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 10/01/2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 13, 16 and 18 have been amended. Claims 1-18 are pending in the instant application, wherein claims 7-16 remain withdrawn in response to restriction.
Applicant has amended the claims to address minor informalities, and argued on page 5 of Remarks filed 10/1/2025 (hereinafter “Remarks”) that the term “regulator” in claim 2 is clear in the context of “the art of pressure breathing” and thus Applicant has declined the Office’s suggestion to add “pressure” before “regulator” for clarity because “the form of claim 2 is proper.” The Examiner understands the term to mean the same thing either way, and all the objections to the claims are withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to clarify the subject matter claimed therein; the rejections under 35 USC 112(b)/second paragraph are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 (hereinafter “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 of Remarks that “valves 15(b)/15’ of Connell are attached to the oxygen supply system and not the exhaled air.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the pressure adjuster be “attached to the exhaled air”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Examiner respectfully notes that no particular connectivity/structural arrangement(s) is recited with regards to the claimed pressure adjuster; it is only recited in functional terms. The valves of Connell are configured to function as claimed because they increase the pressure of exhaled air in the first gas feed mixer (comprising tube 7/7b and bag 18/18’) by virtue of increasing the pressure within the entire, fluidly-interconnected system of tube 7/7’, mask 5/5b and tube 13/13b; therefore, they comprehend/anticipate a pressure adjuster as currently claimed. As such, the rejections in view of Connell are maintained below. [And see also the previous Conclusion section, as well as the Conclusion section below, regarding other art that reads on at least claim 1 as currently broadly written.]
Applicant argues on page 9 of Remarks that “Connell’s valve 15 controls whether oxygen is allowed to flow out of the oxygen tank 14 and Connell’s valve 15’ decompresses, i.e., reduces the pressure of the oxygen,” asserting that “Connell’s valves 15/15’ regulate the oxygen supply, but they do not adjust the pressure of exhaled air or perform any pressure balancing”, while [i]n contrast, the pressure adjuster of claim 1 as amended increases the pressure of the exhaled gas in the first gas mixer feed” (emphasis Applicant’s).
First, the Examiner respectfully notes that the tank 14 does not correspond to either of the instant mixer feeds; therefore, the pressure being stepped down from the tank is not germane to the contested functionality of claim 1, which is concerned with pressure in the instant mixer feeds. Second, the Examiner notes that instant claims 2-3 further limit/specify that the pressure adjuster comprises a regulator that supplies gas under pressure, so the Examiner is confused as to why Applicant believes that Connell’s valves that regulate/supply pressurized gas do not read on the instant pressure adjuster, since they function and comprise the same structure as claimed, as discussed above and maintained in the rejections below.
Applicant argues on page 10 of Remarks that “in the apparatus of claim 1…the exhaled air pressure is actively increased…and this is done before mixing.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the exhaled air pressure is increased before mixing) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 only requires that the pressure adjuster be configured to raise pressure in the first gas mixer feed to match that of the second mixer feed; there is no functional language or structural arrangement in claim 1 that requires this pressurization to occur before the gas in the first feed reaches the mixing chamber, and the language of the method of claim 18 does not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, see MPEP 2111.01.II. Therefore, since Connell anticipates the claims as currently written, the rejections in view of Connell are maintained below. Note: Applicant is directed to the Claim Interpretation on pages 4-5 of the Office Action mailed on 7/3/2025, which discusses limitations that Applicant may wish to consider adding to the independent claims to aid in defining over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Connell (US 2,300,273; hereinafter “Connell”).
Regarding claim 1, Connell discloses an apparatus for preparing a ventilation gas mixture for pilots and crew of aircraft (Fig. 1/7; page 1, right col., lines 1-3 and 42), the apparatus comprising:
a first gas mixer feed (comprising tube 7/7b and bag 18/18’) configured to receive exhaled air from a person, wherein the exhaled air comprises carbon dioxide (Fig. 1/7; page 3, right col., lines 70-72; where exhaled air, by definition, comprises carbon dioxide);
a second gas mixer feed (comprising tube 13/13b and/or tube 8/8b) configured to receive at least one gas (from tank 14/14b) (Fig. 1/7; page 2, left col., lines 4-10);
a gas mixing device (comprising T fitting 10/union 40 and/or mask 5) configured to receive the exhaled air and the at least one gas from the first and second gas mixer feeds, respectively, and combine the exhaled air with the at least one gas in the gas mixing device to form a ventilation gas mixture (Figs. 1/7; page 3, right col., lines 17-21); and
a pressure adjuster (main valve 15/15b and/or decompression valve 15’) configured to increase the pressure of the exhaled air in the first gas mixer feed so that it substantially matches the pressure of the at least one gas in the second gas mixer feed (Figs. 1/7; page 3, right col., lines 6-15, where pressurized oxygen flows through valves 15(b)/15’ and pressurizes/equalizes the pressure within tube 7/7b, tube 8/8b, mask 5/5b and tube 13/13b).
Regarding claim 2, Connell discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the pressure adjuster comprises a regulator (decompression valve 15’).
Regarding claim 3, Connell discloses the apparatus according to claim 2 wherein the regulator (15’) is configured to supply the at least one gas at under pressure to the second gas mixer feed (Figs. 1/7; page 2, left col., lines 4-10).
Regarding claim 4, Connell discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the first gas mixer feed (7/7b) comprises a gas reservoir (bag 18/18’) configured to receive the exhaled air from a person and store the exhaled air within the gas reservoir before the exhaled air is received by the gas mixing device (Figs. 1/7; page 3, left col, lines 70-72 and page 3, right col, lines 19-20).
Regarding claim 5, Connell discloses the apparatus according to claim 4 wherein the pressure adjuster (15(b)/15’) is configured to adjust the pressure of the exhaled air stored within the gas reservoir (Figs. 1/7; page 3, right col, lines 6-17, 38-39 and 50-62, wherein, since the bag 18/18b is fluidly connected with tubes 7(b)/8(b)/13(b), the pressure exerted in those tubes/provided by valves 15(b)/15’ will translate to the gas within the bag 18/18b).
Regarding claim 6, Connell discloses the apparatus according to claim 5 wherein the pressure adjuster (15(b)/15’) is configured to adjust the pressure of the exhaled air stored within the gas reservoir by supplying the at least one gas to the gas reservoir via a gas reservoir inlet (opening 17/neck 43) (Figs. 1/7; page 3, right col, lines 6-17, 38-39 and 50-62, wherein, since the bag 18/18b is fluidly connected with tubes 7(b)/8(b)/13(b) and gas from valves 15(b)/15’ flows into bag 18/18b, the pressure exerted in those tubes/provided by valves 15(b)/15’ will translate to the gas within the bag 18/18b).
Regarding claim 17, Connell discloses an aircraft comprising the apparatus according to claim 1 (Fig. 1/7; page 1, right col., lines 1-7, page 4, left col, lines 39-40, and see the discussion of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 18, Connell discloses a method of preparing a ventilation gas mixture for use in an aircraft (Fig. 1/7; page 1, right col., lines 1-13, and page 3, right col., lines 17-26) comprising the steps of:
receiving, by a first gas mixer feed (comprising tube 7/7b and bag 18/18’), exhaled air from a person, wherein the exhaled air comprises carbon dioxide (Fig. 1/7; page 3, right col., lines 70-72; where exhaled air, by definition, comprises carbon dioxide);
receiving, by a second gas mixer feed (comprising tube 13/13b and/or tube 8/8b), at least one gas (from tank 14/14b) (Fig. 1/7; page 2, left col., lines 4-10);
increasing, by a pressure adjuster (main valve 15/15b and/or decompression valve 15’), the pressure of the exhaled air in the first gas mixer feed so that it substantially matches the pressure of the at least one gas in the second gas mixer feed (Figs. 1/7; page 3, right col., lines 6-15, where pressurized oxygen flows through valves 15(b)/15’ and pressurizes/equalizes the pressure within tube 7/7b, tube 8/8b, mask 5/5b and tube 13/13b);
receiving, by a gas mixing device (comprising T fitting 10/union 40 and/or mask 5), the exhaled air and the at least one gas from the first and second gas mixer feeds (Figs. 1/7; page 3, right col., lines 17-21);
combining, by the gas mixing device, the exhaled air with the at least one gas to form a ventilation gas mixture (Figs. 1/7; page 3, right col., lines 17-21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional reference that could be used to reject at least claim 1 under 35 USC 102 and teaches pressurization of exhaled gas (by pump H) before it is mixed with a second gas (in tank B): Muellner et al. (US 2012/0017908 A1; Fig. 1). Additional references regarding control of pressurized air-oxygen mixing for aircraft: Foote et al. (US 5,460,175); Guillotin et al. (US 2011/0000490 A1).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHRYN E DITMER whose telephone number is (571)270-5178. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-4:30p, F 7:30a-11:30a 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