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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Ln. 1 recites “for manual mechanical ventilation device” which should read “for a manual mechanical ventilation device”
Claim 1, Ln. 1 recites “wherein it comprises” which should read “wherein the control system comprises” for clarity
Claim 1, Ln. 5 recites “the insertion” which should read “insertion” (or “an insertion”) as it is a first introduction
Claim 1, Ln. 8 recites “and output values” which should read “and the pressure and oxygen flow output values” for clarity
Claim 5, Ln. 1-2 recites “the patient side” which should read “a patient side” as it is a first introduction
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the sensor input” in Ln. 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “input from the at least one flow sensor and input from the pressure sensor.”
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “manual mechanical ventilation device” in claim 1 and “continuous power supply system” in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure for the “manual mechanical ventilation device” is best understood from the specification as at least: a hand-hand ventilator bag (¶21).
The corresponding structure for the “continuous power supply system” is best understood from the specification as at least: a UPS (¶18).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to teach or suggest an automatic control system for a manual mechanical ventilation device comprising all elements and functionality recited by the instant claim. As an initial note the automatic control system is recited as “for a manual mechanical ventilation device” which implies the mechanical ventilation device would be expected to be independently usable as a manual, i.e. non-automated, device if not used together with the automatic control system. (Note also the above 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of the manual mechanical ventilation device.) The control system is recited as comprising a particular set of electronic components, as including two different types of sensor, and as being configured to modify compression of the mechanical ventilation device based upon input from both types of sensor as well as user input of desired pressure and oxygen flow output values.
Of particular note the claim recites the electronic components of the control system as including a controller, a servomotor, an actuator and a stepper cylinder. Those four structures are independently recited and thus must all be present together. The terms “servo” and “stepper” are recognized terms of art which would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art as relating to unique modes of control from each other. The presently claimed invention integrates together a servomotor and a stepper cylinder (and an actuator) in a manner not found to have been prima facie obvious in the prior art. Instead, a stepper cylinder would generally have been expected to be used with a stepper motor and not a servomotor.
Closest prior art to the instant claim include: Bergman (U.S. Pub. 2012/0145151), Mathew et al. (WO Pub. 2019/229776 A1), and Nataraj et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0062571).
Bergman teaches its mechanical operation can be performed by either servo control (¶¶0115, 0123) or stepper control (¶0123) but fails to teach or suggest integration together of a servomotor, an actuator and a stepper cylinder.
Mathew teaches a stepper motor can be used (e.g. ¶0056; Fig. 2) but fails to teach or suggest substitution of a servomotor for the stepper motor while using a stepper cylinder.
Nataraj teaches a linear actuator (Fig. 2 #104; ¶0029) but fails to teach or suggest the particular integration together of all of a servomotor, an actuator and a stepper cylinder.
It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning, especially when considering the unexpected pairing together of a servomotor, an actuator and a stepper cylinder.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, see PTO-892 for additional attached references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH D BOECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-0376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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.
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785