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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 03/20/2026. As directed by the amendment: Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-16, 18-19, and 21-22 are pending in the subject application. Each of claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 18, and 19 have been amended, claims 21 and 22 are new and each of claims 7, 10, 17, and 20 have been canceled.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “in response to identifying the difference in resistance to flow, the method further comprises estimating an age of the patient interface based on a comparison of a current date with a date at which the patient interface was entered into use” from claim 21, and wherein “in response to checking for the difference in resistance to flow, the method further comprises estimating an age of the patient interface based on a comparison of a current date with a date at which the patient interface was entered into use” from claim 22 should be disclosed within the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-16, 18-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract Idea without significantly more.
[STEP 1]
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the claims are a process/method and are one of the four statutory categories.
[STEP 2A, Prong One]
The claims recite the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: acquiring or receiving first vent flow rate data, the first vent flow rate data representing one or more estimated first vent flow rates of gas through a first vent of a patient interface in use during a first therapy session; acquiring or receiving second vent flow rate data, the second vent flow rate data representing one or more estimated second vent flow rates of gas through a second vent of a patient interface in use during a second therapy session after the first therapy session; and identifying/checking, by comparison of the second vent flow rate data to the first vent flow rate data, a difference in resistance to flow through the first vent than through the second vent indicating that the second vent is not the same vent as the first vent (judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as mental process under the 2019 PEG). The above limitations are directed to mental processes that can be done by a person simply observing the output of flow rate data of the vents, evaluating or comparing the readings using a percentage comparing equation or similar equation that can be expressed in decimals, and verifying its values with predefined value or user-defined threshold to alert others when the evaluated values are higher than the user-defined threshold values to indicate they aren’t the same.
[STEP 2A, Prong Two]
Claims 1 and 11 recite the additional elements of: a patient interface, a vent (including a first and second vent), a respiratory therapy device, transducers, and a controller/server.
The patient interface is described as being used to “interface respiratory equipment to its wearer, for example by providing a flow of air to an entrance to the airways” (Specification [0012]). The vent is described as being used to “allow the washout of exhaled carbon dioxide” (Specification [0028]). The respiratory therapy device is for “providing a pressurized flow of breathable gas to the therapy patient interface during the therapy session” (Specification [0048]). The transducers “may be constructed and arranged to generate signals representing properties of the flow of air such as a flow rate “ (Specification [0183]). The controller “is configured to implement the one or more methodologies described herein” (Specification [0201]). All amount to merely being the field of use. The recited abstract process does not improve the functioning of the interface, vent, respiratory therapy device, transducers, controller/server, or any other technology or technical field. Nor does the above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above- identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The acquiring or receiving of first and second vent flow rate data are mere data gathering. Furthermore, the above- identified additional elements, the interface, vent, respiratory therapy device, transducers, controller/server, do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply performing basic well-understood, routine, conventional functions. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 1 and 11 are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[STEP 2B]
The claims do not cite any additional structures that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception. The patient interface is being used to “interface respiratory equipment to its wearer, for example by providing a flow of air to an entrance to the airways” (Specification [0012]) and vent is being used to “allow the washout of exhaled carbon dioxide” (Specification [0028]). The respiratory therapy device is for “providing a pressurized flow of breathable gas to the therapy patient interface during the therapy session” (Specification [0048]). The transducers “may be constructed and arranged to generate signals representing properties of the flow of air such as a flow rate “ (Specification [0183]). The controller “is configured to implement the one or more methodologies described herein” (Specification [0201]). These elements are conventional and well-known in the art as shown by Henry (WO 2015070289 A1; page 4, paragraph 16 and page 6, paragraphs 26-27) and Armitstead (US 20170311879 A1; as set forth in [0067]-[0070]). The use of a generic controller, processor, memory and/or any other general computer components, such as a server (as disclosed in claims 9, 10, 19, and 20) to store information and perform basic calculations and outputting said results is considered well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The identification, by comparison of the second vent flow rate data to the first vent flow rate data, a difference in resistance to flow through the first vent than through the second vent and indication that the second vent is not the same vent as the first vent are merely extra solution activities in that it provides an indication of the result of the abstract determination process. It is well-known analysis technique involving an act of evaluating information to a predefined threshold can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, in addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is-well-understood or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05((g). With respect to the data acquisition, Henry (WO 2015070289 A1) mentions the data acquisition of flow rate data through vents are well known in the art as well as method of comparing the measured/sensed values. The components found in the claim is-well-known to be conventional in the art.
Further, dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, 12-16, 18-19, and 21-22 include limitations that either further define the abstract idea by further defining the acquisition of data sets in claims 2-3, 5-6, 12-13, 15-16, further define the comparison of the data sets in claims 4, 14, 21, and 22 (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, like in claims 9-10 and 19 drawn to the use of a server for carrying out the method steps, because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Claim Interpretation
For examination purposes, the “first vent” established in line 4 of claim 1 and line 4 of claim 11, and the “second vent” established in line 7 of claim 1 and line 7 of claim 11, are interpreted under their broadest interpretation and are taken to mean that they have distinct characteristics, and are therefor inclusive of a singular vent that is altered to comprise those distinct characteristics that differentiate it from the first iteration of the vent. Additionally, the term “replaced” as set forth in line 2 claim 1 and “replacement” in line 1 claim 11, are interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation and can mean either a vent being exchanged with another vent, or a vent being returned to its place.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 11-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry (WO 2015070289 A1) in view of Armitstead (US 20170311879 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Henry discloses a method for determining that a patient interface component (FIG. 1a-c Patient interface 3000 as set forth in [771]) comprising a vent (FIG. 18 Vent 2400 as set forth in [771]) is not the same, the method comprising: acquiring first vent flow rate data, the first vent flow rate data representing one estimated first vent flow rate of gas through a first vent of a patient interface (FIG. 153 the airflow rate of the vent portion of the textile is first measured 52 as set forth in [782]); acquiring second vent flow rate data, the second vent flow rate data representing one estimated second vent flow rate of gas through a second vent of a patient interface (FIG. 153 The airflow rate is measured 55 again for verification, now with the porosity reduced as set forth in [782]); and identifying/checking, by comparison of the second vent flow rate data and the first vent flow rate data to a predetermined range (FIG. 153 The airflow rate is measured 55 again for verification to confirm it is now within the predetermined range; A determination 53 is made on whether there is a difference between the measured airflow rate and a desired airflow rate as set forth in [782]), a difference in resistance to flow through the first vent than through the second vent indicating that the second vent is not the same vent as the first vent (The difference in the comparison between the airflow rate data from the first measurement and the predetermined range, and the airflow rate data from the second measurement where the porosity of the vent has been reduced, is a clear indication that the second vent is not the same vent as the first vent; and therefore, the control steps 54 and 55 shown in FIG. 153 would no longer have to be executed as a result of this indication).
Henry fails to explicitly disclose that the comparison is between the second vent flow rate data to the first vent flow rate data and not between the individual flow rate data and the predetermined range.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same method of comparing the flow rate data to the predetermined threshold (FIG. 153 The airflow rate is measured 55 again for verification to confirm it is now within the predetermined range; A determination 53 is made on whether there is a difference between the measured airflow rate and a desired airflow rate as set forth in [782]) could be implemented between the second vent flow rate data and the first vent flow rate data in a circumstance where a threshold/predetermined value has not yet been established.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have modified Henry to incorporate the teaching that a comparison between airflow rate data can determine a state of the filter (FIG. 153 The airflow rate is measured 55 again for verification to confirm it is now within the predetermined range; A determination 53 is made on whether there is a difference between the measured airflow rate and a desired airflow rate as set forth in [782]). Doing so would allow for the device to specifically detect the difference in airflow/airflow resistance between the vents given the absence of a predetermined range.
While Henry as modified does disclose use of the patient interface is therapy sessions of treatment of sleep disordered breathing (The patient interface is designed to deliver pressurized gas to a patient to treat sleep disordered breathing as set forth in [45]), Henry as modified fails to explicitly disclose that the method is implemented to specifically to determine that the vent has been replaced between therapy sessions of treatment of sleep disordered breathing and that the first vent flow rate of gas through a first vent of a patient interface is taken while in use during a first therapy session, that the second vent flow rate of gas through a second vent of a patient interface is taken while in use during a second therapy session, and is instead drawn to a method implemented during manufacturing.
However, by implementing the same method of comparison between the flow rate data to the predetermined threshold (FIG. 153 The airflow rate is measured 55 again for verification to confirm it is now within the predetermined range; A determination 53 is made on whether there is a difference between the measured airflow rate and a desired airflow rate as set forth in [782]) between the second vent flow rate data and the first vent flow rate data as set forth in the modification above, it would enable the apparatus to determine that the vent has been replaced between therapy sessions of treatment of sleep disordered breathing by comparing the airflow rates of each vent. It would have been readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the vent replacement could, and would most likely occur between treatment sessions of the apparatus, and that the first vent flow rate of gas through a first vent of a patient interface would be taken while in use during a first therapy session, before replacement, and that the second vent flow rate of gas through a second vent of a patient interface is taken while in use during a second therapy session after replacement.
Henry as modified fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the first vent flow rate data is acquired by a respiratory pressure therapy device based on signals from at least one transducer during delivery of a pressurized flow of breathable gas to the patient interface; wherein the second vent flow rate data is acquired by the respiratory therapy device based on signals from the at least one transducer during delivery of the pressurized flow of breathable gas to the patient interface; and wherein the identification is by using a controller of the respiratory pressure therapy device, a server, or a remote computing device
However, Armitstead teaches wherein flow rate data is acquired by a respiratory pressure therapy device based on signals from at least one transducer during delivery of a pressurized flow of breathable gas to the patient interface; and wherein the method steps are carried out by use of a controller of the respiratory pressure therapy device, a server, or a remote computing device (FIG. 4C The pneumatic path of the RPT device 4000 may comprise one or more transducers 4270, such as flow rate sensors 4274 as set forth in [0067]; The RPT device 4000 may have a central controller 4230, a therapy device controller 4240, memory 4260, data communication interface 4280, wherein components 4200 may be mounted on a single Printed Circuit Board Assembly (PCBA) 4202, and the central controller 4230 executes one or more algorithms for the determination of one or more respiratory pressure therapy parameters as set forth in [0069]-[0070]).
Henry and Armitstead are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of respiratory therapy devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data acquisition means and the implementation of the method of Henry as modified to incorporate the teaching of Armitstead and include wherein flow rate data is acquired by a respiratory pressure therapy device based on signals from at least one transducer during delivery of a pressurized flow of breathable gas to the patient interface; and wherein the method steps are carried out by use of a controller of the respiratory pressure therapy device, a server, or a remote computing device (FIG. 4C The pneumatic path of the RPT device 4000 may comprise one or more transducers 4270, such as flow rate sensors 4274 as set forth in [0067]; The RPT device 4000 may have a central controller 4230, a therapy device controller 4240, memory 4260, data communication interface 4280, wherein components 4200 may be mounted on a single Printed Circuit Board Assembly (PCBA) 4202, and the central controller 4230 executes one or more algorithms for the determination of one or more respiratory pressure therapy parameters as set forth in [0069]-[0070]). Doing so would provide well known components (the transducers and controller elements) within the art of the claimed invention, and would further enable the implementation of the method of Henry as modified in use by the respiratory therapy device for determining that a patient interface component comprising a vent has been replaced between therapy sessions of treatment of sleep disordered breathing.
Regarding claim 2, Henry as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Henry as modified further discloses wherein the difference in resistance to flow is a greater resistance to flow through the second vent than through the first vent (FIG. 153 The second vent’s airflow rate is measured 55 once the porosity of the vent portion has been reduced, the reduction of porosity resulting in more resistance to airflow).
Regarding claim 5, Henry as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Henry as modified further discloses wherein, the first vent flow rate data represents an estimated first vent flow rate corresponding to a predetermined therapy pressure, and the second vent flow rate data represents an estimated second vent flow rate corresponding to the predetermined therapy pressure (The desired predetermined range is about 42 to about 59 liters per minute at 20cm H2O pressure as set forth in [782], indicating that the flow rate for the first and second vent are measured at a provided 20cm H2O pressure).
Regarding claim 6, Henry as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 5 above.
Henry as modified further discloses wherein, the method comprises determining that the second vent flow rate is different to the first vent flow rate (The difference in the comparison between the airflow rate data from the first measurement and the predetermined range, and the airflow rate data from the second measurement where the porosity of the vent has been reduced, is a clear indication that the second vent is not the same vent as the first vent given the different measured airflow rates; and therefore, the control steps 54 and 55 shown in FIG. 153 would no longer have to be executed as a result of this indication).
Regarding claim 11, Henry discloses a method for monitoring for a difference in a patient interface component (FIG. 1a-c Patient interface 3000 as set forth in [771]) comprising a vent (FIG. 18 Vent 2400 as set forth in [771]), the method comprising: acquiring first vent flow rate data, the first vent flow rate data representing one or more estimated first vent flow rates of gas through a vent of a patient interface in use (FIG. 153 the airflow rate of the vent portion of the textile is first measured 52 as set forth in [782]); acquiring second vent flow rate data, the second vent flow rate data representing one or more estimated second vent flow rates of gas through a vent of a patient interface in use (FIG. 153 The airflow rate is measured 55 again for verification, now with the porosity reduced as set forth in [782]); and checking for, by comparison of the second vent flow rate data and first vent flow rate data to a predetermined range (FIG. 153 The airflow rate is measured 55 again for verification to confirm it is now within the predetermined range; A determination 53 is made on whether there is a difference between the measured airflow rate and a desired airflow rate as set forth in [782]), a difference in resistance to flow through the second vent of the patient interface in use than through the first vent of the patient interface in use (The difference in the comparison between the airflow rate data from the first measurement and the predetermined range, and the airflow rate data from the second measurement where the porosity of the vent has been reduced, is a clear indication that the second vent is not the same vent as the first vent; and therefore, the control steps 54 and 55 shown in FIG. 153 would no longer have to be executed as a result of this indication).
Henry fails to explicitly disclose that the comparison is between the second vent flow rate data to the first vent flow rate data and not between the individual flow rate data and the predetermined range.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same method of comparing the flow rate data to the predetermined threshold (FIG. 153 The airflow rate is measured 55 again for verification to confirm it is now within the predetermined range; A determination 53 is made on whether there is a difference between the measured airflow rate and a desired airflow rate as set forth in [782]) could be implemented between the second vent flow rate data and the first vent flow rate data in a circumstance where a threshold/predetermined value has not yet been established.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have modified Henry to incorporate the teaching that a comparison between airflow rate data can determine a state of the filter (FIG. 153 The airflow rate is measured 55 again for verification to confirm it is now within the predetermined range; A determination 53 is made on whether there is a difference between the measured airflow rate and a desired airflow rate as set forth in [782]). Doing so would allow for the device to specifically detect the difference in airflow/airflow resistance between the vents given the absence of a predetermined range.
While Henry as modified does disclose use of the patient interface is therapy sessions of treatment of sleep disordered breathing (The patient interface is designed to deliver pressurized gas to a patient to treat sleep disordered breathing as set forth in [45]), Henry as modified fails to explicitly disclose that the method is implemented to specifically to determine that the vent has been replaced between therapy sessions of treatment of sleep disordered breathing and that the first vent flow rate of gas through a first vent of a patient interface is taken while in use during a first therapy session, that the second vent flow rate of gas through a second vent of a patient interface is taken while in use during a second therapy session, and is instead drawn to a method implemented during manufacturing.
However, by implementing the same method of comparison between the flow rate data to the predetermined threshold (FIG. 153 The airflow rate is measured 55 again for verification to confirm it is now within the predetermined range; A determination 53 is made on whether there is a difference between the measured airflow rate and a desired airflow rate as set forth in [782]) between the second vent flow rate data and the first vent flow rate data as set forth in the modification above, it would enable the apparatus to determine that the vent has been replaced between therapy sessions of treatment of sleep disordered breathing by comparing the airflow rates of each vent. It would have been readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the vent replacement could, and would most likely occur between treatment sessions of the apparatus, and that the first vent flow rate of gas through a first vent of a patient interface would be taken while in use during a first therapy session, before replacement, and that the second vent flow rate of gas through a second vent of a patient interface is taken while in use during a second therapy session after replacement.
Henry as modified fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the first vent flow rate data is acquired by a respiratory pressure therapy device based on signals from at least one transducer during delivery of a pressurized flow of breathable gas to the patient interface; wherein the second vent flow rate data is acquired by the respiratory therapy device based on signals from the at least one transducer during delivery of the pressurized flow of breathable gas to the patient interface; and wherein the identification is by using a controller of the respiratory pressure therapy device, a server, or a remote computing device
However, Armitstead teaches wherein flow rate data is acquired by a respiratory pressure therapy device based on signals from at least one transducer during delivery of a pressurized flow of breathable gas to the patient interface; and wherein the method steps are carried out by use of a controller of the respiratory pressure therapy device, a server, or a remote computing device (FIG. 4C The pneumatic path of the RPT device 4000 may comprise one or more transducers 4270, such as flow rate sensors 4274 as set forth in [0067]; The RPT device 4000 may have a central controller 4230, a therapy device controller 4240, memory 4260, data communication interface 4280, wherein components 4200 may be mounted on a single Printed Circuit Board Assembly (PCBA) 4202, and the central controller 4230 executes one or more algorithms for the determination of one or more respiratory pressure therapy parameters as set forth in [0069]-[0070]).
Henry and Armitstead are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of respiratory therapy devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data acquisition means and the implementation of the method of Henry as modified to incorporate the teaching of Armitstead and include wherein flow rate data is acquired by a respiratory pressure therapy device based on signals from at least one transducer during delivery of a pressurized flow of breathable gas to the patient interface; and wherein the method steps are carried out by use of a controller of the respiratory pressure therapy device, a server, or a remote computing device (FIG. 4C The pneumatic path of the RPT device 4000 may comprise one or more transducers 4270, such as flow rate sensors 4274 as set forth in [0067]; The RPT device 4000 may have a central controller 4230, a therapy device controller 4240, memory 4260, data communication interface 4280, wherein components 4200 may be mounted on a single Printed Circuit Board Assembly (PCBA) 4202, and the central controller 4230 executes one or more algorithms for the determination of one or more respiratory pressure therapy parameters as set forth in [0069]-[0070]). Doing so would provide well known components (the transducers and controller elements) within the art of the claimed invention, and would further enable the implementation of the method of Henry as modified in use by the respiratory therapy device for determining that a patient interface component comprising a vent has been replaced between therapy sessions of treatment of sleep disordered breathing.
Regarding claim 12, Henry as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 11 above.
Henry as modified further discloses, wherein the difference in resistance to flow is a greater resistance to flow through the vent of the patient interface in use during the second therapy session than through the vent of the patient interface in use during the first therapy session (FIG. 153 The second vent’s airflow rate is measured 55 once the porosity of the vent portion has been reduced, the reduction of porosity resulting in more resistance to airflow).
Regarding claim 15, Henry as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 11 above.
Henry as modified further discloses, wherein the first vent flow rate data represents an estimated first vent flow rate corresponding to a predetermined therapy pressure, and the second vent flow rate data represents an estimated second vent flow rate corresponding to the predetermined therapy pressure (The desired predetermined range is about 42 to about 59 liters per minute at 20cm H2O pressure as set forth in [782], indicating that the flow rate for the first and second vent are measured at a provided 20cm H2O pressure).
Regarding claim 16, Henry as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 15 above.
Henry as modified further discloses wherein the step of checking for the difference in resistance to flow comprises checking for a difference between the second flow rate and the first flow rate (The difference in the comparison between the airflow rate data from the first measurement and the predetermined range, and the airflow rate data from the second measurement where the porosity of the vent has been reduced, is a clear indication that the second vent is not the same vent as the first vent given the different measured airflow rates; and therefore, the control steps 54 and 55 shown in FIG. 153 would no longer have to be executed as a result of this indication).
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry (WO 2015070289 A1) in view of Armitstead (US 20170311879 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11, in view of Darkin (WO 2005051468 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Henry as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Henry as modified fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the first vent flow rate data represents a plurality of estimated first vent flow rates each corresponding to a respective one of a plurality of therapy pressures, and the second vent flow rate data represents a plurality of estimated second vent flow rates each corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of therapy pressures.
However, Darkin teaches wherein vent flow rate data is dependent on the applied therapy pressure (Darkin: Typical vents have designs which are sensitive to very small changes in the manufacturing process which can lead to variation in the pressure flow relationship as set forth in [0017]; an aspect of the invention there is provided a vent assembly comprising at least two alternative vents each having different pressure-flow characteristics as set forth in [0019]), and that different vents should be used for different pressure ranges (Darkin: Different vents for different pressure ranges. For example, at low pressures, it may be appropriate to have a vent with large holes in order to provide sufficient vent flow. The same vent at higher pressures would have unnecessarily high vent flow which leads to increased noise. Hence in accordance with an embodiment of the invention, when a patient is using a generally low-pressure treatment, they can utilize a first vent, but when treatment pressures are higher they can use a second vent as set forth in [0089]; For a higher pressure range the flow generator may prompt the use of a small hole vent while suggesting a larger hole vent where it is to operate in the lower pressure range as set forth in [0095]).
Henry and Darkin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vents for patient interfaces used in treatment of sleep disordered breathing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data acquisition of Henry to incorporate the teaching of Darkin and include wherein vent flow rate data is dependent on the applied therapy pressure (Darkin: Typical vents have designs which are sensitive to very small changes in the manufacturing process which can lead to variation in the pressure flow relationship as set forth in [0017]; an aspect of the invention there is provided a vent assembly comprising at least two alternative vents each having different pressure-flow characteristics as set forth in [0019]), and that different vents should be used for different pressure ranges (Darkin: Different vents for different pressure ranges. For example, at low pressures, it may be appropriate to have a vent with large holes in order to provide sufficient vent flow. The same vent at higher pressures would have unnecessarily high vent flow which leads to increased noise. Hence in accordance with an embodiment of the invention, when a patient is using a generally low-pressure treatment, they can utilize a first vent, but when treatment pressures are higher they can use a second vent as set forth in [0089]; For a higher pressure range the flow generator may prompt the use of a small hole vent while suggesting a larger hole vent where it is to operate in the lower pressure range as set forth in [0095]), and in the case of Henry as modified implement the teaching of Darkin to and make it so that the first vent flow rate data represents a plurality of estimated first vent flow rates each corresponding to a respective one of a plurality of therapy pressures, and the second vent flow rate data represents a plurality of estimated second vent flow rates each corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of therapy pressures. Doing so would enable the method for determining a difference in the resistance to flow to account for the characteristics of vents that make it so they behave dependent on the applied therapy pressure (Darkin: As set forth in [0017]).
Regarding claim 4, Henry as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 3 above.
Henry as modified fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the method comprises identifying the difference in resistance to flow by determining that for each one of the plurality of therapy pressures, the corresponding second vent flow rate is different to the corresponding first vent flow rate.
However, it would be obvious given the modification above for claim 4 where Henry as modified implements the teaching of Darkin so that the first vent flow rate data represents a plurality of estimated first vent flow rates each corresponding to a respective one of a plurality of therapy pressures, and the second vent flow rate data represents a plurality of estimated second vent flow rates each corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of therapy pressures, given the teaching of Darkin wherein vent flow rate data is dependent on the applied therapy pressure (Darkin: Typical vents have designs which are sensitive to very small changes in the manufacturing process which can lead to variation in the pressure flow relationship as set forth in [0017]; an aspect of the invention there is provided a vent assembly comprising at least two alternative vents each having different pressure-flow characteristics as set forth in [0019]), and that different vents should be used for different pressure ranges (Darkin: Different vents for different pressure ranges. For example, at low pressures, it may be appropriate to have a vent with large holes in order to provide sufficient vent flow. The same vent at higher pressures would have unnecessarily high vent flow which leads to increased noise. Hence in accordance with an embodiment of the invention, when a patient is using a generally low-pressure treatment, they can utilize a first vent, but when treatment pressures are higher they can use a second vent as set forth in [0089]; For a higher pressure range the flow generator may prompt the use of a small hole vent while suggesting a larger hole vent where it is to operate in the lower pressure range as set forth in [0095]), and the modification above for claim 1, wherein by implementing the same method of comparison between the flow rate data to the predetermined threshold (FIG. 153 The airflow rate is measured 55 again for verification to confirm it is now within the predetermined range; A determination 53 is made on whether there is a difference between the measured airflow rate and a desired airflow rate as set forth in [782]) between the second vent flow rate data and the first vent flow rate data as set forth in the modification above, it would enable the apparatus to determine that the vent has been replaced between therapy sessions of treatment of sleep disordered breathing by comparing the airflow rates of each vent, that it would have been readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the method would be able to perform a step comprising the identifying the difference in resistance to flow by determining that for each one of the plurality of therapy pressures, the corresponding second vent flow rate is different to the corresponding first vent flow rate.
Regarding claim 13, Henry as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 11 above.
Henry as modified fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the first vent flow rate data represents a plurality of estimated first vent flow rates each corresponding to a respective one of a plurality of therapy pressures, and the second vent flow rate data represents a plurality of estimated second vent flow rates each corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of therapy pressures.
However, Darkin teaches wherein vent flow rate data is dependent on the applied therapy pressure (Darkin: Typical vents have designs which are sensitive to very small changes in the manufacturing process which can lead to variation in the pressure flow relationship as set forth in [0017]; an aspect of the invention there is provided a vent assembly comprising at least two alternative vents each having different pressure-flow characteristics as set forth in [0019]), and that different vents should be used for different pressure ranges (Darkin: Different vents for different pressure ranges. For example, at low pressures, it may be appropriate to have a vent with large holes in order to provide sufficient vent flow. The same vent at higher pressures would have unnecessarily high vent flow which leads to increased noise. Hence in accordance with an embodiment of the invention, when a patient is using a generally low-pressure treatment, they can utilize a first vent, but when treatment pressures are higher they can use a second vent as set forth in [0089]; For a higher pressure range the flow generator may prompt the use of a small hole vent while suggesting a larger hole vent where it is to operate in the lower pressure range as set forth in [0095]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data acquisition of Henry to incorporate the teaching of Darkin and include wherein vent flow rate data is dependent on the applied therapy pressure (Darkin: Typical vents have designs which are sensitive to very small changes in the manufacturing process which can lead to variation in the pressure flow relationship as set forth in [0017]; an aspect of the invention there is provided a vent assembly comprising at least two alternative vents each having different pressure-flow characteristics as set forth in [0019]), and that different vents should be used for different pressure ranges (Darkin: Different vents for different pressure ranges. For example, at low pressures, it may be appropriate to have a vent with large holes in order to provide sufficient vent flow. The same vent at higher pressures would have unnecessarily high vent flow which leads to increased noise. Hence in accordance with an embodiment of the invention, when a patient is using a generally low-pressure treatment, they can utilize a first vent, but when treatment pressures are higher they can use a second vent as set forth in [0089]; For a higher pressure range the flow generator may prompt the use of a small hole vent while suggesting a larger hole vent where it is to operate in the lower pressure range as set forth in [0095]), and in the case of Henry as modified implement the teaching of Darkin to and make it so that the first vent flow rate data represents a plurality of estimated first vent flow rates each corresponding to a respective one of a plurality of therapy pressures, and the second vent flow rate data represents a plurality of estimated second vent flow rates each corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of therapy pressures. Doing so would enable the method for determining a difference in the resistance to flow to account for the characteristics of vents that make it so they behave dependent on the applied therapy pressure (Darkin: As set forth in [0017]).
Regarding claim 14, Henry as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 13 above.
Henry as modified fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the step of checking for the difference in resistance to flow comprises checking for a difference, for each one of the plurality of therapy pressures, between the corresponding second vent flow rate and the corresponding first vent flow rate.
However, it would be obvious given the modification above for claim 4 where Henry as modified implements the teaching of Darkin so that the first vent flow rate data represents a plurality of estimated first vent flow rates each corresponding to a respective one of a plurality of therapy pressures, and the second vent flow rate data represents a plurality of estimated second vent flow rates each corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of therapy pressures, given the teaching of Darkin wherein vent flow rate data is dependent on the applied therapy pressure (Darkin: Typical vents have designs which are sensitive to very small changes in the manufacturing process which can lead to variation in the pressure flow relationship as set forth in [0017]; an aspect of the invention there is provided a vent assembly comprising at least two alternative vents each having different pressure-flow characteristics as set forth in [0019]), and that different vents should be used for different pressure ranges (Darkin: Different vents for different pressure ranges. For example, at low pressures, it may be appropriate to have a vent with large holes in order to provide sufficient vent flow. The same vent at higher pressures would have unnecessarily high vent flow which leads to increased noise. Hence in accordance with an embodiment of the invention, when a patient is using a generally low-pressure treatment, they can utilize a first vent, but when treatment pressures are higher they can use a second vent as set forth in [0089]; For a higher pressure range the flow generator may prompt the use of a small hole vent while suggesting a larger hole vent where it is to operate in the lower pressure range as set forth in [0095]), and the modification above for claim 1, wherein by implementing the same method of comparison between the flow rate data to the predetermined threshold (FIG. 153 The airflow rate is measured 55 again for verification to confirm it is now within the predetermined range; A determination 53 is made on whether there is a difference between the measured airflow rate and a desired airflow rate as set forth in [782]) between the second vent flow rate data and the first vent flow rate data as set forth in the modification above, it would enable the apparatus to determine that the vent has been replaced between therapy sessions of treatment of sleep disordered breathing by comparing the airflow rates of each vent, that it would have been readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the method would be able to perform a step comprising the identifying the difference in resistance to flow by determining that for each one of the plurality of therapy pressures, the corresponding second vent flow rate is different to the corresponding first vent flow rate.
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry (WO 2015070289 A1) in view of Armitstead (US 20170311879 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11, in view of Anderson (US 20190320977 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Henry as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Henry as modified is silent as to whether the step of identifying the difference in resistance is performed by the respiratory pressure therapy device or by some other means.
However, Anderson teaches the completion of method steps are performed by a server of a respiratory pressure therapy device (FIG. 3 Monitoring devices 310 could be adapted to communicate with the server 330 of the respiratory device via a communications network as set forth in [0149]; the server capable of allowing additional analysis to be performed as set forth in [0150], FIG. 4 The server having at least one microprocessor 400, a memory 401, an optional input/output device 402 as set forth in [0152], servers 330 typically execute processing device software as set forth in [0158]).
Henry and Anderson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of respiratory therapy devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the means of performing the method steps of Henry as modified to incorporate the teaching of Anderson and include wherein the completion of method steps are performed by a server of a respiratory pressure therapy device (Anderson: FIG. 3 Monitoring devices 310 could be adapted to communicate with the server 330 of the respiratory device via a communications network as set forth in [0149]; the server capable of allowing additional analysis to be performed as set forth in [0150], FIG. 4 The server having at least one microprocessor 400, a memory 401, an optional input/output device 402 as set forth in [0152], servers 330 typically execute processing device software as set forth in [0158]). Doing so would provide a well-known concept in the art wherein a respiratory therapy device is enabled to obtain data directly, store data for use, and utilize the server for use in automatically executing processing device software, readily understood in the art as comprising the method steps (Anderson: As set forth in [0149], [0152], and [0158]).
Regarding claim 9, Henry as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Henry as modified is silent as to whether the method comprises transmitting the data to a server, and wherein the steps of the method are performed by a server or by some other means.
However, Anderson teaches wherein the method comprises transmitting the data to a server, and wherein the steps of the method are performed by a server (Anderson: FIG. 3 Monitoring devices 310 could be adapted to communicate data to the server 330 of the respiratory device via a communications network as set forth in [0149]; the server capable of allowing additional analysis to be performed as set forth in [0150], FIG. 4 The server having at least one microprocessor 400, a memory 401, an optional input/output device 402 as set forth in [0152], servers 330 typically execute processing device software, readily understood in the art of comprising the method steps, as set forth in [0158]), in the case of Henry as modified, the data being that of first vent flow rate data and the second vent flow rate, and the method step being identifying the difference in resistance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the means of performing the method steps of Henry as modified to incorporate the teaching of Anderson and include wherein the completion of method steps are performed by a server of a respiratory pressure therapy device (Anderson: FIG. 3 Monitoring devices 310 could be adapted to communicate with the server 330 of the respiratory device via a communications network as set forth in [0149]; the server capable of allowing additional analysis to be performed as set forth in [0150], FIG. 4 The server having at least one microprocessor 400, a memory 401, an optional input/output device 402 as set forth in [0152], servers 330 typically execute processing device software as set forth in [0158]). Doing so would provide a well-known concept in the art wherein a respiratory therapy device is enabled to obtain data directly, store data for use, and utilize the server for use in automatically executing processing device software, readily understood in the art as comprising the method steps (Anderson: As set forth in [0149], [0152], and [0158]).
Regarding claim 18, Henry as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 11 above.
Henry as modified is silent as to whether the step of checking for the difference in resistance to flow is performed by the respiratory pressure therapy device.
However, Anderson teaches the completion of method steps are performed by a server of a respiratory pressure therapy device (FIG. 3 Monitoring devices 310 could be adapted to communicate with the server 330 of the respiratory device via a communications network as set forth in [0149]; the server capable of allowing additional analysis to be performed as set forth in [0150], FIG. 4 The server having at least one microprocessor 400, a memory 401, an optional input/output device 402 as set forth in [0152], servers 330 typically execute processing device software as set forth in [0158]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the means of performing the method steps of Henry as modified to incorporate the teaching of Anderson and include wherein the completion of method steps are performed by a server of a respiratory pressure therapy device (FIG. 3 Monitoring devices 310 could be adapted to communicate with the server 330 of the respiratory device via a communications network as set forth in [0149]; the server capable of allowing additional analysis to be performed as set forth in [0150], FIG. 4 The server having at least one microprocessor 400, a memory 401, an optional input/output device 402 as set forth in [0152], servers 330 typically execute processing device software as set forth in [0158]). Doing so would provide a well-known concept in the art wherein a respiratory therapy device is enabled to obtain data directly, store data for use, and utilize the server for use in automatically executing processing device software, readily understood in the art as comprising the method steps (Anderson: As set forth in [0149], [0152], and [0158]).
Regarding claim 19, Henry as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 11 above.
Henry as modified is silent as to whether the method comprises transmitting the data to a server, and wherein the steps of the method are performed by a server or by some other means.
However, Anderson teaches, wherein the method comprises transmitting the data to a server, and wherein the steps of the method are performed by a server (FIG. 3 Monitoring devices 310 could be adapted to communicate data to the server 330 of the respiratory device via a communications network as set forth in [0149]; the server capable of allowing additional analysis to be performed as set forth in [0150], FIG. 4 The server having at least one microprocessor 400, a memory 401, an optional input/output device 402 as set forth in [0152], servers 330 typically execute processing device software, readily understood in the art of comprising the method steps, as set forth in [0158]), in the case of Henry as modified, the data being that of first vent flow rate data and the second vent flow rate, and the method step being of checking for the difference in resistance to flow.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the means of performing the method steps of Henry as modified to incorporate the teaching of Anderson and include wherein the method comprises transmitting the data to a server, and wherein the steps of the method are performed by a server (FIG. 3 Monitoring devices 310 could be adapted to communicate data to the server 330 of the respiratory device via a communications network as set forth in [0149]; the server capable of allowing additional analysis to be performed as set forth in [0150], FIG. 4 The server having at least one microprocessor 400, a memory 401, an optional input/output device 402 as set forth in [0152], servers 330 typically execute processing device software, readily understood in the art of comprising the method steps, as set forth in [0158]), in the case of Henry as modified, the data being that of first vent flow rate data and the second vent flow rate, and the method step being of checking for the difference in resistance to flow. Doing so would provide a well-known concept in the art wherein a respiratory therapy device is enabled to obtain data directly, store data for use, and utilize the server for use in automatically executing processing device software, readily understood in the art as comprising the method steps (Anderson: As set forth in [0149], [0152], and [0158]).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry (WO 2015070289 A1) in view of Armitstead (US 20170311879 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11, in view of Klee (US 20160321420 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Henry as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Henry as modified fails to explicitly disclose, wherein in response to identifying the difference in resistance to flow, the method further comprises estimating an indication of the age of the patient interface.
However, Klee teaches wherein in response to a triggering event indicating the wear of a component within the patient interface, the method further comprises estimating an indication of the age of the patient interface (Klee: FIG. 4b If the usage count exceeds the predetermined usage count threshold, the evaluation component 54a″ outputs the wear-out event to the presentation component 56a″. The presentation component 56a″, in turn, prompts the patient whether the respective parts of patient interface 12″ should be ordered from the mask distributor as set forth in [0107]; Alternatively, Klee: FIG. 6 In a first step 72, wear-out data relating to the wear-out of the patient interface 12 are determined, the wear-out data are not restricted to these exemplary data, in a next step 74, at least parts of these wear-out data are exchanged between the patient interface 12 and the communication device 14, in a further step 76, a reminder is issued on the communication device 14 to remind the patient to service and/or replace at least parts of the patient interface 12, wherein the reminder is issued in dependence of the previously determined wear-out data, the wear out data or usage counter being representative of an indication of the age of the patient interface as set forth in [0115]).
Henry and Klee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of respiratory therapy devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Henry as modified to incorporate the teaching of Klee and include, wherein in response to a triggering event indicating the wear of a component within the patient interface, the method further comprises estimating an indication of the age of the patient interface (Klee: FIG. 4b If the usage count exceeds the predetermined usage count threshold, the evaluation component 54a″ outputs the wear-out event to the presentation component 56a″. The presentation component 56a″, in turn, prompts the patient whether the respective parts of patient interface 12″ should be ordered from the mask distributor as set forth in [0107]; Alternatively, Klee: FIG. 6 In a first step 72, wear-out data relating to the wear-out of the patient interface 12 are determined, the wear-out data are not restricted to these exemplary data, in a next step 74, at least parts of these wear-out data are exchanged between the patient interface 12 and the communication device 14, in a further step 76, a reminder is issued on the communication device 14 to remind the patient to service and/or replace at least parts of the patient interface 12, wherein the reminder is issued in dependence of the previously determined wear-out data, the wear out data or usage counter being representative of an indication of the age of the patient interface as set forth in [0115]), in the case of Henry as modified, the triggering event indicating the wear of a component within the patient interface being an identification of the difference in resistance to flow. Doing so would allow for the device to remind the patient to service and/or replace at least parts of the patient interface based on the response to an event (Klee: As set forth in [0115]), in the case of Henry as modified, in response to identifying the difference in resistance to flow of the vents.
Henry as modified by Klee fails to explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the age of the patient interface is specifically, estimating an age of the patient interface based on a comparison of a current date with a date at which the patient interface was entered into use.
However, the method of modified Henry performs the same function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification, specifically, the determination of an age of the patient interface. See in Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000) and Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977), see also MPEP § 2183. The concepts of equivalents as set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant to any "equivalents" determination. Both the method of modified Henry and the method claimed by Applicant are configured to estimate an indication of the age of the patient interface. Additionally, A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the method shown in the prior art for the corresponding method disclosed in the specification. Both would result in the same completion of the same function, estimating an indication of the age of the patient interface. See in Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify henry as modified to obtain the invention as specified in claim 21 because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan since they are equivalents and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Henry as modified.
Regarding claim 22, Henry as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 11 above.
Henry as modified fails to explicitly disclose, wherein in response to checking for the difference in resistance to flow, the method further comprises estimating an indication of the age of the patient interface.
However, Klee teaches wherein in response to checking for a triggering event indicating the wear of a component within the patient interface, the method further comprises estimating an indication of the age of the patient interface (Klee: FIG. 4b If the usage count exceeds the predetermined usage count threshold, the evaluation component 54a″ outputs the wear-out event to the presentation component 56a″. The presentation component 56a″, in turn, prompts the patient whether the respective parts of patient interface 12″ should be ordered from the mask distributor as set forth in [0107]; Alternatively, Klee: FIG. 6 In a first step 72, wear-out data relating to the wear-out of the patient interface 12 are determined, the wear-out data are not restricted to these exemplary data, in a next step 74, at least parts of these wear-out data are exchanged between the patient interface 12 and the communication device 14, in a further step 76, a reminder is issued on the communication device 14 to remind the patient to service and/or replace at least parts of the patient interface 12, wherein the reminder is issued in dependence of the previously determined wear-out data, the wear out data or usage counter being representative of an indication of the age of the patient interface as set forth in [0115]).
Henry and Klee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of respiratory therapy devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Henry as modified to incorporate the teaching of Klee and include, wherein in response to checking for a triggering event indicating the wear of a component within the patient interface, the method further comprises estimating an indication of the age of the patient interface (Klee: FIG. 4b If the usage count exceeds the predetermined usage count threshold, the evaluation component 54a″ outputs the wear-out event to the presentation component 56a″. The presentation component 56a″, in turn, prompts the patient whether the respective parts of patient interface 12″ should be ordered from the mask distributor as set forth in [0107]; Alternatively, Klee: FIG. 6 In a first step 72, wear-out data relating to the wear-out of the patient interface 12 are determined, the wear-out data are not restricted to these exemplary data, in a next step 74, at least parts of these wear-out data are exchanged between the patient interface 12 and the communication device 14, in a further step 76, a reminder is issued on the communication device 14 to remind the patient to service and/or replace at least parts of the patient interface 12, wherein the reminder is issued in dependence of the previously determined wear-out data, the wear out data or usage counter being representative of an indication of the age of the patient interface as set forth in [0115]), in the case of Henry as modified, the triggering event indicating the wear of a component within the patient interface being an identification of the difference in resistance to flow. Doing so would allow for the device to remind the patient to service and/or replace at least parts of the patient interface based on the response to an event (Klee: As set forth in [0115]), in the case of Henry as modified, in response to identifying the difference in resistance to flow of the vents.
Henry as modified by Klee fails to explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the age of the patient interface is specifically, estimating an age of the patient interface based on a comparison of a current date with a date at which the patient interface was entered into use.
However, the method of modified Henry performs the same function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification, specifically, the determination of an age of the patient interface. See in Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000) and Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977), see also MPEP § 2183. The concepts of equivalents as set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant to any "equivalents" determination. Both the method of modified Henry and the method claimed by Applicant are configured to estimate an indication of the age of the patient interface. Additionally, A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the method shown in the prior art for the corresponding method disclosed in the specification. Both would result in the same completion of the same function, estimating an indication of the age of the patient interface. See in Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify henry as modified to obtain the invention as specified in claim 22 because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan since they are equivalents and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Henry as modified.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to the amended claims, new grounds of rejection are made above in response to the amendments to claims 1, 8-9, 11, 18-19, and new claims 21 and 22.
The claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because despite the addition of the flow rate data acquisition by the respiratory pressure therapy device based on signals from at least one transducer during delivery of a pressurized flow of breathable gas to the patient interface and the use of a controller of the respiratory pressure therapy device, a server, or a remote computing device, the claims still recite an abstract idea. The additional claimed elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply performing basic well-understood, routine, conventional functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d), or amount to no more than general computer components to store information and perform basic calculations and outputting said results is considered well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions.
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 KEIRA EILEEN CALLISON whose telephone number is (571)272-0745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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 at (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.
/KEIRA EILEEN CALLISON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights