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 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) 111, 114, 115, and 124-127, 129, 130 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Schindhelm (US20130340758), hereafter Schindhelm, in view of Wallace et al. (US6360745), hereafter Wallace.
Regarding Claim 111, Schindhelm discloses A breathing assistance apparatus comprising: a housing (See Fig. A below); a flow generator (par. 0013, “the apparatus may include a flow generator configured to generate a flow of breathable gas at a pressure above atmospheric pressure to a patient interface”); a breathing conduit (Fig. 1, delivery tube 110) that conveys breathable gases to a patient via a patient interface (Fig. 1, par. 0038, mask 108); a touchscreen (See Fig. A below; par. 0048, display device 116, “The display device may also be implemented as a display screen such as an LCD or a touch sensitive display”) located on the housing; a controller (Fig. 1, controller 104) located within the housing to control the breathing assistance apparatus operations, including activation and operation of the breathing assistance apparatus (par. 0048, “Activation of the display device 116 will typically be set by the controller based on an assessment of the condition by the monitoring apparatus 100”, “User, clinician or physician control of the operation of the monitoring apparatus 100 may be based on operation of input switches 118 that may be sensed by the controller or processor of the monitoring apparatus”).
Schindhelm further discloses wherein the controller is configured to request the touchscreen to display a plurality of user health queries and a plurality of user input elements via which user inputs are received (par. 0011, “generate a presentation of at least one query on the display based on the evaluation, the query being configured to prompt for an input to the controller”), but is silent on the controller is configured to, in response to a power on input: request the touch screen to display the user health queries.
However, Wallace teaches a breathing assistance apparatus (device shown in Fig. 1), comprising of a controller (Fig. 2, processor 30), wherein the controller is configured to, in response to a power on input (See Fig. 4, “power on”; col. 9 line 38-46, “When the user of the ventilator turns on the power to the graphic user interface 20 and respirator 22 by actuating a power switch…”), display a plurality of queries (Fig. 5, queries shown in information area 160) at a screen (Fig. 4, lower display 70; col. 9, line 48-51, “When the graphic user interface starts up in the VENTILATOR mode, the lower display 70 of the graphic user interface 20 displays the ventilator startup screen 200 depicted in FIG. 5”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known breathing assistance apparatus of Schindhelm, with the power on input of Wallace, for powering up the system before displaying the health queries as taught by Wallace (Wallace, col. 10, line 18-21).
The modified Schindhelm further discloses the controller is configured to refrain from activating or prevent activation of a component of the apparatus until a predetermined plurality of the user inputs to the displayed plurality of user health queries have been received (Schindhelm, par. 0058, “the controller may prompt two, three, four, five, six or more questions in a row… For example, the controller may present a first query. If in answering the first query, the patient response(s) indicates that the detected event does not (at least yet) require an alert, the response and determination may be logged and the processor may proceed to a second monitoring session during a predetermined period of time… a response to a query indicates a need for an alert, after which the processor may then trigger an alert message”) (Examiner Notes: The prior art discloses “two, three… questions in a row” which is a plurality of queries, and withholds triggering an alert until a predetermined plurality of user inputs is received. The term “predetermined plurality of the user inputs” is interpreted as more than one of required user inputs defined in advance. Plurality of user inputs in this case would be answers to the first, second, third… queries).
PNG
media_image1.png
629
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A, Adapted from Schindhelm Fig. 1
Regarding Claim 115, the modified Schindhelm discloses the apparatus of claim 111, further comprising a network interface, located in the housing and in electrical communication with the controller (Schindhelm, par. 0049, “Optionally, the controller may also include a communications device 120 for receiving and/or transmitting data or messages by the monitoring apparatus 100”), the network interface configured to send the predetermined plurality of the user inputs to an external or remote service or platform (Schindhelm, “The communications device may also be a network communications device… send messages via the internet directly or through a computer to which the detection device may be docked.”).
Regarding Claim 124, the modified Schindhelm discloses the apparatus of claim 115, wherein the controller is configured to allow skipping of the user health queries before activating a flow generator as the component of the apparatus (Schindhelm, par. 0013, “the controller may be configured to control the flow generator. The controller may also be configured to modify a pressure control parameter of the flow generator based on the at least one query”) (Examiner Notes: The prior art discloses the controller controls the flow generator, and it may also modify the control based on the queries; by saying “may also” it indicates that the prior art does not require the health queries to activate the flow generator, the controller can control the flow generator directly).
The modified Schindhelm does not disclose that the user health queries that are skipped form a plurality of data points that are sent to a patient and device management platform via the network interface. However, “a plurality of data points” in the claim is a nonfuntional descriptive material. The step of “sent to a patient and device management platform via the network interface” can be done the same no matter what the message being sent is. The prior art is capable of sending messages via the network interface (Schindhelm, par. 0049). The health queries that are skipped and the data points does not patentably distinguish the claimed system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to send any type of patient health information as taught by Schindhelm because the subjective interpretation of the plurality of data points does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05.
Regarding Claim 125, the modified Schindhelm discloses the apparatus of claim 111, wherein the user health queries include a first query and a second query, wherein the first query precedes the second query, wherein the user inputs include a first user input and a second user input, wherein the first user input precedes the second user input, wherein the first user input corresponds to the first query, wherein the second user input corresponds to the second query, wherein the second query is content-dependent on the first user input (Schindhelm, par. 0012, “In an example, the controller may be further configured to select a first … and based on an input response to the first question, continue to evaluate the at least one respiratory parameter… and the generation of the alert message is based on a user response to a second question presented by the controller”; par. 0058, “Questions may be presented in series in response to a particular monitoring session. For example, the controller may prompt two, three, four, five, six or more questions in a row…”).
Regarding Claim 126, the modified Schindhelm discloses the apparatus of claim 125, wherein the first user input and the second user input are from a same user session. (Schindhelm, par. 0058, “Questions may be presented in series in response to a particular monitoring session. For example, the controller may prompt two, three, four, five, six or more questions in a row”).
Regarding Claim 127, the modified Schindhelm discloses the apparatus of claim 125, wherein the first user input is from a first user session, wherein the second user input is from a second user session, wherein the first user session precedes the second user session (Schindhelm, par. 0058, “For example, the controller may present a first query… the response and determination may be logged and the processor may proceed to a second monitoring session during a predetermined period of time. If the respiratory pattern is again detected, a second query of a different rank from the first query may then be triggered”).
Regarding Claim 129, the modified Schindhelm discloses the apparatus of claim 111, wherein at least one of the user health queries relates to a user disease progression or a user health condition (Schindhelm, par. 0054, “Such questions may address pharmaceutical and/or lifestyle compliance by the patient”; par. 0057, “Each question of a query may be associated with one or more detectable respiratory patterns or events…”) (Examiner Notes: Even if the user health queries of the prior art does not anticipate the claimed limitation, the claim does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention would be considered as nonfunctional descriptive material, see MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding Claim 130, the modified Schindhelm discloses the apparatus of claim 111, wherein at least two of the plurality of user input elements are visually distinct from each other based on one or more of: shape, size, color or shade of color (Schindhelm, par. 0061, “For example, the controller, in response to a clinical alert, may activate a status light (e.g., an LED or an icon on a display screen or LCD) of the monitoring device. A more detailed message concerning the assessment of the indicator may also be displayed on the display screen”) (Examiner Notes: In the prior art, the LED and the detailed messages are visually distinct from each other. Furthermore, the claimed visually distinct user input elements are not functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate, they are considered as nonfunctional descriptive materials, and does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05).
Claim(s) 112 and 113 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schindhelm, in view of Wallace, further in view of Van Schalkwyk (US20180185606), hereafter Van.
Regarding Claim 112, the modified Schindhelm discloses the apparatus of claim 111, wherein the controller control the activation and operation of the flow generator (Schindhelm, par. 0013, “In such a case, the controller may be configured to control the flow generator”).
The modified Schindhelm is silent on the apparatus comprising of a humidifier located within the housing downstream of and in fluid communication with the flow generator and upstream of and in fluid communication with a fluid outlet, the humidifier including a heater plate, and wherein the controller is in electrical communication with, to control the activation and operation of the heater plate.
However, Van teaches a breathing assistance device, comprising of a housing (par. 0405, main housing 100), a humidifier (par. 0405, humidifier 12), a controller (par. 0405, controller 13), a touch screen (par. 0405), and a flow generator (par. 0405, flow generator 11). Where the humidifier includes a heater plate (par. 0042), and the humidifier is located within the housing downstream of and in fluid communication with the flow generator and upstream of and in fluid communication with a fluid outlet (See Fig. 1 of prior art, the humidifier is connected as described). Van also teaches that the heater plate is controlled by the controller (par. 0406, “The heater wire 16a is under the control of the controller 13.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the known apparatus of Schindhelm to include the humidifier of Van, to heat the gasflow passing to the patient, as a heated humidifier is a well-known feature in the art to moisturize gas to enhance patient comfort.
Regarding Claim 113, the modified Schindhelm discloses the apparatus of claim 112, wherein the controller is configured to request the touchscreen to display a page after the controller receives the user inputs, the page configured to present a menu to control or activate the flow generator or the humidifier or to input an operational parameter of the flow generator or the humidifier (Schindhelm, par. 0013, “In such a case, the controller may be configured to control the flow generator. The controller may also be configured to modify a pressure control parameter of the flow generator based on the at least one query”; Van, par. 0405, “The controller 13 is configured or programmed to control the components of the apparatus, including… operating the humidifier 12 (if present) to humidify and/or heat the generated gasflow”).
Claim(s) 116-118, 121-123 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schindhelm, in view of Wallace, further in view of Resheff et al. (US10963842), hereafter Resheff.
Regarding Claim 116, the modified Schindhelm discloses the apparatus of claim 115, wherein the controller is configured to request the network interface to send the predetermined plurality of user inputs to a patient and device management platform.
The modified Schindhelm does not disclose that the predetermined plurality of user inputs is send one by one after each of the user inputs is received via the controller.
However, Resheff teaches a way of sending message individually (col. 1 line 26-28, “a group email message is treated as multiple individual messages that are individually managed”). Sending messages individually and one-by-one to a receiver is a commonly known method in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the known device of Schindhelm to send the user inputs one by one after each of the user inputs is received via the controller, as taught by Resheff.
Regarding Claim 117, the modified Schindhelm discloses the apparatus of claim 115, wherein the controller is configured to request the network interface to send the predetermined plurality of user inputs to a patient and device management platform.
The modified Schindhelm does not disclose that the predetermined plurality of user inputs is send on a group-basis after a group of the user inputs are received via the controller.
However, Resheff teaches a way of sending message in groups (col.1 line 23-25, “In a group email message, a single sender sends an email that is directed to multiple destination email addresses”). Sending messages in groups to a receiver is a commonly known method in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the known device of Schindhelm to send the user inputs on a group-basis after a group of the user inputs are received via the controller, as taught by Resheff.
Regarding Claim 118, the modified Schindhelm discloses the apparatus of claim 116, wherein the network interface is configured to receive a message from the patient and device management platform, the message being based on the predetermined plurality of the user inputs sent to the patient and device management platform via the network interface (Schindhelm, par. 0049, “In general, the communications device 120 may be used to transmit alerts or messages to a clinician or physician accessible apparatus 122 such as a multi-patient monitoring system…”; par. 0078, “For example, a monitoring device… may simply measure the physiological data from the patient and transfer the data to another processing system. The second processing system may in turn analyze the data to assess the indicators of the present technology. The second processing system may also evaluate the indicators and generate messages as described herein, such as by sending one or more of the described messages, in electronic form for example, back to the patient monitoring device for display on the device to warn the patient”) (Examiner Notes: The prior art discloses the network interface is able to send messages to a patient management platform, and the device is able to transfer data to another processing system, and have the message send back to the device. It would have been obvious to use the network interface of the prior art to perform this communication.)
Regarding Claim 121, the modified Schindhelm discloses the apparatus of claim 118, wherein the message is informative of a user health parameter worsening over a predetermined time period as determined based on at least one of the predetermined plurality of the user inputs (par. 0059, “Depending on the patient input response to the query, control may proceed to 207 to generate an alert message”) (Examiner Notes: The prior art discloses sending an alert message based on the user inputs, it does not specifically say that the message is informative of a user health parameter worsening. However, such message would be considered as nonfunctional descriptive material and does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, therefore, the claim would still be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, see MPEP 2111.05)
Regarding Claim 122, the modified Schindhelm discloses the apparatus of claim 121, wherein the message is informative of the user health parameter worsening relative to a baseline (par. 0066, “Optionally, one or more of the parameters or the changes therein may be compared to one or more thresholds in order to evaluate a potential for relapse”; See Examiner Notes for claim 121 above).
Regarding Claim 123, the modified Schindhelm discloses the apparatus of claim 121, wherein the message is informative that two or more health parameters are worsening for at least two days and the patient is therefore deteriorating (par. 0055, “the processor may then continue to monitor and query the patient again after a further monitoring time period has elapsed (e.g., query the patient after a number of minutes, hours, or days)”) (Examiner Notes: The prior art discloses monitoring health parameters throughout different time/days. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to compare the parameters and to decide if the patient is deteriorating. The message would also be considered as nonfunctional descriptive material and does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, therefore, the claim would still be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103)
Claim(s) 119-120 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schindhelm, in view of Wallace, in view of Resheff, further in view of Hudson et al. (US11537282), hereafter Hudson.
Regarding Claim 119, the modified Schindhelm discloses the apparatus of claim 118, where the touchscreen outputs visual messages (Schindhelm, par. 0048, “The display device may be implemented to visually show information to a user of the monitoring apparatus”), but is silent on wherein the message includes video content for output via the touchscreen.
However, Hudson teaches a PAP control system comprising of a housing that includes a flow generator, a display device that is also a touch screen (col. 9 line 64, “the display device 516 may be a touchscreen display”), and a processor (col. 12 line 56-58, “a housing that includes the flow generator, the touch screen display, and the at least one hardware processor”). Hudson further teaches that the touchscreen can display videos (col. 9 line 30-33, “and/or output (e.g., a High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI), a DisplayPort Interface, a Video Graphics Array (VGA) interface, a Digital Video Interface (DVI), or the like)”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modified the known device of Schindhelm to have the touchscreen capable of outputting video contents, as taught by Hudson.
Regarding Claim 120, the modified Schindhelm discloses the apparatus of claim 118, wherein the network interface is a first network interface and the message is a first message
The modified Schindhelm is silent on that the apparatus further comprising a second network interface located in the housing, the second network interface configured to send a second message to a computing device responsive to the first message, the second message being associated with the predetermined plurality of user inputs sent to the patient and device management platform via the first network interface, the second network interface being local to the computing device, the computing device is other than the patient and device management platform.
However, Hudson further teaches a PAP control system, comprising of a first network interface and a second network interface (col. 10 line 19-24, “the processors include: a multi (or single)-core processor; a first network interface device… a second network interface device that implements one or more cellular communication technologies”). Hudson then teaches the network interface is used to communicate with an external system (col. 3 line 12-16, “Accordingly, a user may interact with a mobile device or other computer system and such a system may communicate (e.g., via wired or wireless communication, such as network interface 518) with the RPT device (or components thereof) to thereby control the pressure based on the selected pressure aspects”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the device of Schindhelm, to include a second network interface in the housing as taught by Hudson.
The modified Schindhelm is still silent on the second network interface configured to send a second message to a computing device responsive to the first message, the second message being associated with the predetermined plurality of user inputs sent to the patient and device management platform via the first network interface, the second network interface being local to the computing device, the computing device is other than the patient and device management platform.
Schindhelm discloses that a second message can be sent following up to a first message (Schindhelm, par. 0062, “For example, the first message may be only transmitted… However, a second message, which may be a more urgent message, could then be actively displayed on the display device 116 in addition to transmitting it to the physician system 122”). And that it can send messages to a computing device other than the patient and device management platform (par. 0078, “…the respiratory parameters used in the prediction methodology may be transmitted from the monitoring apparatus to another apparatus, such as a computer”). The messages sent to the computing device are used to perform computation to predict relapses (par. 0078, “…implement the evaluation methodology that generates the relapse predication from the received parameters”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to use the second network interface, to send a second message to a computing device responsive to the first message, the second message being associated with the predetermined plurality of user inputs sent to the patient and device management platform via the first network interface, to perform computation on the message.
Claim(s) 111, 128, 131 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Schindhelm, in view of Wallace, further in view of Reed (US20070193583), hereafter Reed.
Regarding Claim 111 and 128, Schindhelm discloses A breathing assistance apparatus comprising: a housing (See Fig. A below); a source of breathable gas or gases (par. 0018, “…a flow of breathable gas at a pressure above atmospheric pressure to a patient interface…”) (Examiner Notes: In the prior art, the gas comes from the atmosphere gas, which is the source of breathable gas); a breathing conduit (Fig. 1, delivery tube 110) that conveys the breathable gas to a patient via a patient interface (Fig. 1, par. 0038, mask 108); a touchscreen (See Fig. A below; par. 0048, display device 116, “The display device may also be implemented as a display screen such as an LCD or a touch sensitive display”) located on the housing; a controller (Fig. 1, controller 104) located within the housing to control the breathing assistance apparatus operations, including activation and operation of the breathing assistance apparatus (par. 0048, “Activation of the display device 116 will typically be set by the controller based on an assessment of the condition by the monitoring apparatus 100”, “User, clinician or physician control of the operation of the monitoring apparatus 100 may be based on operation of input switches 118 that may be sensed by the controller or processor of the monitoring apparatus”).
Schindhelm further discloses wherein the controller is configured to request the touchscreen to display a plurality of user health queries and a plurality of user input elements via which user inputs are received (par. 0011, “generate a presentation of at least one query on the display based on the evaluation, the query being configured to prompt for an input to the controller”), but is silent on the controller is configured to, in response to a start up input: request the touch screen to display the user health queries.
However, Wallace teaches a breathing assistance apparatus (device shown in Fig. 1), comprising of a controller (Fig. 2, processor 30), wherein the controller is configured to, in response to a start up input (See Fig. 4, start ventilator mode; col. 9 line 38-46, “When the user of the ventilator turns on the power to the graphic user interface 20 and respirator 22 by actuating a power switch…”), display a plurality of queries (Fig. 5, queries shown in information area 160) at a screen (Fig. 4, lower display 70; col. 9, line 48-51, “When the graphic user interface starts up in the VENTILATOR mode, the lower display 70 of the graphic user interface 20 displays the ventilator startup screen 200 depicted in FIG. 5”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known breathing assistance apparatus of Schindhelm, with the start up input of Wallace, so that the user health queries are displayed to the user after the controller starts up, for guidance on initial setup when the apparatus is powered up as taught by Wallace (Wallace, col. 10, line 18-21).
The modified Schindhelm is still silent on the controller is configured to refrain from activating or prevent activation of a component of the apparatus until a predetermined plurality of the user inputs to the displayed plurality of user health queries have been received, and wherein the controller is configured to prevent activation of a flow generator, as the component of the apparatus, until a predetermined plurality of the user inputs have been received.
However, Reed teaches a breathing assistance apparatus (device shown in Fig. 1), comprising of a controller (par. 0029, a programmable controller 18) receiving user inputs (par. 0029, “a user interface unit 20 to allow information input”), wherein the controller is configured to prevent activation of a flow generator (par. 0029, flow generator system 10), until a predetermined plurality of the user inputs have been received (par. 0023, “enabling access to the at least one dormant therapy delivery mode only upon receipt of an activation signal, command, and/or code”; the prior art teaches an signal, command, and/or code, the word “and” makes a plurality of inputs). Schindhelm further discloses a flow generator, as the component of the apparatus (par. 0013, “the apparatus may include a flow generator”), and is controlled by user inputs to the displayed plurality of user health queries (Schindhelm, par. 0013, “The controller may also be configured to modify a pressure control parameter of the flow generator based on the at least one query”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known apparatus of Schindhelm, with the flow generator control of Reed, to only provide breathing assistance when required, and spare patient from discomfort by preventing activating the flow generator when not require as taught by Reed (Reed, par. 0011).
Regarding Claim 111 and 131, Schindhelm discloses A breathing assistance apparatus comprising: a housing (See Fig. A below); a flow generator (par. 0018, “…a flow of breathable gas at a pressure above atmospheric pressure to a patient interface…”) (Examiner Notes: In the prior art, the gas comes from the atmosphere gas, which is the source of breathable gas); a breathing conduit (Fig. 1, delivery tube 110) that conveys breathable gases to a patient via a patient interface (Fig. 1, par. 0038, mask 108); a touchscreen (See Fig. A below; par. 0048, display device 116, “The display device may also be implemented as a display screen such as an LCD or a touch sensitive display”) located on the housing; a controller (Fig. 1, controller 104) located within the housing to control the breathing assistance apparatus operations, including activation and operation of the breathing assistance apparatus (par. 0048, “Activation of the display device 116 will typically be set by the controller based on an assessment of the condition by the monitoring apparatus 100”, “User, clinician or physician control of the operation of the monitoring apparatus 100 may be based on operation of input switches 118 that may be sensed by the controller or processor of the monitoring apparatus”).
Schindhelm further discloses wherein the controller is configured to request the touchscreen to display a plurality of user health queries and a plurality of user input elements via which user inputs are received (par. 0011, “generate a presentation of at least one query on the display based on the evaluation, the query being configured to prompt for an input to the controller”), but is silent on the controller is configured to, in response to a power on input: request the touch screen to display the user health queries.
However, Wallace teaches a breathing assistance apparatus (device shown in Fig. 1), comprising of a controller (Fig. 2, processor 30), wherein the controller is configured to, in response to a power on input (See Fig. 4, “power on”; col. 9 line 38-46, “When the user of the ventilator turns on the power to the graphic user interface 20 and respirator 22 by actuating a power switch…”), display a plurality of queries (Fig. 5, queries shown in information area 160) at a screen (Fig. 4, lower display 70; col. 9, line 48-51, “When the graphic user interface starts up in the VENTILATOR mode, the lower display 70 of the graphic user interface 20 displays the ventilator startup screen 200 depicted in FIG. 5”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known breathing assistance apparatus of Schindhelm, with the start up input of Wallace, so that the user health queries are displayed to the user after the controller starts up, for guidance on initial setup when the apparatus is powered up as taught by Wallace (Wallace, col. 10, line 18-21).
The modified Schindhelm is still silent on the controller is configured to refrain from activating or prevent activation of a component of the apparatus until a predetermined plurality of the user inputs to the displayed plurality of user health queries have been received, wherein the component is the flow generator.
However, Reed teaches a breathing assistance apparatus (device shown in Fig. 1), comprising of a controller (par. 0029, a programmable controller 18) receiving user inputs (par. 0029, “a user interface unit 20 to allow information input”), wherein refrain from activating or prevent activation of a component of the apparatus (par. 0029, flow generator system 10), until a predetermined plurality of the user inputs have been received (par. 0023, “enabling access to the at least one dormant therapy delivery mode only upon receipt of an activation signal, command, and/or code”; the prior art teaches an signal, command, and/or code, the word “and” makes a plurality of inputs), wherein the component is a flow generator (par. 0029, flow generator system 10). Schindhelm further discloses a flow generator, as the component of the apparatus (par. 0013, “the apparatus may include a flow generator”), and is controlled by user inputs to the displayed plurality of user health queries (Schindhelm, par. 0013, “The controller may also be configured to modify a pressure control parameter of the flow generator based on the at least one query”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known apparatus of Schindhelm, with the flow generator control of Reed, to only provide breathing assistance when required, and spare patient from discomfort by preventing activating the flow generator when not require as taught by Reed (Reed, par. 0011).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, regarding claim 111, the applicant argued that the prior art does not disclose in response to a power on input, request the touchscreen to display a plurality of user health queries. Schindhelm disclose displaying health queries in response to measurements of a respiratory parameter. Wallace further teaches displaying queries in response to a power on input. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, after the device receive a powered on input and becomes operational, user health queries of Schindhelm will be displayed as Wallace teaches displaying queries in response to a power on input. The claim recites “in response to power on input”, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not exclude intervening operation such as measurement or data collection. The claim does not require the health queries to be displayed immediately and directly in response to the power-on input itself. The claim recites the term “comprising”, therefore it broadly encompasses displaying the health queries in response to powering on. The prior art includes intermediate steps such as collection of respiratory parameters, and the health queries would still be in response to the power on input, since it would be necessary for the device to be powered on for the following steps. The combined teaching therefore reasonably discloses the claimed operation.
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
Prosecution Insights