilution gas from readily-available cabin air, and provides for mixing the air and oxygen upstream of the mask cavity in order to predictably deliver a homogenous gas mixture at the desired FiO2 to the user (Fromage paras [0001-4]).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale in view of Fromage as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rittner et al. (US 2013/0220317 A1; hereinafter “Rittner”).
Regarding claim 2, Beale in view of Fromage teaches the breathing regulator of claim 1, but modified Beale is silent regarding an emergency bypass in parallel fluid communication with the pressurized source gas and the first stage regulator, and in fluid communication with the mixing chamber. However, Rittner teaches that it was known in the respiratory gas delivery art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an emergency bypass (flow bypass line 60) (Fig. 1) in parallel fluid communication with the pressurized source gas (oxygen generator 10) and the first stage regulator (flow control unit 20), and in fluid communication with a chamber (part 51a) that is downstream from a second stage regulator (throttle unit 40a) and upstream from a mask (mask 51a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Beale to include an emergency bypass in parallel fluid communication with the pressurized source gas and the first stage regulator, and in fluid communication with the mixing chamber as taught by Rittner, in order to provide the predictable result of ensuring that oxygen reaches the mixing chamber/user in the event that the first and/or second stage regulators fail and/or become blocked (Rittner para [0038]).
Claim(s) 4-8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale in view of Fromage as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Callaghan et al. (US 2017/0246419 A1; hereinafter “Callaghan”).
Regarding claim 4, Beale in view of Fromage teaches the breathing regulator of claim 1, but modified Beale is silent regarding a first differential pressure sensor in fluid communication with the mixing chamber and configured to provide a first differential pressure signal to the controller. However, Callaghan teaches that it was known in the art of mixing respiratory gases based on mass flow to achieve a target mixture before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a first differential pressure sensor (mass flow sensor 113) in fluid communication (via fluid supply branch 110) with the mixing chamber (accumulator 130) and configured to provide a first differential pressure signal to the controller (controller 140) (Figs. 1 and 4; paras [0029], [0052-54] and [0058-61]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Beale to include a first differential pressure sensor in fluid communication with the mixing chamber and configured to provide a first differential pressure signal to the controller as taught by Callaghan, in order to provide the predictable result of providing/utilizing known means for measuring mass flow, i.e. known mass flow sensors placed downstream of Beale valves 60, 62/upstream of the mixing chamber of modified Beale, in order to confirm that the mass flows calculated in Beale col. 4 are actually being delivered to the mixing chamber of modified Beale and/or to obviate the need to calculate the mass flows and operate the system using a closed-feedback loop with mass flow sensors.
Regarding claim 5, Beale in view of Fromage and Callaghan teaches the breathing regulator of claim 4, wherein modified Beale teaches wherein the mass flow of the ambient gas is determined based at least in part on the first differential pressure signal (when using the mass flow sensors taught by Callaghan in a feed-back loop as discussed above regarding claim 4) and/or a setting (opening area A11) of the dilution valve (Beale Fig. 1; col. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Beale in view of Fromage and Callaghan teaches the breathing regulator of claim 4, wherein Callaghan further educates modified Beale to include a second differential pressure sensor (mass flow sensor 123) (Callaghan Fig. 1) in fluid communication with a breathing cavity/the mask cavity (the fluid communication of Callaghan is via fluid supply branch 120, accumulator 130 and outlet 133 to the mask of the patient, which corresponds to breathable gas supply line 13/dilution gas supply line 15 [depending on whether the second different pressure sensor is assigned as the one in the oxygen or air passage of modified Beale], respiratory gas supply line 16 and respiratory chamber 9 taught by Fromage) and configured to provide a second differential pressure signal to the controller (Callaghan Figs. 1 and 4; paras [0029], [0033], [0052-54] and [0058-61]), wherein the breathing cavity (9) is in fluid communication with the mixing chamber (16) (Fromage Fig. 1), in order to provide the predictable result discussed above regarding claim 4, i.e. providing/utilizing known means for measuring mass flow in order to confirm that the mass flows calculated in Beale col. 4 are actually being delivered to the mixing chamber and/or to obviate the need to calculate the mass flows and predictably operate the system using a closed-feedback loop with mass flow sensors.
Regarding claim 7, Beale in view of Fromage and Callaghan teaches the breathing regulator of claim 6, wherein Callaghan further educates modified Beale to include wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the second stage regulator based on the first differential pressure signal [and/or] the second differential pressure signal (Callaghan paras [0029-30], [0052-54] and [0058-61] in view of Beale cols. 3-4), in order to predictably use the mass flow sensors taught by Callaghan in a feed-back loop as discussed above regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, Beale in view of Fromage and Callaghan teaches the breathing regulator of claim 6, wherein Beale further discloses wherein the breathing cavity is a mask (mask 64) (Beale Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 56-62).
Regarding claim 13, Beale in view of Fromage teaches the method of claim 12, but modified Beale is silent regarding providing, via a first differential pressure sensor in fluid communication with the mixing chamber, a first differential pressure signal to the controller. However, Callaghan teaches that it was known in the art of mixing respiratory gases based on mass flow to achieve a target mixture before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include providing, via a first differential pressure sensor (mass flow sensor 113) in fluid communication (via fluid supply branch 110) with the mixing chamber (accumulator 130), a first differential pressure signal to the controller (Figs. 1 and 4; paras [0029], [0052-54] and [0058-61]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Beale to include providing, via a first differential pressure sensor in fluid communication with the mixing chamber, a first differential pressure signal to the controller as taught by Callaghan, in order to provide the predictable result of providing/utilizing known means for measuring mass flow, i.e. known mass flow sensors placed downstream of Beale valves 60, 62/upstream of the mixing chamber of modified Beale, in order to confirm that the mass flows calculated in Beale col. 4 are actually being delivered to the mixing chamber of modified Beale and/or to obviate the need to calculate the mass flows and predictably operate the system using a closed-feedback loop with mass flow sensors.
Regarding claim 14, Beale in view of Fromage and Callaghan teaches the method of claim 13, wherein Callaghan further educates modified Beale to include providing, via a second differential pressure sensor (mass flow sensor 123) (Callaghan Fig. 1) in fluid communication with a breathing cavity/the mask cavity (the fluid communication of Callaghan is via fluid supply branch 120, accumulator 130 and outlet 133 to the mask of the patient, which corresponds to breathable gas supply line 13/dilution gas supply line 15 [depending on whether the second different pressure sensor is assigned as the one in the oxygen or air passage of modified Beale], respiratory gas supply line 16 and respiratory chamber 9 taught by Fromage), a second differential pressure signal to the controller (Callaghan Figs. 1 and 4; paras [0029], [0033], [0052-54] and [0058-61]), wherein the breathing cavity (9) is in fluid communication with the mixing chamber (16) (Fromage Fig. 1), in order to provide the predictable result discussed above regarding claim 13, i.e. providing/utilizing known means for measuring mass flow in order to confirm that the mass flows calculated in Beale col. 4 are actually being delivered to the mixing chamber and/or to obviate the need to calculate the mass flows and predictably operate the system using a closed-feedback loop with mass flow sensors.
Regarding claim 15, Beale in view of Fromage and Callaghan teaches the method of claim 14, wherein Callaghan further educates modified Beale to include adjusting, via the controller, the second stage regulator based on the first differential pressure signal [and/or] the second differential pressure signal (Callaghan paras [0029-30], [0052-54] and [0058-61] in view of Beale cols. 3-4), in order to predictably use the mass flow sensors taught by Callaghan in a feed-back loop as discussed above regarding claim 13.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KATHRYN E DITMER whose telephone number is (571)270-5178. The examiner can normally be reached M 7:30a-3:30p, T/Th 8:30a-2:30p, W 11:30a-4:30p, F 1-4p ET.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/KATHRYN E DITMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights