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
Applicant’s Amendments, filed 11/22/2025, has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first inlet of the air blower" and “the second inlet of the air blower”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Fisher et al. (US20150083121), hereafter Fisher, in view of Oldfield et al. (US20210052844), hereafter Oldfield.
Regarding Claim 1, Fisher discloses an oxygen supply device (Abstract, portable life support system) comprising: an oxygen production unit (par. 0009, an oxygen generator), a control unit (par. 0193, “The portable life support apparatus 1102 may include several control boards”), an air blower (Fig. 1, blower 44) and a gas conditioning unit (Fig. 1, circle circuit 43), wherein the oxygen production unit comprises multiple adsorption units (par. 0009, “one or more concentrator sieve beds”) including a first adsorption unit (Fig. 1, sieves 26) and a second adsorption unit (Fig. 1, sieves 28).
Fisher further discloses the air blower is configured to receive ambient air and oxygen generated by the oxygen production unit (See Fig 1, par. 0102), but is silent on the air blower is configured to receive oxygen generated by the oxygen production unit through a first inlet and ambient air through a separate second inlet.
However, Oldfield teaches an oxygen supply device (Fig. 1), comprising of an oxygen production unit (par. 0232, Fig. 1, O2 source 5), and an air blower (par. 0232, Fig. 1, a blower/flow generator 3) regulated by a gas flow modulator (par. 0365-0367, “the gas flow modulator 59 can be coupled anywhere in the system… at the input of the flow generator 3”). Oldfield further teaches the air blower is configured to receive oxygen generated by the oxygen production unit (par. 0550, Fig. 36 shows inlet valve arrangement 600 for the modulator 59) through a first inlet (Fig. 36, O2 inlet 612) and ambient air through a separate second inlet (Fig. 36, Air inlet 622). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Fisher, with the flow modulator and air blower of Oldfield, for independent feedback control on the oxygen concentration as taught by Oldfield (Oldfield, par. 0553-0554).
The modified Fisher further discloses the air blower is configured to output blended air at a desired FiO2 ratio (Fisher, par. 0114, “a volume controlled ventilator… delivered oxygen concentration. As shown in more detail in FIG. 6, the ventilator is comprised of a blower 44”; Fisher, par. 0099, “These include… blending the oxygenated air with ambient air”; Oldfield par. 0553) (Examiner Notes: The prior art discloses a ventilator comprising the blower that controls oxygen concentration, the prior art further discloses blending the oxygen with ambient air to control the concentration; therefore, the blower outputs oxygen at desired FiO2 ratio); the gas conditioning unit is connected to the air blower (Fisher, Fig. 1, conduit section 48) and is configured to generate conditioned air (Examiner Notes: See Fisher Fig. 1, element 43 comprises reservoir 36 and cartridge 10, which are all capable of conditioning the air by pressurizing and removing CO2, see par. 0138, par. 0102) using the blended air from the air blower (Fisher, par. 0117, “the blower produces the pressure that forces the bellows to collapse delivering whatever gas blend is in the circuit to the patient through the scrubber”); and, wherein the control unit is configured to: control the first and second adsorption unit to operate independently from each other (Fisher, par. 0196, “O.sub.2 Controller… sieve pressure sensors used for controlling concentrator valves”) such that first and second adsorption units operate alternatively (Fisher, par. 0113, “As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the two sieve beds 26 and 28 (S1 and S2) may be alternatively pressurized”); and independently control a flow rate of the oxygen generated by the oxygen production unit (Fisher, par. 0052, “a controller… the flow rate of oxygenated gas leaving the oxygen generating device”) by regulating an oxygen-flow control valve disposed between the oxygen production unit and the first inlet of the air blower (Oldfield, Fig. 36, par. 0552-0554, valve 614); and independently control a flow rate of ambient air into the air blower (Fisher, par. 0197, “Ventilator Control--controls the blower motor to provide the required volume and breath frequency… Differential pressure divided by the known circuit resistance gives flow”) through the second inlet using a dedicated ambient-air flow regulator (Oldfield, Fig. 36, par. 0552-0554, valve 624) such that the oxygen flow rate and the ambient-air flow rate are independently, separately, and simultaneously regulated to achieve the desired FiO2 of the blended air output (Oldfield, par. 0553, 0554 discloses the valves 614 and 624 are controlled independently and simultaneously to achieve a desired oxygen concentration).
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Fisher discloses the oxygen supply device of claim 1, wherein the first adsorption unit is connected to a first valve (Fisher, Fig. 1, valve V1); and wherein controlling the first adsorption unit to operate includes controlling the first valve to sweep to a first position, at which a circuit between a pressure regulator (Fisher, Fig. 1, pump 16) and the first adsorption unit is connected (Fisher, par. 0098, “Valve V1 determines which sieve is being pressurized and which is being vacuumed”) (Examiner Notes: The term “a first position” is interpreted as the valve being open to a pressure regulator, in the case of the prior art, the pump serves as a pressure regulator as it pressurizes the adsorption units).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Fisher discloses the oxygen supply device of claim 1, wherein the first adsorption unit is connected to a first valve (Fisher, Fig. 1, valve V1); and wherein controlling the first adsorption unit to operate includes controlling the first valve to sweep to a second position, at which a circuit between a vacuum pump and the first adsorption unit is connected (Fisher, par. 0098, “Valve V1 determines which sieve is being pressurized and which is being vacuumed”; “The vacuum head of the pump 16 draws the dry nitrogen-enriched air from the sieve S1 or S2 being purged through the valve V1”) (Examiner Notes: The term “a second position” is interpreted as the valve being open to a vacuum source).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Fisher discloses the oxygen supply device of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to control the first and second adsorption units to operate in parallel (Fisher, par. 0196, “O.sub.2 Controller--controls the oxygen concentrator…”; See Fig. 1, the first and second adsorption units are in parallel) (Examiner Notes: The term “operate in parallel” in interpreted as a parallel configuration of the adsorption units, such as a structural arrangement which the adsorption units are connected to a common inlet and outlet flow path).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Fisher discloses the oxygen supply device of claim 1, wherein the oxygen production unit further comprises a pressure valve connected to the adsorption unit (Fisher, Fig. 1, valve V2); and, wherein the control unit is configured to control the pressure valve to facilitate concentrated oxygen produced by one of the first or second adsorption unit to be released to the other one of the first or second adsorption unit in the oxygen supply device (Fisher, par. 0098, “valve V2 is open for one sieve to prime the other”) (Examiner Notes: In the case of the prior art, “prime the other” means allowing the gas to flow from one sieve bed to the other to prepare for the next cycle, see par. 0098).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Fisher discloses the oxygen supply device of claim 1, wherein a gas produced by the oxygen supply device has an oxygen concertation level at least higher than 21% (Fisher, par. 0056, “…having a concentration of at least 40% oxygen”) and/or a flow rate higher 10 liter per minute (Fisher, par. 0112, “flow rates of up to 80 slpm”).
Regarding Claim 8, Fisher discloses an oxygen production unit (par. 0009, an oxygen generator) comprising: an oxygen generation module (par. 0009, “one or more concentrator sieve beds”), an air blower (Fig. 1, blower 44) and a control unit (par. 0193, “The portable life support apparatus 1102 may include several control boards”), wherein the oxygen generation module comprises multiple adsorption units including a first adsorption unit and a second adsorption unit (Fig. 1, sieves 26 and 28).
Fisher further discloses the air blower is configured to receive ambient air and oxygen generated by the oxygen production unit (See Fig 1, par. 0102), but is silent on the air blower is configured to receive oxygen generated by the oxygen production unit through a first inlet and ambient air through a separate second inlet.
However, Oldfield teaches an oxygen supply device (Fig. 1), comprising of an oxygen production unit (par. 0232, Fig. 1, O2 source 5), and an air blower (par. 0232, Fig. 1, a blower/flow generator 3) regulated by a gas flow modulator (par. 0365-0367, “the gas flow modulator 59 can be coupled anywhere in the system… at the input of the flow generator 3”). Oldfield further teaches the air blower is configured to receive oxygen generated by the oxygen production unit (par. 0550, Fig. 36 shows inlet valve arrangement 600 for the modulator 59) through a first inlet (Fig. 36, O2 inlet 612) and ambient air through a separate second inlet (Fig. 36, Air inlet 622). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Fisher, with the flow modulator and air blower of Oldfield, for independent feedback control on the oxygen concentration as taught by Oldfield (Oldfield, par. 0553-0554).
The modified Fisher further discloses the air blower is configured to output blended air at a desired FiO2 ratio (par. 0114, “a volume controlled ventilator… delivered oxygen concentration. As shown in more detail in FIG. 6, the ventilator is comprised of a blower 44”; par. 0099, “These include… blending the oxygenated air with ambient air”) (Examiner Notes: The prior art discloses a ventilator comprising the blower that controls oxygen concentration, the prior art further discloses blending the oxygen with ambient air to control the concentration; therefore, the blower is capable of outputting oxygen at desired FiO2 ratio); and the control unit is configured to: control the first and second adsorption unit to operate independently from each other such that first and second adsorption units operate alternatively (par. 0196, “O.sub.2 Controller… sieve pressure sensors used for controlling concentrator valves”); and independently control a flow rate of the oxygen generated by the oxygen production unit (Fisher, par. 0052, “a controller… the flow rate of oxygenated gas leaving the oxygen generating device”) by regulating an oxygen-flow control valve disposed between the oxygen production unit and the first inlet of the air blower (Oldfield, Fig. 36, par. 0552-0554, valve 614); and independently control a flow rate of ambient air into the air blower (Fisher, par. 0197, “Ventilator Control--controls the blower motor to provide the required volume and breath frequency… Differential pressure divided by the known circuit resistance gives flow”) through the second inlet using a dedicated ambient-air flow regulator (Oldfield, Fig. 36, par. 0552-0554, valve 624) such that the oxygen flow rate and the ambient-air flow rate are independently, separately, and simultaneously regulated to achieve the desired FiO2 of the blended air output (Oldfield, par. 0553, 0554 discloses the valves 614 and 624 are controlled independently and simultaneously to achieve a desired oxygen concentration).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Fisher discloses the oxygen production unit of claim 8, wherein the first adsorption unit is connected to a first valve (Fisher, Fig. 1, valve V1); and wherein controlling the first adsorption unit to operate includes controlling the first valve to sweep to a first position, at which a circuit between a pressure regulator (Fisher, Fig. 1, pump 16) and the first adsorption unit is connected (Fisher, par. 0098, “Valve V1 determines which sieve is being pressurized and which is being vacuumed”) (Examiner Notes: The term “a first position” is interpreted as the valve being open to a pressure regulator, in the case of the prior art, the pump serves as a pressure regulator as it pressurizes the adsorption units).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Fisher discloses the oxygen production unit of claim 8, wherein the first adsorption unit is connected to a first valve (Fisher, Fig. 1, valve V1); and wherein controlling the first adsorption unit to operate includes controlling the first valve to sweep to a second position, at which a circuit between a vacuum pump and the first adsorption unit is connected (Fisher, par. 0098, “Valve V1 determines which sieve is being pressurized and which is being vacuumed”; “The vacuum head of the pump 16 draws the dry nitrogen-enriched air from the sieve S1 or S2 being purged through the valve V1”) (Examiner Notes: The term “a second position” is interpreted as the valve being open to a vacuum source).
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Fisher discloses the oxygen supply device of claim 8, wherein the control unit is configured to control the first and second adsorption units to operate in parallel (Fisher, par. 0196, “O.sub.2 Controller--controls the oxygen concentrator…”; See Fig. 1, the first and second adsorption units are in parallel) (Examiner Notes: The term “operate in parallel” in interpreted as a parallel configuration of the adsorption units, such as a structural arrangement which the adsorption units are connected to a common inlet and outlet flow path).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Fisher discloses the oxygen supply device of claim 8, wherein the oxygen production unit further comprises a pressure valve connected to the adsorption unit (Fisher, Fig. 1, valve V2; par. 0113, “the two sieve beds 26 and 28 (S1 and S2) may be alternatively pressurized and purged with a valve V2”); and, wherein the control unit is configured to control the pressure valve to facilitate concentrated oxygen produced by one of the first or second adsorption unit to be released to at least the other one of the first or second adsorption unit in the oxygen supply device (Fisher, par. 0098, “valve V2 is open for one sieve to prime the other”) (Examiner Notes: In the case of the prior art, “prime the other” means allowing the gas to flow from one sieve bed to the other to prepare for the next cycle, see par. 0098).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified Fisher discloses the oxygen supply device of claim 8, wherein a gas produced by the oxygen supply device has an oxygen concertation level at least higher than 21% (Fisher, par. 0056, “…having a concentration of at least 40% oxygen”) and/or a flow rate higher 10 liter per minute (Fisher, par. 0112, “flow rates of up to 80 slpm”).
Regarding Claim 15, Fisher discloses an oxygen supply device comprising: a control unit (par. 0193, “The portable life support apparatus 1102 may include several control boards”), an air blower (Fig. 1, blower 44) and a gas conditioning unit (Fig. 1, circle circuit 43), wherein the gas conditioning unit comprises a pressure regulation unit connected to the oxygen supply device (Fig. 1, inspiratory relief valve 68); and, wherein the control unit is configured to: control the pressure regulation unit to adjust a pressure of oxygen produced by the oxygen supply device (par. 0102, “On the inspiratory side the inspiratory relief valve 68 may also be a positional valve that opens… at a pressure which ensures that the blower is operating efficiently”);
Fisher further discloses the controller independently control a flow rate of the oxygen (par. 0052) and a flow rate of ambient air into the air blower (par. 0146, par. 0197), but is silent on independently control a flow rate of the oxygen generated by the oxygen generation production unit by regulating an oxygen-flow control valve disposed between the oxygen production unit and the first inlet of the air blower; and independently control a flow rate of ambient air into the air blower through the second inlet using a dedicated ambient-air flow regulator such that the oxygen flow rate and the ambient-air flow rate are independently, separately, and simultaneously regulated to achieve the desired FiO2 of the blended air output.
However, Oldfield teaches an oxygen supply device (Fig. 1), comprising of an oxygen production unit (par. 0232, Fig. 1, O2 source 5), and an air blower (par. 0232, Fig. 1, a blower/flow generator 3) regulated by a control unit (par. 0365-0367, “the gas flow modulator 59 can be coupled anywhere in the system… at the input of the flow generator 3”). Oldfield further teaches the control unit is configured to independently control a flow rate of the oxygen generated by the oxygen production unit (par. 0553-0554) by regulating an oxygen-flow control valve disposed between the oxygen production unit and the first inlet of the air blower (Fig. 36, par. 0552-0554, valve 614; O2 inlet 612); and independently control a flow rate of ambient air into the air blower (par. 0553-0554) through the second inlet using a dedicated ambient-air flow regulator (Fig. 36, par. 0552-0554, valve 624; air inlet 622) such that the oxygen flow rate and the ambient-air flow rate are independently, separately, and simultaneously regulated to achieve the desired FiO2 of the blended air output (par. 0553, 0554 discloses the valves 614 and 624 are controlled independently and simultaneously to achieve a desired oxygen concentration). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Fisher, with the control unit of Oldfield, for independent feedback control on the oxygen concentration as taught by Oldfield (Oldfield, par. 0553-0554).
Regarding Claim 16, the modified Fisher discloses the oxygen supply device of claim 15, further comprises an oxygen concentration module (Fisher, par. 0009, an oxygen generator) comprises multiple adsorption units (Fisher, par. 0009, “one or more concentrator sieve beds”) including a first and second adsorption unit (Fisher, Fig. 1, sieves 26 and 28); and, wherein the control unit is further configured to control the first and second adsorption units to operate alternatively (Fisher, par. 0113, “As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the two sieve beds 26 and 28 (S1 and S2) may be alternatively pressurized”).
Regarding Claim 17, the modified Fisher discloses the oxygen production unit of claim 16, wherein the first adsorption unit is connected to a first valve (Fisher, Fig. 1, valve V1); and wherein controlling the first adsorption unit to operate includes controlling the first valve to sweep to a second position, at which a circuit between a vacuum pump and the first adsorption unit is connected (Fisher, par. 0098, “Valve V1 determines which sieve is being pressurized and which is being vacuumed”; “The vacuum head of the pump 16 draws the dry nitrogen-enriched air from the sieve S1 or S2 being purged through the valve V1”).
Regarding Claim 18, the modified Fisher discloses the oxygen supply device of claim 8, wherein the control unit is configured to control the first and second adsorption units to operate in parallel (Fisher, par. 0196, “O.sub.2 Controller--controls the oxygen concentrator…”; See Fig. 1, the first and second adsorption units are in parallel) (Examiner Notes: The term “operate in parallel” in interpreted as a parallel configuration of the adsorption units, such as a structural arrangement which the adsorption units are connected to a common inlet and outlet flow path).
Regarding Claim 19, the modified Fisher discloses the oxygen supply device of claim 15, wherein the oxygen production unit further comprises a pressure valve connected to the adsorption unit (Fig. 1, valve V2); and, wherein the control unit is configured to control the pressure valve to facilitate concentrated oxygen produced by one of the first or second adsorption unit to be released to the other one of the first or second adsorption unit in the oxygen supply device (par. 0098, “valve V2 is open for one sieve to prime the other”) (Examiner Notes: In the case of the prior art, “prime the other” means allowing the gas to flow from one sieve bed to the other to prepare for the next cycle, see par. 0098).
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher, in view of Oldfield, further in view of Ando et al. (US9011582), hereafter Ando.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Fisher discloses the oxygen supply device of claim 2, wherein when the first valve is in the second position, the adsorption unit is facilitated to separate oxygen and nitrogen (Fisher, par. 0098, “The vacuum head of the pump 16 draws the dry nitrogen-enriched air from the sieve S1 or S2 being purged through the valve V1”), but is silent on the control unit is further configured to: determine that a concentration level of the oxygen produced by the oxygen production unit is below a threshold; and control the first valve to swipe to the second position in response to the determination that the concentration level of the oxygen produced by the oxygen production unit is below the threshold.
However, Ando teaches an oxygen supply device (col. 5, line 63, “pressure swing adsorption-type oxygen enrichment device 1”), wherein the device determine that a concentration level of the oxygen produced by the oxygen production unit is below a threshold (col. 9, line 27-29); and control supply/exhaust valves to facilitated to separate oxygen and nitrogen in response to the determination that the concentration level of the oxygen produced by the oxygen production unit is below the threshold (col. 9, line 23-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Fisher, with the threshold control of Ando, and control the first valve to swipe to the second position when the oxygen concentration falls below a threshold to optimize the purge step and improve the product concentration as taught by Ando (Ando, col. 9, line 13-33).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Fisher discloses the oxygen supply device of claim 2, wherein when the first valve is in the second position, the adsorption unit is facilitated to separate oxygen and nitrogen (Fisher, par. 0098, “The vacuum head of the pump 16 draws the dry nitrogen-enriched air from the sieve S1 or S2 being purged through the valve V1”), but is silent on the control unit is further configured to: determine that a concentration level of the oxygen produced by the oxygen production unit is below a threshold; and control the first valve to swipe to the second position in response to the determination that the concentration level of the oxygen produced by the oxygen production unit is below the threshold.
However, Ando teaches an oxygen supply device (col. 5, line 63, “pressure swing adsorption-type oxygen enrichment device 1”), wherein the device determine that a concentration level of the oxygen produced by the oxygen production unit is below a threshold (col. 9, line 27-29); and control supply/exhaust valves to facilitated to separate oxygen and nitrogen in response to the determination that the concentration level of the oxygen produced by the oxygen production unit is below the threshold (col. 9, line 23-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Fisher, with the threshold control of Ando, and control the first valve to swipe to the second position when the oxygen concentration falls below a threshold to optimize the purge step and improve the product concentration as taught by Ando (Ando, col. 9, line 13-33).
Alternatively, Claim(s) 5, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher, in view of Oldfield, further in view of Edward (EP2823872).
In case where “operate in parallel” is interpreted as operating simultaneously, regarding Claim 5, the modified Fisher discloses the oxygen supply device of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the control unit is configured to control the first and second adsorption units to operate in parallel.
However, Edward teaches an oxygen supply device (Fig. 1), comprising of a first and second adsorption units (Fig. 1, adsorption beds 10A, 10B), and valves (Fig. 1, element 13, 14) allowing to control the first and second adsorption units to operate in parallel (par. 0019, “An adsorption system may be constructed with pairs, or other multiples of beds, operating in parallel (i.e. on the same step). For example adsorption beds 10A and 10B could be configured to always be on the same step”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known device of Fisher, with the device of Edward, to control the adsorption units to operate in parallel for increased production as taught by Edward (Edward, par. 0020).
In case where “operate in parallel” is interpreted as operating simultaneously, regarding Claim 12, the modified Fisher discloses the oxygen supply device of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the control unit is configured to control the first and second adsorption units to operate in parallel.
However, Edward teaches an oxygen supply device (Fig. 1), comprising of a first and second adsorption units (Fig. 1, adsorption beds 10A, 10B), and valves (Fig. 1, element 13, 14) allowing to control the first and second adsorption units to operate in parallel (par. 0019, “An adsorption system may be constructed with pairs, or other multiples of beds, operating in parallel (i.e. on the same step). For example adsorption beds 10A and 10B could be configured to always be on the same step”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known device of Fisher, with the device of Edward, to control the adsorption units to operate in parallel for increased production as taught by Edward (Edward, par. 0020).
In case where “operate in parallel” is interpreted as operating simultaneously, regarding Claim 18, the modified Fisher discloses the oxygen supply device of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the control unit is configured to control the first and second adsorption units to operate in parallel.
However, Edward teaches an oxygen supply device (Fig. 1), comprising of a first and second adsorption units (Fig. 1, adsorption beds 10A, 10B), and valves (Fig. 1, element 13, 14) allowing to control the first and second adsorption units to operate in parallel (par. 0019, “An adsorption system may be constructed with pairs, or other multiples of beds, operating in parallel (i.e. on the same step). For example adsorption beds 10A and 10B could be configured to always be on the same step”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known device of Fisher, with the device of Edward, to control the adsorption units to operate in parallel for increased production as taught by Edward (Edward, par. 0020).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed 11/22/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, 15 under U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Oldfield. Specifically, Oldfield teaches an air blower with independent inlets for oxygen and air, and each inlet has corresponding valve for controlling the flow (Oldfield, Fig. 38).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRIS HANYU GONG whose telephone number is (703)756-5898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, 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.
/KRIS HANYU GONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785